Military Life News

Military Life News, Commissary Rewards and Military Discounts

Expect to See More Cuts to MWR Programs

By

Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) is a huge part of military family life. MWR programs in different branches provide much needed support and services to service members and their families.

MWR typically provides staffing and funding for libraries, pools, arts and crafts centers, woodworking shops and auto hobby centers. Other support programs include sports and recreation programs for adults and children. This could include team sports and physical fitness centers on many bases. MWR also funds on-base child development centers (CDC), youth center, teen center and other youth programs.

There will be a $105 million cut in the Army MWR budget in FY 2017.

This is in addition to a separate 23% workforce reduction over 2 years in Army Community Service Centers. These cuts could result in the closure of some facilities and programs. In addition, the budget cuts could result in hours being reduced or fees increased. Army soldiers and their families are the most impacted by these cuts. The cuts took effect on October 1.

The garrison commander will determine how cuts are applied at each base. This means that services and resources impacted will be varied by location. Army families should expect to feel the effects in calendar year 2017.

Army officials, including Lt. Gen Kenneth R. Dahl of Army Installation Command Management, have committed to maintaining CDC funding.

Many Army posts have already been readjusting services and programs for the last 5 years. Some bases have been working to offset costs through investing in programs. The investments ensured that the programs were either profitable or breaking even. Those that did not meet this benchmark were removed or totally revamped.

Outdoor recreation, arts and crafts, and auto skill shops are most likely to be affected by these cuts. Fitness centers could also see reduced hours and staffing.

Volunteers may be able to staff some programs. However, the program structure would need to allow volunteer support. This would allow some services to continue operating, even with the budget cuts.

The cuts should not affect remote or isolated duty stations where comparable services are not available off-base.

Four Army posts should expect to see impacts from the MWR cuts in the near future.

Expect to See More Cuts to MWR Programs

Is your military base impacted by MWR program cuts?

Fort Carson, Colorado:

The 4th Infantry Division will continue to provide staffing coverage for gyms and fitness centers. There will be slight, $1 or less, increase in fees for some programs. The Friday Night Date and Caring Saturday programs are also slated to be reduced. MWR funds both programs. Programs that are costly or have low turn-out are also on the chopping block.

Fort Huachuca, Arizona:

MWR is cutting $500,000. Ammo sales and weapon rentals will stop at the Sportsman’s Center. Skeet and trap shooting, plus Saturday Range 3, will still be available for people who bring their own weapons. There is no word about additional cuts.

Fort Jackson, South Carolina:

This base will see significant cuts in MWR programs and services. One fitness center will completely close. The other 3 centers will be open for 90 hours weekly. The library will be open 5 days instead of 7. One pool will close. MWR funded recreation trips are going to be completely cut. The auto hobby center will be open 4 days instead of 5.

Fort Sill, Oklahoma:

Fort Sill is facing a 25% cut in taxpayer funding. The library’s hours will be reduced. There will also be new fees for the pools, outdoor recreation and special events or programs.

Will other military branches be impacted by MWR cuts?

The budget cuts will also impact joint service bases where Army MWR has the lead. This includes bases that previously had both or all branches providing MWR programs, but switched to have these services provided only by the Army.

The Navy has also made cuts to its MWR programs. Many bases have closed art and craft centers, wood shops and auto centers. There are no additional changes predicted or anticipated this year.

The Marine Corps has not scheduled any cuts to its MWR programs this year. However, the service will continue to look at services and programs.

The Air Force has not released information about potential MWR service cuts.

While these services do not plan to cut services at this time, MWR programs could be changed or removed in the future.

What do you think about the cuts to MWR programs at military bases?

Commissary Privatization Is Not the Answer

By

We recently published an article, “Commissary Closures: It’s All or Nothing,” and received quite a bit of feedback on it, especially about commissary privatization. Emotions run high when the topic turns to the potential of commissary privatization or even worse, closure.

Don’t panic; your commissary benefits are currently safe.

Commissary Privatization Is Not the Answer

Commissary privatization isn’t the answer. Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force.

The government is however trying to do away with the cost associated with the operation of the commissary. After our article was published, a lot of MilitaryShoppers readers voiced their opinions. Here is what they said:

Char Johnson said

Privatization is NOT the answer! How many benefits do you think taking away from our military (active or retired) will be acceptable! What happened to honor and trust, something our members of Congress don’t seem to recognize? I am a military wife of a retiree. I/we travel to the commissary and exchange at least three times per month, and we utilize our privileges to the max. Don’t take away something that has been earned and promised. Start taking away from those who vote against what we have and what our soldiers have earned.

