Less than 1% of us are military. Is cutting our benefits the answer?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:12:15 -0400

The vote for the Defense spending bill looms and Congress is talking about cutting even more of our benefits. Less pay? Less BAH? No Tricare? Is cutting 10-20 billion from the defense spending budget over the next 10 years really worth taking all these benefits from us? Is it fair that Congress can enjoy subsidized gyms, salons, rental cars, and air travel, all on our dime? And yet there are some members of Congress who say they don't get paid enough. Rank and file members make about 174k a year. Leadership positions make even more. Speaker of the House makes 220k+ a year. Should Congress take a pay hit before stripping our families of our hard earned benefits?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 3:15 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:15:31 -0400

Only if you want that number to be even less than less than 1%. We are already at pre-WWI levels.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jun 9 at 2015 3:16 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:16:52 -0400

its not the answer, neither is cutting welfare. The tax breaks for mega corps should be taken away, they can afford to pay a little extra.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 9 at 2015 3:20 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0400

It is a mistake to cut benefits for those that volunteer to go into harms way to defend the rest of the population.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jun 9 at 2015 3:23 PM

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:23:01 -0400

The more I hear about what our country and government is doing to the active military members, veterans, and retirees, the more I get frustrated with the politics and our leadership in Congress and the Executive Office. Someone needs to wake these guys up.

We have a lot of RP members on this site today, we need to have a way to send letters to our congressman demanding that they start listening to the people, the military members, veterans, and retirees. If anyone, we should be heard

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 3:23 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:23:47 -0400

No. It isn't the answer.

There seems to be very little public outcry, however, regarding these things.

This makes the < 1% the most vulnerable population--we simultaneously shoulder the burden of war, however, we also find ourselves as political pawns, with, it would seem, very few advocates (at times, although, I know we do have veteran/military advocacy organizations).

I do think a majority of Americans do ascribe to the "Support the Troops" mantra, but, remember, we are wrapping up over a decade of war. This has left fatigued/tired service members, and history shows that public support can only sustain any war effort for so long....that public support seems to gradually diminish, year-after-year, no matter how justified a war effort.

Even when I re-post stories of these things on Facebook, it's like squeezing blood from an orange trying to get friends to care. People have 'moved on', in my opinion, from the sense of national pride and unity that they embraced right after 9/11. Firefighters, EMTs, and U.S. Soldiers were literally heroes in the majority of the public's eyes.

I can't even get my friends to take a few seconds to sign a petition nowadays.

Caitlyn Jenner and Justin Beiber consume their news feeds and attention.

One thing is for sure, I'm not a big fan of either the Republicans or the Democrats right now.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 9 at 2015 3:25 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:25:15 -0400

No, they need to look at where the money is actually going first. You just can't take one segment of the population and cut its benefits because their name was picked out of that hat this week (which wouldn't surprise me if it were done that way)

I've made that exact same point SSG Private RallyPoint Member. Let he ready to make the first cut, first cut himself. Like any IT department, we're seen as a drain on resources because we don't show direct ROI. You win a war or snatch a terrorist and that gets us a few more miles and a few bucks from the headlines but after that it's, why do you need a new tank, why do you need more soldiers, why do you need more ammo to train with? Just like the civilian world mentality, if you aren't contributing to the bottom line, you're the first dept that should endure the cuts - the philosophy of bean counting 101.

Response by SFC Bhrett Sikkema made Jun 9 at 2015 3:31 PM

SFC Bhrett Sikkema — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:31:43 -0400

Cutting vet benefits is never a good thing. Those that have served earned them and the government needs to live up to its promises. That being said there is one aspect of the defense budget that is totally out of control. We used to see jocks about it in the late 80's and early 90's, the $500 screw driver and $1000 hammer. The acquisition process is still screwed up to this day. The perfect example is the billions of dollars spent on the F-35, and it still is not right. Someone needs to teach the DoD how to write and enforce a contract.

Response by SrA Johnathan Kropke made Jun 9 at 2015 3:46 PM

SrA Johnathan Kropke — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 15:46:14 -0400

I agree with everyone who has already posted that cutting our benefits will not help. I just read, however, that the subcommittee approved to increase spending in FY16. This may be a little bit of an upside if the increase spending also means that our wages and benefits will not be affected.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jun 9 at 2015 4:05 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:05:38 -0400

In a nutshell, no it's not the answer. Basically, that's a hidden tax on the military.

