Will GOP make hard cuts to troops' pay & benefits?

I wonder if those same folks on the right who want to gut "bloated" union-employee benefits want to employ the same dull scalpel to the Pentagon's pension & benefits budget?

Consider this: the average enlisted soldier retires at 43; the average officer at 47 -- and then they collect pension & health benefits for the rest of their lives, regardless of income or ability to work. That is a "Cadillac" benefits plan if I've ever heard of one.

Cutting Retiree Benefits A Sore Subject For Military

December 4, 2011 | All Things Considered on NPR

Bean counters at the Pentagon are working long hours to figure out how to cut close to a trillion dollars from the Department of Defense budget over the next 10 years.

Those were the Pentagon's marching orders after the congressional supercommittee failed to come up with a plan to slash the country's deficit. Pentagon officials are looking at cutting weapons programs, troop levels and possibly even some base closures.

Part of the defense budget usually protected from budget cuts is personnel costs: mainly health care and retirement benefits. While Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said everything's on the table, cutting benefits for troops is not an easy sell.

Bryan McGrath served in the U.S. Navy for 21 years, part of that time commanding the USS Bulkeley, a naval destroyer. Like many officers, he had enlisted in ROTC in college and figured he'd serve four years, get school paid for and be done.

"The problem was within those first four years, I came to absolutely love what I was doing," McGrath tells weekends on All Things Considered guest host Rachel Martin. "There was no reason to leave."

The Cost Of Benefits

It's easy to listen to someone like McGrath and think the military should be doing everything possible to recruit people like him, and then take care of them after they retire. But McGrath is the first to tell you that his military benefits — his $3,000 pension, and his health care — are costing his country too much money.

"My health care costs me the equivalent of approximately one triple latte a week, about $20 a month," he says. "My view — and this is my view only – is that my 21 years of service [is] rolled up into a great big love of country, and I think my country is in trouble."

Military retiree benefits cost the Pentagon $50 billion a year. That's more than next year's entire budget for the Department of Homeland Security. There are 1.9 million military retirees drawing pay and benefits, compared to 1.5 million in the active duty force. In 2010, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates said those costs are "eating the Defense Department alive."

(To be clear, veterans are those who have served in the military; they receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Military retirees are those who serve 20 years or more — it is their benefits that are often seen as unsustainable.)

"Military retirees who are working age ... for a family plan you pay $460 a year, [and] that covers you and all of your dependents," says Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. "And if you're single, it's $230 a year."

When military retirees reach age 65 and are eligible to go on Medicare, they gets something called TRICARE, a Medicare supplemental insurance plan, Harrison says. It covers everything Medicare doesn't cover. The cost: It's free. In addition to that, retirees also receive pensions. Depending on the rank of the retiree, the pension can be a couple thousand dollars a month or more.

To understand why these benefits are so expensive, you have to think about when military retirees start collecting them. Unlike private sector employees, who don't receive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare until they are 65 years old, military retirees generally begin collecting benefits in their 40s. The average age of officers when they retire is 47, Harrison says. The average age of enlisted soldiers when they retire is 43.

"They're paying retirement benefits to people who are 90 [or] even 100 years old right now, who served a couple of generations ago," he says.

A Sensitive Issue

The cost of military retiree benefits, and the possibility of cutting them, is something no one in Washington wants to talk much about. Arnold Punaro is an exception.

Punaro served as a major general in the Marine Corps and is part of an agency that advises the Pentagon on budget issues. He says the line he often uses to talk about the issue is that, "General Motors didn't start out as a health care company that occasionally builds an automobile."

"We can't let these trends continue so that the [Department of Defense] turns into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist," Punaro tells NPR's Martin.

People at the Pentagon know that the issue is a huge problem, Punaro says, but the problem is finding someone willing to take up the fight. Though he is eligible for military health benefits, Punaro says he chooses not to use a system he criticizes and currently pays "a small fortune" for his health care. What concerns Punaro is that the cost of retiree benefits weakening the current and future military.

"I am very concerned that as current trends continue, this country will not have the strong military it needs 20 years from now, because all of the money is going to go to pay people that are no longer serving," he says.

Punaro says it's not a new problem.

Harrison of the CSBA says military benefits have been growing, unchecked, since the end of the draft in 1973. At the time, there was a sense troops needed to be compensated better, Harrison says. The problem is the way it was done.

"They didn't try to understand how they could get the best value for every dollar of compensation they added," he says. "They basically just spread the benefits all across the board."

Harrison's fear in the current budget environment is that the opposite will occur and that cuts will be made haphazardly.

"If you're smart about it, you can mitigate, even in some cases completely eliminate, any adverse effects on your force in terms of recruiting and retention," he says.

Potential Changes

The Obama administration has suggested retirees pay about $200 a year more for their health care, which the administration says could save $6.7 billion.

Some also suggest that, instead of a pension plan, soldiers should pay into a retirement plan, like a 401(k). But Panetta recently told a group of U.S. service members that he wouldn't support a change like that.

"You're asked to put your lives on the line. You're asked to go into battle. You're asked to be able to fight for America. You're asked to deploy time and time again. Nobody ought to compare what the military is doing to the civilian sector," Panetta said.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Bryan McGrath says that's true, but protecting military benefits shouldn't undercut the military's ability to do what it was created to do: fight and win wars.

"I would submit that support for the troops starts with the notion that our position of world leadership costs something," McGrath says. "Right now, personnel costs [and] personnel entitlements — including those that come to me — are impacting our ability to put the best force on the field and I think that's something that we as a nation need to think very deeply about as we go forward."

Krugman: Europe is cautionary tale for U.S., but not how you think

We in the U.S. have a bit of time to see how austerity and high interest rates help Europe's economy before we ourselves go into full austerity mode, but so far the effects in Europe have been dire. Soon to be catastrophic.

In the U.S. we also have too many who irrationally fear the inflation bogeyman -- primarily those who are living comfortably and don't want to see the value of any of their assets fall on some distant and undefined future date. We cannot let them rule the present day.

Killing the Euro

By Paul Krugman

December 1, 2011 | New York Times

Can the euro be saved? Not long ago we were told that the worst possible outcome was a Greek default. Now a much wider disaster seems all too likely.

True, market pressure lifted a bit on Wednesday after central banks made a splashy announcement about expanded credit lines (which will, in fact, make hardly any real difference). But even optimists now see Europe as headed for recession, while pessimists warn that the euro may become the epicenter of another global financial crisis.

How did things go so wrong? The answer you hear all the time is that the euro crisis was caused by fiscal irresponsibility. Turn on your TV and you're very likely to find some pundit declaring that if America doesn't slash spending we'll end up like Greece. Greeeeeece!

But the truth is nearly the opposite. Although Europe's leaders continue to insist that the problem is too much spending in debtor nations, the real problem is too little spending in Europe as a whole. And their efforts to fix matters by demanding ever harsher austerity have played a major role in making the situation worse.

The story so far: In the years leading up to the 2008 crisis, Europe, like America, had a runaway banking system and a rapid buildup of debt. In Europe's case, however, much of the lending was across borders, as funds from Germany flowed into southern Europe. This lending was perceived as low risk. Hey, the recipients were all on the euro, so what could go wrong?

For the most part, by the way, this lending went to the private sector, not to governments. Only Greece ran large budget deficits during the good years; Spain actually had a surplus on the eve of the crisis.

Then the bubble burst. Private spending in the debtor nations fell sharply. And the question European leaders should have been asking was how to keep those spending cuts from causing a Europe-wide downturn.

Instead, however, they responded to the inevitable, recession-driven rise in deficits by demanding that all governments — not just those of the debtor nations — slash spending and raise taxes. Warnings that this would deepen the slump were waved away. "The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect," declared Jean-Claude Trichet, then the president of the European Central Bank. Why? Because "confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery."

But the confidence fairy was a no-show.

Wait, there's more. During the years of easy money, wages and prices in southern Europe rose substantially faster than in northern Europe. This divergence now needs to be reversed, either through falling prices in the south or through rising prices in the north. And it matters which: If southern Europe is forced to deflate its way to competitiveness, it will both pay a heavy price in employment and worsen its debt problems. The chances of success would be much greater if the gap were closed via rising prices in the north.

