I don’t know exactly what the cost is to keep them over there as compared with basic pay at home, but at least they can live here and keep what they have. We owe them!
Raymond Lodi
Evans
With all the service members coming home and no civilian jobs available, I suggest we keep them at their service pay until they find jobs, and help them find jobs. If they refuse, stop the pay. It is a lot less expensive than what it costs if they are over there, with the cost of the equipment, food and housing. We don’t need to give them guns, tanks etc.
I don’t know exactly what the cost is to keep them over there as compared with basic pay at home, but at least they can live here and keep what they have. We owe them!
Raymond Lodi
Evans
Civilians are having the same problem. You leave your current place of employment voluntarily and you hope for the best.
@ 38,000 per year, per soldier, you think unemployment insurance extensions are bad, this idea is a non-starter. For the most part we have a mercenary military. Of course there are those who join for more honorable intentions than money and education, but for the most part, the military is a lucrative enterprise. I remember well raising my hand to join, money and education had NOTHING to do with it. When I got out in '73 unemployment was as bad as it is today, we just put our noses to the grindstone and worked it out.
The letter is so wrong on so many fronts. Thank goodness the commenters see through it. To set up a new federal bureacracy to administer a new program to pay service personnel who do not re-enlist (or who are mustered out in a RIF) their full military salary plus benefits while they "look for a job" demeans their character and their talents — not to mention demoralizing civilians collecting unemployment benefits.
The bloating of unemployment compensation benefits under the Obama regime is one of the central reasons why unemployment remains so high. Cut off the benefits and you will see people returning to work in droves.
took 'em so long to find osama of course its gonna be a min before they find a job. jus' ribbin guys, don't tear me apart
I'm not really clear what Mr. Lodi is suggesting. I think he means we shouldn't just discharge a bunch of Infantrymen and Tankers as the wars wind down without easing them back into civilian life with some sort of transitional training program.
If that's what he's talking about, the military used to be pretty good about it. After the Vietnam war, there was a program called "Project Transition" where soldiers could get up to 12 weeks (I think) at the end of their last term of service to learn another skill. Several people I knew learned brick laying and HVAC repair that way. I don't know for sure, but I suspect something like that is available today.
If he's talking about keeping them on the payroll after their discharge date as some sort of Unemployment Insurance then I'd be totally against it and I agree with Little Lamb's comments above.
How long is an enlistment, Harley? Seems to me that it would be wise to re-enlist with the economy like it is if that period of enlistment is not too long.
When I last checked it was no less than 3 and no more than 6, scoobydo. I don't know what it is now. As the wars wind down it will become more and more difficult to reenlist because they'll be making (probably drastic) cuts in the force structure. There will undoubtedly be lots of people who want to reenlist that will not be allowed and there will be many Officers separated involuntarily too.
The officers have a college degree to fall back on which should help them. Also those with specialized training such at IT might be on solid ground.
I know about being separated involuntarily. The navy not only kicked me out they asked me nicely to resign my commission and gave me a bonus to do so. I am glad that I did as I had a friend who refused to do it and was recalled for the Korean police action. He spent two more years in the navy.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2013. All Rights Reserved.
