PDA

View Full Version : Special Forces Soldier Seeks Seat in the US Congress



ODB
04-10-2008, 02:52 AM
I hope this is the right place to put this.


The Special Forces Ass'n (SFA) confirmed in response to an inquiry from the Congressional Quarterly that once elected I will indeed be the first Green Beret to serve in Congress.

I can use all the financial support possible. My pledge to SF personnel and vets in general in return - I've got your back 24/7 down in the snakepit of D.C., and the coffee will always be available for any vet stopping by my office.

The running password will be "TROJAN HORSE."

Jim Steiner

http://www.joinjim2008.com/

From another posting:


Yes, I am fully SF tab qualified. In 1982, since I am now an old guy, when I completed the Q course the tab was not yet out (someone posted the effective date, which is 1983).

Someone else correctly notes you had a choice of the SF tab or the Ranger tab at that time, not both. Like most SF personnel, I probably wore my greens 1-2 times a year, tops. This is the only picture in my greens. I do not have a photo once both tabs were authorized for wear (hell I don't even remember when that occurred, after 1987 or so?).

I branch transferred from Infantry (hence, EIB award) into MI at the time I volunteered for SF - courtesy of the guidance of one of my First Sergeants, then SFC Johnny Holman (5th SFGA - VN) in C Co, 2/1 Inf. at Lewis where I had both a rifle platoon and then a weapons platoon, and SFC Serafin Meno (also 5th SFG-VN), the First Sergeant for B Co, 2/1, next door to me.

As a side note, COL Pete Dillon, recent Cdr, 7th SFGA, had one of the other rifle platoons in the same C Co, 2/1 Inf with me. We were together as 2LTs-1LT. Long time ago.

My first platoon sergeant at Ft. Lewis, and who later served with me at 2/10th as well, was then SSG, and later CSM (ret.) Mike McIntyre, CSM of 5th SFGA during 2001, and through 9/11.

A current reference is BG Al Aycock, now in Korea. Al and I were roommates at West Point. My claim to fame is that I beat him into SF by a year. He stayed longer.

The two first sergeants cornered me and recommended from their observations I volunteer for SF. I respected them, and I volunteered. The rest is history. As soon as SF became its own branch, I joined all the Infantry guys, signed a DF and put crossed arrows on my uniform...again, no photos except the ugly official photo.

Also, in the early 80s, when this photo was taken, the candy stripe still existed for "assigned but non-qualified" personnel. Wearing the full flash, at that time, meant you were fully qualified, so that was another reason not to tear off the Ranger tab...the flash said it.

And yes, as someone else noted, that is not a 7th SFGA oval for the wings, but the official 10th SFGA oval, red border with green center (which I understand now has changed to all green).

Jim Steiner

I think it's about time one of these former warriors made a splash in DC, if that's even possible anymore.

Jedburgh
04-10-2008, 12:52 PM
......I think it's about time one of these former warriors made a splash in DC, if that's even possible anymore.
Well, there was Bob Kerrey, who was a Navy SEAL, VN vet and MoH recipient (http://www.medalofhonor.com/JosephKerrey.htm), who served in the Senate for 12 years.

Although vets tend to be in the minority amongst our reps, there have still been quite a few over the years, both combat vets and those with peacetime service, but they don't always vote along the lines that most may assume from their military backgrounds.

Ultimately, Steiner is a lawyer - which caste already makes up the vast majority of our representation in Congress.

Stan
04-10-2008, 01:51 PM
to see how well our vets take care of each other once they are Senators, Congressmen, or POTUS candidates.

POLITICS-US (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41921): Vets Press McCain to Back Greater Benefits



"It's time for Senator McCain to stand up for veterans, and be a leader," the chairman of VoteVets, Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz, said in a statement. "The success or failure of this bill largely rests on his shoulders. He is the de facto leader of the Republican party. If he signs onto the bill, it will pass and become law. If he doesn't support it, he needs to explain why he doesn't."

McCain's silence on the G.I. Bill may surprise some observers, given the senator's six years behind bars as a former prisoner of war in North Vietnam. On the campaign trail, McCain speaks almost daily about "supporting the troops".

But organisations that have followed the senator's voting record note McCain's actions are rarely in line with the interests of veterans' organisations. In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a failing grade of "D" based on his voting record.

