Military families should not have to endure food insecurity

a group of congressional leaders has sounded the alarm over an issue affecting military families: food insecurity,  an issue one would not normally associate with impacting service members and their families. Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) recently reintroduced the Military Hunger Prevention Act, co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of 11 members, which was rejected on two previous attempts. It has a companion bill in the House.  

For many junior enlisted personnel, especially those at the three or four lowest enlisted pay grades, their housing allowance - Basic Allowance for Housing, or BAH - is considered income. By law, this allowance is supposed to cover, on average, 95 percent of housing costs including rent and utilities. The remaining 5 percent is theoretically left to the military family to pick up.     

Unfortunately, according to a recent lifestyle survey conducted by the military support group Blue Star Families, many families are paying more than $200 per month out of pocket for housing costs. Because of their low salary and the requirement to partially pay for housing costs, there is little left to pay for other essentials, including food

link

What happens when the people society has trained to kill on their behalf find that they can no longer feed their families?

Should society widen its social programs so they don't have to find out what happens?

If the military is one of the highest expenditures in our yearly budget why can't the US pay its military a living wage?

a reply to: dandandat2

If the military is one of the highest expenditures in our yearly budget why can't the US pay its military a living wage

Because, the spoils of wars arent for soldiers, they're for bean counters and the politicians they keep in their pocket.

Soldiers have historically gotten shafted. Many are just so bad ass and stoic they don't raise a stink.

I wouldn't mind soldiers not even having to pay for food. They have to sacrifice an incredible amount, so at the very least we should keep them fed, clothed, and given good medical attention seeing as they're always exposed to an incredible amount of health risks.

But, sadly, I don't see that ever happening. Our military is used for greed. It sees people as resources they can exploit, and that doesn't exempt our boys in uniform. That needs to change. Our military should be used for defense and causes that directly effect us as citizens, and that's it. We focus on a strong military where we actually value our soldiers instead of neglecting them while overpaying corporations whos sole existence is to leech off war.

a reply to: dandandat2

I applaud you for bringing this to a thread.

NO member of the military and his/her family should be homeless, hungry, or lacking any necessity required for healthy happy living.

No excuse.

Con-gress has a 15% approval, is that right? They don't go without and in no way do they serve the country like our members of the military.

Once again, thank you for this. I'll try to check out that link, but I'll need to get my head right.

Happy Memorial Day

To the military beasts on ATS, thank you for your service.

Soldiers should be paid incredible sums.

We'll get the best competing and a more motivated force.

Starting E-1 pay is just over 20k a year.

20k!

Give em $45k to start.

As Henry Kissinger said...The American soldier are just pawns in the geopolitcal game...a reply to: dandandat2

originally posted by: dandandat2

What happens when the people society has trained to kill on their behalf find that they can no longer feed their families?

Should society widen its social programs so they don't have to find out what happens?

If the military is one of the highest expenditures in our yearly budget why can't the US pay its military a living wage?

I've been on both ends of this, maybe I can provide a little insight. This article talks about how it's a struggle for pay grades E1-E4 with families.

My father was in the Navy, and it could be a struggle sometimes. Money was usually tight. But then, my father had a wife and five kids to support. Of course, there are benefits for the families of all pay grades. As you increase in rank, it gets better. My mother was tremendous! She not only raised 5 kids and kept house, she worked part time jobs whenever she could. My father worked his butt off and eventually retired as a Master Chief. By the time I was in junior high, we lived in a very nice middle class house in a very nice middle class neighborhood. I didn't get every toy I wanted, but was happy.

Anyone who is just a little on the ball should be able to go from E1-E4 within their first enlistment, 4 years. A high school graduate at 18 who becomes an E1 should not have a wife and kids. That's my opinion and I believe the military's opinion as well. However, if the family works together, it can be done. Teamwork. The military member advances in rank, more money and benefits, everything gets better.

When I went in the Navy, I didn't get those benefits because I was single. But I didn't really need them. No matter how broke I was, I always had a place to sleep and food to eat. I probably could have supported a wife and child, but at the time I was supporting strippers, which may have been cheaper in the long run.

But this all happened a long time ago. I honestly don't know what the current state of military pay grades vs. cost of living are, but I think it's safe to assume it's gotten worse since my day or my father's day. Still, I can appreciate the military's perspective on this. I remember hearing more than once, "The Navy did not issue you a wife!"

The military want's responsible people. It's reasonable to expect that responsible person joining as an E1 would be single, or at the very least not have children. Later, a responsible person would advance in rank and be able to afford a larger family and a better lifestyle. The military would not want to budget to support people who were less responsible in their lives.

originally posted by: [post=25912777]dandandat2[/post
What happens when the people society has trained to kill on their behalf find that they can no longer feed their families?

I got a better question for you:

What happens when the entire society itself find that they can no longer feed their families? Because that seems to be where they are hearding us.