Problem is, cutting the defense is politically expedient for those politicians on both sides of the aisle. Most Americans will think of themselves first when it comes time to cut spending, and considering that we are such a small footprint, the numbers are already working against us. Then, combined with the fact that service members come from all around the country, and vote all around the country (mostly through absentee voting), we therefore make up a small voting bloc in most districts too. While you may find some exceptions (like in Texas, NC, VA, WA namely), we're too diffused around the rest of the country. This used to be a "left" issue, because politicians on the left de-prioritized military spending. Now, it's a "left and right" issue, because politicians on the right are going after all government spending. Defense hawks are becoming few and far in-between.

Cutting the politicians' pay will have minimal effect, other than being symbolic. First, there aren't many of them, so any savings would be minuscule, even if you eliminated their pay and benefits. Second, most of them are wealthy anyways. They don't serve for the pay. Heck, over half of the people in Congress are millionaires. Third, they have campaign funds that subsidize their lifestyle.

Not sure there's an easy answer on this, other than a combination of less spending elsewhere and additional tax revenue. It's a big crap sandwich, and all of American should have to take a bite.

Response by Sgt Mark Ramos made Jun 9 at 2015 4:19 PM

Sgt Mark Ramos — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:19:33 -0400

The idea of these types of cuts, or increases, usually are born at the Pentagon (executive branch). Requests are made and suggested for congress to consider. The question gives the impression that congress wants to cut benefits, when in fact it is the White House.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 4:43 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:43:26 -0400

Hell to tha NO!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 4:57 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:57:30 -0400

Awhile back there was a lot of discussion that there was a rush to give veterans TOO many benefits. To the point that when you looked at the long term, there would not be enough money. I agree with that assessment. With the WWII generation nearing their end, the Korean War generation taking over and with a rapidly aging Vietnam, the VA will be struggling for funding. Plus some of the idiotic loopholes in the Post 9-11 GI Bill, like the 6 figure helicopter pilot courses, are also hurting us as far as long term VA benefits...because we are talking millions of veterans. Congress is a tiny fraction and so is the senate...a drop in the bucket. If you stripped them of every benefit, you could fund maybe a few thousand veterans out of the pool of millions.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 4:57 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:57:59 -0400

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Sir, I would have responded to your comment but wanted to make sure others could see this also. The Air Force Sergeants Association has long been a voice on the Hill. Their website is here http://www.hqafsa.org/

They also have a program called VoterVoice which use to be called CapWiz. The link is below https://www.votervoice.net/AFSA/home

They have done a lot for us and continue to make that fight also. The Voter Voice program/site makes it easy to contact your elected officials and let them know your stance and how you feel about items they will vote on. I have encouraged many of those I worked with and had worked for me to become a member or at the very least stay apprised on what they are working for/towards and even use the CAPWIZ/VoterVoice application to help their voices be heard!

As for the OP I agree there are many other places to cut than the benefits of the nations defenders and the defense of our nation as a whole. I just hate how it always comes to us as THE option, rather than entitlements across the board. I do think we as a country are coming to the time where major reform across the board will be required. Unfortunately I feel the larger group will be for an unsustainable path...

Air Force Sergeants Association

Home of Air Force Sergeants Association

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jun 9 at 2015 5:05 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:05:52 -0400

Is it fair no. But the benefits of being a Congressperson is that they get to decide their own raises and deny us ours. If you want to change it run for office or support those who support us.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Jun 9 at 2015 5:17 PM

SFC Stephen King — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:17:26 -0400

Short answer, No.

The fact that we who serve and volunteer to be part of the minority in the US are considered by others to have it good that is the way society sees it.

Those who have served understand our plight. I am happy that we have more prior service members in congress.

Instead of taking away benefits they should increase our pay and add additional benefits.

For example no taxes for those who have served or are currently serving

Response by SSG Adam Wyatt made Jun 9 at 2015 5:29 PM

SSG Adam Wyatt — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:29:12 -0400

Shoot congress and replace with veterans. Problem solved. (I'm pretty sure I just got added to another list for this post)

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Jun 9 at 2015 5:32 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:32:19 -0400

I think Congressional and Executive pay should be set where it is, and an amendment should be enacted stating that the People vote on raises and benefits adjustments from this point forward.

Response by CW2 John Brookins made Jun 9 at 2015 5:32 PM

CW2 John Brookins — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:32:37 -0400

The problem is that as the government gets bigger and bigger it’s harder to cut. It’s not because there isn’t waste but because politicians (and military leaders) purposely tie multiple projects and monies to things they know people don’t want to cut. There is always the scare that if we cut (A) we’ll hurt (C). So we can’t touch (A) which may be very wasteful or we cut (A) and (C) and anger lots of people who threaten political action.

