Lawmakers split on military retirement cuts in budget deal

Defense-minded lawmakers are torn over a decision to include military retirement benefit cuts in the congressional budget deal.

The deal reached by Budget Committee leaders provides the Pentagon with $32 billion in sequester relief over the next two years, giving it the support of the military brass.

{mosads}But the deal is paid for in part through a reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees under age 62. Veterans groups say the change, which reduces the adjustment to 1 percent below inflation, could cost veterans up to 20 percent of their retirement pay over a 20-year period.

That has some defense hawks throwing up red flags, even though they support the boosted funds to defense.

“The budget deal steps outside of its jurisdiction to find savings by targeting military retirees,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who added that he nevertheless appreciated the restored defense spending.

“Our nation’s entitlement programs are ballooning, but instead of addressing this desperate need for reform, the deal would compromise a commission currently reviewing overall military compensation as tasked by the Armed Services Committee,” Inhofe said.

Asked how he would vote on the deal Thursday, Inhofe said didn’t know yet.

“It’s a little too soon to make that decision,” he said.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), another Armed Services member, said that he was opposing the deal over the military retirement cuts.

“I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,” Wicker said in a statement Thursday.

But other lawmakers argued that the retirement benefit changes were needed anyway, so the reductions can work as a starting point for the larger benefits discussion.

“At some point, we were going to have to adjust the whole retirement and Tricare, and all these other things,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said. “That’s not a reason not to do this.”

McCain said that he would support the budget deal.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services panel, echoed McCain’s sentiment.

“I think it’s perfectly fine,” Smith told reporters Wednesday.

“We’ve got a commission on personnel costs right now. So making some minor adjustments here and there, we’re going to have make adjustments to all these things. That’s where we’re at in terms of the budget,” he said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he still had to study the deal further, including on the military retirement cuts, before taking a position.

But he did raise concerns about the failure to include an unemployment benefits extension, one of Democrats’ chief complaints about the deal.

“A lot of us are very much concerned about the unemployment issue, the unemployment benefits that are running out, and that’s one of the really big concerns that I have,” Levin said.