"Social Welfare"

Got my blood up yesterday after reading an article in the New York Times.  I shared it with the Facebook crew and thought it sparked some interesting thoughts.  So I'll share it here and see what you think.

The article was about some of the budget wrangling in D.C., which is clearly needed. It brought out one very abrasive point in the first couple of paragraphs; our elected leaders and the media need to get their language straight when talking specific programs.  Bottom line:  it is way past time they differentiate between 'Social Welfare' and 'Military Benefits'.  Not one of us who has served took anything for free.

I'm fine with an honest debate about our benefits but comparing what is promised to us in exchange for 20 years of sacrifice to a welfare check really pisses me off.  Was the last 19 years of my life about a hand out?  Did I bilk the taxpayer rather than earn my pay and benefits?  Think so, sign yourself up with the local recruiter and get a taste of reality and find out what serving your country really means. The compensation you do receive won’t seem like that much at all, particularly when you can’t buy back the missed holidays, birthdays, graduations, etc. 

Now to be fair the reporters did go back and lawyer up in an effort to explain the word choice.  They cited a congressional law that described our benefits and after pouring through it they found the word ‘welfare’.  Problem is the context they used in the story and the actual law doesn’t match. 

If our military compensation classifies as 'Social Welfare' then I suggest our congress also classify their benefits package as 'Social Welfare'.  I suspect most would rather take a 'congressional social welfare' package than a military version. 

And since we’re doing a comparison of benefits, let’s compare some data that counts:  job performance.  According to the July 2010Gallup Poll on Institutional Confidence, the military was rated at the very top and has consistently rated between one and two for more than a decade…congress, not so much.  So why, if everything is on the table, are congressional pay and benefits not on the table?  If we all have to take bumps in this whole budget mess then why not the institutions that got us there?

If people are unsure or think military benefits even remotely look or feel like welfare then I invite each of them to head down to a recruiters office, sign up for a four-year stint, join me here in Afghanistan so you can get your 'welfare' benefits.  

Thoughts? Opinions? or are we simply on our own with this one?