The same year, McCain supported the interests of the group Disabled American Veterans just 20 percent of the time. The main reason for the low scores is a consistent pattern by Senator McCain of voting against appropriating money for veterans' health care and disability payments.

According to Disabled American Veterans (DAV), McCain voted almost a dozen separate times against spending additional money on veterans' health care in 2005 and 2006 -- even as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs.

During that time, McCain voted against expanding mental health care and readjustment counseling for returning service members, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs.

ODB
04-10-2008, 02:42 PM
I agree that most seem "to forget where they came from". As far as McCain goes thought this Newsweek article was interesting but looking to multi source this:

The Perot-McCain relationship goes back to McCain's five and a half years of captivity in Hanoi. When McCain's then-wife Carol was in a serious car accident, McCain's mother called Perot for help. "She asked me to send my people to Philadelphia to take care of the family," Perot says. Afterwards, McCain was grateful. "We loved him [Perot] for it," McCain told me in 2000.

Perot doesn't remember it that way. "After he came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history."

Perot's real problem with McCain is that he believes the senator hushed up evidence that live POWs were left behind in Vietnam and even transferred to the Soviet Union for human experimentation, a charge Perot says he heard from a senior Vietnamese official in the 1980s. "There's evidence, evidence, evidence," Perot claims. "McCain was adamant about shutting down anything to do with recovering POWs."

Full article http://www.newsweek.com/id/94827

Anyone know more on this?

J Wolfsberger
04-10-2008, 02:56 PM
to see how well our vets take care of each other once they are Senators, Congressmen, or POTUS candidates.

POLITICS-US (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41921): Vets Press McCain to Back Greater Benefits

A note of caution on these things: Senators frequently vote against bills they would otherwise support beccause of "poison pill" attachments and riders. I won't condemn McCain for voting against these until I have more detail on why he voted against them.

Steve Blair
04-10-2008, 03:01 PM
A note of caution on these things: Senators frequently vote against bills they would otherwise support beccause of "poison pill" attachments and riders. I won't condemn McCain for voting against these until I have more detail on why he voted against them.

That was my thought as well. It's often hard to say from the outside just what has been hidden in a particular bill.

selil
04-10-2008, 03:26 PM
If military combat is war with bullets, then legislative representation is a war with words. In either case it is better to seek more understanding rather than jump to conclusions that are based on limited information or a biased message.

Tom Odom
04-10-2008, 03:46 PM
True enough that caution is correct but the good Senator does have a track record in thiis arena and it is not one the DAV considers favorable toward veterans issues. That is not to condemn McCain. He may have had reasons as Steve, Sam, and John say. But a dozen or so negative votes on veterans issues needs some 'splaining, Lucy.

Tom

Stan
04-10-2008, 04:27 PM
True enough that caution is correct but the good Senator does have a track record in thiis arena and it is not one the DAV considers favorable toward veterans issues. That is not to condemn McCain. He may have had reasons as Steve, Sam, and John say. But a dozen or so negative votes on veterans issues needs some 'splaining, Lucy.

Tom

I won't come straight out and say that McCain isn't up to something (good). But, but, he indeed has a freaky track record and folks before him did just the very same. I don't outright condemn him, but find similar Vets in office have had very little effect on my military afterlife (in spite of political promises previously made).

John, I'm smokin' in the hot seat wait for those 'reasons'.

BTW, I have never in my life voted for a Democrat and I doubt this year will be any different.

... Lucy, you have sum 'splainin' to du ;)

Tom Odom
04-10-2008, 04:35 PM
Here is a link to key votes (http://capwiz.com/dav/issues/) in Senate and House. Provides a start point for individual research


Lucy:D

J Wolfsberger
04-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Also along these lines, and courtesy of Defense Industry Daily (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/):

The Impact of Recent Political Changes on the Defense Sector (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1038.shtml)

The Role Of Party Politics In Shaping Defense Priorities (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1245.shtml)

Thoughts on the likely impact of the current election cycle.

Cavguy
04-11-2008, 06:09 PM
Brings up the interesting contradictions of the military population. I'm not even always for everything the vet groups want.

