Thank you John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The Senate Armed Services Committee is proposing a cut to Basic Allowance for Housing if two service members are married. Seems like a damn shoddy deal. Not to mention a paperwork nightmare. Suppose one gets deployed or sent to another stateside base for training. Do they go back to two BAHs then?

Thoughts?

COS Gazette

quote:

---

Many of the 40,000 dual-service couples in the military - members married to other service members - have for years drawn combined housing allowances stateside that more than cover their rent and utility costs.

The philosophy has been that Basic Allowance for Housing, or BAH, is a key element of military compensation needed to keep pace with civilian worker salaries, so it should not be reduced or eliminated based on what dual-service couples actually pay for housing.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has inserted language in its version of the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill that takes a different view. It seeks to end what some lawmakers perceive as an income windfall for dual-service couples by linking BAH payments to what these families actually pay to rent housing at new and future assignments.

If the full Senate and, later this summer, the full House agree to this change, it would be a dramatic compensation cut for dual-service families whose numbers have grown over the last several years with military recognition of gay and lesbian marital status.Under current law, a dual service couple with no children assigned to the same locale can each draw BAH at a lower "without dependents" rate.

If the couples have a child or children, the more senior ranking member can draw BAH at a higher "with dependents" rate while the other member continues to draw BAH at the lower "without" rate.The Senate bill, in both circumstances, would allow only the higher-ranking member in dual-service marriage to draw any BAH, though at the higher with-dependents rate. The other member would be ineligible for BAH.

---

Oh, and there is a White House Petition you can sign if you think it needs to go.

So in other words they are starting to cut an incentive to get married too young? How horrible

As a single guy in the military, I'm so sick of the attitude of entitlement of the married guys. I'm tired of having to sit duty on weekends and holidays, I'm tired of getting stuck with crappy duty stations, and I'm tired of working late because some married guy is having "family issues" and had to leave.

Sorry, just felt like ranting today.

Have to cut the fat somewhere and this is a good beginning! Learn to live within your means!

I've never been dual military but I always thought if both SM's are stationed together and a shared domicile is available then only the lower rate SM would receive BAH. And both SM's would collect BAH if not stationed in the same zip code.

quote:

---

Not to mention a paperwork nightmare. Suppose one gets deployed or sent to another stateside base for training. Do they go back to two BAHs then?

---

Then they'll be treated like all other military families.

This seems like a prudent way to reduce spending. I know those that it affects won't like it but it makes sense.

Seems like a good change. If both stationed at same duty station or in same geographic area, double dipping makes no sense and should be cut.

As a 1lt in the 70's I was assigned to Goose.AB Labrador. Two yr tour accompanied 1 yr remote. A capt with connections wangled a remote tour along with his capt wife ALSO on a remote tour. To his credit, the Wing CC made them stay in the BOQ even though there were plenty of empty houses. The couple was resented and had few friends. His name was Eckert and he was the grandson of a retired AF Lt Gen/Baseball Commissioner.

We have to make cuts.. it sucks and some of us will not like it, but in the end the baby boomer who designed the entitlements for the military over did it. The benefits, VA, retirement are too expensive to maintain at it's current form unless we either a. find new source of income or b. bring the cost down to a supportable level.

In the civil side, I would argue that medicare, social security and disabilities are also costing us more then the amount inputed.. (opinion not a fact). and if those program continue to grow at it's current rate.. well something has to be sacrifice.

My vote .. close down government unions, eliminate redirection of funds .. i.e. don't take from social security to pay for pet project x, and finally to raise the needed delta.. create a new program that will also inflate.. (see government health care Bob).. cause when we are already overspending..let add another very expensive program that is sure to grow exponentially and out of control over time. Note: I support Tort reform and changing several of the laws to allow the cost of medicine to come down. .. i.e. stop crazy law suit, create a rating system for doctors.. the more time they mess up.. they get a negative one.. you go see your doctor and he is a 2.. you are like sorry buddy i will check out that 7 over there at Scott and White. .. an 9 will charge .. so you pay for what you get. Oh and you can't sue unless gross negligence.. i.e. the guy was drunk while removing the liver (note: you went in to take out a splinter).. guy will drop points.

