Congress knew there would be a fight. They had to. When they sliced 1 percentage point off of military pension's annual cost-of-living increases, they must have known that the discussion would hardly end with the passing of the budget.

But did military members expect part of the public outcry to declare those in uniform as greedy and selfish?

In a January, 2014 editorial piece, The Washington Post calls the cut "an exceedingly modest one on a pension plan that is already far more generous than private-sector equivalents."

True. U.S. military retirement benefits are among the best in the nation, if not the planet. According to the Post's math, an E-7 with 20 years of active service would receive retirement pay of $1.734 million over the course of their life. After the budget cuts, that amount drops to $1.626 million. The paper does not define how many years that amount is calculated for.

The paper also points to the medical benefits retirees and their families can receive as well as the fact that many retirees continue to work another 20 years in the civilian sector. A soldier who enlists at 18-years-old can retire from the military at the ripe old age of 38.

Military interest groups have called the move a break in faith. Many of my friends see it is a lie. They were told upon enlisting that they would receive a benefit that now, after serving 20 years and in some cases, suffering debilitating wounds on the battlefield, those benefits are being pulled.

But the public, they seem to just see us as being greedy. The Post editorial calls the retirement cut a "small shift in resources toward training and equipping those who might have to defend us in the future."

The Post staff also points out that the service members who bear the brunt of the battlefield injuries, never reach retirement status and therefore never receive the benefit.

This week, military interest groups are rattling their sabers again after the Pentagon announced a possible reduction in the monies it gives to on-base commissaries, meaning many of those facilities may close. Veterans and service members again claimed foul. You are cutting our benefits, they say. You are breaking promises, they say. 

The public, however, seems to want us to toughen up and get over it.

An article in Time magazine this week agrees that the defense budget has shrunk overall in comparison to the total amount the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

But, Time is also quick to point to the Pentagon's recent Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation which shows an increase in compensation of 60 percent per service member since the attacks of 9-11. Time quotes the report, "Military compensation has outpaced civilian wages and salary growth since 2002."

So are we being greedy or are we actually due all these benefits?

I think it's a little bit of both.

Does the retirement cut feel like a slap in the face? Absolutely. But 1 percent is a miniscule amount, especially when most retirees can and do continue on with a second career. My concern is for retirees who are 100 percent injured and unable to work again. That smaller crowd should be exempt from any future pay cuts. The rest of us can learn to budget around the loss and maybe admit that we are being a tad selfish.

The commissary cuts. Dear Pentagon, slow your roll. This is a huge slap in the face, not just to retirees but to all service members. The bulk of the people using these facilities are not retirees receiving a pension and a second paycheck. They are young service members and their families. I can personally tell you that the commissary is what is helping them stretch their money from paycheck to paycheck.

As retirees, we live nowhere near a commissary and our grocery bill has tripled now that we shop in a civilian grocery store. The commissary benefit is a stable of the military's benefit package and military families will suffer without it.

So, fellow military members and spouses, are we willing to give a little? Are we willing to take a step back and see the larger picture? Our country is in trouble. We have always been the first to step up and protect it. A cut in COLA for retirees could mean more money for weapons and training. It could save the on-base commissaries and make life easier for those who come after us.

Take a long, hard look. Are we being selfish? I have to say, in this instance, I think we are.

Read the full Washington Post editorial

Read the full Time article