Always fascinating to me that most military (esp officers) ID as Republicans, and many are rabid conservatives, but have no opposition to the very socialistic system of military support, and loudly oppose any attempt to change it. A few examples:

1) Oppose national health care as anthema but complain loudly about not having TRICARE for life, and never pay a medical bill for their family. (TRICARE's not great, but see how many people go and buy their own)

2) Vehemently oppose gun control, yet you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base, let alone concealed carry or brandish it.

3) Oppose welfare, but are very happy with the discounted childcare, commissary benefit, (sometimes) discounted shopping, free housing (or a subsidy), free or subsidized education and college tuition (GI Bill or TA), etc.

Of course, we're different, since we get shot at. We are "entitled" to the benefits. But I'm fascinated at the sense of entitlement some who "served their country selflessly at great risk" (as volunteers) develop to more and more "free" benefits, and anyone who opposes must be anti-vet.

Note: this is not in opposition to such things as VA care for those with service related injuries and such. I'm talking benefits and entitlements.

Don't get me wrong, I think most all of the above are appropriate compensation, and valuable at keeping an AVF manned. But I don't understand the political opposition to those who wish similar benefits for the population, and the ideological contempt that seems to follow. Especially the large support for the NRA and the military's regs on firearms posession and registration on bases, which are commander's policies.

Ken White
04-11-2008, 06:25 PM
...

1) Oppose national health care as anthema but complain loudly about not having TRICARE for life, and never pay a medical bill for their family. (TRICARE's not great, but see how many people go and buy their own)

2) Vehemently oppose gun control, yet you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base.

3) Oppose welfare, but are very happy with the discounted childcare, comissary benefit, (sometimes) discounted shopping, free housing (or a subsidy), free education and college tuition (GI Bill or TA), etc.

Don't and won't use Tri Care, commissary or exchange -- far as I'm concerned they're for the guys and gals currently serving. Think the retirement scheme should be contributory and portable.

I'd also note that no one ever promised me life time health care.
Note: this is not in opposition to such things as VA care for those with service related injuries and such. I'm talking benefits and entitlements.Agreed.
... Especially the large support for the NRA and the military's regs on firearms posession and registration on bases, which are commander's policies.We probably differ a bit on that one, though I'd note that back in my youth the prevalence of privately owned weapons, Army and Marines, was humungous. I carried various pistols in Korea (peace and war), the Dominican Republic, Viet Nam and elsewhere. I was far from alone. That didn't start changing until the 70s. I've also met a surprising number of officers and NCOs who do NOT support the NRA and individual ownership of weapons for some odd reason. I know Norm put out the word during DS/DS that privately owned weapons were not to be allowed in theater. I suspect it's gotten worse since then...

Steve Blair
04-11-2008, 06:27 PM
Brings up the interesting contradictions of the military population. I'm not even always for everything the vet groups want.

Always fascinating to me that most military (esp officers) ID as Republicans, and many are rabid conservatives, but have no opposition to the very socialistic system of military support, and loudly oppose any attempt to change it. A few examples:

1) Oppose national health care as anthema but complain loudly about not having TRICARE for life, and never pay a medical bill for their family. (TRICARE's not great, but see how many people go and buy their own)

2) Vehemently oppose gun control, yet you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base, let alone concealed carry or brandish it.

3) Oppose welfare, but are very happy with the discounted childcare, comissary benefit, (sometimes) discounted shopping, free housing (or a subsidy), free education and college tuition (GI Bill or TA), etc.

Of course, we're different, since we get shot at. We are "entitled" to the benefits. But I'm fascinated at the sense of entitlement some who "served their country selflessly at great risk" (as volunteers) develop to more and more "free" benefits, and anyone who opposes must be anti-vet.

Note: this is not in opposition to such things as VA care for those with service related injuries and such. I'm talking benefits and entitlements.

Don't get me wrong, I think most all of the above are appropriate compensation, and valuable at keeping an AVF manned. But I don't understand the political opposition to those who wish similar benefits for the population, and the ideological contempt that seems to follow. Especially the large support for the NRA and the military's regs on firearms posession and registration on bases, which are commander's policies.

Always found this rather interesting myself. Good points, and possibly an interesting starting point for discussion.