Then Politician (E) say’s hey I can use this against the other political party. The other political party says, “Hold on a minute. That will hurt us.” In the end generally nothing really gets cut although it may not increase as fast for a short time.

Then we tie money to contracts. That sounds like an easy target. “Let’s cut project <> that we all know is wasteful over budget and not needed.” But wait that project is tied to hundreds of jobs and local economies. That will affect the local politician and we again will hurt the poor (C).

Meanwhile we go deeper and deeper in debt. Each administration hoping we will get a booming economy somehow or they will be out of office when the bust hits.

So, pay and benefits may get hit in the short term although I doubt it. But it will become a political football and the losers are the American voters who don’t know which way to turn.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 5:33 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:33:57 -0400

https://youtu.be/4KLs-CCCmhc

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 5:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:40:23 -0400

Roughly 12% or 1 in 8 Americans are Veterans, that's enough to form a fairly powerful voting block and for the most part we do.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_per_of_civ_pop_who_are_vet-percent-civilian-population-who-veterans

What we can (and should) do is identify those politicians who are working against the best interests of Veterans and Service members and speak out against them while supporting those who support Veterans and Service members.

That said, I am loath to cut the salary of congress for two reasons. First, most of them could easily earn more than double that in the corporate world. I don't want the best and brightest staying away because the salary is inadequate to sustain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Second, it serves as a reminder that we the people are the ones they should be working to represent... not just the corporations and special interests. I hate to weaken any sense of obligation our elected officials might feel toward those who elected them.

Percent of Civilian Population Who are Veterans statistics - states compared worldwide -...

Comparison of states (Percent of Civilian Population Who are Veterans). Most recent figures. State comparison of Percent-of-Civilian-Population-Who-are-Veterans. Most recent.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 5:50 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 17:50:22 -0400

I do not believe it's the answer. Has anyone heard of the public health service? I feel like dod money could be spent elsewhere. Thoughts?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 9 at 2015 6:58 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 18:58:14 -0400

I feel the POTUS, Congress, and Generals do not respect the individuals in the military. I will use the example of deployed officers getting their pink slips.

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jun 9 at 2015 7:39 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:39:43 -0400

Negative!!!

Response by SFC Christopher Perry made Jun 9 at 2015 7:44 PM

SFC Christopher Perry — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:44:08 -0400

It disturbs me beyond description that the powers that be feel that cutting us to the bone following all these years of war is an acceptable means of saving money. Better still is the relentless conversation regarding the expense of medical care for those injured over all these years of war. Shut up, we were not the ones that decided to go to war, we simply follow orders.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 9 at 2015 7:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:54:19 -0400

Part of me thinks everyone should have the benefit of maturing through military experience. If everyone did, the budgetary thinking of many would likely be colored differently than it is. Another part of me knows full-well the size of the"ick" factor that can be associated with military service. And I also know this: If you have no “ick” on you, you ought to go get some on you before you talk about putting commitments made to veterans/service members on the table when your budget gets tight.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Jun 9 at 2015 8:54 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Tue, 09 Jun 2015 20:54:07 -0400

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 10 at 2015 6:04 AM

PO3 David Fries — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:04:56 -0400

I know that defense spending is high, but I don't think that cutting benefits is the answer. There are plenty of other places that the budget can be trimmed. 4 plus uniforms per branch? Rediculous contractor costs? I'm sure there are more.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 10 at 2015 6:12 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 06:12:58 -0400

No it's not. When the budget comes around and they look to make cuts the first places they look are the elderly programs and the military. Never mind about welfare and bullcrap projects they are will to fund like how fast does a shrimp run on a treadmill under water (being sarcastic). If they want to truly save money then REALLY look at what is being funded and cut the crap. Literally billions can be saved or used to fund programs that will benefit the US and the world. My thoughts.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 8:47 AM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:47:31 -0400

Cutting the military's benefits (the main selling point for many of new enlisted) will only serve to keep people from wanting to join, and keep others from wanting to re-enlist.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 8:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:50:05 -0400

Another point I'd like to make:
The U.S. is in the middle of trying to get Iran to sign a deal to put a stop to their nuclear weapons program, open the door for inspections, and in response we would start to peel away sanctions. Oh, and we'd also throw in a $20 billion signing bonus. Don't bother putting your glasses on, you read that correctly. $20 billion dollars in signing bonus. It's ironic that all of the benefits that Congress is willing to cut from the military will save the government about $20 billion over the next 10 years. So it's not all that far-fetched to say that we're cutting our benefits that we've earned and just handing it to the Iranians. No offense Iran, but f*ck that.

