An act of ‘betrayal’

November 3, 2003 3:33 PM

An act of ‘betrayal’--Army Times (newspaper)Army TimesSounds like the cuts the Bush gang making on social programs except these are for our MILITARY: "Commissaries and the Defense Department’s stateside schools are in the crosshairs of Pentagon budget cutters, and military advocates, families and even base commanders are up in arms. Defense officials notified the services in mid-October that they intend to close 19 commissaries and may close 19 more, mostly in remote areas. At the same time, the Pentagon is finishing a study to determine whether to close or transfer control of the 58 schools it operates on 14 military installations in the continental United States.
posted by Postroad (44 comments total)

But what will our men and women in uniform do without subsidized groceries?

I know! They'll pay market price just like I have to do.

When you take away military families' disposable income, the real victims are the liquor stores, gun shows and purveyors of full-size pickup trucks and Yosemite Sam mudflaps.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:14 PM on November 3, 2003

Caveat: As someone who decided on a non-military career path, I'm speaking somewhat out my ass based on casual observation, BUT:

Curley suggests that commissaries are a plum and anyone who uses them must be sucking the sugar tit, but I'm not entirely sure this is so. Perhaps decreasingly so as time goes on, but there are locations where the commissary is the store. Its not like one can pack up in the afformentioned pickup and head down to the 7-11 for Twinkies in Riyadh, for example.

The military offers something more than a career, more like a lifestyle and not an entirely well-paid one. You gotta go where they tell you ya gotta go and the family has to pack up with you. Unlike you and I they can't just pack it in because the local community sucks. Small perks such as the commissary (and shit, apparently schools as well) are sometimes the only perks.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 4:36 PM on November 3, 2003

Bad couple of weeks in the press for Rumsfeld and his missing mojo.
posted by psmealey at 4:45 PM on November 3, 2003

"When you take away military families' disposable income, the real victims are the liquor stores, gun shows and purveyors of full-size pickup trucks and Yosemite Sam mudflaps."

That's possibly the most ignorant thing I've read on Metafilter in...hours.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:47 PM on November 3, 2003

providing lubrication services for the spouse of any reservist that has been called to active duty
<snicker />
posted by quonsar at 4:53 PM on November 3, 2003

Small perks such as the commissary (and shit, apparently schools as well) are sometimes the only perks.

See, I grew up in a town with a Navy base in it. It also has two major supermarkets, retail chains and a pretty, active downtown area. Why should my tax dollars help pay for someone else's shopping when (a) there are stores in the town that would like the business and (b) I'm not allowed to patronize the on-base store that I'm paying for?

My real issue is the AMAZING sense of entitlement to which the linked article alludes. There are actually "Military family advocates?" Someone has to lobby for the interests of a group of people who get subsidized housing, free medical care and cheap groceries?

I know, I know. Enlisted military personnel are selfless heroes who are serving because of a strong desire to help out their country and its people. They never join up because of lack of other opportunities for employment.
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:17 PM on November 3, 2003

I thought we had commissaries because we paid our military personnel like shit, and we were fully aware of it.

But hey, they only signed up for life-and-death protecting our country, why should that include food at below-market-rate for the many military people who are on food stamps.

We say they are our heroes, but we pay them like bag boys.
posted by benjh at 5:21 PM on November 3, 2003

Here's my impersonation of a neocon commentator turned liberal, commenting on this issue.
--------------

More traitorous behavior by cowardly neocon budget analysts.

Our armies have foriegn soldiers fighting for green cards who are infinitely less mercenary and show more patriotism than this lard asses. If the tooth is the solution and the tail is the problem, then I think I know just what part of the tail that these pencil pushers came from.

If they really want to increase the tooth to tail ratio, they should get out from behind their spreadsheets, get off their tails, and enlist in the military, rather than hiding behind blacks, latinos, and the rural poor who make up the bulk of our armed forces.

Once more, the ugly face of the Repugnicant conspiracy has been shown, this time with a direct assault on American values. They are taking the US military tradition of duty, honor, and sacrifice and turning it on its head, making it a sucker's bet.

A decorated military veteran told me his outrage on this... "Those neocons should all be lined up against a wall and shot slapped." Hard words admittedly, but he just lost two of his buddies in Baghdad, and Donald Rumsfeld kicked his puppy.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:23 PM on November 3, 2003

I'm in the military, and the commissary sucks. The only thing cheap about it is that you don't pay taxes. If you're worried about the government wasting money, think "F-22 Raptor" not BX/PX/NEX and commissary. The Raptor is the result of a 65 billion dollar program (aircraft about $100 million a piece) to maintain an "air superiority" that no nation wants to challenge anyway.
posted by tcobretti at 5:47 PM on November 3, 2003

Way to stand up against the powerless, Curley. You must be hell on widows and orphans.
posted by Zonker at 6:14 PM on November 3, 2003

Someone has to lobby for the interests of a group of people who get subsidized housing, free medical care and cheap groceries?