Being a civilian state employee working with the military, I always find it interesting to see what they complain about and don't understand about the outside world. We have NCOs here complaining about their pay, but they don't understand that their housing allowances are more (in one case...and damned close in the other) than my take home pay. They almost keel over when they find out that we don't GET housing allowances or COLA, and that we have to pick our own insurance. They can't even comprehend working somewhere where the only way to get a promotion is to change jobs. Period.

The above is my pet rant, and comes with the mod hat firmly off. I've met plenty of military folks who do understand what they have, and often wonder how us on the outside make it without that safety net.

tequila
04-11-2008, 08:33 PM
It's no accident that Lenin organized the Bolshevik Party on an explicitly military pattern.

Ron Humphrey
04-11-2008, 10:29 PM
It's no accident that Lenin organized the Bolshevik Party on an explicitly military pattern.

I just figured it was cause he thought me might actually need the military in order to get anywhere with it.:eek:

Stan
04-12-2008, 06:44 AM
Frankly, when I joined in the 70s I recall these benefits to be contractual aspects; just as I was bound by this contract so was/is the USG. I've yet to have a need for TRICARE, but I certainly won't dismiss any medical or financial assistance should the need arise. Whether I use my retired benefits or not, is irrelevant; they are mine and I have no intentions of reducing them one iota.

Times have certainly changed regarding off-base quarters allowances. I barely got by with mine and shared a 2 bedroom apartment with another NCO in order to make ends meet. Glad to see the Army figured out we were starving paying for gas and electricity off base.

Been an NRA life member for nearly 2 decades now. That however does not translate into me advocating all their niches and constant requests for donations for firepower on the Hill. Having spent most of my childhood hunting, some of my childhood in NE D.C. and years abroad, only the crazies and criminals are not subject to/abide by morals and laws. Punishing me will not change that scenario. I carry to this day for that very reason :cool:

I was quite pleased with being able to securely store my firearms with the provost marshal. After a great day of trap or skeet we'd hang out in the arms room cleaning and chattin' ! Great company those non-law abidin', gun-carryin' fanatics in fatiques :D

Norfolk
04-12-2008, 02:28 PM
I can remember a time when the personnel possession of firearms was actually still encouraged in the Canadian Army. Pistols, shotguns, and of course rifles (the AR-15 Delta H-Bar and similar models were fairly popular in my old Regiment), as well as the use thereof in the off-hours was a practice that was smiled upon. Indeed, the old Infantry Patrolling PAM (the 1976 edition of B-GL-309-004/FT-001) explicitly stated that soldiers were to be encouraged to carry their own personal weapons of choice in addition to issue-weapons, admittedly as much for the pyschological/morale effect as any other.

But a shotgun could sure be handy on a patrol in da woods or in dee swomp.:D

I'm not sure that the US military, certainly at the lower ranks, is quite as well off as it could be. Certainly in Canada, anyone below the rank of Corporal could find themselves struggling if they had a family, and even some folks with rank might find themselves moonlighting delivering pizzas or working security. That's been the case since the late '60s, and despite some recent pay increases, I'm not aware that the problem has been eliminated; in the 90's, it was a problem that had gotten so bad that even the national media picked up on it, which is extraordinary considering the stolid indifference, even hostility, of the media here to the military until just the past few years. SISIP, the catastrophic health/disability insurance program that Canadian troops pay into, has also had a bit of a checkered record over the last decade and a half.

I wish Steiner well; Maj-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie ran as a Conservative a few years ago here in Ontario, but sadly lost, although the past MND, Brig-Gen. O'Connor is still in Parliament, and did some good work.

120mm
04-16-2008, 07:03 AM
I would rather have a competent politician who promotes other, non-veterans interests than one who kowtows to supposed "Veteran's" groups.

In fact, I have a strenuous opposition to US government employees forming groups and/or unions to "lobby their own paycheck" from the public largesse and will not join them while still serving.

I "might" join the American Legion when I retire, but not before.

Umar Al-Mokhtār
04-16-2008, 07:33 PM
We have NCOs here complaining about their pay, but they don't understand that their housing allowances are more (in one case...and damned close in the other) than my take home pay.

is due to the various service’s "Times" magazines having periodic "how your pay stacks up" issues that attempt to show that service members are not equitably compensated when compared to equivalent occupations in the civilian world. I find those articles generally to be a crock of feces. :cool:

Steve, you might point out to them also that their BAH and BAS are tax free as well. Military members do not pay for health insurance nor have “co-pays” when they go to sick-call. They do not have to participate in a retirement fund yet are guaranteed 50% of their base pay at 20.

