"And the 'Soldier Kicking Asshat of the Month' award goes to..."
May 27, 2005 8:41 AM Subscribe
"And the 'Soldier Kicking Asshat of the Month' award goes to..." Rep. Duncan Hunter (R - San Diego), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who stripped a bipartisan-approved amendment out of the defense budget which would have given America's 1.1 million reservists the ability to pay $75 a month / $233 per family for healthcare insurance. Hunter claimed that the extra cost would blow the DoD's budget. The cost? About $770 million a year over five years... approximately .0018% of the yearly defense budget, or about 2/3rds the cost of a single stealth bomber.
I bet a lot of people would join the reserves just to get a deal on health insurance (and the extra pay, of course). But I guess the reserves are having absolutely no trouble getting people to sign up.
posted by pracowity at 8:55 AM on May 27, 2005
posted by pracowity at 8:55 AM on May 27, 2005
It's a little confusing that the beginning of this post is in quotes. At first I thought that ""And the 'Soldier Kicking Asshat of the Month' award goes to..." was something that Duncan Hunter had actually said. Which really would have been amusing.
posted by BigPicnic at 8:56 AM on May 27, 2005
posted by BigPicnic at 8:56 AM on May 27, 2005
Hunter was my representative for a couple of years when I lived in San Diego's East County. He constantly runs campaigns on defense issues, which is a popular stance in San Diego given the existence of a naval station and Camp Pendleton within the county's borders... because of this, all but one of the county's representatives are Republicans, and particularly hawkish ones at that.
This though... this is unconscionable. What a hateful person.
posted by the_bone at 8:58 AM on May 27, 2005
This though... this is unconscionable. What a hateful person.
posted by the_bone at 8:58 AM on May 27, 2005
The cost? About $770 million a year over five years
I don't mean to quibble, but your headline got the math wrong. From the article the cost is $203 million in 2006 and then $4.4 billion for the next four years. That's $4.6 billion over 5 years, which is a hair over $900 million a year.
There is also more to the story than your are reporting:
The amendment that was removed would have also increased healthcare premiums for federal employees by $340 million over 5 years. That's $340 million out of the pocket of other workers. (Source:"The shift would cause a spike in FEHB premiums, forcing the government to increase its per capita costs. Costs for employees enrolled in FEHB would decrease by $340 million through 2010, while the cost of retiree benefits would grow by $94 million over the same period, according to CBO.")
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:11 AM on May 27, 2005
I don't mean to quibble, but your headline got the math wrong. From the article the cost is $203 million in 2006 and then $4.4 billion for the next four years. That's $4.6 billion over 5 years, which is a hair over $900 million a year.
There is also more to the story than your are reporting:
The amendment that was removed would have also increased healthcare premiums for federal employees by $340 million over 5 years. That's $340 million out of the pocket of other workers. (Source:"The shift would cause a spike in FEHB premiums, forcing the government to increase its per capita costs. Costs for employees enrolled in FEHB would decrease by $340 million through 2010, while the cost of retiree benefits would grow by $94 million over the same period, according to CBO.")
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:11 AM on May 27, 2005
If you support this war and you're under 39, sign up. If you're over 39, send your kids. Simple as that.
posted by bardic at 9:15 AM on May 27, 2005
posted by bardic at 9:15 AM on May 27, 2005
If you support this war and you're under 39, sign up. If you're over 39, send your kids. Simple as that.
Agreed.
posted by R590 at 9:17 AM on May 27, 2005
Agreed.
posted by R590 at 9:17 AM on May 27, 2005
This though... this is unconscionable. What a hateful person.
I don't endorse the actions of the congressman, but taking a position on an appropriations bill is hardly tantamount to being hateful. This isn't a resolution establishing National Puppy-Kicking Week.
I enjoy liberal hysteria as much as anyone, but you would benefit from targeting your invective in more appropriate directions.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:25 AM on May 27, 2005
I don't endorse the actions of the congressman, but taking a position on an appropriations bill is hardly tantamount to being hateful. This isn't a resolution establishing National Puppy-Kicking Week.
