Having served in the military for 20 years, I find Democrats in office are destroying the military once again. First it is the pay freezes, then the reduction in bases, ships, planes, and then the troops. Having a President that has never served in his armed forces is terrible, and allowing people to serve in Congress without honorable service is a disgrace.
These are the same people we elect to look after our country and ensure our best interests are being represented. The President is the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and he has the ability to freeze the military pay increases and send our troops into harms way. The President is not in touch with the troops if he believes the military families can survive with a 3 year pay freeze. Members of the Senate and the House that have served in the military are diminishing year by year and are just looking to cut money from service members that need it in pay and in military resources. It is like a person to the Supreme Court that has never been a judge. How can an elected official send the men and women of our Armed Forces into a war zone or away from their family and then vote to freeze their pay?
I would love to have all members of the
Leave the military pay alone because they are already underpaid for their sacrifice.
In my classmate’s blog, “The President, Congress, and the Military,” Mike demonstrates strong convictions against President Obama and Congress in targeting the Military for pay reductions. I found him to be very credible on the subject as he is a Veteran of 20 years. His commentary is convincingly written and he delivers his perspective with passion and honor for the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. The audience more likely to share his views would be conservative readers, though his message speaks loudly to all. He makes very interesting points with regards to President Obama’s lack of military service qualifying him to be Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and those members of Congress without military experience. He poses the question, “How can an elected official send the men and women of our Armed Forces into a war zone or away from their family and then vote to freeze their pay?” Yet Supreme Court justices have experience as attorneys and judges qualifying them to interpret the U.S. Constitution. I completely agree and totally understand his frustration with the points he makes of the President and Congress sending military personnel to war zones yet not adequately compensating them for their services. His point is accurate in that that the service men and women should not have to worry about their families’ well being, while they go to combat or on missions without adequate supplies. I agree with his statement that the President and Congress are not in touch with the troops, but I think the new Congress will push to see that our military and their families will be well taken care of during and after their service to our country.
ReplyDeleteI think that improving compensation for troops is helping retention and agree with the author that the military are underpaid for their sacrifice. Cutting spending will threaten security in the years to come and sends a terrible message to our enemies. How is it that U.S. postal carriers, with no hazardous duty make $70,000 yearly plus significant benefits and are scheduled for another pay increase next year? Congress is discussing filling a $3.8 billion deficit at the federally backed agency, not by salary cuts, but by reducing services such as Saturday delivery. I would challenge anyone to find a civilian job that has the same set of requirements and risks as those experienced by our military personnel. After Sept. 11th this country was quick to get behind its troops. How quick the President and Congress forget that we are still in that same war. This is a ridiculous attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those who are paying or have paid with their blood, sweat, and tears. I enjoyed reading Mikes commentary and have a great deal of respect for his service to our country.