Mrs. Johnson makes an excellent point, where will the cutting of benefits end? Service members are promised benefits when they join the military. That is a recruiting tool. If men and women are willing to put their lives on the line, getting a few benefits for themselves and their families make a big difference.

Many have already seen significant cuts to what they were promised.

Tricare has had several changes over the years, many of which are not ideal. Retirement benefits have shrunk in size and increased in cost. Education benefits have improved, and the exchange and commissaries have remained a constant. Service men and women, along with their families, have earned these benefits and were promised them.

Now the government wants to save money by taking away some of the $1.3 billion annual Department of Defense subsidy the commissary receives. Millions of dollars have been spent researching how to keep the commissary running without government funds. Many options have been considered including commissary brand products, commissary privatization and variable pricing. So far, none of these are the answer. In the meantime, military families keep shopping at the commissary.

The majority of service members and their families shop at the commissary. It might be just once a year for some but for many, it’s multiple times a month. The slogan “it’s worth the drive” is true. I no longer live near a big commissary, even though we are active duty. The tiny 6-isle commissary 35 minutes away is worth the drive just for the savings on meat alone.

Daryel Covington also makes the drive. He said

I travel about 150 miles round trip sometimes twice a month! BTW, I’m a 70-year-old retiree and need the saving! And no I will not support a price increase nor could I support privatization.

Mr. Covington travels to the commissary to save money and realizes that if the prices go up, the commute won’t be worth it. For some, saving money isn’t the main reason they shop at the commissary though.

William C Simmons said

I am a retired airman who served 26 years. My wife and I are today over 80 years old and shop the commissary once every week. Our children have long left home and we live alone. The commissary is a great convenience to us. Of course we could shop local grocery stores; it would not be the Military Family we loved for so many years.

I share the same sentiment with Mr. Simmons. I love saving money of course, but I mostly like to shop at the commissary because of the military community or family feeling.

I grew up doing our weekly grocery shopping with my mom at the commissary and now I do it with my son. While the Simmons don’t have any children of their own left at home, they feel like they can still shop at the commissary and have that military family feeling.

If commissary privatization is realized, that sense of family may get pushed out of the way for corporate profits.

That’s what all of this comes down to, money. The government wants to save money and we just want to save our benefit. They have spent millions of dollars researching how to save money. Commissary privatization isn’t the answer.

Charles leaves us with this thought. He said

The amount the commissary gets subsidized is a small price given to our active duty troops/retirees and their families for the many contributions and sacrifices they gave to our country. So much more funds could be saved by eliminating the enormous careless [government] spending.

If we agree that commissary privatization is not the answer, what is the answer when Congress needs to cut the funding for commissaries? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

Amendment to Reimburse Recertification Costs

By

Recertification costs due to PCS can really add up for military spouses that are employed in a career field that requires state licensing or certification. Two senators are working to get some of that money back to military spouses.

Senators Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) have been trying for years to get a tax credit for military spouses that have had to pay fees for licensure and certification when they PCSed with their service members.

Senators Introduce Amendment to Reimburse Military Spouses’ Move-Related Recertification Costs

Two senators have proposed an amendment to the defense bill that would reimburse military spouses up to $500 for the costs of re-licensure and re-certification.

Military spouses earn 38 percent less than civilians according to a recent report, due to the hardship of constantly moving. Many spouses experience a length of unemployed or become underemployed because jobs that require licensing or certification are state specific.

Recertification costs can be more than military families can afford, especially with frequent moves.

Senators Casey and Moran are hoping to ease that burden with a tax credit to military spouses to cover recertification costs. They have proposed an amendment to the defense bill that would reimburse military spouses up to $500 for the costs of re-licensure and re-certification that stems from a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to a another state.

Reimbursement for recertification costs would include:

  • Application fees to a state board, bar association or other certifying or licensing body.
  • Exam fees and registration fees paid to a licensing body.
  • Costs of additional coursework required for eligibility for licensing or certification specific to the state, not including the cost of continuing education courses.

