New BAH rates are out.

[Homestar]

that's because he's a dick.

[ThreeHoler]

McCain could pick any number of actual monetary abuses in the DOD, but instead picks one that will impact compensation for the military members. It's as if he's so senile as to have forgotten that he was once in these shoes.

McCain had the 65% BAH or whatever it was mentioned in the article. He never had the 100% that we are used to. I remember when my BAH in NorCal was ~700/mo and my apartment in the ghetto was $1100/mo.

The next year was better, but that first year was tough.

For comparison, my BAH in MS during UPT (same year) was $640/mo.

[MooseAg03]

The thought also crossed my mind that McCain might want to try to take BAH back to where it was when he was still serving. What that doesn't account for is the inflation that all other living expenses have amassed over the last 50 years combined with the increase in the standard of living. If the military wants to remain competitive to keep the most talented people serving, cutting pay and benefits like this is not how you do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

21 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

McCain had the 65% BAH or whatever it was mentioned in the article. He never had the 100% that we are used to. I remember when my BAH in NorCal was ~700/mo and my apartment in the ghetto was $1100/mo.

The next year was better, but that first year was tough.

For comparison, my BAH in MS during UPT (same year) was $640/mo.

 

When McCain was in, drafting people was a solution to manning problems.  I'm not sure we want to go back to that style of personnel management.

[Karl Hungus]

6 hours ago, pawnman said:

When McCain was in, drafting people was a solution to manning problems.  I'm not sure we want to go back to that style of personnel management.

Bet we wouldn't get into never-ending, unwinnable wars in middle-eastern shitholes if your average American had a little more skin in the game...

[guineapigfury]

4 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

Bet we wouldn't get into never-ending, unwinnable wars in middle-eastern shitholes if your average American had a little more skin in the game...

I've never understood this argument.  The draft didn't stop us from getting into Vietnam.

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, guineapigfury said:

I've never understood this argument.  The draft didn't stop us from getting into Vietnam.

True, but with the ratification of the 26th amendment in 1971 and US troops formally withdrawing in1973 one could plausibly argue that the draft was a contributing factor in ending the war.  Once 18 year olds could vote, they weren't going to vote for folks sending them into Vietnam.  Game changer.

i don't think we would still be in Afghanistan if we had a draft.  Do you?

[guineapigfury]

Excellent point on the 26th amendment, I had not considered that.  I'm not sure how much a difference it would make.  Casualties in Vietnam were a lot worse.  Vietnam was on the news every night, and you didn't get 200 other channels to pick from.  I'd bet a week's paycheck that 50% of American's don't realize we're still in Afghanistan.  I think you could run the Afghan War like we're running it now with a draft.  I don't think you could run the Afghan War like we ran it in 09-12 with a draft.

[ViperMan]

17 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

Bet we wouldn't get into never-ending, unwinnable wars in middle-eastern shitholes if your average American had a little more skin in the game...

Maybe, maybe not.

12 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

I've never understood this argument.  The draft didn't stop us from getting into Vietnam.

That time we saved the world and conquered evil was barely 20 years old when we became involved in Vietnam. In some sense, the country was still riding high on the idea that Vietnam, like WWII, was a moral war as well. I wasn't alive, but our guard may not have been as sensitive as it should have been - in a manner of speaking. I really don't know.

I agree with Karl's sentiment though, which is that a major side-effect of the draft is that you have a more engaged public than you would otherwise - which is surely beneficial, and at least leads to more discussion on the importance/relevance of a war than otherwise. Vietnam certainly existed in the minds of the American public as a "war," and while Karl called Afghanistan a war, our effort there also consists to a large degree of what could be considered nation building, which is a term that a surely colors the American public's idea of what has gone (goes) on in Afghanistan and distinguishes it from our perception of Vietnam. Point being, it is more difficult to draft people to nation build than it is to send them to war. A draft raises the cost to the country's citizens - and it should.

The position I take is that if the DOD is going to implement stop-loss, it should only exist in the context of a much larger draft that has been authorized by the appropriate national authority. That action forces our society to have the necessary debate on whether or not we "should" do something. Whether or not we would enter irrelevant wars is up for debate, but in my opinion, the point is part of the larger moral question of what groups of people can be forced to go to "war" and which ones can't be. Right now, the country gets to have its cake and eat it too.

