Rob Wittman, R-Va: Military personnel cuts ” is a place we can go”
GOP chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rob Wittman, R-Va, according to our buddy, Rick Maze at the Military Times said that he’s amenable to cuts in personnel costs at the Department of Defense;
If benefits are cut for current troops, any savings could be offset by higher turnover as career service members leave and potential recruits decide not to enlist because of concern the government doesn’t keep commitments, he said.
He’s willing, though, to consider change in pay, health care and retirement for people who have not yet started military service. “I think that is a place we can go,” he said. “I am very much in favor of this discussion.”
Asked if he considered current benefits overly generous, Wittman replied: “I think it generous. I think it is fair for what our men and women have been asked to do.” Asked if he thought future service members would be any less dedicated, Wittman said he did not but, he believed it was fair to provide less generous benefits as long as the future members and their families understood the compensation package they were getting.
So, good, Republicans can talk like Democrats. I guess that means that I can keep my money in my pocket – if I was going to give money to a campaign of a candidate that acts like Democrats, I might as well give it to Democrats.
Mr. Wittman, tell me why a prospective future member of the military would make the sacrifices that they would be asked to make if there’s nothing at the end of the road? I stayed in the military for my stint because I knew what I thought was going to be the benefits when I finished. I never for a minute thought that Congress would erode those benefits after I fulfilled my part of the bargain like they have done. I don’t for a minute believe that Congress won’t reduce the benefits of currently serving and currently retired service members if they find an opportunity.
Thanks to Gregg for the link.
Category: Military issues
And today there are folks in comment sections of these types of discussions stating that you were never actually told that you would have this or that for the rest of your lives. It seems that it was inferred to me but they are right, I didn’t get it in writing and I didn’t bring my lawyer with me to MEPs. And I guess a recruiter telling a young person about the benefits the Army offers isn’t really a legal source of information. SMH
So he thinks that the current benefits, while “generous” are fair for what current members of the military are asked to do, he thinks it will be ok to reduce the benefits for future members.
So I guess that means they will also ask less of future members, since the reduced benefits couldn’t possibly be fair if they were asked to do as much as today’s military.
He should be asked if he thinks his congressional benefits are “fair” based upon the sacrifices he’s asked to make.
The politicians are talking like the military is an old-fashioned notion that we don’t need anymore. With the actions of the current administration, and these kind of comments… I wonder if they know something we don’t? Maybe they’re planning on doing with the military the same thing they did with heavy industry? Outsourcing to foreign countries or privatizing?
I would like to apologize to anyone who feels injured by my comment (#2, above) and the apparent lack of English writing and speaking skills represented therein.
It made sense in my head, but the transition through caffeine-fueled fingers into the keyboard was not as smooth as I would have preferred.
If they really want to do military cuts on the personnel side, streamline the process for units to prune their own shitbags. Maybe let units offer a ‘no fault, it’s just not working’ discharges. (which will destroy readiness, but only on paper) Of course along with that there should probably be a reduction in overall active/reserve numbers. It’s still making the military do as much with less, but IMO it beats taking benefits from military families.
Right, so the guys who get a pension for life for working so little think it’s okay to f$ck the folks who actually risked their lives over and over and over through multiple deployments because we need to save a few bucks?
I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around all of this, is there someone in DC who is capable of understanding the concept that offering less and less compensation eventually leads to less and less people willing to do the work? And that those who are willing to work for less and less are often people with fewer other options….are these guys really trying to make good on the concept that eventually the only people who will serve are those with zero other options, so f$cking them is okay?
This country is really at a crossroad moment, the upper 1% are really trying their damnedest to turn the nation into a mirror of the third world, no middle class only rich and poor and imbeciles with zero compensation in the military to enforce their agendas. No one’s fearful of the Mexican army for good reason, if that’s to be the model of the future for the US…well yippee..
I’m fairly certain a sharp, knowledgable Commander & 1SG could easily find several “less than stellar” individuals to remove from their unit… AND increase efficiency by removing said individuals!
It would be VERY nice if those goldbricking pols would cut their generous perks and benefits first, but when has DC not been a cesspool of idiocy and hypocrisy?
Of course it’s a place “we can go”. It’s easy to do that when it doesn’t affect you personally. Why is there NEVER any discussion about the reduction of benefits to Congress ? Because they’re self serving selfish bastards who don’t care how their actions affect everyone else, only what the bottom line is for them.
How about the benefits of being a congresscritter? It seems they get a whole lot more than military personnel for doing a whole lot less. Maybe the good congresscritter would be ok with having all his benefits shaved, too?
How do these clowns expect to keep soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who want to re-enlist but won’t because the bennies are cut?
It’s the 90’s all over again, people will see the military as not worth it and people will leave instead of re-enlisting and it will somehow be the fault of the troops and not the morons at the Pentagon or Congress.
Frankly, I don’t think members of Congress should get benefits at all. It was never meant to be a lifelong profession. You were intended to do your duty, then go back home to your full-time job. They shouldn’t get more pay than the minimum it takes to do their jobs. Build them some dorms, feed them Army food, and pay for plane tickets home, in coach.
John Adams, and most other public servants (when the phrase meant something), paid their own way while serving, even impoverishing themselves.
Today’s Congress has made themselves a modern aristocracy, with all the cons that come with that.
Too bad pissing on politicians like this guy isn’t a “place we can go” legally.
What a shitbag.
They’re all snakes… Cowards who hide behind the system and pass the buck all while making sure their benefits and compensation are robust.
And people constantly ask me why I did not make a life long career with the military.
I want to see, in WRITING, especially in the Constitution, where these Kongressional Jackasses get the justification for all THEIR pay and perks. Now THERE’S a place to make some meaningful cuts to the budget!
Politicians, short rope, tall tree. Some assembly required. Fuck ’em all up the ass with a pineapple. Backwards. Repeatedly. And often.
The sad fact is most military service people love republicans even though they are always trying to cut your benefits which they believe is a form of welfare as you are nolonger useful to them when you are injured/retired. The more democrats try and buy your love with better pay and benefits the more you hate them. Remember republican motto: “Thank for your service!’ because saying those words to you doesn’t cost us any money in higher benefits or pay!
Right on VWP! How about that awful Republican president who wanted to force combat wounded veterans to pay for their service-connected injuries with private insurance? He sure was a right-wing asshole, huh?
Oh, wait. That was Barack Obama. What were you saying again?
@17…go suck start a howitzer.
Oh good grief VWP@17, you are definitely ass backwards with that logic, and I second the motion of NHSparky @19.
@17. I didn’t read your comment and I’m sure I’m not the only one who passes over comments of yours. I just thought I’d share that with you. Soon, you will be the only one reading your blather. Well, you and Wickre.
CAUTION: Opening the following link and reading the document (“Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress”) will piss you off. If you choose to read it, you are advised to do so free of alcohol and sharp objects:
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*PLC8%22%40%20%20
Rob Witman is a dick.
So is #17.
@17, if we’re voting on whether you should suck start a howitzer, you’re 3 for 3, assmunch.