Selective Service is pretty small as agencies go, and doesn’t have that big of a budget. That money wouldn’t go far at all in helping our uniformed personnel.
From the website, I find that the SSS has a FY 2004 budget of $26 million and a full time staff of 166. That is literally a drop in the bucket.
An awful lot of work, and a decrease in deep readiness, for a $17 annual raise (I did the math). I don’t see the point.
If the military ever decides to get serious about the quality of life for families and servicemembers, there is a lot they can do. Many of these are intended for the spouse, because during deployment, it’s the spouse who has control over financial matters.
If I were the Defense Department, I’d:
[ul]
[li]Actively work to curb predatory lending and sales practices by requiring that contracts be reviewed prior to allotments being approved. Many servicemembers get themselves into deep financial doo-doo by using these companies to “establish” credit, knowing their bills will be paid by allotment. Meanwhile, they’re forced to pay exhorbitant prices and interest for shoddy merchandise, or for stuff they don’t need.[/li]
[li]Require financial counseling prior to marriage, for both servicemember and future spouse. This also gives the military branch the opportunity to debunk myths about pay and benefits, and explain how they work, so the family isn’t faced with a major surprise at a bad time. I would also explain how the service’s relief agencies work, and give information on how to access the Family Service Center, as well as explain the services they provide, so if that emergency does happen, the family knows where they can go for help.[/li]
[li]Establish and expand formal educational benefits for spouses to help them get better jobs. In most cases, there is no reason at all why a spouse can’t get a decent job to help put food on the table. As a corollary, I would also expand the military’s already-excellent daycare system to include payment for off-base daycare, should there be no room at the local center. Again, there should be few reasons why the spouse can’t work. (Before anyone yells at me for not working myself, I am a full-time student so I can get one of those good jobs.)[/li]
[li]Allow reservists and Guardsmen to enroll in federal health-insurance plans if they or a working spouse don’t have access to insurance elsewhere. Pennsylvania is currently working this out at the state level; Guardsmen will be able to enroll themselves and their families in the state employees’ insurance plan. Currently, Tricare is only to these people under certain conditions, and there are still many places in the US where there are no participating providers. There should be no excuse for the government not to help servicemembers stay physically ready, and no excuse for servicemembers to have to sweat that load. By the same token, active-duty personnel whose spouses do have access to insurance should be able to opt out of Tricare altogether and seek private care, if they so choose. (Before I get yelled at for this, I understand that some people need specialized physicals and what-not, and these would be the exception. I’m talking about being able to go off-base for routine care. I’m also not talking about on-base care being entirely off-limits, because military treatment facilities do bill private insurance.)[/li]
[li]Allow spouse employment to be a factor in service location. A spouse who works to complete college and obtain a professional license or good job shouldn’t be expected to give that up for the sake of a rotation. The wife of one of my former shipmates was a nurse who was licensed in (IIRC) four states, maybe five, because of her husband’s duty assignments. Even if reciprocity exists and the person doesn’t need to sit for the state licensing exam, it still costs money in the form of license fees and lost time while the license is processed. And once they’ve moved on, they either have to give that license up, or they have to bear the cost of maintaining it, which means fees and continuing education. When staying put isn’t feasible, spouses with professional licenses should get preferential treatment for federal jobs in that field, where licensure from any state is permitted. In the case of people whose professions don’t require licensure, consideration should still be given to the spouse’s job, particularly when jobs in that field are hard to get.[/li][/ul]
Yeah, I know. All of this costs money. But by helping families take care of themselves, by educating them on pay and benefits, and by making sure they’re given a good start in the adult world, the military can ensure higher retention, a better class of recruit, and fewer social problems related to poverty; not to mention increased family support.
Robin
It’s not just money that it would cost. In many places the predatory lending practices you mention are enshrined in the local business practices and laws.
For example, Ms Robyn, did you know that in Virginia, at least while I was staioned in Norfolk (1991-1994) there was no legal requirement to even divulge the interest rate that would be involved with some of these practices? I even had one retailer tell me that he didn’t know what the interest rate would be, and that he wasn’t allowed to divulge it. Every command I was involved with, and heard about, tried to talk their men away from those places, but it’s hard to tell an 18 yo that he’s supposed to listen to someone else about money. I sometimes felt that the locals in Norfolk felt that any time a sailor or marine had cash in his or her pocket it was theft from the local economy.
