GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Military spending on pay, benefits spiraling upward, GAO chief says

• 14499
  

  "Taxpayer"

  I spent a 21 year career in the U.S. Navy. Your percentage on those "shot at" is probably way too high for my generation and quite a bit low for the current crop. I wasn't. It's likely above 99 percent of sailors that they haven't been due to the nature of the service (not too many naval battles these days). But I think your diatribe is unfair. What I and those that served this nation along-side me have done is put in 100 hour weeks for months at a time, away from our families. Have you?

  The duration of my career was spent during the Cold War -- not war. We operated under the constant threat of armed conflict, and thankfully it didn't come to pass. If your only criteria for keeping a military is to actually fight during a war, then you miss the message on what happened during the Cold War and I suggest brushing up on your history.

  Every occupation has its benefits/problems and your vitriol against the armed forces indicts you as small-minded. Our high-tech forces allowed for the Iraq war to be won in fewer days than it took Janet Reno's forces to take the Branch Davidian complex. Draftees cannot be trained that quickly with the high tech weaponry we now have. To go back to that era, we go back to the basic carbine. Do you want to have the same kind of casualties we had in Vietnam or WWII? Or do you just prefer to not have a military period? By the way, would you still have a job at that point?

  Submariner Posted January 30, 2006 10:03 AM
• 14490
  

  I cannot believe my eyes -- an HR person with a good idea! I totally agree but wonder how we could get this started with Congress more interested in buying votes. It will take a major war situation to get Congress to institute the draft -- even for simply the military. I think ever high school graduate should be drafted into civilian or military service. First give them their choice of civilian or military and then put them where they are needed. This significantly would reduce our pay and benefits for federal workers replaced by those drafted. High school drop outs should be drafted immediately and put to work in manual labor positions with the requirement they receive on-the-job training by the experienced workers -- a lot like the old apprentice (not the Donald's type) system.

  Taxpayer Posted January 30, 2006 7:12 AM
• 14444
  

  I must be losing my mind-- again I agree with Taxpayer.

  No more mercenaries!!!! Let's have a draft, but not just a draft for the military service. Let's draft 18 year old boys and girls to serve in the Peace Corp., in the internal Americorp, and to rebuild and maintain America.

  Every Western nation has some sort of civic service - it's time for American citizenship to mean something and become precious again.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 26, 2006 11:06 AM
• 14403
  

  "Those who complain that military service members are overpaid probably have never been shot at, never had to do the 'impossible' with half the force." These are always the first words out of the military mouth. However, you have to remember that probably less than 10 percent of the military personnel are ever shot at! I agree we should pay those guys and that is battle pay. But DoD has reduced battle pay to a joke and expanded the definition of battle to the point of being ridiculous. If you are in Iraq physically and operate on patrol or transport you should get battle pay during the time your there. However, if you are in Saudi Arabia supporting Iraq you should not get battle pay. Enough about overpaying military service members. We should go back to the draft -- take the people out of high school for two years and then pay for their college education for two years at a community college and then two more years at any state university where they qualify as a resident for instate tuition. No online crap or fly by night so-called colleges.

  Taxpayer Posted January 25, 2006 7:15 AM
• 14399
  

  My point wasn't to complain about military service or being overpaid. Our government treats the military extremely generously compared to other countries, even better than most government or private employers.

  Good leaders are always needed, but most seem to leave not because of money. I've heard the good leaders say they want more time with their families, remain in an area longer than a year or two, etc. That seems to be a better incentive instead of money. I imagine Congress in their spare time could think of something.

  Surely, DoD can come up with a way to keep people at bases longer than a year or two. Stateside, why not keep them for six to eight years? If you're single and want to move, then go. If you've got a family, give them the option to stay and seem if works.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 24, 2006 11:32 PM
• 14371
  

  I finally agree with Mr. Taxpayer.

  There is a term for people who go to war for a lot of money: mercenaries!

  Do we really want a military consisting of mercenaries? When the Romans could no longer fill their legions with Roman Citizens who were paid to fight with conquered lands they hired mercenary tribes and bribed them with money and citizenship.

  I was wondering how the military was able to meet its quota as this war spirals and becomes more and more unpopular -- now I know. They are bribing poor kids.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 24, 2006 8:16 AM
• 14358
  

  I believe you will find that the "grass is not greener on the other side of the wire." Those who complain that military service members are overpaid probably have never been shot at, never had to do the "impossible" with half the force, never had to move (called a PCS boys and girls) just when the kids got that perfect teacher . . . the school that would have looked great on the college application.

  I could go on and on, but you get the point. There are military who ride the gravy train and do little; but, do not blame the soldier. That is a product of managers (higher-ups) who have not a clue of what is going on. If you have a competent company and field grade officer, who knows his or her stuff, the taxpayer gets more than he paid for from a dedicated, well led airman/soldier. Too large bonuses result from management not making that super sensitive "dog-crap" career field attractive enough to the soldier. You can make things important without "throwing money at them." We just need more real leaders. But stupid secretaries of Defense run the good ones off. Stop belly-aching about what you pay us and get us some leaders! The only military I dislike is an academy-trained person who takes that great free education and bails out to become a well-educated civilian, with the minimum time served.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 23, 2006 6:45 PM
• 14355
  

  Both of you ignore Stop Loss. You might end up stuck there for a few decades.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 23, 2006 3:35 PM
• 14305
  

  Unsigned -- you made one significant mistake! You wouldn't have to serve four years! The enrollment period now is 15 months! That is 9 months less than the time draftees spend in the services with no bonuses, no education and house buying benefits and much lower pay and barracks rather than apartments build on base. The majority of the military is totally overpaid and under worked and they like it that way. If we took all the savings these guys generate -- as documented in their performance reviews -- we could eliminate the federal debt and build an endowment that would fund the federal government for years.

  Taxpayer Posted January 20, 2006 7:55 AM
• 14273
  

  This absolutely is ridiculous! Look at the Air Force. The Air Force is run by pilots so there is a great conflict of interest in moving to unmanned aircraft. We need a significant drop in the number of Air Force pilots and engineers and should not be paying them significant bonuses to re-enlist. This is a money machine that will not stop! Civil servants do not get these bonuses to remain and in fact there is a strong movement to get rid of the civil servants so the military can make better decisions to reward themselves! It appears to be time to return to the draft and get rid of those currently in the services that represent waste -- not those that actually do something other than get and spend our money on useless things -- such as an accelerated sub-building program.

  Taxpayer Posted January 19, 2006 6:11 AM
• 14266
  

  What a surprise! If I were 18 again, I'd definitely join the military. Think of the money for college (What's it up to now? $45,000?). And think of a down payment on a house ($20,000). Sure I might have to go off to war, but if I survive and pull only 4 years active duty, I come out pretty good at 22. Considering the average 22-year-old college graduate has $15,000 in student loans and won't be in a position to buy a house for years.

  GovExec.com reader Posted January 18, 2006 8:56 PM