The People Look for an Ox to Gore

A commentator has finally noticed and begun to make a little noise about a particular segment of the public sector's work force.

"But it's also noteworthy that one of the most generous defined-benefits public-employee pension plans in the country isn't being mentioned in this discussion. There is a branch of the federal government that lets you retire after 20 years on the job, even if you're under age 40, and guarantees immediate benefits of 50% of your final salary for the rest of your life. That branch is the military. If you joined the army at age 18, and retired in 2011 at age 38 as a $55,000-a-year sergeant (pay grade E-8) after an unexceptional career, you would be entitled to $26,000 per year for the rest of your life, plus cost-of-living adjustments. The average 40-ish retiring sergeant would put the taxpayers on the hook for over $1m in lifetime retirement pay. That's not counting a lifetime of free medical care from the VA. And the military doesn't have a pension fund; the Pentagon budget's $18 billion in retiree pay this year will be paid directly by taxpayers."

This post is not really designed to advocate a position on this but to simply reflect a fiscal reality combined with the point of view of those not in the service. I'm sure many of the state workers around the nation feel that they are owed their pensions, but the money is not there and the taxpayers are beginning to revolt. I'm sure that the private sector employees who have been removed from the pension plans they had through bankruptcy and the actions of the PBCG think they were owed what was contracted but they didn't get it either. I'm sure the retirees who thought they signed on for medical care for life and then were thrown out of the military hospitals in the mid 90's thought they were owed and yet they were shown the door. I'm sure the people who collect off of SS and Medicare think they are owed... but the programs are bankrupt. This nation has a history of bailing on such things. George Washington apologized to his officer corp for the betrayal of the congress after the Revolutionary War. MacArthur cleared out the veterans on orders from Hoover. On and on...

While the nation may love its military, I would not expect the American people who are struggling themselves to have a tremendous concern for the ability of a segment of the population to retire at 38 years old with millions in pensions. I would not expect them to think that granny should take cuts in medicare and SS so that the military guy can get his retirement. I don't know what will happen, but I'm fairly certain there will be a substantial change in the military retirement system... at least as it was presented to those who signed up over the years.

Do the tax payers owe the military? No. Like any other life it was chosen by the people who entered into it. While it is certainly unfair perhaps that people signed up with one set of information from what later on came to be recognized, there is a burden on those in a system to observe the exterior things that can effect it. Nobody is immune to reality. There is nothing in my mind more sacred about what they do than anyone else who takes a role in civilizations preservation. Guy who keeps the water system going... provides electricity... gets the food to the store... they provide value too. Should the contract be honored? Sure. But bankruptcy relieves us all of our burdens... the nation will declare it too.

Fighting for Freedom

How many today would fight for ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’. The question certainly is appropriate as many constantly claim we have less freedom than ever before (we will leave for further investigation and thought that opinion). It certainly is hard to argue that the burden of government was greater under King George than under our current system. While there is perhaps anger taking people to the polls, there is not a widespread social disruption or anything resembling an active revolutionary movement. Is that an indictment of today’s citizen? Shouldn’t they be risking it all for ‘liberty’?

If we look back to the inhabitants of the colonies in 1775-1776, most did not in that time either. The big losers were the big names. Though some of the big names became the big winners. Supporting independence and liberty was one thing. Fighting for it another.

The population in 1775 was ~2.5M (have seen higher figures). Probably safe to assume 1.25M of that was male and probably 60% of fighting age. Yet, this domestic population rarely stood and fought in any significant fashion against the 50K British troops and their 30K Hessian mercenaries. This foreign population was forced to fight over the entire east coast. Still we struggled.

Washington was not kind to deserters. He was not in general having to turn away recruits. America had difficulties fielding armies. We needed, or at least greatly benefited, from the involvement of France and Spain on our side.

People like to be on the side of winners, but few will fight... for independence... freedom... anything.

All of this was in the time of the enlightenment and revolutions were beginning to spread. Did the cause of ‘liberty’ and freedom not resonate?

Yes... at least at the intellectual level of society. While I believe that plenty of people did read or were capable of reading more complex material than now, I am not terribly certain that the average joe has ever had much consideration for the thoughts of the esoteric. People had to work pretty hard across the board just to eat. Freedom is a word that means different things to different people. Being able to demagogue a crowd is far different than that crowd taking up arms and slogging through the mud for years in a war.

Freedom for some probably meant no king... to others it simply meant freedom to have the British pay for our Indian issues as opposed to us. Freedom for others is more along the lines of FDR's list of freedoms than the Founders.

My bottom line is that I do not think the fact that 95% of people now would not have fought then is any great indictment. Most people rarely fight willingly for any cause. Most people care about food, women, entertainment and beer. As long as you don't interfere too much with those they will tolerate a great deal.

The Little Amendment that Failed

As I ruminate on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America I am forced to conclude that if it was put in place, as it surely seems, as a personal right with the intent to fortify the people against domestic tyranny then it certainly seems to have failed. Given the proportion of our population that is armed, is there a more timid people? In fear of everything they resist nothing. Where 300 might have resisted 100,000 in Greece here it is inconceivable that 300,000,000 would resist 700,000 (an estimate of the domestic law enforcement population). Despite tax rates that would have set the world ablaze in times past, government intrusions far beyond the bounds envisioned during the country's formation, unaddressed and massively unpopular immigration and active and increasingly common violence against the population there is little more than the occasional harsh word, law suite or youtube video to mark any signs of resistance. The South seceded and the continent was bloodied over issues no more divisive than those we face now.

In the few acts of resistance to the Government of the United States you have the use of fertilizer, planes and powders. The weaponry that was supposed to steel the spine of the nation has failed in that purpose. While government seems to fear its citizenry, it is not through the collection of firearms that it acts out its will upon them. By the time it would get to that point it is far to late anyway...

Is it an overarching faith in government and its legitimacy that restrains the current population in ways prior populations would not? Is it the relative economic prosperity that gives more people a stake in the system as it stands? Is it a preoccupation with foreign affairs that has kept the domestic scene so tranquil? Is it simply a level of passivity in the general population that exceeds the vision of those who authored the amendment, and if so, what accounts for the passivity of this population group compared to the French, early Americans and the Eastern Bloc countries?