Basically, for this to be allowed, the locals around the various bases have to be willilng to let it happen. And to be blunt, I don’t see that happening.
This one is another hard sell - AIUI, the Marines actually forbid service members to marry below E-4, and they get pummelled for it routinely. That’s different from what you’re suggesting, but there’s again a belief that the brass should leave the troops alone, even if it’s for their benefit.
:rolleyes:
Oh, Mr. Moto, I didn’t realize that SSS was so small, however I’m still not sure it’s worth even that much money. I understand your argument, I just don’t agree with it. Can we agree to disagree on this?
That’s not true. Police and firemen get no danger pay AFAIK. In fact, I think being a policeman is still much more dangerous than being in the military, though not concerning wounds as opposed to deaths. Many risky jobs are rewarded through high pay, but I can think of many which aren’t.
Actually, a lot of that shouldn’t cost the government much at all, and may even be profitable at times because of advantages of scale.
It can’t. I mean, he’s talking about his MOM, ferchrissakes, and you know how gay the Navy is. 
I didn’t mean that it was a lack of bonus pay, but simply not being reflected in the base pay for the position. According to this site (Chosen because of the surety of finding it online, rather than a belief it’s actually representative of all police salaries.) NYC policemen start at $44,000 a year. Without OT or bonuses. And within five years can advance to earning $70,000 a year. Contrast that with an E-1’s salary and an E-5’s (from this site), for similar pay after time in service: The E-1 starts at $13,712 per annum (Granted after four months it goes up to $14,822.); an E-5 with five years in will be earning base pay of $24,728 per annum. Even accepting that NYC has a very high cost of living, I do believe that these figures show that the base pay for the job being done by the cop does reflect that it’s a job involving routine risk to life and limb.
I think a good start toward fixing the messed up military pay tables is to quit paying people just for having a family. And at the very same time, pay people what they’re worth for the job–very hard and very dangerous jobs quite often–they’re actually doing.
It’s my understanding that the BAQ (housing) allowance is pretty much the only one that varies significantly (if at all) by location. My husband, who works at Walter Reed in D.C. as a contractor, tells me there’s a small COLA for high cost areas (although nowhere near enough to cover actual costs), and commuting costs are covered for military in the same fashion as federal civilians, at least in D.C. But when he was active duty Air Force, COLA was a whopping 15% for Hawaii (where I understand general cost of living is double most of the mainland?), and for Guam, which is even more expensive than Hawaii, it was a generous 12%. So it’s not like it’s enough to actually make a difference.
That’s really an apples-to-oranges comparison, however. NYC policemen don’t receive the allowances and benefits military people do, which can add up to nearly as much as salary. My son is active duty Air Force right now (E-3), and while his base salary is poor, he doesn’t have to pay basically any of his living expenses if he doesn’t want to. He gets free housing, food, clothing allowance, and transportation around base. So while his salary is a pittance, yet he actually has more disposable income than I do.
It’s more than apples and oranges, it’s just plain stupid. NYC police, etc. are paid by NYC taxes. Military pay is paid by the U.S. taxpayer. How much are you all willing to kick in from your paychecks to raise military pay to a comparable civilian wage? I survived 23 years on military pay, raising four children in the process, and still managed to retire with about $20,000 in the bank. I chose the life and made a point of being fiscally responsible to my family. Military personnel need to be taught the basics of finance and budget, and not just have more money thrown at them.
To me, ‘help the military family down the street’ doesn’t mean to just give them cash and buy them stuff. The stress of having one parent away for a long time can be quite hard. After all, the man’s job is to kill spiders and get things down from high places. So you occasionally go squish a bug to do your part in spreading democracy in Iraq.
And you know, try not to get her preggers while he is in Iraq. (David, I’m talking to you!)
Zebra – that’s exactly what I was thinking. Did Bush stipulate “Help the military family down the street by giving them a monetary handout.”? I didn’t watch the speech, but I doubt it. When I hear “Help the military families in your neighborhood” the last thing I think of is money. During the years my husband was active duty, he was often away from home (7 major deployments of 6+ months and too many shorter deployments to count) our neighbors were enormously helpful to me without ever giving me a handout. They were just *neighborly{/i]. We had a neighbor at one house who always mowed my lawn when he did his own – he knew mowing the lawn was a big chore for me with two toddlers at home. Things like that.
