thedrifter
03-11-05, 12:26 PM
03-10-2005
They Just Keep Cutting Benefits
By Paul Connors
One of the things I like about the Army Times Publishing Company (the Gannett-owned company that publishes such weekly newspapers as the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps Times is that collectively, the papers cover issues of importance to men of all of the armed forces.
The fact that each of the service-related papers is dedicated to one of our armed forces also allows them to cover common issues as well as those of specific interest to members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The other reason I think these papers and their writers should be commended is that the topical issues they cover are all too often never discussed in the mainstream news media.
One of the areas of interest for all service members that has long held my interest is the tinkering with military benefits that politicians are wont to do. Of late, this tinkering has also caught the attention of various Times reporters. Unlike columnists who offer up their unbridled opinions (and I am one who frequently does so), the reporters for the service-related papers do an admirable job of reporting the news on these subjects with little in the way of editorial comment. That restraint is commendable, but at the same time, there is a need for analysis and advocacy that many of us here at DefenseWatch attempt to carry out to improve the situation for our warriors and their dependents.
One of the most glaring reasons for the problem rests, of course, with the politicians. While members of Congress have long exempted themselves from the laws that apply to the rest of us, and with a total population possessing military experience of less than 33 percent, both chambers continue to dicker with the pay and allowances as well as the other ancillary benefits to military members and their families for their service and sacrifice.
Another outright enemy of the men and women in uniform, their spouses and children is none other than the Secretary of Defense himself. After monitoring his performance over the past four years, I say without equivocation that Donald H. Rumsfeld is no friend of the men and women who wear their country’s uniform.
Rumsfeld, who left active military service more than 45 years ago and who has been the most vocal proponent of transformation, is also a gadfly demanding that the military do more with less. From his arrogant and mistaken view that Iraq could be conquered and held with 100,000 troops, to his demands that more and more military jobs be outsourced, he has now revived his demands that military base commissaries (perhaps the single most tangible and valuable benefit to military families) be closed or severely curtailed.
This latest ploy stems from Rumsfeld’s insistence that military people be made to function more like employees of a Fortune 500 corporation. Despite pay and allowances that are significantly lower than their civilian counterparts, military people are now threatened with the prospect of having to buy most or all of their groceries on the civilian economy.
The reason for this very real, painful and insulting slap in the face is Rumsfeld’s insistence – despite the disparity of income – that uniformed service members and their families are still just like the rest of us.
Rumsfeld and his fellow travelers in the Congressional Budget Office (who are the latest purveyors of the suggestion that commissary benefits be cut are again) are putting forth the proposal that the taxpayer subsidy of the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA), currently $1.1 billion per year, should be eliminated. The CBO and DoD propose increasing the costs of commissary grocery items to reduce the average savings from 30 to 20 percent.
To compensate military members for this cost increase, the civilian bean-counters – many of whom have never worn a uniform – further propose that active duty members receive a tax-free allowance of $500 per year. This allowance would not be provided to members of the National Guard and reserves, who only recently received unlimited commissary access in recognition of their increased role in support of active-duty military operations worldwide.
When I first read of these suggestions in the various military Times newspapers, I became incensed, realizing that in short order, the reports would fade from the limelight and everyone’s attention would pass on to other subjects.
Then in another recent Air Force Times issue, I read that the CBO had now recommended that the taxpayer subsidy be eliminated and that many less-profitable commissaries either be closed or combined with post and base exchanges.
While the money-grubbing corporate toadies holding key positions in DoD have nodded their heads in agreement, they are ignoring the fact that it is the lowest-ranking members of our military who will once again suffer a severe financial setback at the hands of their highly-paid leaders.
The war in Iraq, whether one agrees with it or not, continues to be an incredible drain on our military capability and readiness. The effects are already being felt, especially in recruiting and retention for the Army and the Marine Corps and their reserve components. If we as a nation can squander billions on failed educational systems and illegal aliens, while ignoring the quality of life needs of our military families, then we should not be surprised when the average American sees that military service is no longer something to be encouraged, but an obligation to be avoided at all costs.
This is unconscionable, immoral and unacceptable. Cutting and chopping tangible benefits such as the commissary subsidy is something to be avoided at all costs.
If we can find ways to squander billions on stealth fighters that have no adversaries, then we can find a way to preserve the commissary subsidy for those who need it most: the young men and women of our armed forces and their families.
Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. © 2005 Paul Connors. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie
They Just Keep Cutting Benefits
By Paul Connors
One of the things I like about the Army Times Publishing Company (the Gannett-owned company that publishes such weekly newspapers as the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps Times is that collectively, the papers cover issues of importance to men of all of the armed forces.
The fact that each of the service-related papers is dedicated to one of our armed forces also allows them to cover common issues as well as those of specific interest to members in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The other reason I think these papers and their writers should be commended is that the topical issues they cover are all too often never discussed in the mainstream news media.
One of the areas of interest for all service members that has long held my interest is the tinkering with military benefits that politicians are wont to do. Of late, this tinkering has also caught the attention of various Times reporters. Unlike columnists who offer up their unbridled opinions (and I am one who frequently does so), the reporters for the service-related papers do an admirable job of reporting the news on these subjects with little in the way of editorial comment. That restraint is commendable, but at the same time, there is a need for analysis and advocacy that many of us here at DefenseWatch attempt to carry out to improve the situation for our warriors and their dependents.
One of the most glaring reasons for the problem rests, of course, with the politicians. While members of Congress have long exempted themselves from the laws that apply to the rest of us, and with a total population possessing military experience of less than 33 percent, both chambers continue to dicker with the pay and allowances as well as the other ancillary benefits to military members and their families for their service and sacrifice.
Another outright enemy of the men and women in uniform, their spouses and children is none other than the Secretary of Defense himself. After monitoring his performance over the past four years, I say without equivocation that Donald H. Rumsfeld is no friend of the men and women who wear their country’s uniform.
Rumsfeld, who left active military service more than 45 years ago and who has been the most vocal proponent of transformation, is also a gadfly demanding that the military do more with less. From his arrogant and mistaken view that Iraq could be conquered and held with 100,000 troops, to his demands that more and more military jobs be outsourced, he has now revived his demands that military base commissaries (perhaps the single most tangible and valuable benefit to military families) be closed or severely curtailed.
This latest ploy stems from Rumsfeld’s insistence that military people be made to function more like employees of a Fortune 500 corporation. Despite pay and allowances that are significantly lower than their civilian counterparts, military people are now threatened with the prospect of having to buy most or all of their groceries on the civilian economy.
The reason for this very real, painful and insulting slap in the face is Rumsfeld’s insistence – despite the disparity of income – that uniformed service members and their families are still just like the rest of us.
Rumsfeld and his fellow travelers in the Congressional Budget Office (who are the latest purveyors of the suggestion that commissary benefits be cut are again) are putting forth the proposal that the taxpayer subsidy of the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA), currently $1.1 billion per year, should be eliminated. The CBO and DoD propose increasing the costs of commissary grocery items to reduce the average savings from 30 to 20 percent.
To compensate military members for this cost increase, the civilian bean-counters – many of whom have never worn a uniform – further propose that active duty members receive a tax-free allowance of $500 per year. This allowance would not be provided to members of the National Guard and reserves, who only recently received unlimited commissary access in recognition of their increased role in support of active-duty military operations worldwide.
When I first read of these suggestions in the various military Times newspapers, I became incensed, realizing that in short order, the reports would fade from the limelight and everyone’s attention would pass on to other subjects.
Then in another recent Air Force Times issue, I read that the CBO had now recommended that the taxpayer subsidy be eliminated and that many less-profitable commissaries either be closed or combined with post and base exchanges.
While the money-grubbing corporate toadies holding key positions in DoD have nodded their heads in agreement, they are ignoring the fact that it is the lowest-ranking members of our military who will once again suffer a severe financial setback at the hands of their highly-paid leaders.
The war in Iraq, whether one agrees with it or not, continues to be an incredible drain on our military capability and readiness. The effects are already being felt, especially in recruiting and retention for the Army and the Marine Corps and their reserve components. If we as a nation can squander billions on failed educational systems and illegal aliens, while ignoring the quality of life needs of our military families, then we should not be surprised when the average American sees that military service is no longer something to be encouraged, but an obligation to be avoided at all costs.
This is unconscionable, immoral and unacceptable. Cutting and chopping tangible benefits such as the commissary subsidy is something to be avoided at all costs.
If we can find ways to squander billions on stealth fighters that have no adversaries, then we can find a way to preserve the commissary subsidy for those who need it most: the young men and women of our armed forces and their families.
Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. © 2005 Paul Connors. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie