Budgetary Savings from Military Restraint

[KenH]

But as he said and I believe, to give up your life which is in God's hands any way isn't giving much up to live in such a fine country.

We owe our lives to God, not the United States government. We owe the blessings that we receive to God mercy and love, not the United States government's largesse.

 

[Bob Alkire]

We owe our lives to God, not the United States government. We owe the blessings that we receive to God mercy and love, not the United States government's largesse.

Yes, we do. However He allowed me to live in this country, state, county and city. I will use the talents he gave me to help any of the above. I believe I'm not going to die till God says it is time, so death if in war or auto crash, or what ever, it is when He says times up here.

How well would this country have done with out the draft at the time of WW II? I believe God uses people, such as He used Daniel, in government. As I said if it had not been for that letter, I would never had joined the service.

 

[KenH]

I will not support a return to the involuntary servitude of a draft and I doubt that the majority of Americans will do so either.

Anyone is free to serve whatever organization he wants to; however, I will not support forcing people to do so through involuntary servitude.

As I have already stated in this thread, involuntary servitude is unconstitutional regardless of what "good" purposes someone might think it might serve. Period.

 

[NiteShift]

Question about this statistic: What was the basic serviceman's level of poverty in the pre-AVF numbers? How much was the average serviceman making in 1974, as compared to his civilian counterpart?

You can see the 1974 pay scale here.

But the vast majority of new recruits and draftees are/were 18 year olds right out of high school, and so it is not as if they would see a drop in pay in most cases. And of course housing, meals, and medical are not an issue for this group since the military provides those things.

 

[Don]

You can see the 1974 pay scale here.

But the vast majority of new recruits and draftees are/were 18 year olds right out of high school, and so it is not as if they would see a drop in pay in most cases. And of course housing, meals, and medical are not an issue for this group since the military provides those things.

Perhaps the military provided food in 1974; I can't find a confirmation one way or another on that. I know they don't provide my meals these days, unless I'm in a hostile fire zone. Instead, they provide a basic allowance for subsistence (BAS); if you are deployed to an area where the meals are provided, the BAS stops.

You'll notice that in 1974, an E1 (straight out of basic training) received $344 each month; if he was married, he received with dependent pay for housing (meaning, he didn't get base quarters, he was required to obtain off-base housing). When I first went active duty in the late 80's, E1-E4 did not get base housing. That means you found an apartment for your family, and you hoped that the allowance for housing covered at least the rent, and most likely didn't cover the utilities.

So figure an E1 with basic allowance for housing with dependents made $454.80 a month; that's $5,457.60 a year.

What did someone in a comparable civilian position make per month in 1974? I found one study that said the median salary for university librarians was $11,800.

That's $6,000 more than the military member.

SO -- would it be safe to say that the increase in pay for military members after 1974 was simply to make their pay comparable to their civilian counterparts?

Or should we consider decreasing military pay, since the proposal is to draft them and force them to serve, rather than ask them to volunteer to protect their country?

 

[glfredrick]

Peanuts compared to what we spend on the Defense/War Department.

Actually, it is not... Entitlements are the largest expenditure of our nation, and the ones not dictated by the Constitution.

Below is the spending of our government for the fiscal year 2008 as released for the 2010 budget process. Virtually every one of these percentages has gone up. As far as I know, none has gone down.

Interest on the debt accounted for 8.5 percent of federal spending.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up about 40 percent of government expenditures.
Defense spending accounted for another 20 percent or so.
And domestic "discretionary” spending on all sorts of programs such as roadways, national parks and federal student loans, make up about 16%.

 

[KenH]

The post I was referring to was about only a tiny sliver of federal expenditures - "unwed mothers and their litters" - not the massive entitlements that practically all Americans participate in receiving in some form(s) or another.

 

[targus]

The post I was referring to was about only a tiny sliver of federal expenditures - "unwed mothers and their litters" - not the massive entitlements that practically all Americans participate in receiving in some form(s) or another.

Ken, as a libertarian, which are you in favor of?

Raising taxes - ie more big government?

Cutting massive entitlements that practically all Americans receive?

Or cutting defense - one of the items that the Constitution states is a responsibility of the government?

A libertarian should have no problem picking out the solution here.

 

[KenH]

A whole bunch of great ideas right here as a starting point:

www.downsizinggovernment.org/


Personally, I would like to see federal spending reduced to 20% of GDP within 5 years, including a large reduction in defense/war spending by closing down overseas bases and bringing our troops home - including leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Taxes should be adjusted to match this.