I have to admit I’m floored at the families of people serving in a war being treated as charity cases. I had no reason to, but I’d always assumed there were government agencies to help with this.
My suggestion for a fundraiser: they should sell red, white and blue rubber bracelets (like the Live Strong yellow ones and every other color for every cause) with proceeds to go to family relief (and the wearing to promote consciousness).
The LAF raised something like $25 million with the yellow wristbands (@$1 each). If every man, woman and child in the US purchased one of the red, white and blue bands once a month, military pay could be increased by less than $20 a month for each active duty serviceman/woman.
Then charge $3 and don’t distribute it evenly. Use it to make contracts with child care facilities or to pay interest on mortgages and extend the principal to avoid foreclosure (which is a major problem with the families of Guardsmen) or some such. (Plus, don’t underestimate the value of $20 even as a one-time sum.)
Unfortunately, the phrase take care of our own is sometimes taken too literally. One thing you can say about Congress, they have great timing.
A-fukin’-men.
Sing it!
A former girlfriend of mine had to go on food stamps when she went off sea duty, to feed her child. Now, before anyone lands on her for being a single parent in the miltary, I want y’all to know she didn’t intend to be that way, but sometimes shit happens, and husbands die, or divorce, or run off (ain’t sayin’ which it was in this case). But whichever case it was, it wasn’t her intent to be a single parent in uniform. Never-the-less, she had a contract with Uncle Sam, and she was intent on living up to the letter and spirit of that contract. She did what she needed to do, in order to be deployable, and whilst on sea duty, her sea pay meant that she could (just) make ends meet. But when she was sent to shore duty…? Then she had to choose between her duty, or food for her baby. Food stamps bridged the gap, only just, but enough.
Here’s my problem - The nation asked this woman to be willing to die for it, if necessary, and she agreed. But that same nation wasn’t appreciative enough of her sacrifice and willingness to do what duty required to provide her the means of meeting her other basic obligations up-front. Instead, she had to jump through bureaucratic hoops on her own time to see that those needs were met.
That’s a crime, in my books.
You’re wrong. Military have gotten the exact same raise or higher for the last decade or so.
http://www.fedmanagers.org/public/announcement.cfm?id=48
"The Federal Managers Association rebukes the Administration for once again proposing an average annual pay raise for Federal civilian employees that is less than that of the military, shirking more than 20 years of legislative precedent.
President Bush released his annual Budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 2006 today, which included a 2.3 percent average pay raise for Federal civilian employees and a 3.1 percent average pay raise for Armed Forces members. This marks the fifth budget in a row that the President has delinked the pay between civilian and military Federal employees"
I did know that. I was in Norfolk at the same time.
By making this a nationwide, across-the-board policy, and by requiring someone to look over a contract and then allow or deny an allotment would hit these businesses right where they live – in the pocketbook. I wouldn’t forbid anyone from doing business with these slimes; that would be unpatriotic. 
But I would take away a major enticement, which is the ease with which these bills can be paid by allotment, and that’s what these businesses trade on. Should the interest rate be usurious (and the interest rate should be in the contract), the gubmint would be able to deny an allotment, forcing the servicemember to pay cash. And we all know what happens when you don’t meet your obligations.
I also know that you can’t force people to use something they’ve learned. But if the military sits down with both servicemember and spouse and lays it out in hard dollars and cents, with income and expenses side-by-side, that might just be a wake-up call.
Robin
It’s not so much that I’m wrong as I’m outdated. Certainly my time on active duty (1989-1994) there was no link between civilian pay and military pay. This was the time when John Glenn had to fight hard for military pay to be raised as much as half as the civilian pay. And according to your quote it’s only been in the past five years, not the past decade, that pay raises have been “delinked.”
If you look at your link, Dr. Deth, the legislative precedent that the FMA is talking about is that normally civilian COL raises are more than military ones. Seems to prove my point. For example, the legislation that the article discusses from 1990, had exactly one point that deals with military pay or military related pay: allowing people to get full benefit of both civilian and military pensions.
(bolding mine)
Basically, Dr. Deth, I suspect that the FMA has no objection to getting raises larger than the military, but heaven forfend they get treated worse than those dumb bastards in the military.