2012 Legislative Center

January 31, 2012 | Terry Howell

We just updated the 2012 Military.com Legislative Center “Current Legislation” database. Since the 112th Congress covers 2011-2012, much of the legislation has been carried over from 2011.

Many of the issues that concern Servicemembers, Retirees, Veterans and their families can be found here.

If you know of pending legislation (federal or state) that affects military and veteran benefits please let us know below in the comments sction. We will be sure to add it to the list as soon as possible.

About Terry Howell

Before becoming the Managing Editor for Military.com, Terry served 20 years in the U.S. Coast Guard as an Aviation Electrician’s Mate and aircrewman. In his final role in the Coast Guard, Terry served as a Career Development Advisor, where he provided career, finance, education, and benefits counseling to servicemembers and their families. Since retiring from the Coast Guard, Terry has authored the book, The Military Advantage, managed the content for TurboTap, the DoD's online transition program and VAforVets, the VA's transition assistance website. Terry earned both his Bachelor's and MBA at Corban University using Military Tuition Assistance and his GI Bill benefits to help cover the cost.

Comments

  1. This is just another sign of the government going after the retires and all other military prrsonel. When they need to look at themselves. When we as retires are already paying tircare,paying into or retirements so our spouses can collect half of what we are reciving now, we have congress and senate that collect their full pay checks after they retire,and their spouses collect the full pay check now what is right with that even if they only work four years and retire nobody else in the country can retir at four years and collect unless they are injured in combat, or medically retired.wish there was an origination that was in place to call them down.

    • CharlesBryant says:

      David,

      1. What is just another sign of the government going after the retires and all other military personel in the above subject "2012 Legislative Center"?

      2. You mentioned that they (I presume you mean Congress) need to look at themselves. I think if you checked, our retirement benefits are far better than what Congress has.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/congressional-pe

      3. Yes, I agree, we retirees are paying for Tricare, but the cost of Health Care has gone up and for the past 16 Years Tricare premiums have remained the same. Let me give you an example of what a like 'Tricare Standard' policy would cost me on the Civilian market if I decided to drop it, $4,260.00 anually for a single person or $9,560.00 for a family. looking at this, I would say I have it pretty damn good even if they decided to double my premium.

      http://tricare.mil/mybenefit/ProfileFilter.do;jse

      4. Congress does not collect their full paychecks when they retire nor do there spouses. That theory been debunked years ago.

      5. All of this has been explained by "retiree" in full detail on other forums.

      • John Collins says:

        Charles,

        Yes Tricare is less expensive than civilian insurance. Considering that this government promised all of us free health care to include dental, vision and hearing, Tricare is hardly what politicians promised in order to recruit and retain us. However, the real point is by what percentage will Congress raise Tricare fees? If the current agreement to raise it by the same percent increase as pensions, most of us can live with it. However, the administration is calling for unreasonable increases that I have let my Congressional members know is unacceptable and will cause me to remember those who vote for any such bills when they run for re-election.

        Certainly military retirement benefits should have advantages over Congressional ones. However, Congress members earn many times what the average military member does and so this is reflected in the retirement pay of each.

        We must keep pressure on Congress and the Administration and remind them that if they unfairly target our hard earned and well deserve retirements, it will motivate us to discourage men and women from joining the military unless the government gives them written guarantees and/or large cash bonuses. I for one will tell those considering joining or staying in the military to say to the military, ' Show me the money now'.

        • http://mrgrg-ms.org/crs1006e-the-issue-of-promise

          There never was a promise of free health care. Lots of people think there was. Some recruiters even stated it. However, Congress (who has the authority to make such promises) never promised it. As CharlesBryant points out, this went all the way to the Supreme Court and they turned down the appeal. Case over 2 June 2003.

          I'm NOT in favor of the increases. I've posted elsewhere many good reasons NOT to increase our health care costs. However, trying to argue we were "promised" something we were NOT promised (despite what your recruiter may have told you) is not going to win.

          Also, check your enlistment contract. I have mine. No promise of health care for life. No promise of retirement. And it specifically states that it overrides any promises a recruiter may have made.

          • Not only did my recruiter promise free health/dental care if I stayed in and retired but it came up several times during my inbriefing after swearing in. My uncle was already receiving free care when I enlisted and telling me about it. During the late '60s and early '70s that was the only big selling point for the military. Pay was low, Viet Nam was hot and people were running to Canada or attending college to avoid the draft. Charles, John and retiree all make good points but sure sound like government lacky kiss butts. Instead of running down David, why not state solutions instead of ridicule?

          • CharlesBryant says:

            Buster, Part 1

            "Not only did my recruiter promise free health/dental care if I stayed in and retired but it came up several times during my inbriefing after swearing in."

            Buster, this case has been settled!

            "On November 18, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals (voting 9-4) stated:

            In the end, because no actual authority existed for the recruiters’ promises of full free lifetime medical care, the plaintiffs cannot show a valid implied-in-fact contract. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claim must fail as a matter of law.

            On June 2, 2003, the Supreme Court denied the petition to review this case as well.."

            http://mrgrg-ms.org/crs1006e-the-issue-of-promise

            "My uncle was already receiving free care when I enlisted and telling me about it. During the late '60s and early '70s that was the only big selling point for the military. Pay was low, Viet Nam was hot and people were running to Canada or attending college to avoid the draft."

            To the best of my knowledge this is still going on, based on "SPACE AVAILIBILITY".

          • CharlesBryant says:

            Busher, Part 2

            "Charles, John and retiree all make good points but sure sound like government lacky kiss butts. Instead of running down David, why not state solutions instead of ridicule?"

            No one is running anyone down or "lacky kiss butts", unless you consider explaining and linking the facts to those that post information that isn't true. The true is what it is, and the facts don't change just because you disagree with the COURT.

          • Yea well the truth is what it is and the facts(as you call them) don't mean a damn thing. Like I told "retiree" OJ did it but you can't change the law right? I disagree with that verdict too.

          • Not as we call them, they are the FACTS. You can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts. You may not like them (I don't), but they are there and real.

            Something I was taught in the military was not to run things on rumors and innuendo. Run operations on facts, and get the facts. Understand the enemy (Congress here). Know their strong and weak points. Know your own forces – strong and weak points. Plan. Think. Logically. Passion is useful, but passion without thought is also called suicide.

            "What are the facts, and to what accuracy. You pilot always into an unknown future, facts are your single clue. Get the facts." – Lazarus Long (Character in Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love). Very good wisdom.

          • IDMTmedic says:

            Well said.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "Yea well the truth is what it is and the facts(as you call them) don't mean a damn thing."

            You thoughts on this doesn't bother me one way or the other, but one thing is absolutely sure, that those of us that continue to hold onto and pass around things that have been debunked only makes retirees look worse and embarrass many of us.

            NOTE: OJ has nothing to do with this!

          • No your wrong. Taking the soft approach to this as if nothing is broken is the issue! If your talking legal issues then everything has to do with OJ. THEY get it wrong all the time. Your argument acts as if they didn't get it wrong and it is a dead issue. Well it isn't and never will be as far as I am concerned.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            You need to take you case to Congress, and as I said before, its a dead issue.

          • Says you! When it does come up again and we win, you will not be accepting the benefits I presume?

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            Are just posting to see your words in type?

          • IDMTmedic says:

            Just like calling out people with such a screwed up sense of reality and accepts benefits and then complains that they get too many of them. Smells like (sniff sniff) CRAP!

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            I have yet to see anyone actually complain about recieving too many benefits.

            What I have seen is at least 4 of us agreeing the premiums should go up when it comes to Tricare.

            You read to much crap into what people post and not what they are actually saying.

          • I know what you are saying. Raise tricare fees every year. Only took you about 50 posts to say that.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            retiree,

            There is even a statement capital letters that states:

            "2. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF EACH OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS. FURTHERMORE, TO AVOID MISUNDERSTANDINGS I HAVE RECORDED BELOW IN MY OWN WORDS AND HANDWRITING, ALL THE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN PROMISES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO ME IN CONNECTION WITH MY ENLISTMENT IN THE REGULAR ARMY (at the end of statement, applicant will print the word "END"):"

          • Last I checked congress wasn't sitting at the table when I signed and the official GOVERNMENT rep was. The recruiter IS representing the government right? Any congressman signing in recruits? Be nice to have about 100 recruiters tell us their training and instructions as far as benefits they get for how many they signed up and what was to be presented. THEY were trained by somebody in the military and I am sure there is a SOP for it.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "Last I checked congress wasn't sitting at the table when I signed and the official GOVERNMENT rep was."

            Ok, now ask youself, do you have "free health care for life"? Hello

            "The recruiter IS representing the government right?"

            Right, now ask yourself, do you have "free health care for life"? Hello again!

            "Any congressman signing in recruits?"

            No, did any recruits make any Laws that were passed and signed into Law the President? Hello again!

            "Be nice to have about 100 recruiters tell us their training and instructions as far as benefits they get for how many they signed up and what was to be presented."

            Doesn't matter, this is a dead issue.

            "THEY were trained by somebody in the military and I am sure there is a SOP for it."

            Nope, no SOP only regulations they go by.

          • I get it, you were a recruiter. LMAO

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            No, not a recruiter, just a very smart 1SG that knew how to read Military Regulations.

          • IDMTmedic says:

            Yeah ok I believe that. God help any troop under your guidance.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "Yeah ok I believe that. God help any troop under your guidance."

            Wait a minute, surely you really don't think that because I was a smart 1SG that knew how to read Military Regulations that those soldiers are less smart?????, or needs GOD's help?????

          • Your right, shouldn't have said that

          • Let me repeat for you from the Constitution (what was used in the ruling that stated we did NOT have a promise of free health care):
            "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." (Article I, Section 9)

            Only Congress can commit the Government to spending money. Since Congress NEVER authorized spending money so we could have FREE health care, NO individual, even representing the Government (i.e. that Recruiter, your boss, even the Chief of Staff of a Service) can bind the Government in such a promise, no matter WHAT they may state.

            Bottom line – no matter WHAT your recruiter, or any recruiter, or 1,000 recruiters said, the promise could NOT be made, because only CONGRESS could make such a promise, and they couldn't.

            Don't like it – get Congress to make such a promise. But don't go telling them they made such a promise, because they didn't. And that story ended on 2 June 2003 with the Supreme Court.

            Facts. Like or dislike, they are the FACTS.

          • CharlesBryant says:
          • Doesn't that mean they shouldn't take money that isn't there? Last I checked NO money is available for alot of what they (meaning congress) spend. THAT was before two wars.

          • No it does not – or we would have been in trouble 200 years ago, when we borrowed money for the first Government. In fact, the Constitution took over the debts of the Revolutionary Government/Articles of Confederation.

        • CharlesBryant says:

          John Collins, Part 1

          "Yes Tricare is less expensive than civilian insurance. Considering that this government promised all of us free health care to include dental, vision and hearing, Tricare is hardly what politicians promised in order to recruit and retain us. However, the real point is by what percentage will Congress raise Tricare fees? If the current agreement to raise it by the same percent increase as pensions, most of us can live with it. However, the administration is calling for unreasonable increases that I have let my Congressional members know is unacceptable and will cause me to remember those who vote for any such bills when they run for re-election."

          Don't get me wrong, but for me, the point about "free health care for life" is a dead issue and should never, ever enter into the discussion of what is going on now. Bringing it up only clouds the issue. IMO, I feel the Tricare Fee needs to be raised every year for Retirees, remain free for Active Duty, and raised yearly for Dependents of Active Duty.

          • Now just how in the hell you get that BS? Raised every year? Lmao. Why free for active duty? Why not make them pay? Raised for dependents? By the way it is not "dependents" anymore but "beneficiaries". Now we as retirees should be classified as "dependents" according to your logic. Our sacrifice is no less than active duty. Be damned if my benefits reflect I am a drain.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "Now just how in the hell you get that BS?"

            Not BS, that is my opinion as I clearly stated.

            "Raised every year? Lmao."

            Yes, every year!

            "Why free for active duty?"

            Free for active duty because that is what the US Code says so.

            "Why not make them pay?

            Because US Code says it is free.

            "Raised for dependents?'

            Again, US Code.

            "By the way it is not "dependents" anymore but "beneficiaries".

            Huh, what are you talking about.

            "Now we as retirees should be classified as "dependents" according to your logic."

            No, that's your logic.

            "Our sacrifice is no less than active duty."

            You've lost me, what is it you trying to say?

            "Be damned if my benefits reflect I am a drain."

            You're not a drain, that is something that is in a sink or bathtub.

          • LMAO. You do remember you had no clue about McCains proposal but that's ok. HUH? The term dependent is not used anymore. Politically incorrect. It is now called beneficiaries for obvious reasons.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "You do remember you had no clue about McCains proposal but that's ok. HUH?"

            You must be confused, I haven't discussed Senator McCain.

            "The term dependent is not used anymore. Politically incorrect. It is now called beneficiaries for obvious reasons."

            So you wish to argue about words now?????

          • Sen McCain???? Mmmm the proposal from him was? Eliminate tricare prime for?? Need more carrot? BUT wait nobody is talking about eliminating benefits for anybody right. Okok just a proposal, no harm in that. Aside from a veteran himself, your in good company and I am sure you would vote for him if he was still running..

          • Terms used in the FY12 budget (Page 268) are Family Members, Retirees, and Survivors.
            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-APP/pdf/

          • CharlesBryant says:

            retiree,

            Let me just add to your vast knowledge base by adding this:

            TITLE VIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

            Section 8081, page 332, it mentions dependents in 2 different places.

            Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2011-APP/pdf/

          • Not 2 different ones? OMG. Still referred to as Beneficiaries. Regardless of what's in print. You two be able to light a match together?

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            Just a couple of retiree's working together to get the facts out there while giving you links to why we post what we post.

        • CharlesBryant says:

          John Collins, Part 3

          "We must keep pressure on Congress and the Administration and remind them that if they unfairly target our hard earned and well deserve retirements, it will motivate us to discourage men and women from joining the military unless the government gives them written guarantees and/or large cash bonuses. I for one will tell those considering joining or staying in the military to say to the military, ' Show me the money now'."

          In my book, when you add in all the up front benefits and those to come after retirement I feel I was well paid on active duty and well paid after retirement. As to your comment about not being motivated to support the idea of others joining the service, I am just the opposite and will always promote the Volunteer Military and Military Service.

        • "the government gives them written guarantees and/or large cash bonuses."

          Actually, the government has used Selective Enlistment/Reenlistment bonuses for decades. Reality is very few go INTO the military to get retirement. Many stay in (especially after they've been in say 10 years) to get retirement, but most go in for one tour, gain their GI bill and other benefits and then go on.

          Nothing wrong with that – we need more 1st termers than GOs, but that also means telling a Congressman "You'll have to pay big bonuses to get soldiers" when that's what is currently happening means it isn't a very effective argument.

          Unless we can SHOW that changing retirement benefits will impact recruiting, we need to focus on retirement changes on retention, especially of senior enlisted/officers – because it takes 15 years to get to someone with 15 years experience. We have a model to talk to them about – the "Redux" plan, which ultimately failed.

          • That's the problem as I see it. Retention is the time when the government throws the money to a servicemember to stay in but usually the 1st or 2nd termer. Experience is what trains these guys and middle to higher level NCO's are the ticket. Any deployment will show you that in 15 minutes. If you mess with the retirement you will not see anymore seasoned NCO's or Officers.

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "If you mess with the retirement you will not see anymore seasoned NCO's or Officers."

            What are you basing your theory on?

          • IDMTmedic says:

            Retirement benefits. What's your theory? How you going to keep a 10-14 yr. NCO in after 5-6 deployments and no LEGAL retirement package that they can rely on!

          • CharlesBryant says:

            IDMTmedic,

            "Retirement benefits. What's your theory? How you going to keep a 10-14 yr. NCO in after 5-6 deployments and no LEGAL retirement package that they can rely on!"

            1. First of all, I would have to acknowledge up front that I am not even close to being qualified to come up with a viable overall plan, no more then asking me what I would have done when it came to 9/11 or Iraq.

            2. Second, I would have to realize that this country can't sustain spending as it is now when it comes to Defense, Medicare & Medicaid, and Social Security.

            3. Third, set up a final authority Committee/Group/Panel etc. to come up with a viable plan that keeps our Military strong and our Veterans taken care of. Those with the "NOT IN MY BACK YARD" idea would be fired from the Committee/Group/Panel etc.

            4. Forth, my idea's so far are almost 100% inline with "retiree's" idea's.

          • 1 and 2 I agree. Super commitee maybe? Jeeez already done. No luck. Now 3rd would be NOT to have you on the panel for retirees. 4th yes and no

          • Now you're beginning to put together an argument (actually one of the ones I've used). Your 12-18 year veteran IS influenced by retirement plans. They are also going to be deploying, etc. Reducing their retirement reduces the influence to stay in.

            The next argument Congress will make is that they will grandfather current soldiers in the current system, changes only influence those still to join. Here the argument is harder, as there is no "expectation." However, we saw with Redux that reducing the retirement was NOT well-received, and most either left the service or stayed wit the current plan. If Congress messes with Retirement for those that have not joined, they may not see the effects for 12-18 years, when people begin looking at that retirement.

      • So if you make $30,000 a year in the military but aren't paying $4,500 to 9,500$ a year we are the winners? Let's look at the real picture. How many do what we do? Your entire argument is the most idiotic I have ever heard. People die in this job, frequent moves and not everything is covered for expenses, remote tours which are normally COVERED by civilian employers if away from family. Overtime hours which is usually time and a half, or double! On-call pay is extra. Meals, well nothing like an MRE, or staying in a tent. Employers pay you to stay in a hotel. Pay for gas, and you get the option to QUIT! 5-9 Gs a year? Hell yea if I could do it over again I'd pay in a civilian job and be way ahead financially as well as mentally. Put a price on that.

  2. I want my $50.00 a month retirement "paycut" money returned to me! That is just extortion and plain theft! I held to all of the numerous contracts until my retirement. THAT IS MY MONEY! Bastards and dirty cheats! Ripping us retired folks off is a crime! Thanks again for NOTHING capitol hill and offal office. Yea! I am pissed off! Also my taxes on my only income (my retirement want up over 300% in three damned years). What spent all your "toy" money in the pentagon? Again!

  3. what ever happen to the, if you spent 20 years in the service you'll earn FREE health care for the rest of your life. i have been retired for 31 years and have never had FREE health care as of yet. We earned it, it's not a welfare program. if it was the Government would never take it away, they would add 2 it.

    • CharlesBryant says:

      akacy,

      That free health care for life case was lost in court back in 2003.

    • You got it Brother , we earned everything we got while those who have never served enjpoy the freedoms we give them. I did 30 years in the Navy and i think we have been short changed for what we have given out country.

  4. Before commenting about how great we retirees have it, please read the article at http://www.fedsmith.com about top military brass getting more in retirement than they did in active duty. Here is part of the story…
    Previously , the maximum annual pension was based on an officer's pay at 26 years of service. Now, a four-star officer retiring in 2011 with 38 years' experience would get a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was once allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years' experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%.

    So if cuts need to be made I sure as hell would question the above before I mess with retirees making less than how much the Officer's pay above went UP in both cases. The middle class continues to get screwed and we have sacrificed enough.

  5. I believe that we are missing the big picture. Not only are we retiree's being affected but all the seniors and disabled are affected as well by the excess spending and foreign aid that we are sending all over the world. Reduce the excess spending and severely reduce the foreign aid to the thankless countries that we give billions of dollar and put that money toward the retirees, seniors and disabled "we, the people". Enforce the laws for Welfare, Disability, Immigration, and Social Security Benefits. By stopping the fraudulent payments within these programs alone will save billions of dollars. If we clean up our own mess, we would have the necessary funds to support the programs in questions – Tricare – Social Security – Military Retirees – etc.

  6. HTCM J.A. Graham says:

    __FOUND ON A SEA BEE MESSAGE BOARD:

    Pee on a Crucifix, you're an "Artist"

    Pee on The American Flag, you're a "Constitutionalists"

    Pee on a Police Car, you're a "Freedom Lovin' 99 percent-er"

    Pee on a Taliban piece of shit that just tried to kill you and your
    fellow Marines, you're a "Villain"

    GIVE ME A BREAK !!!

  7. LIES AND VIDE TAPES.

    YOU ARE RETIRED NOT LONGER EXSIST IN THE RESOURCES TO BE DEPLOYABLE.

    SO THEN YOU BECOME EXPENDABLE…

    THERE IS NO CONTRACT RECORD OF THE PROMISE OF FREE MEDICAL AND DENTAL..

    SO SUE THEM IF YOU CAN AND AT THE END YOU STILL GET NOTHING.

    PATHFINDER22554

    • mrgrg_man says:

      We, the military retiree grassroots group, via a lawsuit bought by Attorney Colonel George E. Day (retired), did sue the government. There were a number of decision and appeals in this case.

      1). 8 Feb 2001… "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises. The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now. “In contracts involving the government, as with all contractual relationships, rights vest and contract terms become binding when, after arms length negotiation, all parties to the contract agree to exchange real obligations for real benefits.” Winstar, 64 F.3d at 1546. Because failure to perform a contractual duty when it is due is a breach, see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 235(2) (1981), the government breached its implied-in-fact contract with the retirees when it failed to provide them with health care benefits at no cost.[3] The district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to the government and, on the record before us, abused its discretion in denying the retiree’s motion for summary judgment of liability. Conclusion: Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida is reversed and the case is remanded for determination of damages."

      2). 18 Feb 2002… "We cannot readily imagine more sympathetic plaintiffs than the retired officers of the World War II and Korean War era involved in this case. They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life. The promise of such health care was made in good faith and relied upon. Again, however, because no authority existed to make such promises in the first place, and because Congress has never ratified or acquiesced to this promise, we have no alternative but to uphold the judgment against the retirees' breach-of-contract claim."

      3). The Supreme court upheld decision 2).

      4). You might note that in the process of finding against the military retirees the court said this…

      "They served their country for at least 20 years with the understanding that when they retired they and their dependents would receive full free health care for life."

      We had a contract. However, the government said it was null and void.

      • Reread that. The courts did NOT say we had a contract. They said we did NOT have a contract. We had an understanding. There is a difference – if we had had a contract it would have stood up. However, since Congress never authorized free health care, no recruiter or service had the authority to enter into a contract.

        Legal vs moral/ethical. The courts ruled on the legal.

        • mrgrg-man says:

          Each branch of service made the medical care offer. We could not sue each branch of service and all of the high ranking General and high ranking civilians that authorized the medical care promise so we sued the government.
          We could go on and on with this so I will concede that you are RIGHT.
          However, I would like for you to take a look at this definition of a contract extracted from the Internet at: legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/contract… CONTRACT 1) n. an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration. Since the law of contracts is at the heart of most business dealings, it is one of the three or four most significant areas of legal concern and can involve variations on circumstances and complexities. The existence of a contract requires finding the following factual elements: a) an offer; b) an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds; c) a promise to perform; d) a valuable consideration (which can be a promise or payment in some form); e) a time or event when performance must be made (meet commitments); f) terms and conditions for performance, including fulfilling promises; g) performance. A unilateral contract is one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance. (I will pay you $500 to fix my car by Thursday; the performance is fixing the car by that date). A bilateral contract is one in which a promise is exchanged for a promise. (I promise to fix your car by Thursday and you promise to pay $500 on Thursday). Contracts can be either written or oral, but oral contracts are more difficult to prove and in most jurisdictions the time to sue on the contract is shorter (such as two years for oral compared to four years for written). In some cases a contract can consist of several documents, such as a series of letters, orders, offers and counteroffers. There are a variety of types of contracts: "conditional" on an event occurring; "joint and several," in which several parties make a joint promise to perform, but each is responsible; "implied," in which the courts will determine there is a contract based on the circumstances. Parties can contract to supply all another's requirements, buy all the products made, or enter into an option to renew a contract. The variations are almost limitless. Contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable at law. 2) v. to enter into an agreement.

          • 1. The US Government is under Law, net Equity. This matters, as it means agents cannot contract to anything that they are not legally allowed to. Thus, no recruiter or other representative could contract with us to provide free medical care, because Congress did NOT authorize it.
            http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/38

            "anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority. The scope of this authority may be explicitly defined by Congress or be limited by delegated legislation, properly exercised through the rulemaking power. And this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority." (Federal Crop Insurance v Merrill, US Supreme court verdict)

            (sorry for the long URL)

            2. Reread your enlistment contract – mine does NOT mention free health care for life, and specifically states it supersedes all previous written and oral presentations, and is the sole contract between me and the Federal Government.

            3. Are you certain you were promised free medical care? In another chain someone posted excerpts from recruiting material to show the promise. Unfortunately, the word "free" was missing from each of those documents.

          • I will always side on the ethical verses legal argument but that's just me.

          • Nothing wrong with that, but in a court of law, they look at the legal, NOT the ethical. When arguing to Congress, if you argue legalities, the legalities are that no promise could have been made, therefore no promise was made.

  8. CharlesBryant says:

    What, another Charles Bryant just signed on?????

    There we go, fixed by the administrator.

  9. texasloafer says:

    We all need to band together and clean house in the Oval Office, House, and Senate. Lets start with the elections this year. Vote them all out and put in honest people.

  10. Hector Echeverri says:

    Fellow retirees, let's not judge our senior commanders. They don't make or pass the laws – it's the representatives we elected to Congress. And this year of elections I urge U to be XTRA careful on your vote; particularly, those of us overseas. I, in particular live in Panama and our embassy at the last minute, did not allow us to vote through the embassy as we did on past elections. Second, and this was not published to us overseas, Obama with his Black Panthers, just as it's done in third world countries, stood armed at many, not all, voting facilities and forced AMERICANS to vote for OBAMA. And third, two members of my family worked on the democratic campaign and told me "they were sent to retirees homes, hospitals, etc, and had people that were not conscience of their doings sign the ballots for the democrats. So, I urge you, if you have relatives in this category, or are overseas, I recommend you make the effort to place your vote directly in the GOOD U.S.A. I'll be there in November.

    • OK, wow. Ahmmm that is just a little to far out for even me.

    • Andy Andersen says:

      The trouble is that our higher military officers get a healthy retirement check than us E-5,6,7 etc that they dont care about us, so dont speak up. When they do retire and get lucartive jobs they even speak less for us. It is really a shame. How do they sleep at night?

  11. Well the administrator does not like me asking Charles Bryant about his service, interesting the last time I saw a admin do that, he was posting under multiple names.

    • CharlesBryant says:

      Larry,

      That isn't true, someone else signed up on here using my name, I reported it and they deleted him and his comments. It just so happened, that they deleted your post, and my reply also.

      Feel free to repost it if you want, and I will give you the same answer I gave before it was deleted, but anyway, there is no need to makeup the story about the administrator.

      • sorry to hear someone high jacked your log in name, that really sucks. i was just interested when you were in where when etc. If you don't want to post it on here that is fine.
        larrycastle@globaldrplanner.com

        Not making up anything about the admin, just that the last time I had that happen the admin of the board was posting under 4 different names.

        • CharlesBryant says:

          Larry,

          You're the second person to ask about what, when and where. In the past, the questions have always come up because of my opinions on many subjects. I just don't see the need to elaborate past what my profile on this site says.

          Should you wish, send me a throwaway email addy and I might send you more info.

          Later

    • Interesting…..uhu

  12. Actually it's a negative. Congress loves to get into arguments about their pay – because while you're arguing their pay, you're NOT arguing your point.

    Best thing we could do is put together logical, fact based arguments that say NOTHING about either Congressional Pay or the "promise" of "free health care" and then passionately advocate for our position.

    Not that acknowledging there was no promise is different from showing that people based their planning on what was actually being provided, and assuming that it would continue, given no indications that that would change.

    • Not -> Note (sorry for the typo, and I should have checked better. "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves" for reference)

    • Legally what is the difference retiree? Basing their planning IS exactly what we all did. AND that it would continue. Well it's not and the argument remains the same and legally no change so I don't get your point.

      • Assuming you're talking about the last paragraph. The difference is pounding on the "promise" gets us nowhere, because Congress knows they didn't authorize free health care. Stating people made plans based on what was happening states a reality, but acknowledges Congress's role, and plays on the sense of right. One argument is legal, and was lost 2 June 2003. The other is moral and ethical.

    • You mean a promise.

  13. David Crear says:

    Why is it every time I turn around, they want to tax me more on what they Freeze me from getting, reduce my income , increase my taxes,cut my benefits, that i earned while serving my country…..but yet, they turn into the most accomodating people when they want your vote. TERM LIMITS, WITH REDUCED PENSIONS . STOP MAKING THE JOB OF CONGRESS SO ATTRACTIVE. NO MORE CAREER POLITIANS. THEY HOLD THE PRESIDENT TO TWO TERMS, WHY NOT THEM? THEY EXPECT THE PRESIDENT TO LEARN WHAT HE'S SUPPOSE TO DO IN 8 YEARS , BUT THEY SPEND 30+ YEARS AND ALL THEY LEARN IS HOW TO FATTEN UP THEIR OWN POCKETS. "THE FOXES ARE IN THE CHICKEN COUP, AND NO ONE IS THERE TO RUN THEM OUT!

  14. David Crear says:

    How can the legislators go to sleep at night with so much misinformation, and knowing all the while that they are stepping on the very people who are the back bone of this country? Middle America, Federal employees, retirees, maybe if Romney gets elected, he can fire us all , put us all on welfare, and blame it on someone else. How much is enough?

  15. Why not? They do work for us right?

  16. Annette Rose says:

    I can not see how anyone (Congress, President,etc) can compare a serviceman time served to a private employee. How many civilians go out each day expecting it to be their last (getting shot by the enemy) or sleep in tents in freezing weather. Be relocated at a moments notice, family, children having to go to numerous schools. Then they want to compare a fat cat employee to a serviceman and say their retirement benefits should be equal. Someone doesn't have a clear idea of what serviceman face.

  17. C Huffman says:

    Afgan. want us out well lets save money and lives. Lets pack up everything we have and leave. Take our money with us and use it on Military and Veterans programs, Use it on the Budget. Do not leave one thinh there not like we did in Nam. Concurrent Receipt could be paid for and Use some money to cut the budget. If they want u to go so bad I sat start tomorrow andlets leave

  18. Obama is has raised military premiums and will add even more increases to TRICARE in the future. We are facing over 345% in additional co-pays and premiums, while Unions that donated to Obama's Campaigns are Exempt. While Navy Seals were getting Bin Laden, Obama was working behind the scenes to gut our military entitlements. The media did a great job making Obama a Hero for getting Bin Laden. They should have told the public how he is gutting our medical benefits in return.

    • Charles says:

      @quillerm,

      Not true! Premiums for Tricare has never gone up since it was implemented back in 1994. I've been paying $19.17 per month since I retired in 1995.

      As for President Obama working behind the scene to gut our military, that is just not true. I can guarantee that nothing has been taken away from Active Duty, Retirees, or Family Members long before I retired. Benefits have only grown, never have I scene them taken away.