I enjoy liberal hysteria as much as anyone, but you would benefit from targeting your invective in more appropriate directions.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 9:25 AM on May 27, 2005
National puppy kicking week is awesome. They had that in Iraq under Saddam, you know. That's when they hid the WMDs. When everyone was out kicking puppies.
posted by swerdloff at 9:31 AM on May 27, 2005
posted by swerdloff at 9:31 AM on May 27, 2005
Hunter was my representative for a couple of years when I lived in San Diego's East County. He constantly runs campaigns on defense issues, which is a popular stance in San Diego given the existence of a naval station and Camp Pendleton within the county's borders... because of this, all but one of the county's representatives are Republicans
To be fair, most of their districts also incorporate some of the hinterlands of neighboring counties as well, so it's not like they're representing the actual City of San Diego in Congress. For example, Hunter's district (when I was in high school, anyway) takes in the far eastern portion of the SD metro area, and then stretches alllllll the way down the Mexican border way into Imperial county. As such, he's also very hawkish on border issues, once nixing a freight train line that would have had to cross into Mexico for fear of "bandidos" (actual quote).
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who represents northern SD county, can count Tom Metzger as one of his constituents.
If you support this war and you're under 39, sign up. If you're over 39, send your kids. Simple as that.
I agree as well, but I really don't see what that statement has to do with a house amendment on health insurance.
posted by LionIndex at 9:34 AM on May 27, 2005
To be fair, most of their districts also incorporate some of the hinterlands of neighboring counties as well, so it's not like they're representing the actual City of San Diego in Congress. For example, Hunter's district (when I was in high school, anyway) takes in the far eastern portion of the SD metro area, and then stretches alllllll the way down the Mexican border way into Imperial county. As such, he's also very hawkish on border issues, once nixing a freight train line that would have had to cross into Mexico for fear of "bandidos" (actual quote).
Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who represents northern SD county, can count Tom Metzger as one of his constituents.
If you support this war and you're under 39, sign up. If you're over 39, send your kids. Simple as that.
I agree as well, but I really don't see what that statement has to do with a house amendment on health insurance.
posted by LionIndex at 9:34 AM on May 27, 2005
National puppy kicking week is awesome.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wow, when is that? I want to kick puppies. Do you have to bring your own or are they provided? Are there puppy kicking boothes?
posted by mk1gti at 9:50 AM on May 27, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wow, when is that? I want to kick puppies. Do you have to bring your own or are they provided? Are there puppy kicking boothes?
posted by mk1gti at 9:50 AM on May 27, 2005
The process this shit stick used to strip the amendment was a nearly unprecedented use of power/rules by a committee chair. Could be easily interpreted as abuse of rules/power.
He could have cut back on Star Wars or B2 bombers funding just a small fraction and easily paid for this.
This action highlights the very clear distinction between supporting the troops or supporting the military coporations.
Damn corporate whore who cares nothing for the troops.
posted by nofundy at 10:23 AM on May 27, 2005
He could have cut back on Star Wars or B2 bombers funding just a small fraction and easily paid for this.
This action highlights the very clear distinction between supporting the troops or supporting the military coporations.
Damn corporate whore who cares nothing for the troops.
posted by nofundy at 10:23 AM on May 27, 2005
Let me make sure I understand this...
I sign up for the reserves, keep my day job but make a few extra bucks to play soldier one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer.
But then Bush invades Iraq, and they call me up for active duty. I leave my day job, but my employer is supposed to give it back to me when I return. Got that much already.
So, if my family's health insurance is provided by my employer, I lose that when I get called up (maybe keep it via COBRA?), but the reserves doesn't give me the option of buying into a group plan through them, even though the reserves effectively becomes my employer now? My family's SOL on insurance while I'm serving. Great.
The amendment would have rectified this situation.
Did I get all that correct?
posted by tippiedog at 10:29 AM on May 27, 2005
I sign up for the reserves, keep my day job but make a few extra bucks to play soldier one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer.
But then Bush invades Iraq, and they call me up for active duty. I leave my day job, but my employer is supposed to give it back to me when I return. Got that much already.
So, if my family's health insurance is provided by my employer, I lose that when I get called up (maybe keep it via COBRA?), but the reserves doesn't give me the option of buying into a group plan through them, even though the reserves effectively becomes my employer now? My family's SOL on insurance while I'm serving. Great.