Uh, yes. That's pretty much how things get done 'round these parts and the notion that most of our military personnel have some cushy go of it just isn't credible.

Here's an example of both points: Veterans groups have been lobbying for years over a money-saving quirk in the way that Veteran's disabilities are paid out . . . did you know that if you're a disabled veteran you get a disability payment, but if you are "retired" (as a friend of mine who's under 40 and can't work because of your military-incurred disability) then your disability payment is deducted from your retirement benefit? That's hardly generous--let alone fair--but may be changing soon thanks to, well, advocacy.
posted by donovan at 6:36 PM on November 3, 2003

ya gotta go and the family has to pack up with you.

Sez who?

did you know that if you're a disabled veteran you get a disability payment, but if you are "retired" (as a friend of mine who's under 40 and can't work because of your military-incurred disability) then your disability payment is deducted from your retirement benefit?

That sounds entirely fair to me. The point is not to reward the soldier for getting injured, the point is to provide for them. Providing benefits to whatever the normal level of support is sounds entirely appropriate.
posted by NortonDC at 6:46 PM on November 3, 2003

Mayor Curley, I say this with deep regret, as I don't think any comment on MeFi has ever caused me to use foul language, but - F*ck Screw You. I do not consume alcohol in any form, I do not own a gun, I do not own a pickup truck, and I think Yosemite Sam is the lamest of all WB characters. And did I mention that I'm in the military?

Back on topic: we go through this cost-cutting ritual every few years - and of course there is always some excess that can be trimmed *somewhere* in the world of BRAC and DoD. I don't use the commissaries myself - we live closer to a very nice grocery store - but prices are a bit lower on-base. However - with the advent of Wal-Mart type superstores that include groceries, the price advantage isn't all that great.

And my kids no longer attend on-base military schools, but they did at one point - as did I. On balance, I would have to say that the quality of DoD schools is slightly better than "civilian" schools, and FWIW, problems of gangs, racism, and other negative aspects of society are somewhat diminished.

The bottom line: commissary/BX and on-base schools are usually perks that military folks appreciate; others don't. I suspect that long before the final decision is made as to which bases/commissaries/schools are cut, the local communities and military advocates will make their respective cases, and in the end, I doubt that any of the installations that would *really* suffer from such closures will get hit. I could be wrong.
posted by davidmsc at 6:54 PM on November 3, 2003

That sounds entirely fair to me. The point is not to reward the soldier for getting injured, the point is to provide for them. Providing benefits to whatever the normal level of support is sounds entirely appropriate.

I completely disagree--the benefits apply to different circumstances, being disabled or being retired, and I don't see how you can justify subtracting one from the other on grounds apart from saving money and saving money on the backs of a group of people who've given a tremendous amount for their country ("the penultimate sacrifice"?).
posted by donovan at 7:14 PM on November 3, 2003

the benefits apply to different circumstances

It's a hideous mistake to view money for the disability as a "reward" for getting injured. It's not. It's all of us providing support to someone that has sacrificed some of their ability to support themselves do the outcome of the risks they accepted when they chose to volunteer for military service. According to your description, when they become eligible for a higher level of benefits due to retirement, they are then given that greater level of benefits. Their compensation increases. There is no penalty being applied, nothing be subtracted, nothing taken away, and nothing denied. To suggest otherwise is to say that the disability payments are a reward that their injury entitles them to, which, as I already indicated, is not alt all what the disability payment is about.
posted by NortonDC at 7:44 PM on November 3, 2003

Mayor Curley, you are an asshat. And an ignorant one, to boot. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to Google up "AAFES" and read this:

AAFES' mission is to provide quality merchandise and services at uniformly low prices to active duty military, Guard and Reserve members, military retirees and family members, regardless of where they're stationed and to donate 100 percent of earnings back to our customers for quality of life programs and modern places to shop. These contributions to the soldier and airman and their families make AAFES a major non-pay benefit to customers.

