Home

Blog

Subjects

Budget Categories

Recent Blog Posts

How People Voted

65% For, 35% Against
92 votes cast

(put this on your site)

S. 648, The National Guard and Reserve Retirement Modernization Act (11 comments ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

S. 648 would amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the eligibility age for receipt of non-regular military service retired pay for members of the Ready Reserve in active federal status or on active duty for significant periods.

(read more ↓)
[32 views]


Cost per :

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

PSCS Carol Devine, USNR (Ret)

July 11, 2007, 10:53pm (report abuse)

The National Guard and Reserves are giving the important task of defending our nation and making our nation secure. We have increasingly taken on a significant role in the defense and security of the United States and continue today in the Global War on Terror. Any legislation to reduce the eligibility age for receipt of military service retired pay should be supported by EVERY member of Congress, the Senate Armed Services Committee.

You do not have to wait until age 60 to receive your benefits for service to these United States and neither do our civilian government or active duty retirees. Shame on you for not taking care of the Guard and Reservists who have served this country and have earned their retirement benefits now - not at the arbitary age of 60! Pass this Legislation NOW!

Tim

August 6, 2007, 1:04pm (report abuse)

Sorry, guys, but this is truly a half-measure. It only addresses the service that reservists perform on active duty orders under GWOT, and even then, only provides for retirement pay - no other benefits. The contribution of every single reservist; training, spin-up, warskills, and even day-to-day support of the war effort represent a fundamental change in how the reserves are being utilized. No longer a reserve force, but an operational one. This bit of legislation is a sorry compromise to what the selected reservist should be entitled to. I do not subscribe to the "at least it's better than nothing" approach. Check out H.R.690. That is the only acceptable legislation this Congress has produced to fairly address the reserve retirement inequity.

Lee Rhea

January 24, 2008, 3:09pm (report abuse)

This is BS!!!!! Why can't those of us who have done our time and deployed in the past, several times, or supported with extra time and mandays to mobilize other wing members be discriminated against for being in the guard and reserves? Several of my friends have retired from the guard and reserves and DIED before age 60? What did they get? NOTHING! Every member of Congress should HAVE to perform service in the guard or reserves! Mandatory, no excuses! Also, there should be term limits for everyone of you! No exceptions! There is too much deadwood in Congress and it shows! Nothing gets accomplished except wasting taxpayers dollars! Thank you for nothing!

Glenn Gilliard

April 16, 2008, 1:49pm (report abuse)

Todays military comprises of active duty, reserves and guardsmen who share equally the responsibilty of protecting this country especially since Desert Storm. They have shared in the deployment of the AEF. They all have shed there blood and time in the Middle East as well as around the world. So why is it only the active duty have benefits? The guards & reserves should reap the benefits also. Is this a grateful nation to all that put there lives on the line or to just the few. Age 60 is a long time to wait to get benefits when you are in your 40's. Adjust retirement pay to compensate for time spent according to the point system that the guard and reserves use for retirement (not just active duty time). Prove that this country is grateful for what the guards and reseves have done.

Ace Miller

August 1, 2008, 3:35pm (report abuse)

Someone previously said the Guard and Reserves lack of combat time was the reason this bill was not considered earlier. What about all the active duty Military that served between 1973 til 2001. 95% of them saw very little if any combat, so that excuse don't hold any water either. The current role of the Guard and Reserves definitely makes them worthy of a retirement before age 60. It's not fair that an Active Duty Soldier can join the military at age 17 and begin collecting his retirement at age 37, and work another civilian job for 20 years, and collect his second retirment at 57, but that same 17 year old Reservist has to wait 23 years longer to collect his retirement. Where's the justice in that?

Michael J. Lebert

August 18, 2008, 12:05pm (report abuse)

George Bush and his band of oil barons count on the Guard and Reserve to fight and die in their wars. Why does Bush continue to veto legislation to lower the retirement age? Granting credit towards a lower age ONLY to those serving today is like a slap in the face to those of us who gave up family vacations and weekends to serve in the past. Go back to Texas George. Mr. Obama it is time for our country to show support. Lower the age to 55 across the board.

Joe 1 of 3

August 19, 2008, 7:50pm (report abuse)

We need a voice in the news media that is hot and heavy toward our Congress & Senate to get these bills passed.

Go to the following web sites for the bills both in the Senate and in Congress.

Joe 2 of 3

August 19, 2008, 7:51pm (report abuse)

(H.R. 690)

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_690.html

(S. 1243)

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_1243.html

(H.R. 1428)

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1428.html

(S. 648)

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_648.html

Joe 3 of 3

August 19, 2008, 7:54pm (report abuse)

Why should our elected Congress & Senate members get the benefits to shop at DECA, AAFES / NEX, or use the MWR & Medical Facilities / Services when they have never served one day in the military or the ones who have but never retired. Also if they spend one day or their full term they receive retirement pay so why not us.

It's not their money. Its the tax payers money but yet Congress and the Senate can throw tax dollars out the window toward Foreign Aid or toward some dumb bill that is nothing but hog-wash which is no problem that can or may never be brought back into the Economy. Keep the dollars here at home and spread among many where it will do some good.

Debbie M

October 27, 2008, 4:18pm (report abuse)

I am retired military, served in the USCG for 8 years and did 13 years in the National Guard and served in Iraqi. I am 50 years of age and I know I have SERVED my country well. I am speaking for all the reservist in America. I think it is about time someone in congress stop giving all the money to companies and give it to the soilders who served this country.

I am still in the US Army Retired Reserve. PLEASE HELP US

MAJ J

January 2, 2009, 12:19pm (report abuse)

I could go on and on with reason to offer retirement pay upon retirement as opposed to waiting until age 60. However, I won't do that. I think it is plain common sense that retirement pay and benefits earned should be offered the day a Soldier retires. One weekend a month two weeks a year is a thing of the past and probably won't come back for a generation or two.

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)