Posted on Jun 9, 2015
Less than 1% of us are military. Is cutting our benefits the answer?
43.3K
139
83
12
12
0
The vote for the Defense spending bill looms and Congress is talking about cutting even more of our benefits. Less pay? Less BAH? No Tricare? Is cutting 10-20 billion from the defense spending budget over the next 10 years really worth taking all these benefits from us? Is it fair that Congress can enjoy subsidized gyms, salons, rental cars, and air travel, all on our dime? And yet there are some members of Congress who say they don't get paid enough. Rank and file members make about 174k a year. Leadership positions make even more. Speaker of the House makes 220k+ a year. Should Congress take a pay hit before stripping our families of our hard earned benefits?
DoD
Congress
Benefits
Politics
Military Pay
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I do not believe it's the answer. Has anyone heard of the public health service? I feel like dod money could be spent elsewhere. Thoughts?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
The problem is that as the government gets bigger and bigger it’s harder to cut. It’s not because there isn’t waste but because politicians (and military leaders) purposely tie multiple projects and monies to things they know people don’t want to cut. There is always the scare that if we cut (A) we’ll hurt (C). So we can’t touch (A) which may be very wasteful or we cut (A) and (C) and anger lots of people who threaten political action.
Then Politician (E) say’s hey I can use this against the other political party. The other political party says, “Hold on a minute. That will hurt us.” In the end generally nothing really gets cut although it may not increase as fast for a short time.
Then we tie money to contracts. That sounds like an easy target. “Let’s cut project <> that we all know is wasteful over budget and not needed.” But wait that project is tied to hundreds of jobs and local economies. That will affect the local politician and we again will hurt the poor (C).
Meanwhile we go deeper and deeper in debt. Each administration hoping we will get a booming economy somehow or they will be out of office when the bust hits.
So, pay and benefits may get hit in the short term although I doubt it. But it will become a political football and the losers are the American voters who don’t know which way to turn.
Then Politician (E) say’s hey I can use this against the other political party. The other political party says, “Hold on a minute. That will hurt us.” In the end generally nothing really gets cut although it may not increase as fast for a short time.
Then we tie money to contracts. That sounds like an easy target. “Let’s cut project <> that we all know is wasteful over budget and not needed.” But wait that project is tied to hundreds of jobs and local economies. That will affect the local politician and we again will hurt the poor (C).
Meanwhile we go deeper and deeper in debt. Each administration hoping we will get a booming economy somehow or they will be out of office when the bust hits.
So, pay and benefits may get hit in the short term although I doubt it. But it will become a political football and the losers are the American voters who don’t know which way to turn.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Short answer, No.
The fact that we who serve and volunteer to be part of the minority in the US are considered by others to have it good that is the way society sees it.
Those who have served understand our plight. I am happy that we have more prior service members in congress.
Instead of taking away benefits they should increase our pay and add additional benefits.
For example no taxes for those who have served or are currently serving
The fact that we who serve and volunteer to be part of the minority in the US are considered by others to have it good that is the way society sees it.
Those who have served understand our plight. I am happy that we have more prior service members in congress.
Instead of taking away benefits they should increase our pay and add additional benefits.
For example no taxes for those who have served or are currently serving
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Awhile back there was a lot of discussion that there was a rush to give veterans TOO many benefits. To the point that when you looked at the long term, there would not be enough money. I agree with that assessment. With the WWII generation nearing their end, the Korean War generation taking over and with a rapidly aging Vietnam, the VA will be struggling for funding. Plus some of the idiotic loopholes in the Post 9-11 GI Bill, like the 6 figure helicopter pilot courses, are also hurting us as far as long term VA benefits...because we are talking millions of veterans. Congress is a tiny fraction and so is the senate...a drop in the bucket. If you stripped them of every benefit, you could fund maybe a few thousand veterans out of the pool of millions.
(0)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
With the current changes to NCO expectations as far as education. I suspect that TA will greatly increase over the next few years, especially with the push for more accreditation for military training that directly translates to civilian education.
(1)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
I think the transfer benefits of the Post-911 GI bill are a definite sustain. There is a lot of abuse though with people charging huge sums of money for courses covered under the Post-911 GI Bill.
(0)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
Let's talk about money...on a government scale. A little less money across the whole military will not fund most of our acquisition programs. If everyone currently serving in the military gave up $100 dollars, we could buy 2 FA-18 Super Hornets...but we couldn't afford the associated maintenance cost. 2 FA-18 Super Hornets does not give us much of a strategic advantage. 100 FA-18 Super Hornets would though...at a cost of roughly $10,000 per service member (talking money out of your pocket). Still, that doesn't cover annual maintenance costs.
So, nobody is denying you deserve benefits...but what veterans have asked for and what congress approved on the wave of post 9-11 patriotism is not sustainable. Especially since it is a finite budget. You do not deserve a six figure college education because you served in the military. But that is what is being paid for for some people. Not because they are exceptional, but because they signed up to fly helicopters and they used a loophole.
So, nobody is denying you deserve benefits...but what veterans have asked for and what congress approved on the wave of post 9-11 patriotism is not sustainable. Especially since it is a finite budget. You do not deserve a six figure college education because you served in the military. But that is what is being paid for for some people. Not because they are exceptional, but because they signed up to fly helicopters and they used a loophole.
(0)
(0)
CSM (Join to see)
So what's the price tag you put on the life that was laid down for all of the liberal agenda to boost the social safety net but cut the pay or benefits of those whom provided just that ability. Is there a price you can place on the veterans who did just that for the nation? I agree on too many programs being offered during the last decade but I certainly think many of these were created out of the guilt by the current administration and are clearly unsustainable. Currently the military's main focus is not on war fighting but PC re-doctrination . You add up all the BS and it does matter. I think the best spent money recently was on Bradley Manning hahaaaa!!! That sex change money might have paid for a piece of equipment a Soldier needed. That's just a minute example of the way DoD money is spread around in waste.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google