Hi 29° | Lo 14°

In Their Own Words: On military pension cuts, all together now

Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte has gotten a lot of ink in recent days for her decision to vote against the federal budget deal because it included cuts to cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees. Less noted, however, is that the Democratic members of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation – all of whom voted for the budget measure – now say that they, too, are determined to undo the COLA cuts. All three are supporting a plan to replace the cuts with a measure to close corporate loopholes. Here’s what they have to say about it:

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: I introduced legislation – the Military Retirement Restoration Act – with 15 of my colleagues to replace the military retiree benefit cuts by closing a tax loophole that some corporations use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. These corporations set up shell entities in tax havens to avoid being considered an American company, even though they are controlled and operated on American soil. I think most Americans would agree that this kind of tax avoidance is unfair and that we should close this tax loophole rather than reducing military retiree benefits.

This is just one idea. I am open to other solutions, and hope we can work in a bipartisan way to replace these cuts to military retirees’ benefits in a smart way.

Second District Rep. Annie Kuster: The bipartisan budget agreement will help end the cycle of manufactured crises that has slowed our economy and harmed middle-class families, but it’s far from perfect. Congress should work to replace the cost-of-living adjustment changes included in this deal – and that’s exactly what this common-sense legislation will do. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this common-sense fix.

First District Rep. Carol Shea-Porter: The Bipartisan Budget Act would prevent another government shutdown, create jobs and reduce the deficit, but it is not perfect. I’m introducing a bill to cancel the reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees under the age of 62, which is scheduled to start in 2015. The bill is fully paid for by eliminating a tax loophole for offshore corporations.

Legacy Comments8

I don't think ending loopholes for corporations is a canned response. Also how about these for profit "non profits" like the PGA golf tour. I am no fan of Sen. Coburn but he has something there. Many of these so called "non profits" make a lot of profit. These golfers and other athletes are millionaires or in the case of Tiger Woods, billionaires and capable of paying for their own tour. If they paid their fair share of taxes like the rest of us there would be 10 million dollars more a year that could go to the military. If people like Romney didn't hide their profits in off shore tax havens, we wouldn't have a budget crisis. What a patriotic American he is.

Your comments are irrelevant to the original article and my comment, I understand it is Christmas time , but you might want to reduce your consumption of Obama cool-aid. Let me repeat myself, in 2009-10 shaheen, Shea- porter and your president were in a position to eliminate every business subsidy and loophole in this country, they did not. Period. This loophole talk is simply more pandering by the dems to the those who are not informed

What exactly is your problem? I can make any comment I want to without your permission. You are just another Sail wannabe making personal comments about posters and blaming everything on Obama. Merry Christmas to you, too, and I don't care what you drink.

Just what we needed around here, a Sail clone.

The loopholes can be an issue but it is small potatoes compared to the GAO $200B to $400B in dulicative and wasteful spending. People keep ignoring things like the GAO annual study and the lastest Wastebook. We also need to focus on productivity of the government workforce with layers of people doing little or nothing.

It is obvious each of their responses offer the same canned solution -end tax loopholes for corporations-I am not saying I do not agree with ending the loopholes, but their responses are hollow talking points from Washington. The bottom line is the three Democrat politicians voted to cut military benefits, the military pay cut must not have bothered them too much or they would not have voted for the cuts. Let's recall shaheen and porter- Shea were in office in 2008 with Democratic majorities in both chambers with a Democratic president. They and the president could have easily ended every business subsidy in the Country and they did not. Period.

You seem to have the mistaken notion that every Democrat wants an end to the business credits. PACS and big money hold a much larger sway than the lowly voter. You and SAIL should get your talking points in order and investigate just what effect this has on military members. Less than 20% serve their twenty and retire. Most take their military training and turn it into a career. Furthermore there is no real effect on disabled soldiers. You can wipe away those crocodile tears. It is a shame how we treat our disabled warriors. Do some checking on the percentage of those "untouchable" homeless that are veterans and how quick certain parties are to cut services they depend on and try and banish them. That is where the real shame should be placed.

All 3 voted in favor of illegal aliens over our disabled Vets - shame on the democrats

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.