2
2
0
The suggestions in this piece are not designed to offend anyone, but to express what may be one of many solutions to the problems that face our military's economic situation.
I know that this will piss some people off, and I know this sounds heartless, but I support cuts in the Family Services for the Military.
I do ask for those who disagree with this commentary, Please give you reasons.
An anonymous "THUMBS DOWN" doesn't exactly add to a discussion.
The Military was never designed to be Welfare Program for the under privileged, yet the DoD spends Billions on just that. I remember when I was a young Sergeant, there was an unmarried female soldier who had 3 kids from three different fathers who was a lower rank than myself.
BTW: she was with child again by an unknown assailant.
The Army rewarded her for her promiscuous behavior by giving her an allowance so she could live in Off Base Housing. She also received money for separate Rations, this was in Germany so she also received an increase on her Rations Card for her PX and Commissary Privileges. Also she was granted an increase in pay for her Dependents. In a nut shell, this SINGLE[unmarried} lower enlisted soldier was making more money than a Single NCO [who is required to live in the barracks] by a substantial amount.
Today we have an ALL VOLUNTEER Force, we do not depend on The Draft to fill the ranks of our Armed Services. The Military can afford and should be more selective as to who they will allow to enter into service, and IMHO, All ACTIVE DUTY Recruits must be Unmarried and may not marry until they have been promoted to an NCO. I also believe that a soldier should not be promoted from E-4 to E-5 until their first reenlistment. Sorry Guys and Gals, but due to the cuts only Career Soldiers should be considered for these Finite Slots.
If you are married and want to serve your country, join the Reserves or National Guard. As they used to say,
"If the Army wanted you to have a Wife, It would have Issued you one."
Thank You ALL for Your Service.
"If the Army wanted you to have a Wife, It would have Issued you one."
Thank You ALL for Your Service.
DoD
Enlisted
Budget
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
Suspended Profile
SGT Frank.
The military life imposes numerous very severe strains on the service member that civilian employment does not even begin to approach. The meager salary of our enlisted personnel, exceptionally long absence from home during deployments and foreign sea duty, risk of serious disease / injury / disfigurement / disability / maiming / death, the risk of unbearably long extended MIA / POW status, routine repeated moves every few years, and many other difficulties mandate the provision of family support to put food on some tables, provide for dependent medical care, psychological adjustment support for the servicemember / family members in preparation for departure and return to family life, etc.
While there are those who may be perceived to be taking advantage of the system, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, preserve what is good and eliminate waste from the family support system. But, do not discard the time tested family support system!!!
For their part, spouses and families provide a reason to return home, provide informal psychological support, and help our troops heal from both visible and invisible wounds of war. Many of us believe spouses and families provide an essential source of security and stability for service men and women without which we would be hard pressed to carry on.
Do we really want to confine our active duty military recruiting to individuals who either have not or cannot establish one long lasting intellectually, emotionally, and romantically satisfying relationship? Many of us believe that married men and women provide role models, maturity, sense of security and stability for our younger troops who may be in search of something more human in life. Do we want a military composed primarily of young unattached men and women?
Without spouses and families, who is going to provide the necessary long term care for our wounded service members when they are discharged from hospital to return to their homes?
Family services are in a sense compensation provided to support helpful healing family life.
Warmest Regards, Sandy
SGT Gary Frank
Hello Sandy,<div>I do understand the stress that comes along with being in the Military and I appreciate those whom have made the sacrifice to serve our country. I do maintain however that because the Draft is not under implementation and budgetary resources are limited, the military can be more selective to fill its ranks by placing tighter constraints on New Recruits. <br><br>Retention should be on a case basis and at the discretion of the commander and his/her staff. If a soldier feels that Commands recommendation is Non-Retention, the soldier should be given the opportunity for an Appeal. <br><br>I didn't say that 1st termers should not barred from serving their country, I suggest that they join the Reserves or Nat'l Guard instead, especially now since we are hearing stories of Active Duty personnel finding it necessary to apply for Food Stamps. That is an outrage. The same thing occurred during the 70's and makes our country look as though it is run by a bunch of idiots. [No Comment]</div><div><br></div><div>Family Services are not and should not ever go away, but they do need to be reformed. I merely floored a suggestion and would like to hear other suggestions.</div><div><br></div><div>Sentiment Returned, Thank you for your service Sandy,</div><div>Gary <br></div>
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
How about something a little different, instead of saying 'you can't be married', how about extending the current stabilization drive?
Get away from the current 2-3-4 year enlistment options, and move to a 10 year contractual military obligation, with 5 or 6 years inital active duty?
Instead of rotating personnel every couple years, only move service members with a new contract, every 5 or 6 years.
A prospective servicemember is going to think a lot harder about joining if they are going in with the expectation of 10 years of service, moreso than a teenager expecting to join for 4 years and then 'move on with their life'.
likewise a servicemember who could expect to be at the same duty station for 5 years, working for the same people, I would like to think they would make a greater investment in the unit than if the commander is rotating every year or two and they expect to be gone not too long after him or her.