But to close the gap through rising prices in the north, policy makers would have to accept temporarily higher inflation for the euro area as a whole. And they've made it clear that they won't. Last April, in fact, the European Central Bank began raising interest rates, even though it was obvious to most observers that underlying inflation was, if anything, too low.

And it's probably no coincidence that April was also when the euro crisis entered its new, dire phase. Never mind Greece, whose economy is to Europe roughly as greater Miami is to the United States. At this point, markets have lost faith in the euro as a whole, driving up interest rates even for countries like Austria and Finland, hardly known for profligacy. And it's not hard to see why. The combination of austerity-for-all and a central bank morbidly obsessed with inflation makes it essentially impossible for indebted countries to escape from their debt trap and is, therefore, a recipe for widespread debt defaults, bank runs and general financial collapse.

I hope, for our sake as well as theirs, that the Europeans will change course before it's too late. But, to be honest, I don't believe they will. In fact, what's much more likely is that we will follow them down the path to ruin.

For in America, as in Europe, the economy is being dragged down by troubled debtors — in our case, mainly homeowners. And here, too, we desperately need expansionary fiscal and monetary policies to support the economy as these debtors struggle back to financial health. Yet, as in Europe, public discourse is dominated by deficit scolds and inflation obsessives.

So the next time you hear someone claiming that if we don't slash spending we'll turn into Greece, your answer should be that if we do slash spending while the economy is still in a depression, we'll turn into Europe. In fact, we're well on our way.

Journalists suddenly disorderly at OWS, must be arrested for their own safety

I know the right wing has been trying, with some success, to portray OWS protestors as violent and disruptive, but since when did so many U.S. journalists turn disorderly?!

Journalists have been arrested on flimsy pretexts not only in New York, LA, Chicago and DC, but also in places like Boston, Nashville, Rochester, Richmond, Milwaukee, Oakland, Atlanta and Chapel Hill. Many say they were only taking photos or interviews, and their press passes were visible. (You can read many of their stories here.)

Police actions at OWS protests against journalists are like something out of Russia or the Arab Spring uprisings, where police -- and their political bosses -- simply do not want any record of their violent crackdowns in the media.

Anyway, all you "strict constitutionalists" and Framer-lovers out there should be concerned with how protesters and journalists have been treated at OWS, even if you don't agree with their politics. Otherwise you are hypocrites and opportunists. This baloney about arresting people who are on public spaces in order to protect them from "unsanitary" or "unsafe" conditions, or to encourage commerce in the area, is absurd, esp. when our "protectors" are blasting them with pepper spray, and denying them food, water, or toilets while they are locked up for hours in cages and paddy wagons.

There is nothing in the The First Amendment which allows government to abridge "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" because they are smelly, offensive to your sensibilities, or discourage somebody from shopping nearby. A protest by definition is not a cuddle fest; it's supposed to make somebody in power uncomfortable.

Tracking Journalist Arrests at Occupy Protests Around the Country

By Josh Stearns

December 2, 2011 | Storify

URL: http://storify.com/jcstearns/tracking-journalist-arrests-during-the-occupy-prot

B Corporations: The synthesis of Adam Smith?

Adam Smith Was Not Schizophrenic

By Kyle Westaway

December 1, 2011 | HBR Blog Network

Despite the recent crackdowns in New York and Los Angeles, it's not surprising that the Occupy Wall Street movement has exploded into 900 chapters. The Occupy movement — as well as The Tea Party — are both "mad as hell" about the current state of affairs. Both sides share a general dissatisfaction with our current capitalist system. The left wants to end capitalism. The right says if we could just get the government out of the way, then the capitalist system would work.

I think both groups' conception of capitalism is off the mark. To gain some clarity, we need to consult Adam Smith.

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, was the first to assert the concept of free market capitalism. In his most popular work The Wealth of Nations he wrote about the oft-quoted "invisible hand." But in his first work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments — which he considered his most meaningful contribution — he writes about our duty to fellow members of society. Pundits on either end of the political spectrum quote whichever work suits their argument. Predictably, the right quotes Wealth of Nations and the left quotes The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Given the gap between modern capitalism and the morals-based approach from his first book, one can't help but wonder if Smith was an intellectual schizophrenic, essentially promoting two competing theories.

