Is the problem with our federal government due in-part to a lack of veterans in political office?

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:02:28 -0400

Fifty years ago, over 75% of congress (both the house and senate) were military veterans, today it's about 20%... I suggest this impacts decisions on military strength, budget, policies, etc...

Do you believe lacking veterans in congress negatively impacts the Armed Forces?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/by-the-numbers-veterans-in-congress/

By the numbers: Veterans in Congress

The 114th Congress will be made up of 70 current and 11 incoming members of the House who have served or are serving in the U.S. military. Three of the incoming members are Democrats; the other seven are Republicans. A number of veterans who are currently serving in the House decided to retire this year, and a small number lost re-election.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 10:04 AM

ENS Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:04:46 -0400

I absolutely think that a lack of military veterans/representation negatively impacts the Armed Forces; however at the same time, I do agree that there should be a balance between those who served and those who haven't. We definitely need more veterans and prior military leaders in positions of office who can have more of an impact and voice in government.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 4 at 2016 10:06 AM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:06:34 -0400

I would like to see more Veterans in public office, but I don't think it should be the only factor when selecting a candidate.

By the way, those "Veteran" politicians 50 years ago allowed us to be involved in Vietnam.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 4 at 2016 10:20 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:20:59 -0400

Is there any evidence that a former military C-in-C does more for the military than one that's never served? The problem is the system requires that someone has to have substantial means to run and win. You have to be well established in the community in order to get started at the grassroots level. That's difficult to do for many Vets. There are a few, but most of us get caught up in providing for the family. Of course some of that can be mitigated by marriage to a wealthy spouse.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Aug 4 at 2016 10:21 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:21:12 -0400

You are not taking into account the affect of ending the draft. With the draft, we had people serving who, otherwise, would not have. Now, with an all volunteer force, we are seeing these same types of people going straight into college and then into office, without stopping to serve. Is it having a negative affect on the services? I don't think so. I think the leadership within the services are having a more negative affect than the lack of veterans in office.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Aug 4 at 2016 10:25 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:25:08 -0400

Probably in a convoluted way. Definitely affects how the federal government interacts with the Armed Forces, but impact on the rest of government isn't as clear. Obviously military service helps politicians understand the needs of the services and their dependents. Demands and sacrifices that a military member encounters every day simply aren't there in most of the civilian world. Having first hand knowledge of these issues can help when decisions affecting the military are required. On the flip side, since former military members may not be as familiar with the civilian world their impact on non-military issues probably isn't as significant. IMO what military service brings to those in political office is a sense of teamwork and the instinctive desire to accomplish a goal. This is something that has been glaringly absent from federal and state governments for quite some time. I think more veterans in political office could rekindle the spirit of getting things done by politicians.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 4 at 2016 10:26 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:26:19 -0400

Also, here is another factor

For nearly two generations, no American has been obligated to join up, and few do. Less than 0.5 percent of the population serves in the armed forces, compared with more than 12 percent during World War II.May 26, 2013

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Aug 4 at 2016 10:27 AM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:27:39 -0400

Having vets there certainly provides useful perspective. If nothing else, as also in the VA, certainly, you know? Just a thought, many thanks.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 4 at 2016 10:36 AM

SPC Sheila Lewis — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:36:55 -0400

yes.

Response by COL Lee Flemming made Aug 4 at 2016 10:52 AM

COL Lee Flemming — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:52:42 -0400

Great post Dave! I am biased obviously, but I say yes! We spend our careers getting along with people and dealing with situations that we do not like. Definitely food for thought. Are you planning a run?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 11:04 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:04:03 -0400

I don't think it would actually make much difference. Because while a veteran, the congressman is going to have run most likely as either a republican or democrat, not an independent. They then get sucked into the extreme positions of the party. For example, if a repub vet makes a persuasive case for more money for the military, then the next issue is how to pay for it. But as a repub, if his constituents back home view working across the aisle with dems, and compromise as a sign of weakness, he won't be able to actually change anything. He won't be able to say to the dems something like "if you cut this social program by this much, I'll agree to eliminate this tax loophole for rich people, and together that will free up enough money tp pay for this military increase.