I have yet to hear of a company that pays 100% of your medical costs, provides you a tax free housing and meals stipend, and has a pretty generous retirement package that requires zero contribution from you.

Stan
04-16-2008, 07:49 PM
... you might point out to them also that their BAH and BAS are tax free as well. Military members do not pay for health insurance nor have “co-pays” when they go to sick-call. They do not have to participate in a retirement fund yet are guaranteed 50% of their base pay at 20.

Some strong points regarding BAQ/BAS, but then those soldiers (assuming there's room) could live on base literally free of charge. I think the Viet Nam era 50% is no longer...more like 40% at 20, but no longer a cap at 75% for 30 years TIS.



I have yet to hear of a company that pays 100% of your medical costs, provides you a tax free housing and meals stipend, and has a pretty generous retirement package that requires zero contribution from you.

I've yet to hear of a civilian company asking you to risk your life, or kill others in exchange for medical, dental, education, food (if you'd like to call it that). I reckon that is fairly generous :wry:

Well, there is Blackwater :rolleyes:

Tom Odom
04-16-2008, 08:07 PM
is due to the various service’s "Times" magazines having periodic "how your pay stacks up" issues that attempt to show that service members are not equitably compensated when compared to equivalent occupations in the civilian world. I find those articles generally to be a crock of feces.

Steve, you might point out to them also that their BAH and BAS are tax free as well. Military members do not pay for health insurance nor have “co-pays” when they go to sick-call. They do not have to participate in a retirement fund yet are guaranteed 50% of their base pay at 20.

I have yet to hear of a company that pays 100% of your medical costs, provides you a tax free housing and meals stipend, and has a pretty generous retirement package that requires zero contribution from you

While I agree that comparisons go too far, I would submit that offering an equally false comparision between military life and civilian life does not help either. On both sides of the issue, comparisions are used to further agendas that do not translate well because their points of origin are vastly different.

As a cautionary example, if you remember some bright young staffer early in the 1st Clinton White House decided that military moves were really a benefit that should be calculated in your annual salary and taxed. That got tossed out the window pretty quickly but only because the military and military advocacy groups weighed in.

Going back to Cav's original point, that service members can be quite dismissive of others benefit programs even as the service members enjoy benefits that are quite good. I have found that to be quite true, especially among the officer corps when labor issues are discussed. Working in a military and civilian environment as a military retiree surfaces similar tensions. Such things will never go away. But they still must be discussed and worked out openly lest they get completely out of hand.

We as military are hardly unique in this regard. FSOs are in my opinion great folks for the most part; that said, they can be overly focused on making sure they get theirs and some of everybody elses cake when it comes to various perks. The same holds true for other groups.

Finally I would say that what constitute as a service members benefit package today is dramatically different than where it was 30 years ago when I started (even more so when Ken carved his X on a stone tablet). So even as we compare our military apples we need to realize that the types of apples vary greatly. The great leveling, of course, takes place when you retire.

Tom

Umar Al-Mokhtār
04-16-2008, 08:07 PM
but then again no one was pointing a gun at my head when I lashed up with Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. Well, maybe there was jail time subtly implied... :rolleyes:

Plus the odds of actually being shot at diminish considerably as you get further down the DoD tail, which is large. :p

"...kill others in exchange for medical, dental, education, food." Are you sure you're not a recruiter? That's a great selling point, almost as good as "Travel to strange and exotic places, meet unusual and fascinating peoples, and kill them!" :D

Ken White
04-16-2008, 08:14 PM
...Plus the odds of actually being shot at diminish considerably as you get further down the DoD tail, which is large. :pfor those that seek the tail, I guess that's true. Not everyone does.
"...kill others in exchange for medical, dental, education, food." Are you sure you're not a recruiter? That's a great selling point, almost as good as "Travel to strange and exotic places, meet unusual and fascinating peoples, and kill them!" :DBoth are good, either will work -- both are true.

As Tom says, there've been a lot of changes over the past few years, not all for the good though most are, but there still is that word 'kill' involved. Not even the Cops have that...

