It's the economy stupid: How MyCAA, and potential GI Bill and retirement changes are a reflection of America's mood

**DISCLAIMER: Politics is inseparable from the economy these days, but I do not endorse or support either political party and prefer to be an equal opportunity offender.**

Let's talk economy.
Economists state that the recession has been over since last summer. (For a really good explaination of what the figure in the NPR story linked above, go here.) Despite this hiring has stagnated, so that although fewer people are applying for unemployment for the first time, there is very little job growth. Plenty of people have lined up to blame Obama for the economy, but if the chart shows nothing else, it shows that the initial phase of the recession started before he ever came into office. I have always learned that the economy lags several years behind Presidential policy implementation, however it appears that it has been shown (by several sources, I am going to link 1) that it takes at least a year for the impact of a President's policies to begin to really show up in the economy. This means we can start to hold Obama accountable now, but not for the past year's economy. Nothing was going to immediately ameliorate the recession, although it could be argued that the growth we saw during the first couple of quarters of 2010 could be attributable to him. The conserviative thinktank's, the Cato Institute, article goes on to articulate that depending on the state of the economy when a President takes office, the impact of his policies may or may not make things appreciably better right away. It's basically a dilution effect; inherit a bad economy and it is going to take a lot more effort to dig yourself out of a ditch before you see the sunlight. So while we cannot give the President a free pass, it is important to realize that part of the problem is the 24-hr news cycle which really takes everything out of a deeper historical context. Yes, the economy is kind of crappy, but Sarah Palin is wrong when she and the Tea Party argue it is all the Democrats fault. It's too many years of laissez faire economics and it is going to take some time to turn things around. The thing we need to think about is what this all means in terms of our lives.

So what? Why should military families be worried about the economy? Our spouses still have jobs.
The name of the game is benefits. Under Bush, we experienced a large expansion in benefits, including MyCAA, bonuses, the 9/11 GI Bill, etc. There are several reasons for this, but boil it all down and basically 1) we have an all-volunteer force, 2) we were fighting 2 wars,  3) recruitment tanked and 4) the economy was good (at least for a while, which is bad for recruitment). This meant that there was a political imperative to keep people in the military satisfied (within reasonable limits) in order to keep fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the rest of the country was not interested in fighting these wars in any real way that required real sacrifice on their part.
Now the game is different. One war is, at least in the public's mind, over. The other is the forgotten war no one seems to care about. People are angry about government entitlement programs, and from some of the responses of "Americans" in the media, people think military families have it too good when the rest of the country is suffering. (Stay with me here, because I know how irate that comment makes military families, including myself) This has lead to the cut backs we are seeing, which started with MyCAA. When this happened, spouses were told if they wanted an education they should use their spouse's 9/11 GI Bill. This seemed to mollify some people. Now, the government wants to cut 9/11 GI Bill transferability because they are realizing military families are taking them up on the offer, which affects government spending, a touchy issue right now. The same goes for statement from the DoD about raising the retirement age.
Military families are at the mercy of the public, when it comes right down to it. The public is livid over Congress' spending right now. We still have a major war going on and we need money for it, so this leads to a reduction in benefits. I have often laughed when I have seen the bake sale for bombs bumper sticker, because it has made me realize that while MWR and FRG fundraisers do not buy bombs per se, they are a reflection of the fact that military families get the short end of the stick in defense spending. This will only increase over the coming months as Congress tries to metaphorically tighten their belts, while continuing to fund entitlement programs popular with the general public. Unfortunately, this country will never repeal welfare and replace it with a true jobs program, but because military families are "out of sight; out of mind", we are easy to cut when times get tough. This is why military families in an "all-volunteer" force have to advocate for themselves and really explain the true costs to their families finances, personal relationships, etc, etc to try to win public support for not cutting our insurance, or raising the retirement age to the point where only the Master Chief of the Navy and a 4-star Admiral can be eligible for retirement. We also need to advocate for what processes could be streamlined and what things we are willing to be cut or have benefit phase-outs according to rank.
This is particularly important with regard to MyCAA. In a perfect world, all spouses, regardless of their service member's rank would be fully eligible and we would get a lot more funding. This is not going to happen in the current financial climate. Perhaps the way to do the most good for the most people is by advocating for some benefits to be based on rank (and not necessarily as MyCAA is now structured). Maybe MyCAA eligibility should occur after the service member re-enlists, or agrees to stay in through Department Head. Maybe it should be a retention based program, so that those people most likely to take the money and run aren't eligible. And maybe O-4 and above should have their eligibilty phased out. Yes, it will make people mad, but the truth is that base pay for O-4 (on average) is about $66K/yr. This is really enough to fund some college coursework, but maybe not full-time without student loans. I realize it is a touchy subject, but we have to decide where we are willing to tighten our belts or we will continue to have cuts that hurt everyone.

As offensive as a lot of the cuts are right now, I hope this puts things in a bit of perspective and suggests why we need to effectively advocate for ourselves. It also suggests that we need to consider what we are willing to give up and what we absolutely can't compromise on and tell our leaders this. This helps them make informed decisions, so that you can still get your prescriptions when you need them, etc.