It won't be just military families.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

I think is also depending on where you are stationed at. The Air Force for strategic reasons or maybe for some dumb reasons have many of their bases located in or near very high cost of living areas. DC, LA, Denver, Phoenix, San Antonio, plenty of bases in California, Washington, all over Europe and the Pacific. Even with COLA and Utility Allowances it can be an uphill battle for lower ranking and even some SSgt/TSgts to break even.

a reply to: dandandat2

Just my take on it from across the pond.

I agree entirely; military families shouldn't face financial hardship and 'should not have to endure food insecurity'....but surely in this day and age the same should apply to ANY family.

Over here we have record numbers of families having to rely on food banks just to survive whilst the elite amass even larger obscene levels of wealth.

Billions are spent on new ways of killing each other whilst our vets and other people live a subsistence level existence.

Its a damning indictment on our society and we should hang our collective heads in shame.

We have all the money in the world to spend on our Military but when it comes to making sure no American endure food insecurity, sorry we can't afford that.

We spent over two Trillion destroying Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend over $800 billion a year on Military. ZERO excuse why we can't afford a basic standard of living for all Americans.

originally posted by: Bigbrooklyn
As Henry Kissinger said...The American soldier are just pawns in the geopolitcal game...a reply to: dandandat2

That's a reflection of all those in power who have Armies to use, not just the American Soldier.

a reply to: dandandat2

Forgive my snark, but...

Where are your priorities? Don't you know there's a Black athlete somewhere kneeling during the national anthem? And you're worried about food insecurity??? Oh dear.

Try blaming the food insecurity on Black folks, and I'm sure you'll get all the outrage this deserves. Well, actually, it will be the Black people to blame that get all the outrage, not the food security. But maybe just to spite all those Black food deniers, our troops will finally be taken care of as they deserve and should be.

Maybe...

i know of a army base with no bus service between the base at fort irwin and barstow calif over 50 miles.

enlisted without cars have very few ways to get to barstow and back to shop. and the base PX has very limited shopping.

originally posted by: dandandat2

What happens when the people society has trained to kill on their behalf find that they can no longer feed their families?

Should society widen its social programs so they don't have to find out what happens?

If the military is one of the highest expenditures in our yearly budget why can't the US pay its military a living wage?

IDK.... The military really doesn't want its members to be married at the lower ranks, but it happens. There was a time you had to get permission from your commanding officer to get married.

Single members live mostly on base with free housing and food, once you gain rank you can live off base. If an E3 is married they might live on base free in family housing, or live off base with BAH. BAH is different everywhere you go and can be low like 1000 NM to 3000 NY.

I live near Vancouver WA an E3 less than 2 years is 2100 per month base pay + BAH that is 2427 and BAS 386. You can also get extra pay of 200 to 400+ per month in many cases for the job you do, where you go etc.

So this married guy barely in the military 2 years is making 61k+ per year, also remember that BAH and BAS is not taxable...

originally posted by: dandandat2


What happens when the people society has trained to kill on their behalf find that they can no longer feed their families?

Should society widen its social programs so they don't have to find out what happens?

If the military is one of the highest expenditures in our yearly budget why can't the US pay its military a living wage?

What you're describing is life in the breadline. Which is something that is al too common in the civilian world.

We're living in a low wage economy. People's labor isn't valued particularly highly any more, a lot of American's barely make a living wage and it's not because they are lazy or stupid.

It's getting increasingly hard for everyday blue colar Americans to make ends meet, and life for the middle classes isn't what it once was. Remember when everybody aspired to have two cars and one more bedroom than they have children. And you could get it by doing office hours 5 days a week?

Those days are long gone for a lot of people. You can pull double shifts and still have to choose between paying rent and eating if you need to pickup an unexpected bill.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dandandat2

Forgive my snark, but...

Where are your priorities? Don't you know there's a Black athlete somewhere kneeling during the national anthem? And you're worried about food insecurity??? Oh dear..

Many of these soldiers are black.

You're move.

originally posted by: Tempter
Soldiers should be paid incredible sums.

We'll get the best competing and a more motivated force.

Starting E-1 pay is just over 20k a year.

20k!

Give em $45k to start.

Isn't that for people straight out of high school and into boot camp?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Many of these soldiers are black. You're move.

Yup.

But did you miss the snark?

I'm not the one who gets all faux outraged over Black (or any) athletes taking a knee during the anthem to protest police brutality... then hide like a yellow bellied dog when it comes to the real wrongs perpetrated against our troops and vets.

Just hunt up any previous thread about athletes taking a knee. And compare the outrage therein with this thread...

Symbolism beats substance every time. In this case, literally.

a reply to: Boadicea

Just sayin'

Well..

We can help every single one of them achieve food self-sufficiency with combining modern tech and (somewhat) traditional principles.

Housing and shelter is its own particular brand of problem, but it only takes 100 square feet to yield 1 lb of protein a day. Along with various crops for food, medicine, and even building materials (bamboo, hemp, etc).

Takes a bit more work to deploy the systems that enable the disabled, but is still absolutely doable.

People seem to think this sort of thing is hundreds of years into the future or something.. I think we just keep handling all of it with moneh out of habit.

Id love to see vets (and everyone in the world) have their needs met directly instead of being dependent on the "benevolence" of politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations.