Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

What it means when the Pentagon slashes benefits

When the government and the military apparatus needed men and women to serve in the armed forces to carry out missions of national security and to implement foreign policy, it was competing with the private sector to recruit the best and brightest people possible to fill the ranks. To do that, incentives had to be competitive.

Paul Ryan never served a lick of military duty

When you ask people to work in violent places and to put themselves in harms way, it is reasonable to provide exceptional incentives. Watching the ebb and flow of a nation at war and off again, but mostly engaged, we have witnessed how We the People subject military professionals to whiplash from our fickle behavior and treatment of them.

If benefits were appropriate in the past, what makes them inappropriate today? If benefits were promised as a contract with military professionals in the past, what makes government think they can renege later?

It is the same disgusting behavior that we see from Congressional conservatives in addressing social benefits including Social Security and Medicare.

It makes sense for the American government to manage foreign policy and national security costs within the realm of affordability. That initiative should be applauded. But, Americans must be fully informed and engaged in the process to understand what that means. It also requires that We the People inform government what we expect.

  1. No less than 100% national security
  2. No more foreign policy that we cannot afford
  3. Energy policy that ensures 100% self-reliance and renewable

These things are all related, and President Obama and Congress need to keep explaining it. Because many incumbents cannot, they are quitting and going home. Good riddance. Cut their benefits.

Report this ad