Umar Al-Mokhtār
04-16-2008, 08:30 PM
Tom, I agree that trying to compare military life to civilian is one of apples to oranges, but that is often an exercise in semantics to an enlisted military techno-weenie who has pretty much a "normal" work week with minimal chance of deploying. We all have encountered the type. There are folks who's MOS rarely takes them out of the NCR.

I do not feel that national health care is an anathema but I do feel it should be approached very carefully or we’ll end up like the Canadians, no offense to Norfolk, Rex, and our other northern members. :o

While I do oppose gun control I have pondered the fact as to why you can't have an unregistered firearm on a military base. Then again not every military regulation makes sense, especially to a libertarian.

“Of course, we're different, since we get shot at.” Even that applies to a small percentage of military personnel so using it as leverage to extract more veterans benefits is a stretch.

Trying to man an all volunteer force requires more expenditure overall. Plus 30 years ago when we signed up there were fewer dependents (and when Ken lashed up camp followers had no official recognition). DoD over the years has had to react to the huge increase in it’s “population” that I believe it did not adequately foresee.

Umar Al-Mokhtār
04-16-2008, 08:37 PM
for those that seek the tail, I guess that's true. Not everyone does.

There are many more than before who, while they may not seek the tail, are more than happy remaining there. While there are still many warriors in the military today, not all in the military are warriors. I have found that sometimes it seems easier to find the tail rather than the tooth.

Ken White
04-16-2008, 08:52 PM
been fewer fighters (I have absolutely no use for the term 'warrior') than there have others in the armed forces and that tendency has increased over the years. Those folks are needed so that's really okay -- as long as they stay out of combat units; it's only when they get assigned to combat elements that they become problems...

Our personnel systems, Army and the Corps, refuse to recognize that little problem.

Ken White
04-16-2008, 08:57 PM
"...and when Ken lashed up camp followers had no official recognition.."They got paid for doing the laundry and drew a half ration for the women, quarter ration for the kids -- who were expected to gather firewwod... :D

Alexander said we had to do that, it was only fair...;)

Stan
04-16-2008, 09:07 PM
"...kill others in exchange for medical, dental, education, food." Are you sure you're not a recruiter? That's a great selling point, almost as good as "Travel to strange and exotic places, meet unusual and fascinating peoples, and kill them!" :D

To date, Tom has probably the best selling point available... "hangin' with French and American Volcano Dudes" in the middle of a civil war, genocide and refugee crisis, in Goma, Zaire. Talk about war stories ;)


for those that seek the tail, I guess that's true.

Hmmm...Seeking Tail....??? I may need to borrow that one for my next class on NATO slang :cool:

Umar Al-Mokhtār
04-16-2008, 09:17 PM
the campaign leading to the fall of the Achaemenid Persian Empire was pretty rough. :eek:

I think Tom has many of us beat for long term pastoral postings rife with potential for possible penetration by pointy objects propelled by means other than gunpowder. Although there's allot to be said for the French attitude on fine dining in a combat zone. ;)

ODB
04-16-2008, 11:10 PM
My only real complaint with pay today is BAH. IMO everyone should be afforded the same basic standard of living. Every soldier at a particular base should receive the same. Doesn't make sense that the higher ranking I get the more I get for housing. I believe we should all be afforded the same standard and as I get promoted if I want to exceed that, it is up to me to use my money to do so.

If I take my BAH and BAS out of my check, I make far less than any civilian counterpart who has been doing the same job for as long as I have. (16 years).

My final say on the matter is, I am at a point where I do not make bad money, but it does not make up for the times I've missed. In 9 years I have been home for 1 of my daughters birthdays. Rarely get to participate in her school activities, parent teacher conferences, etc... I will be the first to say "Yes I chose to do this and continue to choose to do this because it's what I enjoy doing and is the right thing to do." Is there more money in the private sector for me, definately but money isn't everything. You have to find a balance.

To address those on the tooth and those on the tail.....well in a perfect world those on the tooth would be paid accordingly and those on the tail would as well. I and my co-workers ask why we choose this over some in the rear with the gear job. Answer is quite simple, we don't know, somehow we are wired to enjoy our life and job over easier ones, it's in our nature.

Tom Odom
04-17-2008, 01:46 PM
the campaign leading to the fall of the Achaemenid Persian Empire was pretty rough.

