Comments | retiredmaj: Politicians First (A bit "R" rated)

retiredmaj

Politicians First (A bit "R" rated)

Nov 23, 2010 21:05

Now, I'm one of the folks on the deficit reduction/balance the budget band-wagon. I know enough to know I don't fully understand economics as being preached at the federal level, and there's actually some sound arguments for having a small deficit. (I don't recall them off hand, but I remember learning about them from one of my Master's classes ( Read more... )

government, military

Comments 6

larmer November 24 2010, 03:55:31 UTC

good points. the us military especially the lower ranks is low. Canadian Forces personnel get paid much more than their American equivalents. My airman wife has had conversation with Canadian airmen (who have trained with the USAF) to bring that point home. When she joined over 20 years ago she was legible for food stamps while she fixed Minuteman II nuclear missles.

(Billeting airmen with foreigners saves some costs which I don't mind except when my airman has some wine and she insists on sex. Then I just lie there and think of England. ;) )

All that said no matter what the commission comes up with someone is going to be treated badly. Cutting costs whether it be in the home (no vacation), a business (layoffs), or government (less programs or pay freezes) is painful. In Canada our feds worked hard to balance the books for over a decade. Pay freezes, lack of equipment for the military, canceling of many good programs, were all the costs.

Balancing the books sucks.

Good luck cousins.

eleanors_closet November 24 2010, 11:47:07 UTC

I'm with you. But I don't think the prez get free food. I think he has to pay for it, just like the rest of us. Official functions are I'm sure funded, but not the family dinner.

meirwen November 24 2010, 15:57:12 UTC

No major argument, but one teensy quibble, with "he gets free room and board." Yes, but that implies he has no housing expenses. Last I checked Presidents were still personally responsible for any personal debts incurred before election (like, say, a mortgage). He gets free board on his "dorms" during the duration of his stay in office, but still must continue to make payments on properties under mortgage and other personal debts and present, non-office/security related expenses. It's a small point, but to ignore it undercuts other arguments, so I thought you might want to fix that. ;-)

meirwen November 24 2010, 16:00:43 UTC

And, a further question. You said there are 58 suggestions, of which the salary freeze is one. Is this, in fact, the one most likely to be enacted? Has there been a statement on it? Would the commission have done it's job responsibly if it had not included it as an option, if the charge to the commission was to find ways to save buckets of money, if in fact this saves buckets of money?

That doesn't mean I think the freeze should go in place (I've seen too many service member families getting food stamps to think it's a good idea), but I really want to know the answers to the above.

The other 57 suggestions.... retiredmaj November 25 2010, 01:04:59 UTC

Several of the ideas proposed make good sense (to me anyway), examples in the defense arena are: reduce overseas bases by one-third, reduce procurement by 15%, and close the stateside DoD schools and put the kids in the local schools. Other examples include: cut the federal workforce (non-defense) by 10%, eliminate earmarks, slow the growth of foreign aid. There's a draft of the document here: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf

I doubt I'd have carped (as hard anyway) if we weren't fighting a war. But freezing already low wages on people being put in harms way is simply callous and ridiculous. And arguing (*you* aren't but I've heard others proclaim this) that "we all have to sacrifice" is, given the people my rant refers to, simultaneously darkly funny *and* offensive.

About the "free room and board"... retiredmaj November 25 2010, 00:51:57 UTC

Actually, just to quibble, I don't believe it does undercut my gripe. You are quite correct, no one is exempt from their personally held debts while serving in goverment (with the odd exception of student loan deferment while on military duty); but given the net worth of the last string of Presidents, aruging "hardship" is pretty much a non-starter. Presidential compensation also includes a $50K/year expense allowance. Now, I have no doubt they spend most of that on various aspects of occupying the office; but I'm willing to bet Michelle is *not* writing checks to Wegmans out of the family account to feed the four of them. :)