Air Force Secretary stands up to protect BAH eligibility.

I applaud her as well!

If they were to nix BAH, I wonder how the total compensation package would work with a service member assigned to Fort Irwin, CA versus one assigned to the Pentagon. Totally different cost of living.
I guess there would be a COLA system but then again, BAH is adjusted just like COLA based upon location....

CW5 (Join to see) - Good point

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I still disagree with you, I was in this same issue. I was married to another SM, She drew Full BAH and I drew 1/2 BAH. Nobody will turn down free money. I understand the article and I have always felt the 1.5 BAH for married dual military couple should be disallowed under certain circumstances. What about those dual military couples who are assigned to different duty stations? Should we punish them for the needs of the Service?

I do like how you state "You are wrong on this issue. You may have a point regarding off-base quarters"... I'm guessing by your statement I am 1/2 wrong? lol...

The Government has no "Contractual Obligation" to allow a SM to live off-post. Show me a numbered line item in your enlistment contract where it states that quarters will be provided to you. It doesn't and never has. Quarters are provided at the needs and ability of the Service and depending on the unit, certain Commanders do not allow living off-post. Providing quarters as a dollar value is a ridiculous analogy method.

Where does your "Contractual Obligation" for housing or shelter go when deployed or during a field exercise? Please tell me you have some field training experience CONUS or OCONUS where you slept on the ground whether it be in the sand, brush or snow. Even on the hood of a HMMWV would count.

The point of the discussion comes down to costs; dollars and cents for the entire force. I understand what the AF Sec stated and what the article stated. Dollars are Dollars... She and any politician can stand up and state "we are going to save the program", but in their mind it all comes down to the numbers. BAH needs to be cut 100%, IMO!

BAH is there because it is significantly cheaper to provide people with money to rent off base than it is to build and maintain on base housing in the numbers required. Hence, the reason a significant number of the base housing today is privatized. So really, unless you want people living in tents you really have no valid argument.

You talk about the civilian sector. Are you saying that if someone was to dock your pay that significantly you wouldn't immediately begin to look for other work ? Currently serving members don't have that option.

Total compensation includes BAS and BAH..most military members can claim WIK and other benefits based on actual income not including the allowances.. Yes, military members would qualufy for certain welfare benefits based on salary. So based on your opinion military members should be under or barely over the poverty line. That would be great for retention.

Honestly, its quite sad I'm an E5 with 8 years in and I still don't make what I was making as a civilian as a electrician apprentice. But then again, it isn't all about the money.

Some major wasteful spending!