Edited January 5, 2017 by ViperMan

[Lawman]

That time we saved the world and conquered evil was barely 20 years old when we became involved in Vietnam. In some sense, the country was still riding high on the idea that Vietnam, like WWII, was a moral war as well. I wasn't alive, but our guard may not have been as sensitive as it should have been - in a manner of speaking. I really don't know.
I agree with Karl's sentiment though, which is that a major side-effect of the draft is that you have a more engaged public than you would otherwise - which is surely beneficial, and at least leads to more discussion on the importance/relevance of a war than otherwise. Vietnam certainly existed in the minds of the American public as a "war," and while Karl called Afghanistan a war, our effort there also consists to a large degree of what could be considered nation building, which is a term that a surely colors the American public's idea of what has gone (goes) on in Afghanistan and distinguishes it from our perception of Vietnam. Point being, it is more difficult to draft people to nation build than it is to send them to war. A draft raises the cost to the country's citizens - and it should.
The position I take is that if the DOD is going to implement stop-loss, it should only exist in the context of a much larger draft that has been authorized by the appropriate national authority. That action forces our society to have the necessary debate on whether or not we "should" do something. Whether or not we would enter irrelevant wars is up for debate, but in my opinion, the point is part of the larger moral question of what groups of people can be forced to go to "war" and which ones can't be. Right now, the country gets to have its cake and eat it too.

Conversely if we expanded civil service beyond a military draft I think we could combat that.

I'd imagine the loss of freedoms might have an effect. 20-23 year olds find themselves teaching English to Hadj on some super FOB or running a warehouse full of water bottles for a year of your life would have a real effect on our taste for "nation building."

[daynightindicator]

Conversely if we expanded civil service beyond a military draft I think we could combat that.

I'd imagine the loss of freedoms might have an effect. 20-23 year olds find themselves teaching English to Hadj on some super FOB or running a warehouse full of water bottles for a year of your life would have a real effect on our taste for "nation building."

F'n A, Peter

As far as the BAH thing goes, if they go with an OHA style fix, it will artificially affect rent prices across the country in base locations. People are smart and will set rents to match the maximum housing allowance. That will have negative economic effects in those areas.

I think the BAH system is long overdue for an overhaul, as it is based on an outdated 1950s economic and societal model. However, trying to fix it by imposing restraints to ensure that retirement payouts do not go up will be difficult and expose service members to a lot of risk.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

[Lawman]

F'n A, Peter




Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's a good idea.

I agree with the draft, but for what it's real purpose is, the 3 days after the big war of annihilation ends and you need bodies to put society back together. I'm not a fan of this "make a draft and it'll stop imperialism" argument the isolationists keep pushing. But I'm saying if they combat that by making less war and more nation building the easy switch is expand the draft to include all those nation building jobs and counter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawnman]

On 1/4/2017 at 6:27 AM, guineapigfury said:

I've never understood this argument.  The draft didn't stop us from getting into Vietnam.

The thinking in Vietnam was under a very different paradigm than our current wars.  Politicians at the time believed a draft was more politically viable than activating guard and reserve units.

[pbar]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 2:00 AM, Karl Hungus said:

Bet we wouldn't get into never-ending, unwinnable wars in middle-eastern shitholes if your average American had a little more skin in the game...

Dramatically reducing the size of the Army in order to take this option off the table might be a good start.  The Army goes around saying that only boots on the ground can win wars yet they are 2-3 (Vietnam, Panama, DS, OEF, OIF) in the last 40 years. Airpower may not win wars by itself but it has never lost a war either.  If you are going to tell the NCA that boots on the ground is the best COA, then you better actually be prepared to succeed.  

[daynightindicator]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's a good idea.