Again this is just random thoughts encourage by some alcohol prior to flying the commercial airplane tomorrow (Not going to say the name .. but South is part of the name..)

For the FBI-- that was a joke... or the NSA since i know you aren't tracking this anymore. .. where is that wink

Dual military here.

I was unaware that my BAH should be used for a 7 series Beamer. Here I am driving a '99 hand-me-down Toyota Camry like a sucker.

We use my BAH to pay the au pair so we can deal with late nights, deployments, last minute backfill TDY assignments, and on-call duties (and we still come out behind every year).

If they are going to kill dual BAH (and there are valid reasons for doing so) military child care needs to be a whole lot better and a whole lot cheaper.

Could this be an intentional way to downsize the military? I'd imagine there'd be better ways, but surely those people that came up with it knew that this would cause a lot of people to seek civilian employment.

quote:

---

Could this be an intentional way to downsize the military? I'd imagine there'd be better ways, but surely those people that came up with it knew that this would cause a lot of people to seek civilian employment.

---

It's a loophole in a regulation that's being closed. I doubt the same congress that failed to pass a budget for 5 straight years has a nefarious plan to coerce 1/100th of the military to leave

Expect a lot of married females to get out of the military soon. Doesn't make any difference to me, but I did sit in an impromptu and informal meeting with an O-6 wanting to come up with ideas to keep females in to screen for command and saying that it was a serious concern for a lot of the higher ups.

Thats why maternity leave was just doubled.

This makes a lot of sense. It am doubtful that it will pass because it will be savaged by the feminists and the Congressional entitlement caucus.

I would go step further and make BAH a flat rate for both single and married personnel. The congress provides a monetary incentive for low paid junior military to get married. The DoD has facilities for on-base government quarters for almost all single service members except in very rare circumstances. They are nothing to brag about but they are on base. The services can and should require single first term service members to live in available government quarters and depending on availability of bachelor quarters allow more senior single servicemen to move off base and receive a flat rate BAH.

An E-3 with over three years of service earns $2055 per month in base pay (http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html) but has a $1278 per month incentive (http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bahCalc.cfm) to get married and move off base. That leads to some very bad personal financial decisions that dramatically increase the "cost of ownership" for the DoD of that indivdual Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman and dramatically lowers their deployability. The taxpayers spend more money on the same individual and get less expeditionary capability for doing so.

All of this is cost of families is casually dismissed with a hand wave and a pithy proverb that we enlist Soldiers but we re-enlist families. While that may be true and there are financial decisions to be made on staying or leaving the military that relate to the ability to support a spouse on a military paycheck those decisions should be the burden of the individual and not an entitlement from the MilPers appropriation.

Unwanted attrition rates among the career force and those first termers that we want to retain to become part of the career force can be better addressed by base pay increases or bonuses.. One of the best ideas I've heard is an annual bachelors' bonus that would be paid to single service men and women to remain unmarried and to remain without any dependent children. A $10-15k annual bachelors' bonus paid on the anniversary of accession to active duty would be a significant financial incentive at the personal level and would be far less expensive than dependent BAH.

I 100% disagree w/a "bachelor bonus" but 100% agree w/a flat rate BAH.

I agree we need to remove the strong incentive for junior enlisted to get married, & I do not know what that solution is. As long as they are required to live in the barracks while their married brethren are allowed to live w/spouse (even on post) a huge segment will get married just to move off post.

The entire military industrial complex needs to be reevaluated from top to bottom. Procurement is a monster dragging us down. Pay & benefits need to be radically re-calibrated. O&M needs to be readjusted to pre-1998 ratios. R&D needs major adjustments. The entire military spending culture needs to be adjusted. From the Company to the Corps level & above, massive problems exist.

I like your thought process. I like your attitude. I just don't see bachelor bonus as the answer & unfortunately I don't know what is.

The final thing for right now 20 year retirement makes a lot of sense for your Infantry NCO, but I still do not think it is the right answer. For every 38-45 yr old retiring 11X, 18X, 19X, or 03XX E-8 or E-9 getting out who is still spry enough to keep going & will transition to an equitable civilian job I will show you one who is physically broke down w/little to no job prospects. The same is not as true of your 11, 18, 19, or 03XX Officers or most other branches. I think the easy answer is eliminate the 20yr retirement mark but make late career branch transfers vastly easier. Alternatively allow Soldiers (& all military) to transition to a GS position at a minimum of 80% of there highest military pay after 20 years. This may result in a GS-5 getting $80k a year but is better than a retired Soldier getting $35k a year to work in the private sector for 20+ years.

Also military pay needs adjustments across the board. Include more career & duty incentives. I worked way (way way) more hours as an S-3 (& for lower pay) than I ever worked as a civilian. Conversely I had other duty assignments where I felt like I was robbing the tax payer drawing a check to work 50hrs a week in an office, w/every wkd off, 10 four days a year, & basically no stress. I know plenty of guys (& girls) who seek those easy assignments & go 20+ years skating. I know plenty of men & women who seek the tough assignments & sacrifice everything for them. They both get paid the same, will retire at the same rank, & the skaters will normally have much stronger job prospects. I do not know how best to resolve that, but it is something that needs addressing. A flat rate BAH may help w/that as well.

Certainly agree thaylt this is small potatoes.

For healthcare, I could see tricare prime for families going away. For the service member, we have to have prime, the military can't afford to not have that for readiness reasons. But for families, I could see it only being available for E-4/5 and below. But until then, I take full advantage of it!

For retirement, I would be fine with a matching plan for TSP or something similar, but thats going to be the toughest fight.

quote:

---

I just don't see bachelor bonus as the answer & unfortunately I don't know what is.

---

It's not an idea I can claim as my own. It was suggested 22 years ago by a 1stSgt from 2/8 after the Commandant's short-lived policy to enlist only single recruits died under the withering fire of SecDef Les Aspin and DACOWITS patron Rep Patsy Shroeder. Keep in mind that the excerpt below was written 22 years ago when words such as promiscuity and immorality could still be used in the context of behavior that was easily placed in the category of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. The dollar figures quoted in the article need to be increased dramatically to reflect how much we pay now for housing and other entitlements.

Let's Stop Encouraging the Wrong Behavior

quote:

---

...With financial counseling, some of these young marriages survive: but many more eventually find their way to divorce court, and problems for the unit only multiply. As an example, on my last deployment no less than 14 young married Marines were caught in the throes of divorce proceedings. In most of these divorces, young children were involved. We now have a young Marine with a divorce behind him (before he's even old enough to legally drink an alcoholic beverage), fatherless children being raised by a young woman barely out of high school, and a first sergeant spending countless hours counseling both parties and trying to be objective in the process. This has got to be stopped.

A contributing factor in those divorces is deployment. Deployments are not going to stop and will no doubt increase as the reduction in force continues. When a Marine deploys he loses his basic allowance for subsistence (BAS), therefore receiving less money. This usually means more financial problems coupled with personal problems. If we really care about our Marines, we've got to take action before it's too late.

Another concern of mine-and a growing problem-is the number of young Marines supporting illegitimate children. I not only count the number of male Marines supporting illegitimate children, but the number of female Marines that become pregnant while on active duty without benefit of a husband. Promiscuous behavior has become more prevalent than ever before simply because it is now being widely accepted within our permissive society. Unfortunately, the Services tend to encourage this promiscuity by paying these Marines basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) and paying the female Marines BAS because they cannot live in the barracks with a child.

Why do we pay for these Marines promiscuity when we should be charging them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)? It seems that Article 134 (wrongful cohabitation, indecent acts with another, and perhaps in a few cases pandering and prostitution) would be an excellent place to start. I'm sure the legal minds out there could come up with the more appropriate charges or articles for which they could be charged under the UCMJ. Before you say, "How asinine, we have never and will never do that," let's see how much it costs to support our promiscuous Marines.

