Special Forces Soldier Seeks Seat in the US Congress

[Stan]

... 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

Well, there is Blackwater

[Tom Odom]

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]

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...

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

"...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!"

[Ken White]

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

for 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!"

Both 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

"...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...

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

[Stan]

"...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!"

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

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

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.

[ODB]

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]

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....

[120mm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.