I agree with the draft, but for what it's real purpose is, the 3 days after the big war of annihilation ends and you need bodies to put society back together. I'm not a fan of this "make a draft and it'll stop imperialism" argument the isolationists keep pushing. But I'm saying if they combat that by making less war and more nation building the easy switch is expand the draft to include all those nation building jobs and counter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've always been a fan of a service draft, expanded to include many non-mil options. The options should include trade-based training and US-based infrastructure programs, with local options for those who can't just pack up and move around the country or world. The intangible benefits of exposing young Americans to different cultures and locales are tough to quantify but I believe would be very beneficial. My dad always told me one of the best things about the draft was putting people of different backgrounds together to accomplish a common goal. It builds social camaraderie and lets you understand why other people think the way they do. It gives you an understanding of fellow Americans that is seriously lacking nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Blue]

On 1/2/2017 at 3:38 PM, SurelySerious said:

McCain could pick any number of actual monetary abuses in the DOD, but instead picks one that will impact compensation for the military members. It's as if he's so senile as to have forgotten that he was once in these shoes.

McCain is 80 years old, and was recently reelected for his 6th term in the Senate.  He'll be 86 the next time he's up for reelection.  He's been Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee since 2015.

I've got a lot of respect for the man, and what he's done over the years.  I agree with most of his political views.  However, he's 80 years old.  I've known some 80-year olds over the years.  Some were sharp, some less so.  Some carry themselves like a normal adult, some are bitter, cantankerous, difficult people.  The vast majority have some level of diminished mental capacity due to their age.

When you see someone like McCain going after something like military BAH, you have to wonder.  Is he doing it because he's weighed options, put critical thought behind the matter, and has some far-reaching vision for how this policy change will make the country better?  Or is he doing it because he's a cantankerous old man who's brain is slowly turning into mush?

[pawnman]

On 1/6/2017 at 10:51 AM, daynightindicator said:

I've always been a fan of a service draft, expanded to include many non-mil options. The options should include trade-based training and US-based infrastructure programs, with local options for those who can't just pack up and move around the country or world. The intangible benefits of exposing young Americans to different cultures and locales are tough to quantify but I believe would be very beneficial. My dad always told me one of the best things about the draft was putting people of different backgrounds together to accomplish a common goal. It builds social camaraderie and lets you understand why other people think the way they do. It gives you an understanding of fellow Americans that is seriously lacking nowadays.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Exactly.  It builds the idea of a team, and of something bigger than yourself, than the constant whining about entitlements.  Giving someone the perspective that it's not just about them, but about the nation as a whole, could go a long way to improving the national dialog.

[cragspider]

I was going to ask if any announcements had been made about the 2018 rates, but low and behold after I woke up from working mids they announced it today. News article about it . Looks like an O-3 with dependents in Vegas gets a 9% bump which is good considering the housing market here is going up. 

Edited December 16, 2017 by cragspider
Correction on rates

[pawnman]

- $75 for a major with dependents at Dyess. Didn't compare all the other rates.

[Swizzle]

Montgomery, O-4:

w/ dependent, $183 decrease 

w/o dep, $156 decrease

 

Cannon AFB, O-4:

w/ dep,  $63 decrease

w/o dep,  $90 decrease

Edited December 16, 2017 by Swizzle

[nsplayr]

My faith in the pencil-pushers' gonkulations is at an all-time low. -$33 for Nashville O-4 with dependents, when housing prices here are rising at incredible rates.

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/07/11/study-nashville-has-greatest-cost-of-living.html

[herkbum]

45 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

My faith in the pencil-pushers' gonkulations is at an all-time low. -$33 for Nashville O-4 with dependents, when housing prices here are rising at incredible rates.

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2017/07/11/study-nashville-has-greatest-cost-of-living.html

I see you looked it up before I could. I wish they would close the borders of the midstate. Place is growing way too fast. 

[Danger41]

I know you won’t lose money if your BAH goes down, but what about if you get promoted? My O-3 rate is going to be higher than my O-4 rate in a few months.

[SurelySerious]

11 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

I know you won’t lose money if your BAH goes down, but what about if you get promoted? My O-3 rate is going to be higher than my O-4 rate in a few months.

Jan 17 guidance on that in blue. 

[sixpack]

Charleston:  Down $200 on average while housing rates continue to go up.  Thanks a lot cocksuckers.