Response by Sgt Dave Fender made Jun 10 at 2015 11:18 AM

Sgt Dave Fender — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:18:15 -0400

I Say give the house and senate minimum wage and see how many of them are in it to actually help people. We also need to cut foreign aid. How much sense does it make to borrow money from China then give it to someone else. Just think of how much money those 2 cuts will save.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 2:21 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:21:44 -0400

We all have our opinions on the issues were facing in America but are quick to blame our elected officials. So instead of venting on RP contact your states elected officials and let them know how you feel. I promise you will get more of a response from them than our senior military officials who just roll along with whatever bright ideas come along and never object to cuts detrimental to those who have served. Ask your elected officials these question, How many homeless members of Congress are there? Ask if their benefits are being cut and is the program that pays for their staffers children's college education being cut like the proposal to water down the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Use this link to find your senator and state representative. http://act.commoncause.org/site/PageServer?pagename=sunlight_advocacy_list_page

Common Cause

Response by TSgt Mark Vaughn made Jun 10 at 2015 4:21 PM

TSgt Mark Vaughn — Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:21:54 -0400

We are an easy target, we make up 1% of the population of American Citizens, we have been trained to put others ahead of ourselves and we are taught not to speak out when someone of higher Rank tells us how we are going to take our disappointment. I'm getting pretty depressed at how many benefits that those appointed above me have cut from me just in my short life as a Veteran, I remember my father who is a WWII, Berlin Airlift Veteran getting a ton more benefits than I receive and watched as those got cut from him even during my enlistment. We have all these groups that say they Lobby for us but in reality they are just allowing congress to keep the axe sharpened so that when the media starts talking about how huge the defense budget is, they can cut more retiree benefits and say look we are cutting the budget. I'm no longer silent in how I'm being treated as a non-combat Veteran / Retiree even with the recent changes to our Tricare Prime for Retiree's they don't cover nearly what they covered just 5 years ago. Before I digress any further I'll end my rant by saying No it's not the Answer, there are more important places to cut budgets than taking it out on those who faithfully served their country!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 11 at 2015 2:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:52:05 -0400

There's any way that we can put things in a balance?
Cutting US troops benefits (1% of US Population) BTW, well Earned !!
or cutting Welfare Programs (35.4% of US Population) Not doing a damn thing.
Someone has a monkey?? I'm pretty sure even a monkey can make sense on that.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 11 at 2015 3:01 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 03:01:02 -0400

I've written both my Congressman and Representative, John McCain and Martha McSally respectively. Neither one of them have answered me. They will NOT get my vote next election.

Response by SFC Wadis Edge made Jun 11 at 2015 10:23 AM

SFC Wadis Edge — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:23:08 -0400

I think we are easy to abuse. You know I love my Country I served for 20 years. The military has a two house leadership problem. We the military are always on the cutting block and somebody needs to re-think what they are doing before they make decisions. These days deployment's are constant and multiple. I understand about check and balances of the budget, there are no reason whatever to cut benefits from the one percent of the military.

Response by SSgt James Connolly made Jun 11 at 2015 10:28 PM

SSgt James Connolly — Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:28:55 -0400

Hell no take some money away from the part time members of Congress

Response by SSG William Crnkovich made Jun 25 at 2015 9:20 PM

SSG William Crnkovich — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:20:54 -0400

Makes me sick to hear that they are trying again. If they really want to save - why not just make the potus pay for his /her own transport on AF1? See how quickly they are able to find another way to cut back the deficit! Maybe a few less golf getaways?

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 7 at 2015 12:31 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:31:10 -0400

Here is the simple reality, as less serve, less will be interested in hearing our cause. We talk about cutting corporate welfare, okay nice idea, but what does a lot of that corporate welfare do? keep civilians employed, we are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Only when we come home horizontally out the back end of an aircraft in Dover do we count. Recall a few years ago when Congress was fighting to keep to engines for a particular aircraft, even though the DoD and AF didn't want the second engine. But it kept an assembly line open in somebodies district. Consolidation of the two shipyard that build Navy Destroyers won't be done because somebody losses. If a base is slated to close people fight it not because they want to keep it, because of the jobs lost. If their was a way to have a base with out troops, and pay the civilians to work (of course what work would there be, I don't know) it would stay open for years. The reality is few really want us in there back yards, but they want the cash we bring.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 22 at 2019 6:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 22 Jan 2019 18:11:56 -0500

One variable that will drive the budget issues is Trump has increased the Federal Deficit by 2.7 trillion dollars. Someone has to be the bill player.