The amendment would have rectified this situation.
Did I get all that correct?
posted by tippiedog at 10:29 AM on May 27, 2005
Did I get all that correct?
Not exactly. If a reservist (guard or reserves both are "RC" here) is called up they already get healthcare.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:36 AM on May 27, 2005
Not exactly. If a reservist (guard or reserves both are "RC" here) is called up they already get healthcare.
When ordered to active duty for more than 30 consecutive days, RC members have comprehensive health care coverage under TRICARE. ... When the RC sponsor is on orders for more than 30 consecutive days, his/her family's medical and dental care needs are covered under several TRICARE options.This would have given healthcare to reservists while they were still inactve ("weekend warriors").
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:36 AM on May 27, 2005
God, this is just as bad as that AlexReynolds post as far as trying to make hysterical partisan points that aren't even consistent with the article linked to by the poster......
From the post:
The cost? About $770 million a year over five years... approximately .0018% of the yearly defense budget, or about 2/3rds the cost of a single stealth bomber.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:41 AM PST
From the article used as the basis of the post:
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending Tricare Reserve Select would cost $230 million in 2006 alone and nearly $4.4 billion more over the next four years.
The hysteria isn't even consistent with the source of the information.
Good for devildancedlightly for pointing out why this is more over-blown histrionics.
posted by dios at 10:48 AM on May 27, 2005
From the post:
The cost? About $770 million a year over five years... approximately .0018% of the yearly defense budget, or about 2/3rds the cost of a single stealth bomber.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:41 AM PST
From the article used as the basis of the post:
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending Tricare Reserve Select would cost $230 million in 2006 alone and nearly $4.4 billion more over the next four years.
The hysteria isn't even consistent with the source of the information.
Good for devildancedlightly for pointing out why this is more over-blown histrionics.
posted by dios at 10:48 AM on May 27, 2005
Hmm. In the article provided by ddl, there is an interesting point:
The provision would push the military's mandatory spending levels beyond those allowed under the fiscal 2006 budget resolution.
If that level of spending is not allowed, how did it get in the bill in the first place?
posted by dios at 10:59 AM on May 27, 2005
The provision would push the military's mandatory spending levels beyond those allowed under the fiscal 2006 budget resolution.
If that level of spending is not allowed, how did it get in the bill in the first place?
posted by dios at 10:59 AM on May 27, 2005
This action highlights the very clear distinction between supporting the troops or supporting the military coporations.
nola bangs table in agreement with nofundy 'hear ,hear!'
posted by nola at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2005
nola bangs table in agreement with nofundy 'hear ,hear!'
posted by nola at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2005
dios, your crush on AlexReynolds is charming. Are you guys going steady?
posted by bardic at 12:05 PM on May 27, 2005
posted by bardic at 12:05 PM on May 27, 2005
Whether or not this specific bill should have passed (I have no strong opinion either way), it does strike me that our focus in the armed services is in exactly the wrong place.
It is the soldiers that fight the wars. A great soldier can fight and win with a broken toothpick.... though I'm sure he'd prefer a howitzer. :) Gear is important, yes. But it is the guy USING the gear that truly matters.
From what I can see, we'd be much better off buying less 'stuff', paying the soldiers more, and making sure their healthcare benefits afterward are excellent. And when we do buy equipment, we should be focusing more on on the individual soldiers' outfitting, rather than big weapons systems. We don't appear to need any more stealth bombers or nuclear subs... where we definitely do need personal body armor, as well as armor kits for the hummvees.
Stealth bombers are sexy and attractive pork-barrel projects, but it's the grunts that get the work done, and we should be paying a lot more attention to what they need. And paying them more.
The whole war is just stomping on anthills, but if we're determined to uselessly stomp, we should at least provide excellent boots with which to do it.
posted by Malor at 12:52 PM on May 27, 2005
It is the soldiers that fight the wars. A great soldier can fight and win with a broken toothpick.... though I'm sure he'd prefer a howitzer. :) Gear is important, yes. But it is the guy USING the gear that truly matters.
From what I can see, we'd be much better off buying less 'stuff', paying the soldiers more, and making sure their healthcare benefits afterward are excellent. And when we do buy equipment, we should be focusing more on on the individual soldiers' outfitting, rather than big weapons systems. We don't appear to need any more stealth bombers or nuclear subs... where we definitely do need personal body armor, as well as armor kits for the hummvees.
Stealth bombers are sexy and attractive pork-barrel projects, but it's the grunts that get the work done, and we should be paying a lot more attention to what they need. And paying them more.
The whole war is just stomping on anthills, but if we're determined to uselessly stomp, we should at least provide excellent boots with which to do it.
posted by Malor at 12:52 PM on May 27, 2005
"This would have given healthcare to reservists while they were still inactve ("weekend warriors").
...in other words, it would allow reservists to return home after being deployed, but still allow them to use their own money to provide consistant, reliable health care for their families before being sent back out again, right?! That could mean the world to a young soldier who has a sick kid he has to take care of, while facing long deployments and employers back home who don't want to hire reservists fulltime permanent, preferring to offer them temp positions without benefits instead.
It would also provide coverage for their family for those periods of time when reservists *are* serving our country, but haven't reached the 30-day eligibility period yet, right?!
(And is it just me, or do the rest of you find thedevildancedlightly's use of the term "weekend warriors" demeaning, under current circumstances?)
"The hysteria isn't even consistent with the source of the information. . . more over-blown histrionics."
Actually, all of the costs provided are estimates... nothing more, nothing less. This article puts the cost at approximately 3.85 billion over five years, which would actually be less than my ballpark statement of $770 million a year.
Maybe the actual cost would only be $600 million. Maybe it would be a billion. The fact remains, however, that it is a miniscule expense compared to the defense budget as a whole.
So, where's the histrionics? Thedevildancedlightly was right when he said he didn't mean to quibble. Apparently, however, you do.
A simple question, Dios... Do you support giving soldiers serving in the Reserves during a time of war access to a reliable, stable source of healthcare for themselves and their families or not? Is $800 million too much to ask? What about $1.2 billion? .0018% of the defense budget, or .002%? If the military outsourced some of the work to India, would that be better for you?
"The provision would push the military's mandatory spending levels beyond those allowed under the fiscal 2006 budget resolution."
Really? Then cut funding for a single stealth bomber.
Oh wait, Northrop-Grumman is Duncan Hunter's 4th largest political contributor. Nevermind...
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:06 PM on May 27, 2005
...in other words, it would allow reservists to return home after being deployed, but still allow them to use their own money to provide consistant, reliable health care for their families before being sent back out again, right?! That could mean the world to a young soldier who has a sick kid he has to take care of, while facing long deployments and employers back home who don't want to hire reservists fulltime permanent, preferring to offer them temp positions without benefits instead.
It would also provide coverage for their family for those periods of time when reservists *are* serving our country, but haven't reached the 30-day eligibility period yet, right?!
(And is it just me, or do the rest of you find thedevildancedlightly's use of the term "weekend warriors" demeaning, under current circumstances?)
"The hysteria isn't even consistent with the source of the information. . . more over-blown histrionics."
Actually, all of the costs provided are estimates... nothing more, nothing less. This article puts the cost at approximately 3.85 billion over five years, which would actually be less than my ballpark statement of $770 million a year.
Maybe the actual cost would only be $600 million. Maybe it would be a billion. The fact remains, however, that it is a miniscule expense compared to the defense budget as a whole.
So, where's the histrionics? Thedevildancedlightly was right when he said he didn't mean to quibble. Apparently, however, you do.
A simple question, Dios... Do you support giving soldiers serving in the Reserves during a time of war access to a reliable, stable source of healthcare for themselves and their families or not? Is $800 million too much to ask? What about $1.2 billion? .0018% of the defense budget, or .002%? If the military outsourced some of the work to India, would that be better for you?
"The provision would push the military's mandatory spending levels beyond those allowed under the fiscal 2006 budget resolution."
Really? Then cut funding for a single stealth bomber.
Oh wait, Northrop-Grumman is Duncan Hunter's 4th largest political contributor. Nevermind...
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:06 PM on May 27, 2005
"This article puts the cost at approximately 3.85 billion over five years, which would actually be less than my ballpark statement of $770 million a year."
