Once again, someone has decided to try to drag our society towards militarism and away from peaceful democracy. Unfortunately, this mail is a picture, rather than text, so I’ll reproduce the picture and then address the points en masse, as I can’t interject them.
Let’s start with the petty and mundane. First of all, how many folks are we talking, and how much cost is involved? Something to keep in mind that it’s not just going to be pay, but also housing (which most military personnel get free).
Second, even for the 20 year career soldier, they’re getting out of the service in their forties. How long do you want to pay them?
Third, at least in the United States, they have access to the GI Bill, which helps pay the educational bills, as well as has other benefits. My Dad used this to get his electrical engineering degree. And many veterans come out with skills useful in civilian life.
Fourth, currently those with honorable and medical discharges have free medical care via the Veterans Administration. Additionally, those who are badly injured in American service do get lifelong compensation. An uncle of mine had 100% of base pay, due to a heart attack. My father had something like 60%, due to a heart infection.
But let’s step back and ask ourselves what else would happen if something like this proposal did pass; that is, what are the societal impacts? In my mind, we’d be creating an officially privileged set of people who, through 20 years of service, will then be paid even out of service and therefore will no longer be … citizen-soldiers. See, that’s what gives our society something that resembles cohesion, the idea that we can go into the service, do some work for the polity, and then come back out and be normal citizens. That’s one of our great traditions, the idea that going out and work in defense is something we all can do, through service full time or part time.
And then not be relegated to being peasants if we choose not to do so. Make no mistake, that’s what this is all about – elevating and materially rewarding, open-ended, a group of people for a limited service. That’s a setup for opening a division of mutual dislike between those who have served, and those who chose not to, whether for selfish reasons (such as President Trump), or reasons of principle, such as pacifists.
I’ll not ignore the point concerning those who serve in Congress getting 100% of their pay as a pension, but I’ll also note many of these folks are in the latter portions of their lives when they retire from their positions, so the strain on the Republic may not be great, while on the other hand their sacrifice of working for the Republic – now a full time job – may have eliminated them from contending for full time jobs once their Congressional career has ended. I would like to see those who are independently wealthy decline their pensions, of course, as a matter of honor, but in the end I find it difficult to be upset over this bit of controversial waste when they number so few in comparison to the military members.
I think this is a proposal which should be declined as deleterious to our Republic.
