By Here is yet another article advocating for the reduction in military benefits:
Your postings on the DOD spouse tuition issue and other military-family concerns begs the question: Why is the military in this business? I think it’s time for a robust discussion of the overall military welfare system.
It started in paternalistic concerns with the well-being of single (mostly) and married enlisted and officers at distant posts far from the amenities of civilian life. That was many decades ago; American life has changed greatly since then. Now we have civilization right next to nearly all posts and the full range of family services and benefits furnished in-kind by the military readily available right next door in the civilian economy.
But not all service members can take advantage of all the benefits provided in kind all the time. The imputed compensation resident in the benefit system is unevenly distributed. For example, married get more benefits than single; there’s military housing for only one-third of military families; how much you save at the commissary is a function of how big your family is; the value of auto hobby shops and boat rentals and horse stables is a function of your interests; location determines the range of services available, with many missing from many posts; etc.
In addition to this unequal and ultimately unfair distribution of benefits, the overall military welfare system has a net effect of isolating the military and its families from the society it serves. And this leads to a natural tendency towards an insulated sense of entitlement and superiority; military people are just naturally better than civilians. Or so seem to think many in uniform and their spouses. That’s an odd inversion of what ‘service’ means.
Furthermore, the military benefits system establishes direct government competition with private businesses: the Federal Government competes with its citizens. Odd in a free-enterprise society. And were this removed, the range and depth of services available on the civilian economy adjacent to military posts would greatly expand. [The Best Defense]
Read the rest at the link, but this retired Naval Captain John Byron also believes that servicemembers should be forced to become local residents and pay state taxes and only register to vote in that state. I have no idea what it is like to be in the Navy so that may shape his viewpoints, but being in the Army where we constantly move his viewpoints I largely disagree with. I have never seen Soldiers with a sense of entitlement over the civilians in the local communities in the US. Does anyone know if that is how it is in the Navy? If anything soldiers are not very involved in local communities because they are never there long enough to really make many local civilian friends. Likewise that is why it is silly to force soldiers to vote in local elections when they know nobody there while they may be more knowledgeable about political races back in their home states. All this will do is encourage soldiers to not vote at all. If soldiers were stationed longer at a military installation they would probably naturally get more involved in the local communities.
As far for on-post services, any more they are there for the servicemembers who live on post so they don’t have to go through the hassle of going off post to get things. I live off post and can’t even remember the last time I shopped on post because it is easier to go to a shopping center near where I live. The days of the PX being a bargain are long gone for servicemembers.
Anyway read through the comments at the above link to see what a lot of people on the left think about military benefits. Some of them think the military benefits are excessive and that the military should discourage servicemembers from having families. Some of them even think family health care benefits should be cut as well.
12:03 am on May 18th, 2010 1
Being an active duty Airforce dependent who has moved 14 times in the past 18 years, I could not disagree more with this idiot.
12:07 am on May 18th, 2010 2
BTW, Navy bases are almost always in primo locations…by the water, obviously (same as the F15 people, who probably share his monumentally ignorant sentiments). He hasn't a clue.
12:59 am on May 18th, 2010 3
How many times did I move during my 10 years(79-89) in the Navy? Seven. Looks like my rate is almost the same as Liz.
"Now take a deep breath Gunny and hold it."
"F*** Doc, I don't even hold it for the wife."
1:35 am on May 18th, 2010 4
One more thought on this issue….along with locations in remote communities that could not sustain the populations of those bases without said facilities, the writer completely disregards the subject of giant restructuring and sudden population surges into these remote areas.
For rough instance, I currently live in Alamogordo, NM. I would not have ever, ever set foot in this town had the government not sent our family here. It's quite small, though not as small of a town as many other locations. But 1400 families have moved here in the past year, because there are two new UAV squadrons, a new F22 squadron (and one that expanded to operational during that time), and a new Reserve unit. That's a gianormous change that the local economy couldn't possibly sustain. There are currently a lot of housing issues too…the base housing has a year-long waiting list and people are scrambling to take whatever they can off-base. I'm just lucky I got here before the surge, a year and a half ago. We're still hurting for medical care, and will be until the next evaluation which hasn't been budgeted for until sometime next year.
2:25 am on May 18th, 2010 5
"In addition to this unequal and ultimately unfair distribution of benefits, the overall military welfare system has a net effect of isolating the military and its families from the society it serves. And this leads to a natural tendency towards an insulated sense of entitlement and superiority; military people are just naturally better than civilians. Or so seem to think many in uniform and their spouses. That’s an odd inversion of what ’service’ means."
This isn't a totally invalid point. However, I would note setting service members aside probably helps in the unit cohesion department.
I kinda like the notion of making service members vote and pay taxes in the state which they are stationed in. I think one of the issues which makes politicians of all stripes tend to neglect the military is because service members are a diluted voting bloc. I was stationed for a time at Fort Ord, California. The local, state and federal politicians representing the Fort Ord region were overwhelmingly to the left and
often anti-military. The make up of the political leadership would have been…interesting had the service members at Ord, DLI and NPS been forced to vote in California elections! Of course, that is probably the main reason why this will never happen!
3:46 pm on May 18th, 2010 6
This guy proves a point that i have had for a long time. Its that all military services are not equal. They are equally important in terms of their mission, but in terms of the hardships and standard of living they face there are sharp inqualities.
The vast majority of boots on the ground OEF-OIF are Marines and soldiers yet these are the two organizations with the lowest quality of life standard in the military.
This guy is the product of warm shower, and hot meal everynight of his military career. These kind of ideas would never come out of the mouth of any service member who has spent 1 single day down range, and the pay, benefits, and side perks, or nowhere near enough for the sacrifices of serving during a time of two wars.
As a onetime officer this guy should be ashamed of his self if he thinks there is a military welfare system because welfare implies servicemembers receive handouts which is just flat out wrong every dime and every benefit is earned. There may be point where military men/woman are compensated to much or receive to many benefits, but we are nowhere near that point now.
7:58 pm on May 18th, 2010 7
How would taxing work exactly? I would presume that everyone would want to be assigned to income tax free states. Would the government then have to subsidies those assigned to high tax states?
There already exists benefits for some now. I was assigned to Guam for a year and half. A year later, I received a $1000 check from the Guam government. I had no idea what it was for. I was later told residents of Guam receive a government rebate.
As far as voting rights, I see that as something that would be quickly abused to politically manipulate base closing and funding decisions. It would also be a tool for gerrymandering.
8:38 pm on May 18th, 2010 8
I suspect that those people assigned to Fort Irwin don't consider themselves superior to the people living in Barstow 40 miles away.
What purpose would there be in forcing military personnel to vote/pay taxes in the local community? Would this be something that can be applied to civilians who move from their state of residence to antother state for employment? Forcing service members to vote will not change anything; politicians could care less for those on active service, unless there is a patriotic photo op involved.
What I am most concerned about is his characterization of the 'military welfare system.' It's troubling to hear a retired Navy Captain suggest that it would be better for everyone involved to reduce our socialist handouts with an increase in our paychecks. I think I would be able to make that work, but what about the E5 with a couple of kids whose deployed and his wife doesn't have the financial acumen of our esteemed Captain who gets her family into deep financial trouble trying to do the right thing?
This guy is an idiot living in a privileged reality that the majority are not part of!!
12:11 am on May 19th, 2010 9
Oh, these are decent points. Doing such a thing would have serious issues. I was more just playing Devil's Advocate.
12:25 am on May 20th, 2010 10
"This guy proves a point that i have had for a long time. Its that all military services are not equal. "
EXACTLY! But I thought most people, being of sound mind, would be aware of this. How deluded and self-absorbed does a person have to be to conclude that "Hey! I didn't use the Rec center in the entire seven years I was stationed in San Diego and most of my buddies didn't vote in the local elections either. Clearly military rec centers are a waste and the military should pay state taxes."
There was a year that my husband was deployed to the desert for about eight months, AND we were stationed in two different states in that twelve month period. What a tax nightmare that would have been! And what a picnic with toddlers and a newborn…This guy must have been both born yesterday, AND single.