For a lance corporal with over 2 years in service who is the lather of an illegitimate child. BAQ ($317.40) and BAS, if authorized to move out of the barracks. ($190.30) total $509.70 being paid each month to support his promiscuity. (That sum incidentally, does not take into account lost time, counseling, and other medical and social services.) This is the tax-free figure paid to the Marine in support of his illegitimate child. Only the Marine knows how much he actually provides to the mother for the support of that illegitimate offspring.

For 1 year that total amounts to $6,092.40 tax free (for the Marine) going to support his indiscretion. Multiply that amount by the number of Marines throughout the Corps maintaining illegitimate children and the total will reach significance proportions. These figures do not include variable housing allowance or cost of living allowance, as these concessions will vary from one station to another.

Once again, only the Marine knows how much is sent to the child's mother. In some cases, it is as low as $100.00 a month. The net result is a sizable fiscal encouragement to irresponsible behavior.
It is costing us too much to condone-indeed encourage-promiscuity within our Corps. A solution must be found and implemented. We must take a hard stand against this promiscuity and advocate higher morals and values from our young Marines. I suggest the following:
We already require Marines below the rank of staff sergeant serving on Marine security guard (MSG) duty to sign a statement guaranteeing the Marine Corps they will not get married while on that special duty. If they violate this promise while on MSG duty, they are removed from the program. This is an excellent idea and could be taken a step further.

MSG duty is voluntary, and the signing of the "no marriage" statement is also voluntary. If the Marine does not sign the statement, he is not allowed to serve on MSG duty. The Armed Services are now voluntary and have been for quite some time. We should incorporate this "no marriage" accord into our enlistment contracts. This is how it could work.

We establish new recruiting standards, barring single parents and those with illegitimate children from joining the Marine Corps. Those found with illegitimate children after the fact would be treated as fraudulent enlistees. We could also do away with any waivers for prospective recruits who fall into these categories.

The initial enlistment contract could be changed to include statements such as: "I agree to remain single for the entire 4 (this could be 4, 6, or 8) years of my enlistment. At the completion of my enlistment. I will be paid a chaste bonus of $10,000.00. This bonus will be paid at the end of my enlistment, provided my service has been honorable." Naturally, if we charge unwed Marine parents under the UCMJ. the service would not be honorable.

Once again, anyone marrying, found with illegitimate children, or becoming pregnant out of wedlock would be considered fraudulent enlistees. As a compromise, we could allow them to finish their enlistment without receiving their chaste bonus, provided no undue hardship is placed on their fellow Marines. When undue hardship is noted, they would be counseled and provided an opportunity to alleviate the problems. If after a reasonable amount of time those problems are not rectified, they would be processed for discharge as fraudulent enlistees or for breach of contract.
All Marines who complete their first enlistment honorably will receive the $10,000.00 chaste bonus and, if deemed qualified, will be afforded the opportunity to ship over for another enlistment with the same stipulations as the initial contract if they so desire. If during his first enlistment the Marine has developed professionally and is financially responsible, he could ship over without the "no marriage" stipulation. This would remove a host of problems caused by young marrieds and the other examples mentioned above.

This chaste bonus amount of $10,000.00 is only my recommended amount. It doesn't have to be this amount, but it must be an amount that is substantial enough to entice new recruits to join and better themselves while at the same time making them financially stable. This is an excellent incentive for those desiring to serve only one enlistment.

I feel we waste more-much more than the $10,000.00 recommended as a chaste bonus in the instances outlined earlier. When you add the expense incurred for time lost from work, money spent for dependent services, allotments, etc., the bonus would be far less than the amount spent now. This bonus would also encourage chastity and discourage promiscuity, and at the very least it will encourage Marines to take greater precautions.