AAFES is charged with making a profit, but returns every cent of its earnings to customers. The only congressionally appropriated money spent in AAFES comes in the form of utilities and transportation of merchandise to overseas exchanges and for military salaries. A non-appropriated fund activity (NAF) of the Department of Defense, AAFES funds 98% of its operating budget (civilian employee salaries, inventory investments, utilities and capital investments for equipment, vehicles and facilities) from the sale of merchandise, food and services to customers.

posted by Cerebus at 8:01 PM on November 3, 2003

Or to Google up "Defense Commissary Agency" and read this (meant to hit preview on last, not submit. D'oh!):

By law, commissaries are required to sell goods at prices that are set at a level to recover the cost of goods, with no profit built into these prices. There are also very stringent legal controls on the ways that DeCA can use taxpayer monies that Congress provides to operate commissaries.

Or this:

Surcharge is applied to the total value of each commissary purchase because the Congress has mandated collection of surcharge (currently 5 percent) to pay for commissary construction and maintenance.

All surcharge dollars collected are returned to commissary patrons in the form of continually improved commissary facilities. The amount of surcharge applied to a commissary sales transaction is shown as "SCG" on your sales receipt.

So in short, fuck you very much.
posted by Cerebus at 8:07 PM on November 3, 2003

I'm with benjh--and with the way veterans and current servicepeople are being treated by this administration, it's a wonder they're willing to fight anywhere for us.
posted by amberglow at 8:14 PM on November 3, 2003

On balance, I would have to say that the quality of DoD schools is slightly better than "civilian" schools, and FWIW, problems of gangs, racism, and other negative aspects of society are somewhat diminished.

Of course, because on-base schools have a wonderful stick with which to beat parents-- should your child start acting up, it can result in orders to mom or dad to seek help for Junior, or get administratively disciplined.

Quite the incentive. 8)
posted by Cerebus at 8:15 PM on November 3, 2003

All I know is that when i was growing up, if it weren't for the commissary, all we would have had to eat was Kraft dinner. With the commissary, we got to have shoe leathermeat, too. Enlisted military folks don't make very much money--particularly when you take the whole serving our country directly so we don't have to thing into account--so as far as I'm concerned, any breaks they get on things like food/shelter/clothing is money well spent.
posted by eilatan at 8:21 PM on November 3, 2003

Sure, Cerebus. In practice, the commisaries are so self-sufficient that the DoD wants to eliminate a bunch of them (which is the central point of the article in question). No possible way that our tax dollars are propping them up.

Right on with the "fuck you," though. That's the core of intelligent discourse.

I'm with benjh

Don't be. That whole "we have military personnel on food stamps" argument started on right-wing radio during the Clinton administration. The truth of the matter is that it's technically accurate, but it's a matter of a few enlisted people having litters of children that no normal job would provide for.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:21 PM on November 3, 2003

I tell you what, Curley-- you enlist. Any service, any specialty. Serve four and then come back and tell us that DeCA and and AAFES aren't needed.

No? Then shut up; you may have grown up in a Navy town but until you've been in your "opinion" isn't worth the toilet paper you shat it on.
posted by Cerebus at 8:31 PM on November 3, 2003

Cerebus, I'm going to waste four years of my life and risk getting shot at to keep gas cheap? Dream on. I already have a job, and I don't need to lie to myself and others about why I do it.

But you do crass really well. Keep it coming!
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:37 PM on November 3, 2003

well, what are the salaries? who has stats?
posted by amberglow at 8:49 PM on November 3, 2003

Actually, kiddo, I first remember hearing about military personnel on food stamps spread by Reaganistas during the Carter administration. You make it sound like the military are well armed welfare moms.

Mayor Curley, have you ever served in the military? Or did you have "other priorities" like our vice president and most of his minions? The fact is that most of these low paid, low skilled public assistance recipients are dying at a rate of two or three a day so you and I don't have to.
posted by faceonmars at 8:49 PM on November 3, 2003

Since nobody has mentioned it yet, why do you need commisary/BX-PX, or even a VA for that matter, if you have a subcontracted *private* army?

This is pretty deep, but why is it again that we even *have* a large, government-run standing army? Think out of the box for a second. What if the government decided to subcontract *loyal*, but privately owned and operated armies? Employees, not draftees.

It used to be that America had no army of note until the run up to a war. After a war, almost the entire army was let go. But with technology, granted, you need trained and equipped people to conduct complex missions quickly.
But how much of that does the government really need to do?

By taking the government out of the equation, all sorts of things happen--many of which I can only guess. But in today's world, it might be a good idea to figure out the dynamics, pros and cons, of such a scheme.

I'll leave you with this cherry thought: The GM and Ford Armored Divisions. The Microsoft Intelligence Branch. Halliburton shock troops. Mess tent provided by Sarah Lee.
posted by kablam at 8:58 PM on November 3, 2003

The serious answer (whether you're looking for it or not) is that we don't have draftees, kablam. They all volunteered to serve.

But if we get a private army, do we get soldier unions?
posted by NortonDC at 9:06 PM on November 3, 2003

According to your description, when they become eligible for a higher level of benefits due to retirement, they are then given that greater level of benefits. Their compensation increases. . .There is no penalty being applied, nothing be subtracted, nothing taken away, and nothing denied. To suggest otherwise is to say that the disability payments are a reward that their injury entitles them to, which, as I already indicated, is not alt all what the disability payment is about.

Not at all how I see it. A retired soldier gets benefit X. A disabled as a soldier, gets benefit Y. I believe a disabled, retired soldier should get benefits Z where Z=X+Y.

Frankly, I believe a disabled solider should get a special benefit for being disabled, a reward. And seem to agree, otherwise you'd be arguing that a disabled, retired soldier should get just benefit X not Z (X+Y). So essentially we're debating the size of the reward for the retired, disabled soldier, and I'm asserting that these particular benefits should be wholly additive and implicit in this is that veterans constitute a special case (and a rationale for their specialness is that a State should exercise great care for its veterans if it hopes, over the long haul to maintain adequately sized, highly motivated, volunteer armed forces).
posted by donovan at 9:21 PM on November 3, 2003

I believe a disabled solider should get a special benefit for being disabled, a reward.

Then you'll be creating financial incentives for soldiers to let themselves be maimed. The basic principal of governing is that you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. Rewarding soldiers for getting maimed is cruel, perverse, and flat out bad government.

And that high motivation you cite should be motivation at the opportunity to serve, not at the opportunity to draw a fat check. Military service is not and should not be about drawing a check.
posted by NortonDC at 9:36 PM on November 3, 2003

I'm going to waste four years of my life and risk getting shot at to keep gas cheap?

Why not? You already wasted about 4k of bandwidth talking out your ass.

I don't need to lie to myself and others about why I do it.

Fine. So stop lying about how soft military families have it.
posted by alumshubby at 10:15 PM on November 3, 2003

But if we get a private army, do we get soldier unions?

yes. war will end up deadlocked at the bargaining table.
posted by quonsar at 11:33 PM on November 3, 2003

As for military compensation, I'd like to point out that there are plenty of officer's families on foodstamps. Low grade officers are not being paid that fancy, and they had to go to college for the privilege.

Retirement vs. Disability:
Many military retirees work at civilian jobs after retirement. This goes in strong support that the retirement benefit is separate from disability. Especially true for enlisted folks who typically start young so can retire in their 40's.

Of course closing commissaries is good for those advocating doing so. The low-priced superstores are highly likely to be donating a portion of their profits to the election funds of the same people.
posted by Goofyy at 1:26 AM on November 4, 2003

Does anyone else think it's, well, indicative that the word *betrayal* is being used in the Army Times, of all places? The story ties in with what is getting to be a consistent theme, that the Bush administration is looking to skimp and save on things that affect the grunts or the workers or the ordinary lower-middle-class folks, while approving massively more expensive boondoggles like *leasing* supply aircraft. All while striking a jus' folks pose.

Not sure they can count too confidently on that military vote this time.
posted by palancik at 2:34 AM on November 4, 2003

Here is the 2002 military pay chart.

And FWIW, I have never met or heard of a single officer on food-stamps, and only a handful of enlisted troops on food-stamps - as mentioned above, always very junior troops with large families. The political-trail stories of "our troops are on food stamps" is almost entirely politically-motivated and largely untrue.
posted by davidmsc at 4:56 AM on November 4, 2003

Hang in there! Help is on the way! - aWol campaign 2000 speech

I suggest that if the perks are removed for military families then their base pay should be at least doubled if not tripled. The piece of shit called the VA should be made something real and useful.

The 40% of the homeless who are veterans should be provided decent housing and counseling too.

I really like the idea that cuts in the Pentagon budget (didn't they get something like a 35% increase in budget?) is necessary and nowhere are they more necessary than in defense contractors who build F22s and Ospreys and B2s and other unwanted and unneeded pork "projects."
But, but, they contribute very large sums to the campaign coffers of a certain candidate but the foot soldiers don't?
Well!!
Then we'll have to make the cuts where it is politically/monetarily advantageous.
Never liked anything that benefitted poor people anyways, even if they are soldiers and their families I suppose.
It's not like rich Republican kids will have to serve or anything!

The new swing voters, your local military grunts and the nine million unemployed since the year 2000.
posted by nofundy at 5:15 AM on November 4, 2003

Thanks for the pay table, david--enlisted men who have 2 years of service (a tour of duty?) or less make from 12,272/yr to 26,028/yr--if i'm reading and figuring correctly, the first figure is below the poverty line (and the second is not much at all, esp. if you have kids).

And palanchik and nofundy have a good point: We all know that the vast majority of Gore voters in 2000 are not voting for Bush in 2004--add in some of these military folks (vets and military families especially) and it's a Dem win. I can't understand why Bush and his admin. isn't concerned about pissing off a key constituency, let alone hurting them money-wise and their quality of life.

semi-off-topic: these weekly polls they do are interesting too.
posted by amberglow at 5:45 AM on November 4, 2003

"A survey conducted in 1999, showed that about 6,300 military families were on food stamps. That was a dramatic drop from the 12,000 who received aid in 1995 and represents less than 1 percent of the 1.4 million men and women in uniform."
Source.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:12 AM on November 4, 2003

amber:

A lot of that chart is there for completeness and symmetry only. You just plain won't find E-8's with 2 years service, at least not unless we get into a Civil War scale bloodbath. People who are E-6's (E-5's? davidsmc?) and above are almost certainly career NCO's who've been in 10-15 years already. Or at least, they're not the people putting in 4 or 6 years and then leaving. Ditto on the officer's side.

And figuring out military pay can be a nightmare. Basic pay is only a portion of pay -- it's what you get paid if you're living in barracks, and don't get any sort of hazard pay (of which there are many varieties). Housing allowances for people living off-base can be substantial depending on where you are, but base housing is often very limited and being shunted off-base can also mean being shoved into nightmarishly expensive housing. Base housing is also usually more-or-less crappy apartment buildings with strange paint jobs, or at least it was the last time I lived in one as a tot in 1981.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:31 AM on November 4, 2003

It seems complicated, ROU...I think military people (along with teachers, nurses, firemen, police, etc) should be paid well for the service they provide for all of us, even if I disagree with fighting/killing for a living. Aren't we having trouble recruiting too? It seems that you need sweeteners (cheaper food, etc) to attract good candidates.
posted by amberglow at 6:39 AM on November 4, 2003

I just meant that basic pay for enlisted men with 2 years service tops out well below the theoretical maximum of $26K. Nobody gets that.

And that military compensation is notoriously squirrelly.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:05 AM on November 4, 2003

No matter how you juggle the numbers there is no question that the vast majority of people in the US military are vastly underpaid. Consider the case of a typical Navy Chief Petty Officer (E-7) with 10 years of service. This person is by definition a technical specialist in some area and even considering things like off base housing allowance, ComRats, etc. and heck lets even make him a submariner, he's going to make about $40K per year.

All that and we let him be separated from his family for 6 months out of every year and live in a large steel tube sleeping between a nuclear reactor and 24 ICBM's. Whooo! Sign me up.
posted by cmdnc0 at 10:05 AM on November 4, 2003

This person is by definition a technical specialist in some area [...]

In addition, he's also a manager responsible for (most likely) a couple of dozen subordinates, and likely directly reports to an O-5 or higher.

Makes that putatative $40K seem even more paltry, considering.
posted by Cerebus at 10:21 AM on November 4, 2003

This is very interesting. I know most people here haven't been in the military. In the military (at least Army and Air Force), the bases provide a real sense of community. Especially when your base is in a foreign location. The commissary provides a link back to America. You don't know how nice it was to go to the commissary or PX and be able to shop for American goods. I mean Zigeuner Schnitzel is great and all, but sometimes you just want a Twinkie™.

In the military, you often have very young men and women fresh out of high school, and it's very comforting to be secure in the knowledge that the Army is always trying to provide for you. If there's one thing about the military that I miss, it's that feeling that anything I wanted, the military could help me with. The military can be like a warm blanket, it comforts you. Of course having my room inspected to make sure my socks were rolled sucked.

I don't know if I agree with this action or not, I don't know if the military should be in the business of helping soldiers this much. From experience though, the best and brightest soldiers tend to get out after their initial enlistment, because the Army is just too controlling. I would think if the Army fails to engender the sense of community that it currently does, the retention rates would get even worse. Believe it or not, the Army does reward 'fast-trackers', those soldiers who show a high degree a potentional.

You can also see in the quotes from the base commanders in the article linked, that for the most part commanding officers truly care about their charges. The military is a big family. Even now, when I hire someone, if they've been in the military, it is such a huge plus. I suppose it's a little like police officers, always looking out for their own.

It's just sad that the current administration does not see this as a priority. When you are locked in your tank for weeks at a time patrolling in the desert, those things do matter.
posted by patrickje at 11:46 AM on November 4, 2003

2003 chart here.
posted by moonbiter at 3:30 PM on November 4, 2003