Limitations include:

  • The total amount of reimbursement for recertification costs cannot exceed $500 per PCS.
  • Eligibility for reimbursement of recertification costs for spouses would not be limited by the pay grade of the service member.
  • Reimbursements would be distributed quarterly.
  • The cap on the reimbursement program would be $2 million a year.

There are more than 860,000 military spouses and only 55 percent of them were in the workforce in the past decade. If this passes, it would give many spouses the opportunity to continue their careers after relocation.

The government would also benefit from the program as a recent study by Blue Star Families showed. The report stated that it costs the U.S. economy between $710 million and $1.07 billion annually in lost tax revenue, unemployment benefits and health costs because so many military spouses were not employed in career fields that they otherwise could be without the hardship of moving.

These two senators are working to get recertification costs reimbursed to military spouses so that they can get back in the career field of their choice. This simple act of reimbursement can actually have a huge impact on the economy, as well as at home for military families.

Luckily, they are not the only ones fighting for military spouses. First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden started a campaign in 2011, known as Joining Forces, to make it easier for military spouses to gain employment in portable carriers.

They also saw the struggle that military spouses faced with PCSing, especially with recertification costs. Together, they urged governors in every state to take action, whether executive or legislative, to make state licensing for military spouses easier. This month they announced that all 50 states have created a way to help streamline the process of licensing and credentialing military spouses.

The Department of Defense along with state legislators and regulators has developed 3 ways to help military spouses transfer licenses: licensure through endorsement; temporary licensure; and expedited processes for issuing licenses.

Licensure through endorsement can be difficult for military spouses, so a best practice has been developed that allows spouses to show their competency in their occupation through various methods determined by boards such as recent experience and continuing education units.

Temporary licensure is offered by many states that allows military spouses to enter employment while completing state requirements or while awaiting verification of current license, certification or employment history for an endorsement.

An expedited process for issuing licenses is a quick way to get spouses back in the workforce. States have varying ways in which they expedite the process. Washington, for example, allows a board to approve a license based on an application certified by affidavit.

With recertification costs keeping many military spouses out of the workforce, hopefully these initiatives will be able to get them back into it.

How much have you spent on recertification costs when you moved as a military spouse? Share your story in the comments section.

Commissary Closures: It’s All or Nothing, DoD Report Says

By

By now, if you have any connection to the military community you’ve likely heard some heated discussion and some of the rampant rumors about the possible closure of all CONUS commissaries.

Commissary Closures: It's All or Nothing, DoD Report Says

An outside view the commissary located at Naval Station Norfolk. Source: U.S. Navy

In the Report on Plan to Obtain Budget Neutrality for the Defense Commissary System and the Military Exchange System dated May 2016, the Department of Defense reported to Congress details on the current sales and usage of the commissary system and explored options for reducing the $1.5 billion shortfall between projected costs and the revenue required to achieve budget neutrality by October 1, 2018. The report reiterated the DoD’s commitment to keeping both commissary and exchange services.

But perhaps the most surprising boost in the fight to keep our commissaries open came from the report’s recommendation that neither commissary closures nor the implementation of significant price increases be seen as viable budgetary solutions.

Commissary Closures: It's All or Nothing, DoD Report Says

How often do you shop at your commissary? Would you shop there less if the prices were increased by 5 percent?

It’s All About Buying Power

As any savvy shopper knows, buying in bulk is a great way to save money. Buying in bulk is a great budgeting tool for individual consumers, but it also is the ace in the hole for large retailers like the commissary. Just like commercial grocers, DeCA leverage large-volume buying power in price negotiations with manufacturers and brokers.

Closing commissaries reduces DeCA’s buying power and reduces its ability to negotiate for the best possible pricing. Close too many commissaries and the significant decrease in volume could even eliminate DeCA’s ability to negotiate directly with manufacturers, forcing them into buying relationships with wholesalers and introducing a “middle man” into price negotiations.

In order for DeCA to offer our community the products and pricing we need and expect, significant decreases in volume must be avoided.

What About a Simple Price Increase?

Another alternative explored included the feasibility and impact of raising prices unilaterally above the cost-plus-five-percent level currently in place.

The report cited research in the Military Resale Study performed by the Boston Consulting Group in July 2015 which noted that polled commissary patrons indicated that “if prices increased even five percent, they would shop 25 percent fewer times per month.”