That used to be called governing. But now, repubs are hamstrung by their extreme right wing. They can't compromise. They can't eliminate tax loopholes, because that is viewed as a tax increase. So all they can do is either expect the dems to absorb 100% of the cost from cuts to their important programs, or threaten to shut down the government.

That's the sad state of affairs that led us to the sequestration and mindless across the board budget cuts. So any vet elected would likely fall right in line with his party and end up making little to no difference. Sure, a vet could make an impassioned presentation on why a military program should be added, but if when it comes time to pay for it they are constrained by party politics, nothing will change.

Response by Col Dona Marie Iversen made Aug 4 at 2016 11:45 AM

Col Dona Marie Iversen — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:45:31 -0400

100%

We are the folks that practice what we preach "Integrity First, Service before self & Excellence in all we do". Yes, I know these are the AF Core Values..did not memorize the core values are my sister services which are just as important, but you get my point.

Aim High!

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Aug 4 at 2016 12:00 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 12:00:16 -0400

Bureaucrats and congress that have been in office for decades, is the fault that points at US for electing these congress people, that appoint these bureaucrats.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 4 at 2016 12:01 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 12:01:58 -0400

What we need is less government. It's really as simple as that. Compare the health and happiness of Americans and their fortunes (the economy) with the growth in the size and intrusiveness of govt. That's where you'll find your answer. Having Veterans in elected office is nice but unrelated.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 1:48 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:48:05 -0400

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member Sir, During my civilian career, I worked with active duty and veteran personnel. These personnel had discipline and a value system that was a cut above their civilian counterparts. I will say that our Congress would be better if there were more veterans with the values that I observed during my civilian career.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Aug 4 at 2016 2:52 PM

Capt Michael Greene — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 14:52:20 -0400

Long-time military people have above average morals, character, dedication to country, etc. We also tend to be more practical and logical, working for the greater good. So yeah, I'd like to see more people in politics who have military service.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 4 at 2016 4:03 PM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:03:06 -0400

Sorry for my comment about Vietnam. Though I think I spoke the truth, I did not intend to turn this thread into a discussion about that war.
I also served my time in that country. In fact, I have a forum site dedicated to VN veterans:
http://vietnamvetsandfriends.yuku.com/

My point was, just because a politician was a Veteran does not always mean they make the right decisions.

Vietnam Vets and Friends Forums

Vietnam Vets and Friends A meeting place for ANY Vietnam vet, friend, supporter, or anyone who cares to read or say anything about the military, Vietnam, politics, or whatever.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 11:01 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Aug 2016 23:01:55 -0400

It's always been a symptom of "career politicians" running the show. The benefit of having prior military in these positions 50 years ago was these folks had seen the best and, admittedly, the worst of humanity. When they came forth to serve the public, these experiences shaped their principles and mentality. Today, these same experiences do not permeate through Congress. Most have not, nor will ever see the horrors of war. As a result, their decision making is seriously skewed. What results is a Congress with a ~%15 approval rating and individuals completely out-of-touch with reality.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 5 at 2016 8:30 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 08:30:19 -0400

The problem with our Federal government is a serially profound lack of fealty to the oaths sworn by all politicians to support and defend Our Constitution, and the limits it places on their actions and powers.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Aug 5 at 2016 9:09 AM

Maj Walter Kilar — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:09:45 -0400

We need more veterans and/or fewer lawyers in office.

Response by SSgt Paul Esquibel made Aug 6 at 2016 11:11 AM

SSgt Paul Esquibel — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 11:11:09 -0400

I agree sir that those who are making decisions as it related to military need to have some form of military history. This would align well with general understanding of military culture and ideas and welfare of each Branch as well as an understanding of their individual roles within the defense of our country. Additionally I also think those that run for president need to have Law background, whether is a plus or minus as you would know loop holes ect of the law your representing an position that proposes and make laws and you should have an idea how how laws work, it's great that others a successful business owners but running a business is not running a country.

Response by MSgt Mark Bucher made Aug 6 at 2016 6:17 PM

MSgt Mark Bucher — Sat, 06 Aug 2016 18:17:16 -0400

totally agree with that statement. The career politician puts their' reelection ahead of everything else. Even doing what's right for the country.