I am sure many will put forth reasons why this proposal won't work or why it can't be done. I say "nuts" to that. If the mothers and fathers of these young Marines could see the immoral behavior as well as the amount of tax dollars being wasted, I think it would change a few views of how they perceive the military. If the leadership of our Corps really wants to, we can make it happen. This proposal, if adopted, would save countless tax dollars, establish a Marine Corps with higher moral behavior and values, and create a more efficient Marine Corps. It's time we get back to quality and not quantity. Let's do it our way before someone dictates to us how to cut back.

The axiom that should guide us is clear: "If you really care about your Marines, you'll take action to ensure their success." Like medicine, it isn't necessarily pleasant to take, but it should be done for the good of individuals and the Corps alike. Let's lead the way.

"It is costing us too much to condone-indeed encourage-promiscuity within our Corps."

---

The article below was published in the Marine Corps Gazette in early 1993 and was one of the factors that led Gen Mundy to decide that enlisting recruits that already had a spouse or dependent children was not in the best interest of readiness. Gen Mundy had no idea of the backlash that was to come.

Unwed first termers- a need whose time has come

quote:

---

...Since time immortal, affairs of the heart have been the bane of mankind. They have built nations and brought down others. They have made life blissful for some and blistering for others. In 1993, affairs of the heart are putting such a stranglehold on the American military that something must be done. Movement on this issue was begun in the early 1990s when the senior enlisted members of all the Services testified before Congress on the impact of married Servicemembers on the military. Of all the testimony, that receiving the most attention was given by then Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps David Sommers. His stand was that the first-term enlistee had no business being married, and the problems caused by young married Service-members were having a debilitating effect on the Armed Forces. The stillness in the room after he spoke those words was deadening. Liberals raced to denounce this extremist and callous opinion. Legislators with long-winded statements on what the military should do with this belief were many. But those with even meager military service, who could speak from experience, seemed in short supply.
For the military the issue is one of readiness, cost, and taking care of our people. If the military is to survive these present and future lean years of depleted budgets and the shrinking manpower pool, ways must be found to maximize the force potential of those in the Service. Single first-termers can produce tangible and swift savings that can be applied to a plethora of warfighting needs vice personal concerns. The following issues beg for consideration.

Readiness

Presently, the military personnel system is seriously burdened by the processing of the multitude of documents required for newly married personnel. Marines just out of the training pipeline are creating a drain on resources not planned for in the tables of organization. To prepare a unit for deployment requires an increasing volume of paperwork for the married Servicemember not required for the single member. Comprehensive information packages must be prepared and family briefings arranged at times suitable to military spouses. The number of Marines with personal problems related to new marriages threatens to undermine a tenet of the Corps-our ability to get out of town swiftly, i.e., readiness. If the commander must program several days into a deployment cycle to allow the ever-increasing number of married personnel to deal with personal issues, is this not a detractor to readiness? Another factor to consider is the voluminous number of Red Cross and command messages received once the unit deploys concerning the problem of dependents back home. The emotional drain on the individual Marine and the distraction for commands is becoming increasingly debilitating and detracts from their warfighting capability.

Morale

No Marine is immune from personal problems. But there are many that can be avoided or prevented. First-term married Marines encounter all the diverse and continuing challenges of starting a family while at the same time trying to learn their trade as Marines. Add to this the fact that the individuals involved are young, just entering adulthood, and ill prepared for these challenges. The result is routinely a drop in the performance of the Marine and an increase in the amount of command attention that must be devoted to solving the Marine's problems. The continuing stream of marital and work-related problems is a morale-drainer both on the part of the Marine going through the problems and on the command trying to assist the individuals concerned. Other Marines must shoulder the load of those receiving counseling or excused to resolve personal difficulties. Unit strength is reduced for mission accomplishment. All of this adds up to an unnecessary amount of frustration that seems to increase with each group of newly joined personnel.

But it doesn't stop there. The leadership is also taxed as it strives to broker a legion of solutions for issues that get more difficult by the day. Information, training, and other liberated forms of persuasion often just don't work. What does work are incentives and directives that reflect the world as it is, not as some would like it to be. The goal must be to explain, succinctly and forcefully, the present state of affairs with married first-termers in the military. This is being done now at the macro-level, but it must be intensified, especially targeting political leaders and congressional staffers who lack the advantage of firsthand military experience. As the measures required are easily seen as an undue restriction on individual rights, our work is definitely cut out for us. We must make our approach and discussions straightforward and compelling...

---

has nobody mentioned that this is already the way BAH works for servicemembers stationed overseas?

Ulysses90: It's funny how much culture can change over 20 years. What you quoted may have been considered reasonable in 1993, but now it's just crazy talk.

quote:

---

What you quoted may have been considered reasonable in 1993, but now it's just crazy talk.

---

It does sound that way. It is worth remembering that labeling something as crazy talk is fundamentally the tactic used to dismiss almost all conservative policies both in the military and civilian government. I believe that we would be pleasantly surprised if we put Arthur C. Clarke's second law of prediction to the test in such cases i.e. "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Impossible policies sometime work ****ing great despite the pissing and moaning that goes along with them.

I'm not sure what you posted could easily be categorized as either "conservative" or "liberal." If anything I would think that "conservatives" would take more issue with it, under the argument of "family values" and undermining marriage.


But it doesn't take an expert to realize that married troops, especially young ones in their first term of enlistment, pose a problem to readiness. They're also obviously considerably more expensive to the military than bachelors.

As a bachelor in the military we always complained that we ended up working longer hours, having less liberty (in the military sense not the value sense), worse housing, and less pay.

I think some of you are missing a valid argument here and that is that both members are serving. If they were each single they would be entitled to the benefit. It is part of the "benefits" package that our service men and women deserve. I am not dual military, but I can see why both would get paid and I think they should. Yes, the house may only cost x amount, but why should one member not get the entitlement that they would get if they were single? They wear the uniform and should be compensated. There is argument on this thread about single members making it, but that is not a valid argument. Both members are serving and are entitled to housing allowance. To me it is a right that should stay. I don't feel that our military members are compensated the way they should be anyway.

quote:

---

I think some of you are missing a valid argument here and that is that both members are serving. If they were each single they would be entitled to the benefit. It is part of the "benefits" package that our service men and women deserve. I am not dual military, but I can see why both would get paid and I think they should. Yes, the house may only cost x amount, but why should one member not get the entitlement that they would get if they were single? They wear the uniform and should be compensated. There is argument on this thread about single members making it, but that is not a valid argument. Both members are serving and are entitled to housing allowance. To me it is a right that should stay. I don't feel that our military members are compensated the way they should be anyway.

---

There is pay and there are allowances and they are not the same thing. Housing allowance is just that and the amount is reviewed and adjusted every year based on the prevailing local cost of obtaining rented housing. It's purpose is solely to offset the cost of quarters when government quarters are not available. Dual service couples living in married quarters get the government quarters to which the more senior individual would be assigned if he or she were married to a civilian spouse. The "compensation" to which you refer is not only excessive compared to couples with only one spouse on active duty it is excessive when compared to those dual service couples that only get one set of government quarters. Compensation is not even the right word since the act of getting married is purely at the discretion of the individual and if they lose anything in that bargain it's because of their poor choice of spouse and not something for which the taxpayers ought to pay them "compensation."

I've been on active duty for 24 years and married for 18 of those years and I can guarantee you that the only benefit the government has gained from me being married is the intangible benefit of the smile on my face. If anything the taxpayers get less out of me and every other military service member drawing dependent entitlements for their tax dollar than an equally qualified and experienced single service member. We cost more and are less deployable and less available that our single counterparts. There are mountains of studies by the Center for Naval Analysis that support that assertion. It is very, very, rare that a spouse actually enhances the effectiveness or the value of a service member to the military than the soldier contributed when he or she was single. My wife is great and does not complain about when I am not around because of duty assignment but it would really be stretching it to claim that she's been a net benefit to the military beyond what I would have contributed on my own. She a good woman but she's no Molly Pitcher.