Combine that with a (slightly) more discriminatory recrutiing and retention policy - screen better for gang affiliations or potentially unsuitable candidates, and the services might be able to stabilize with a more invested force.
Get away from the current 2-3-4 year enlistment options, and move to a 10 year contractual military obligation, with 5 or 6 years inital active duty?
Instead of rotating personnel every couple years, only move service members with a new contract, every 5 or 6 years.
A prospective servicemember is going to think a lot harder about joining if they are going in with the expectation of 10 years of service, moreso than a teenager expecting to join for 4 years and then 'move on with their life'.
likewise a servicemember who could expect to be at the same duty station for 5 years, working for the same people, I would like to think they would make a greater investment in the unit than if the commander is rotating every year or two and they expect to be gone not too long after him or her.
Combine that with a (slightly) more discriminatory recrutiing and retention policy - screen better for gang affiliations or potentially unsuitable candidates, and the services might be able to stabilize with a more invested force.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I understand most of your points - and have seen folks take advantage of the system…because they could. The Army does do ALOT for their Soldiers. One would be hard pressed to find a civilian employer who offers 1/2 the benefits the Army offers its Soldiers.
I had a SFC (single) come to me for an AER loan to pay his bills. I denied it for obvious reasons. I had my 1LT PL counsel his SFC PSG on how to maintain a budget because he was living above his means…there was a 15-20 year age gap between the two.
However - I don't agree that all Active Duty Recruits must be unmarried. There are plenty of Army Recruits that are in their 25-30s that come in the Army…married…and do just fine. You would have a hard time convincing anyone (who could actually make that happen) to make that an entrance standard.
(2)
(0)
SGT Gary Frank
With all due respect MAJ. My point isn't whether or not Recruits are doing Fine, it's about the money invested for each soldier. The Military spends Billions to Transport and House Military Personnel and their Families. If the PCS is to an overseas location the cost is far greater.
Another area where the Military Budget takes a bite is when a single soldier [who holds a Clearance because his/her MOS/Duty station requires it] marries a Foreign National. First and Foremost, that soldiers Clearance is suspended or pulled, and are placed on Duty where the Commander can put them. Unfortunately the MTOE slot which is filled only on paper is now vacant and that section is now undermanned. In Addition, now we have a soldier who not only do the job He/She was trained to perform, but the expense for that soldier to get a Clearance is now wasted. But we'll award them extra pay to get married, live out of the barracks [Housing Allowance] and get separate RATS and grant access for their dependents to Military Medical Facilities. There simply isn't enough money to sustain a large capable fighting force and Day Care for their Kids.
Another area where the Military Budget takes a bite is when a single soldier [who holds a Clearance because his/her MOS/Duty station requires it] marries a Foreign National. First and Foremost, that soldiers Clearance is suspended or pulled, and are placed on Duty where the Commander can put them. Unfortunately the MTOE slot which is filled only on paper is now vacant and that section is now undermanned. In Addition, now we have a soldier who not only do the job He/She was trained to perform, but the expense for that soldier to get a Clearance is now wasted. But we'll award them extra pay to get married, live out of the barracks [Housing Allowance] and get separate RATS and grant access for their dependents to Military Medical Facilities. There simply isn't enough money to sustain a large capable fighting force and Day Care for their Kids.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
If you look at the entire DOD budget since 1962 - personnel and housing has remained fairly consistent as a percentage of the entire DOD budget. Now in 2013 - it's an issue?
I understand your points, and agree that the Army needs a reduction in end strength. There will obviously be a large reduction in end-strength (down to 450,000…possibly lower for the Army)…which will reduce the personnel and housing budget for the Army.
(2)
(0)
SGT Gary Frank
MAJ,
You do have a valid argument, and I submit that my suggestion [opinion] is not the only cure-all for solving the Military's budget problem. I do however stand by the Idea that the Military does spends more money on Dependent Care than is necessary and doesn't do enough to filter out those taking advantage of the system. Which brings up E/O in the topic.
The graph that you supplied is helpful to support you position, but... [please do not think that I am trying to be a smart ass] but I have created numerous databases myself and know how data can be manipulated. Unfortunately neither of us are privy to the raw data nor the criteria selected in the output.
The graph that you supplied is helpful to support you position, but... [please do not think that I am trying to be a smart ass] but I have created numerous databases myself and know how data can be manipulated. Unfortunately neither of us are privy to the raw data nor the criteria selected in the output.
My opinion naturally is based upon my own observations and experience when I was in uniform. I have seen how the Military wastes money and allows itself to be taken advantage of. I am sure that you too have been witness to this.
Down sizing alone will not cure the military's budget problems, it will only make them dormant in appearance. What needs to be done is a complete audit of the budget and truly cut the fat and stop encouraging wasteful practices.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SGT Frank - agree on all points.
Can only hope that OMB used accurate numbers and didn't manipulate the data.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google