http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#39705 Something like this should have been done a long time ago, but especially now that the Guard and Reserve Soldiers are playing such a major role in Iraq and Afganistan. We only get paid for the days we are on duty, and should be able to collect a retirement based on those days after 20 years of service.... 39705@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#38842 when are they going to vote on a bill which will lower the age to 55... 38842@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#37015 I'm curious as to what percentage of Congress has actually served in the military active or reserve. First off as GM says the average service member doesn't make much longer than 60. A lot of us have spent most of our adult working life in either active or reserve status or both. For instance I served about 9yrs active. With 1 1/2 yr active for OIFIII and the rest on National Guard status. Why should we have to wait to 60yrs. I believe we've earned it. Even if we weren't in combat, we gave up a lot of our time ie; weekends, summers etc, year after year. Not to mention State emergencies etc. No one asked us and we did these things glady. But for some of us, it might even be the only retirement we have. Think about it.... 37015@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#35187 Why not lower it for Vietnam vets? They are all over 60 anyway and it would look like they are doing something!Thats all they want.... 35187@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 18 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#34516 I think it should be lowered based on amount of active dury they have in addition of ANY war zone server in. Even 55 is too long to wait! Also I strongly feel that the medical benefits for retired should start immediately AFTER 20 years in served for ALL regardless of full or part time duty.... 34516@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 11 May 2008 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#31270 Agreed serving a contingency does make one more eligble for lower retirement, but we that served in a non-deployable unit also need recognition for our devoted service. Age 60 is too long to wait for compensation. The average service member doesn't live much longer than 60.... 31270@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 08 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#24091 Agree that all who have actually served during a contingency (Vietnam, Gulf War etc.) should have their retirement reduced. By reducing it based on contingency time served you reward those who have actually served vice those who haven't and will not. During the current conflicts many reservists ( I know some personally) have refused to participate. Why reward them with a greater benefit? When the call came, they balked.... 24091@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:00:00 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#22193 should lower retirement are to 50 years of age for 20 years of service in national guard and reserves it would be ashame to set retirement age base on war time service... 22193@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#22175 Why not include Vietnam, Grenada, and Gulf War I service? Those were contengiency operations as much as OEF and OIF.... 22175@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#16423 What a slap in the face compared to there retirement plan. Why not make it age 50 with 20years of service like they have... 16423@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html#15201 there they go again forgetting about the Viet Nam Vets and all the others that defended ther country why not reduce the retirement for all that served from 60 to 55 Be fair.... 15201@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 01 May 2007 00:00:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html 4/3/2007: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 19019@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT