This will likely get me unfriended by some...
I am going to say something that will likely earn me a lashing but... in a small way this government shutdown has been a bit of a small blessing. We as the voting public are able to see first hand where the money has been going, how our politicians have divided out bills and proposals and attached programs to funds that are woefully inappropriate for them. Every time I hear someone claim that the President has "shut off" something (like the Amber Alert program) I want to scream. No one individual shut down that service folks. It was shut down because it was attached to funds that are not considered essential; therefore it was shut down. Our country is based on the almighty dollar... had it been attached to funds that are considered essential, it likely would not have seen a single hour of darkness. Just like leisure programs attached to essential operations funds (like gyms in government buildings) were able to remain open through the shutdown. The way I see it we need to hold our politicians responsible for their actions, stop shuttling things around until their original intention is lost, stop "robbing peter to pay paul", stop shaving away protection clauses, and stop attaching nonsensical things to logical programs. You know?
Like the program that requires soldiers to pay a portion of their retirement check to their spouse after retirement if they were together for at least 10 years during their term of service. When this program was originally proposed it made sense. Women married soldiers and gave up their education and/or careers (sometimes left their home countries) to follow their soldier all over the earth. There was little chance for a woman to finish an education or hold a career of their own moving every couple of years; nor was it affordable to do either once children entered the picture. So it made sense that if a divorce occurred and the spouse had given their lives to the Army, they they too should be at least supported for a time until they can get on their feet and develop the education or the skills to provide for themselves and/or their children. In some part this type of need still occurs today. Here is the rub... when the program was originally put to vote it included protect clauses for the soldier. Say like the wife DID have her own money, career, and whatnot and she made more money than the soldier, there was a clause that would disallow that spouse to come after their ex-husband's retirement in those cases because the intent of the program was to support those who didn't have the means to support themselves. Makes sense, right? There was also a clause that stated if a ex-military wife chooses to remarry, then she loses her portion of the "retirement and benefits" she was afforded as an ex-military wife under their previous service member. Logical. However by the time this program made it out of the house and the senate it has been protections shaved away, misshapen, and the original intent completely lost. I have seen so many soldier's lose half their benefits to ex-spouses who make a ton of cash and they still go after "what is owed to them" leaving their ex-soldier to live on a couple of hundred a month (the amount leftover after their ex-spouses cut).
Its' stuff like this that just gets under my skin...
Like the program that requires soldiers to pay a portion of their retirement check to their spouse after retirement if they were together for at least 10 years during their term of service. When this program was originally proposed it made sense. Women married soldiers and gave up their education and/or careers (sometimes left their home countries) to follow their soldier all over the earth. There was little chance for a woman to finish an education or hold a career of their own moving every couple of years; nor was it affordable to do either once children entered the picture. So it made sense that if a divorce occurred and the spouse had given their lives to the Army, they they too should be at least supported for a time until they can get on their feet and develop the education or the skills to provide for themselves and/or their children. In some part this type of need still occurs today. Here is the rub... when the program was originally put to vote it included protect clauses for the soldier. Say like the wife DID have her own money, career, and whatnot and she made more money than the soldier, there was a clause that would disallow that spouse to come after their ex-husband's retirement in those cases because the intent of the program was to support those who didn't have the means to support themselves. Makes sense, right? There was also a clause that stated if a ex-military wife chooses to remarry, then she loses her portion of the "retirement and benefits" she was afforded as an ex-military wife under their previous service member. Logical. However by the time this program made it out of the house and the senate it has been protections shaved away, misshapen, and the original intent completely lost. I have seen so many soldier's lose half their benefits to ex-spouses who make a ton of cash and they still go after "what is owed to them" leaving their ex-soldier to live on a couple of hundred a month (the amount leftover after their ex-spouses cut).
Its' stuff like this that just gets under my skin...