I don't think he was. In fact, I see his two preeminent works amounting to a unified theory, a blueprint for a more stable and sustainable version of capitalism; a conscious capitalism. The Wealth of Nations presupposed actors in the capitalist system operating on the moral framework he laid out in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. The free market has no conscience of its own: it is made up of billions of people transacting. Though Smith asserts that each of these people are guided by their self interest, he presupposes that each of the actors in the marketplace are guided by some internal morality and an awareness of one's place within the broader context of his community — locally and globally.

The current version of capitalism is not the one envisioned by Smith at all. He was seeking to create a system defined by efficient allocation of resources driven by self-interest, but guided by self-restraint. This is conscious capitalism.

The current version of capitalism's guidance from self-interest in the corporate world is evidenced in the legal duty to maximize shareholder value, which opens directors up to a lawsuit from their shareholders if they make a decision that fails to make the highest possible profit for their shareholders. Thus, the duty to maximize shareholder value handcuffs directors that want to make decisions that seek to create benefit for people and planet as well as financial returns.

There is debate whether this duty exists, but it is such a dominant perception among directors that it is the practical reality. In order for corporations to be free from the shackles of maximizing shareholder value, the fiduciary duties must be broadened.

Fortunately, many state legislatures in the United States are seeing the need for a new legal structure that embraces conscious capitalism by broadening the fiduciary duty from maximizing shareholder value to maximizing stakeholder value — the legal mandate to take make decisions that pursue not only a positive benefit on the bottom line of the shareholders, but also the community, environment, employees and suppliers. This broadening of fiduciary duty is a fundamental shift at the very core of the corporation. This new type of corporation that embraces conscious capitalism by broadening fiduciary duty is known as a Benefit Corporation.

The Benefit Corporation embodies the theories of both The Wealth Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments, and ushers in a version of conscious capitalism that promotes both self-interest and the benefit of society. Adam Smith would be proud.

Sirota: U.S. Muslims more loyal than Evangelicals

They used to say the same thing about Catholics: when JFK was elected, non-Catholics were worried he'd take orders from the Pope in Rome. Nowadays it's Muslims' turn.

Why Many Evangelical Christians Are More "Un-American" Than US Muslims

By David Sirota

November 29, 2011 | AlterNet

If you have the stomach to listen to enough right-wing talk radio, or troll enough right-wing websites, you inevitably come upon fear-mongering about the Unassimilated Muslim. Essentially, this caricature suggests that Muslims in America are more loyal to their religion than to the United States, that such allegedly traitorous loyalties prove that Muslims refuse to assimilate into our nation and that Muslims are therefore a national security threat.

Earlier this year, a Gallup poll illustrated just how apocryphal this story really is. It found that Muslim Americans are one of the most — if not the single most — loyal religious group to the United States. Now, comes the flip side from the Pew Research Center's stunning findings about other religious groups in America (emphasis mine):

American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46 percent of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90 percent), Germany (70 percent), Britain (63 percent) and Spain (53 percent) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion. Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70 percent in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22 percent say they are primarily American.

If, as Islamophobes argue, refusing to assimilate is defined as expressing loyalty to a religion before loyalty to country, then this data suggests it is evangelical Christians who are very resistant to assimilation. And yet, few would cite these findings to argue that Christians pose a serious threat to America's national security. Why the double standard?

Because Christianity is seen as the dominant culture in America — indeed, Christianity and America are often portrayed as being nearly synonymous, meaning expressing loyalty to the former is seen as the equivalent to expressing loyalty to the latter. In this view, there is no such thing as separation between the Christian church and the American state — and every other culture and religion is expected to assimilate to Christianity. To do otherwise is to be accused of waging a "War on Christmas" — or worse, to be accused of being a disloyal to America and therefore a national security threat.

Of course, a genuinely pluralistic America is one where — regardless of the religion in question — we see no conflict between loyalties to a religion and loyalties to country. In this ideal America, those who identify as Muslims first are no more or less "un-American" than Christians who do the same (personally, this is the way I see things).

But if our politics and culture are going to continue to make extrapolative judgments about citizens' patriotic loyalties based on their religious affiliations, then such judgments should at least be universal — and not so obviously selective or brazenly xenophobic.