I have seen his kind before: courtiers who will say and do anything for their own careers, no matter how much it hurts the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine - and their families.
Posted on 04/10/2014 5:01:45 PM PDT by servo1969
Sgt. Major Michael Barrett greets Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. (American Military News)
Idiot Sgt. Major Michael Barrett, the highest enlisted member of the US Marine Corps, told Congress Marines don’t need higher pay. Barrett said he believes lower pay will “raise discipline.”
Nice job looking out for your brothers, Sergeant Major.
American Military News reported:
The highest enlisted member of the United States Marine Corps said that lowering salary of Marines will “raise discipline” and make Marines less wasteful. The comments come as a debate in Washington talks about cutting active duty member pay in order to make sharp budget cuts at the Department of Defense. The comments came as he testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The base salary for the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps is $7,816.20 per month. ______________Lower pay and slimmed-down benefits will make Marines more disciplined and less wasteful, according to the Corps’ top enlisted Marine.
In comments before a Senate Armed Services Committee panel on Wednesday, Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Micheal Barrett dismissed lawmaker concerns that proposed compensation trims in the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget proposal would hurt troops’ morale or desire to serve.
“Marines don’t run around asking about compensation, retirement modernization,” he said. “That’s not on their mind. As I talk to thousands of audiences, they want to know into whose neck do we put a boot next.
“They want to know about what new equipment are we getting, are we continuing to modernize. Just because the budget sucks, does that mean we’re not going to get our new gear?”
Barrett’s comments came in contrast to his counterparts in the other services, who conceded to senators that lower pay raises, scaled-back commissary offerings and smaller housing stipends would be problematic for many service members.
Instead, Barrett argued that the lower quality of life would be beneficial to Marines.
“I truly believe it will raise discipline,” he said. “You’ll have better spending habits. You won’t be so wasteful.”
He’d have that anyway. Maybe higher than normal and time will tell if his post-USMC career is beyond his predecessors.
I’m a bit confused...by the Sgt. Major.
How does cutting a Marine’s pay equal “less wasteful”? It is their pay is it not? Are they not entitled to do with it what they please?
How does a Marine’s spending habits of his duly earned pay, approved by the DoD affect the budget?
If the DoD needs to trim spending, reduce promotion rates, slow pay increases, cut some of the redundant positions in the DoD and Pentagon, reduce the number of Sr. Officers and Sr. Enlisted, etc.
Better yet, cut other wasteful government spending and direct the savings to the DoD and to reducing our debt.
I would be a tad upset, not more disciplined if my pay was cut at the behest of my Sr. Enlisted leader knowing full well that Washington was spending money faster than it can be printed.
He ain’t no Chesty Puller! He is just a Piece O’crap suck up if you ask me!
I have seen his kind before: courtiers who will say and do anything for their own careers, no matter how much it hurts the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine - and their families.
Congress is underpaid & the Marines are overpaid?
I keep waking up each morning thinking it was just a nightmare. Wrong! The nightmare is real & getting more horrifying each day.
It’s harder to tell in writing :)
Nothing more annoying than have somebody spout off about a subject they haven't any direct experience with. I commanded a battalion during our many operation budget cuts. I ended up paying to support some of my troops' families out of my own pocket during their deployments.
Your comments about the "easy retirement" betrays your lack of knowledge.
To: Chainmail
So - in the absence of suitable male volunteers, your plan is to just throw in the towel? Just hand the keys over to al Qaeda or Russia and enjoy our new role?
That was a pretty silly post.
Especially when I want to increase and strengthen the military, and return it to more of a warrior camp.
Why don’t you try reading my posts.
30 posted on 4/10/2014 7:10:38 PM by ansel12
Oh, I have. You’re an amateur, a chairborne ranger. I’ve done this for a living, you haven’t.
Nothing more annoying than have somebody spout off about a subject they haven’t any direct experience with. I commanded a battalion during our many operation budget cuts. I ended up paying to support some of my troops’ families out of my own pocket during their deployments.
Your comments about the “easy retirement” betrays your lack of knowledge.
This is getting confusing, you are faking quotes and lying, so what is it you want to say represents you as an officer?