Er... my bad. That article was where I got the ballpark figure of $770 million originally... which is why I was surprised to find my calculations somewhat off. My point, however, stands. The costs are negligible under the circumstances.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:18 PM on May 27, 2005
Er... my bad. That article was where I got the ballpark figure of $770 million originally... which is why I was surprised to find my calculations somewhat off. My point, however, stands. The costs are negligible under the circumstances.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:18 PM on May 27, 2005
I remember having better pay under Clinton. Strange how a draft dodger seemed to do that.
Is it a stretch to say that Hunter & his contributors care more about materials than men because men are empty costs while materials can be sold and create wealth for those contributors. Taking care of the men isn't good for the profit margin so it's dropped.
Is this some special effect of Occam's razor here? Am I imposing a pattern on his actions? Or is it manifestly what seems to be happening?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:46 PM on May 27, 2005
Is it a stretch to say that Hunter & his contributors care more about materials than men because men are empty costs while materials can be sold and create wealth for those contributors. Taking care of the men isn't good for the profit margin so it's dropped.
Is this some special effect of Occam's razor here? Am I imposing a pattern on his actions? Or is it manifestly what seems to be happening?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:46 PM on May 27, 2005
Smedleyman, men are not just empty costs, their methods of supply to the military have secondary benefits to the Inner Republican Party. Keep a wide gap between rich and poor, and the poor will join the military to escape their fate. As a side effect, the plutocracy continues. Keep the culture jingoistic and patriotic and joining the military will be seen as an honorable national service, rather than as an attempt to get a job with feasible entry requirements. As a side effect, the public remain receptive to Republican propaganda about the role and purpose of the military, and as another side effect, the military remain a stronghold of the Outer Republican Party, and a great source of pliable proles to keep on voting for the Republicans even though it is against their financial, familial, physical and moral interests to do so.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:41 PM on May 27, 2005
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:41 PM on May 27, 2005
or do the rest of you find thedevildancedlightly's use of the term "weekend warriors" demeaning, under current circumstances?
The term came directly from one of the news stories and is a standard term for non-active reservists that show up one weekend a month. I didn't invent it and I figured that people might recognize it as an accurate description. I grew up not far from Quantico Marine Corps Base and a local Guard station and that's what we called inactive reservists and Guard members.
Those who are actively serving are by no means weekend warriors.
other words, it would allow reservists to return home after being deployed, but still allow them to use their own money to provide consistant, reliable health care for their families before being sent back out again, right
If you'd bothered to read the link you'd note that once somebody has reached their 30-day activation you get coverage for a year. Further, if you have ever been called up after 9/11 you get access to TRICARE for the rest of the time that you are in the reserves or guard (active or inactive).
So, again, please check your facts before making allegations.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:44 PM on May 27, 2005
The term came directly from one of the news stories and is a standard term for non-active reservists that show up one weekend a month. I didn't invent it and I figured that people might recognize it as an accurate description. I grew up not far from Quantico Marine Corps Base and a local Guard station and that's what we called inactive reservists and Guard members.
Those who are actively serving are by no means weekend warriors.
other words, it would allow reservists to return home after being deployed, but still allow them to use their own money to provide consistant, reliable health care for their families before being sent back out again, right
If you'd bothered to read the link you'd note that once somebody has reached their 30-day activation you get coverage for a year. Further, if you have ever been called up after 9/11 you get access to TRICARE for the rest of the time that you are in the reserves or guard (active or inactive).
So, again, please check your facts before making allegations.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:44 PM on May 27, 2005
"
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:46 PM on May 27, 2005
Reservists and National Guardsmen, often nicknamed "weekend warriors," are part-time soldiers who during normal times, are expected to commit one weekend per month and two weeks per year to training and service."
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 5:46 PM on May 27, 2005
If you support this war and you're under 39, sign up. If you're over 39, send your kids. Simple as that.
Yes, because your kids deserve to die for your convictions, even if they don't share 'em!
posted by delmoi at 8:22 PM on May 27, 2005
Yes, because your kids deserve to die for your convictions, even if they don't share 'em!
posted by delmoi at 8:22 PM on May 27, 2005
« Older Next the find out about the hairy palms | Chris Sickels and his puppet pictures Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:42 AM on May 27, 2005