I think Tom has many of us beat for long term pastoral postings rife with potential for possible penetration by pointy objects propelled by means other than gunpowder. Although there's allot to be said for the French attitude on fine dining in a combat zone. ;)

please portray precisely your personal point in positing a possible penetration of my posterior by punative perverts possessing primitive preferences for non-procreational practices prohibited in more pacific provinces....:eek:

120mm
04-17-2008, 01:55 PM
My only real complaint with pay today is BAH. IMO everyone should be afforded the same basic standard of living. Every soldier at a particular base should receive the same. Doesn't make sense that the higher ranking I get the more I get for housing. I believe we should all be afforded the same standard and as I get promoted if I want to exceed that, it is up to me to use my money to do so.

I couldn't disagree with this more. Unless you WANT to encourage people to leave as they actually get families, etc..

There are several things they charge more for, just because you have a higher rank, and I don't have a problem with that, as well.

ODB
04-17-2008, 05:47 PM
I couldn't disagree with this more. Unless you WANT to encourage people to leave as they actually get families, etc..

There are several things they charge more for, just because you have a higher rank, and I don't have a problem with that, as well.

My basis for this is how BAH is figured. Somewhere along the way the Army decided what ranks deserve what standard of housing. Why are all soldiers not allowed the same standard of living? Quick one over the world on this is: 1. the only enlisted rank authorized the standard of his own house is an E-9, everyone else is authorized the standard of an apartment or townhouse. 2. the only officer not allowed the standard of his own house is a 2LT. Figure that one out.

As far as families go add a per dependent rate as there is a difference between 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom, etc...

My basis for this is the fact an E-4 and below with families are the ones needing more money in BAH not E-7 and above. It's really quite simple pay everyone on the post the same amount. So with post housing now being privatized an E-1 pays all his BAH to housing to cover his cost and an E-5 living in the exact same style house on post pays all his BAH to housing to cover his cost. Why is he paying more for the same exact residence, because he is payed more so he must pay more? How can it cost to house more to house an E-5 than an E-3 in the same exact style house? Many years ago when I first got to Ft. Campbell post house was for E-4 and above only.

I should have interjected my original posting with the additional information that formed the basis of this thought.

120mm
04-18-2008, 06:50 AM
Well, I guess I object to paying an E-3 extra just because he was dumb enough to pop out more kids. Back when I started, if you decided to have kids as an E-3 you did it without command sponsorship.

I agree on billing extra just because of your rank. I think BAH should be figured on rank and time-in-grade only, which is exactly how the "rest of the world" operates.

Ken White
04-18-2008, 04:15 PM
to stay single...

Paying soldiers of any rank to get married is just dumb. Pay should be totally marriage irrelevant. The current pay system was designed to cope with a large draftee Army in the low cost 1940s. Those days are long gone yet the pay system remains...

We should also be able to reward people for doing a good job with more money as opposed to only be able to reward through promotions. Feeding the Peter Principle is also dumb.

In 1967, there was a move to rectify the problem and one of the things that was included was a contributory -- and portable -- retirement system. The senior folks, officer and enlisted conspired to beat that down on the nominal basis of 'breaking faith' (even though anyone with over 10 years would have been grandfathere) but the actual rationale of not eliminating the capture and hold effect of the 20-30 year retirement system. Stupid and shortsighted.

120mm
04-19-2008, 10:46 AM
Ken, your point brings me to a pet project of mine: In my imaginary Army, pay would be incentivized to a point to where a high-quality machinegunner would earn as much, if not more than a low-quality platoon leader. And screw "up or out".

And very, very much agreed on doing away with the current retirement program. A 401(k) - like portable fund with a generous match would be a better deal, especially for those who aren't in it for the 20 or 30 year retirement.

Tacitus
04-24-2008, 03:41 PM
Fraud costs military health program $100 million plus
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=139968

Crooked Phillipino doctors combined with corrupt U.S. military retirees to file fraudulent claims with Tricare. Here's a pithy quote:

"I know this is illegal and wrong to submit fraudulent claims to get money, but I did it for fun," U.S. Navy retiree Romulo Estoesta told investigators. He died in 2002.

One man's socialism is another man's just desserts. And vice versa.