Typical answer from somebody like you. You can tell I was an officer because I care about the situation of our troops - not some computer commando spouting off about subjects you barely understand. You're the one with the quote that says our retirement is getting too expensive. You might read your articles before quoting from them.
See, that is what I mean about you being a space case.
I can tell that you were an officer, because you had just finished telling me that.
I’m proud of my service as a Marine officer, 24 years of it. I was commissioned after 4 fine years enlisted, including combat.
What did you do for your service to our country?
LOL, that is another strange and extremely defensive response to post 7.
Freedom has a price - did you make any installments?
I was a Marine in the early 1980s and served for four years. I can honestly say that it was a rarity for a low-ranking enlisted man to be married with a family. The Marine Corps at the time discouraged it and for good reason. I made $501 a month as a private in 1981 and I'm sure in terms of 2014 dollars, it's not a heck of a lot higher today. However, I left active duty in 1985 as an E-5 (sergeant) at $1,200 a month and would have been in much better position to support a family had I re-enlisted.
So basically I'm saying that the military should not take married people into the enlisted ranks and prohibit it for the first four years (by denying marriage/family benefits). Not only is it a distraction for somebody assimilating into the military life but you just don't have the income for it at that point in your military career.
After the initial four-year enlistment period, you will then qualify for marriage/family benefits upon your re-enlistment. Being that the military will only allow you to re-enlist if you performed well on your fitness reports those first four years and proved yourself in your MOS, it is now a better time in your life to marry and start a family and you will still be plenty young enough. I was 22 years old after my four years was up.
I believe this approach will save the military large sums of money that can be used elsewhere in the military budget. Being that the enlisted man from E-1 to E-4 is the "backbone" of the military, having them free from family distractions is key. Use those first four years to concentrate on being a Marine, a Soldier (Army), an Airman (Air Force) or a Sailer (Navy). Should you decide to re-enlist and make a career of it - now it's time to think about a family too.
I agree, and usually post something along those lines on these kind of threads.
The legion does that, and the American military would improve if it concentrated on a warrior class of single males for the lower ranks, low paid and Spartan, with pay and privileges and marriage, coming after the reenlistment, and/or rank.
I enlisted as a single man, but married in 1972, I was of the rank, but had not reenlisted, I could have dealt with Army regulations that forbid me marrying until I re-upped, or got out, by the way, the pay was still incredibly bad, I still sometimes wonder how I was surviving, but I dealt with the system as it was, and was not serving for the money.
As it is, the military is becoming a refuge for single moms and families, for the benefits and lifestyle and daycare, that will inevitably lead to their interests winning out in the long run as the power shifts to personnel focused on the comfort and security of a government job, and female Generals and Colonels and Congresswomen to represent them, and budgets that become focused on their family wants, children and quality of life issues, and foreign policy that keeps them from danger and harsh living.
Most people reading this thread are not going to like what the military will look like in 20 years, it could even become unionized, but it will become just another federal job, with between 40 and 60% females.
If that is the case, the low pay will cease to be an issue. If you are a single person in the military, you are provided BEQ (basic enlistment quarters) and three meals a day on base. There is really no need to spend much money at all. You have the enlisted club to hang out in and the PX to get your basic items like toothpaste, clothing, etc., at Wal-Mart prices.
If you re-enlist and make a career of the military, then you are now a leader as an NCO or full-fledged officer and you should then be entitled to the higher pay and perks that go with it. You will also be in much better position to support a family.
Part of being broke as a young enlisted men, was that you shared the traditional warriors life of a clustered, military existence.
You shared transportation, lived on base, did most of your drinking on base, when you were talking at the EM club and eating at the mess hall, you were discussing military work, (and females), at night you were shining boots, when you thought about military budgets, you thought of more training, and better weapons, not day care and braces for the kids, and dealing with your landlord and roommates in your beach apartment, and making your car payments.
A more martial beginning in military service would go a long way towards recreating the military as the home of warriors and masculine activity, which in turn, would increase male recruitment, and the sense of being special, and different.
I remember a time when as young GIs, we thought that civilians were sloppy and self indulgent and we felt like we were only visiting them, when we went to town on a Saturday night.
I just noticed that I wrote clustered, instead of cloistered, oh well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.