After we have stabilized the budget with a zero deficit then we can look further to see if more spending, and taxes to go along with it, can be cut.

 

[targus]

A whole bunch of great ideas right here as a starting point:

www.downsizinggovernment.org/

Thanks, Ken, but I was more interested in your personal opinion.

 

[KenH]

Thanks, Ken, but I was more interested in your personal opinion.

Personal opinion added.

 

[Don]

A whole bunch of great ideas right here as a starting point:

www.downsizinggovernment.org/


Personally, I would like to see federal spending reduced to 20% of GDP within 5 years, including a large reduction in defense/war spending by closing down overseas bases and bringing our troops home - including leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. Taxes should be adjusted to match this.

After we have stabilized the budget with a zero deficit then we can look further to see if more spending, and taxes to go along with it, can be cut.

What about those countries that ask us to retain a presence? Should we tell them no, and pull our overseas bases?

 

[KenH]

Yes. We decide what to do with our military.

 

[NiteShift]

Perhaps the military provided food in 1974; I can't find a confirmation one way or another on that. I know they don't provide my meals these days, unless I'm in a hostile fire zone. Instead, they provide a basic allowance for subsistence (BAS); if you are deployed to an area where the meals are provided, the BAS stops.

I initially enlisted in late 70's. At that time you lived in the barracks for free. You were issued a meal card and meals cost you nothing at the mess hall. Medical was free. I believe it is the same today.

When I first went active duty in the late 80's, E1-E4 did not get base housing. That means you found an apartment for your family, and you hoped that the allowance for housing covered at least the rent, and most likely didn't cover the utilities.

Obviously if you had a family things could get tight. I know that. But the majority of 18-year-old draftees were straight out of H.S. and had no such responsibilties. And there were deferments for married men with children.

So figure an E1 with basic allowance for housing with dependents made $454.80 a month; that's $5,457.60 a year.

And for 1974 that wasn't too bad for a single guy who likely had had no work experience other than as a stockboy or pumping gas, and whose basic expenses would be paid for by Uncle Sam, for the next 2-3 years.

SO -- would it be safe to say that the increase in pay for military members after 1974 was simply to make their pay comparable to their civilian counterparts?

That would be some coincidence wouldn't it? All-volunteer kicks in and then suddenly there is concern about making the pay comparable to civilian pay.

Or should we consider decreasing military pay, since the proposal is to draft them and force them to serve, rather than ask them to volunteer to protect their country?

Well, I didn't start this thread. It is about cutting back the military. As I pointed out earlier, the military is the only government agency that has been downsized over the last 20 years, and it was downsized significantly.

Certain groups are continually calling for a reduction of our armed forces and associated costs. But when it comes to something like the draft, something that would actually help accomplish their goal, suddenly their own personal rights are much more important than any other consideration.

 

[KenH]

We need to downsize the mission, such as something less than being policeman of the world. No nation has been able to maintain that position on and on and on in all of history. There is no reason to think that we can do so. We've already done so for 65 years and now it is clear that our economic conditions will not permit us to continue to do so indefinitely. We cannot pay for guns and butter indefinitely, especially when we already have way, way more guns than anyone else.

 

[Don]

So the concept is, we have other country allies, but we don't provide any military support, even if lack of such could result in their being "unduly influenced" by nations with philosophies contrary to ours?

 

[Don]

Well, I didn't start this thread. It is about cutting back the military. As I pointed out earlier, the military is the only government agency that has been downsized over the last 20 years, and it was downsized significantly.

And continues to be....

Certain groups are continually calling for a reduction of our armed forces and associated costs. But when it comes to something like the draft, something that would actually help accomplish their goal, suddenly their own personal rights are much more important than any other consideration.

Gotcha. Understood.

 

[KenH]

but we don't provide any military support

Here's a novel concept: how about these other countries providing their own military support?

 

[Don]

Ken, don't be silly. They do.

South Korea, for example, has their own military. I personally have worked with South Koreans in Afghanistan.

But look at the insanity of Kim Il Jong; if we weren't there in South Korea, shoulder to shoulder with the South Korean military, how long do you think it'd be before he started taking South Korean territory back? And do you really think there's any benefit to us, or anyone else in the world, having Korea united under him?

 

[KenH]

How much longer can we financially continue to be the world's policeman?