And while the finite impact of raising prices is difficult to quantify, if commissary sales decreased by 25 percent, the resulting loss of revenue would total nearly $2.1 billion. Additional price increases would then be needed, resulting in additional losses in sales, creating a vicious cycle of higher prices and decreasing sales until the commissary system became entirely defunct.

What if We Closed Them All?

Not only would closing all CONUS commissaries greatly impact moral, but it would create an even greater burden on already difficult budget constraints. The DoD report indicated that nearly 80 percent of all active duty families use the commissary at least once annually, with the greatest percentage of patrons utilizing services “two to three times per month.”

According to DeCA calculations, at this level of patronage, active duty families average just over $1,500 per year in savings. If the DoD were to compensate military families for this loss of benefit, the cost would be nearly $2.4 billion, a significant increase over the current projected budget shortfall. This analysis also fails to take patronage and sales to retirees and their families.

Commissary closures would also have several second and third order effects. AAFES exchange stores rely heavily on the proximity to commissaries to support their revenue.

AAFES estimates that between “20-30 percent of its foot traffic” and the resulting $1 billion in sales comes from exchange locations in close proximity to commissaries. Subsequently, the significant contributions to MWR funding made by AAFES would be greatly impacted.

And let’s not forget about our commissaries located OCONUS. These facilities derive great benefit from their connection to the stateside system.

Decreased buying power would greatly impact cost and availability of products that can make an overseas assignment feel a bit more like home.

According to report calculations, if all CONUS commissaries were closed, the resulting loss of buying power and management support would result in nearly a 25 percent increase in costs for OCONUS commissary operations.

We are by no means out of the woods when it comes to the future of our commissary benefits. The DoD is still examining options that include privatization or varied pricing to help DeCA achieve budget neutrality by the target date.

However, this report seems to solidify the DoD’s intent to ensure commissary benefits for active duty families and retirees remain in place and intact for as long as possible.

Since this report found that shutting down all the commissaries is the only way to operate them without taxpayer money, do you think privatization is the answer to reducing their operating costs? Why or why not?

What You Can Do to Help Save Your Commissary Benefit

By

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of the commissary. My family has been shopping there since I was a baby and I continue to shop there today! Ironically enough, when my parents were visiting this past week, what did we do? We ran into the commissary for the typical bread, milk and eggs run.

The convenience and cost-effectiveness are the primary reasons military families visit the commissary. But, as the new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is being discussed in Congress, our commissary budget is on the chopping block, yet again. That could mean more commissary closures, reduced hours and days, among other things.

The House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, H.R. 4909, on May 20, which authorizes $610 billion in funding for national defense. Now it’s the Senate’s turn to debate it.

While negotiations are in the works, this is our time to speak up! Although it may seem like military families are alone on this one, there are organizations out there lobbying and fighting for our cause.

Join forces with these organizations and they can help amplify your voice.

Blue Star Families (BSF) is a wonderful organization that provides resources, programs and partnerships for military families. Each year, they release a descriptive military lifestyle survey that indicates the concerns of military families. The best part of the survey is that the right people are reading it and it’s making a difference in influencing decisions.

The 2015 survey results showed that military benefits and pay were top issues for military families. Our commissary is looped into the mix there. To make sure our benefits continue to be in the forefront of budgetary decisions, fill out their 2016 survey. Time is running out, so hurry because the closeout date is May 30!

In addition to Blue Star Families, the National Military Family Association (NMFA) is another fantastic organization that strongly lobbies for military families. They provide scholarships and kids’ camps (i.e. Operation Purple Camps) as well as resources for military family and health care issues.

They are also monitoring the defense budget saga and provide detailed explanations to better understand the situation because let’s be honest, it can get really confusing. NMFA recently broke down the defense budget concerns, including the commissary issue here.

With the backing of BSF and NMFA, military families can have a stronger voice. Keep an eye out for volunteer opportunities and ways to contribute to these organizations.

You can also connect with The Coalition to Save Our Military Shopping Benefits. This coalition is “working to protect service members and their families EARNED commissary and exchange benefits, and the critical savings they provide our military community,” according to its website.

You can also contact your state senator  to encourage their vote in the proceedings. This is when you, as an American voter, can and should get your issues heard. Here is how you can contact their offices (be sure to select the U.S. Senate).

That reminds me, have you registered to vote?

Lastly, I want to encourage you to patronize your local commissary because that will also influence the decision-making process.

Every time you shop at your commissary, it’s counted and every dollar you spend is calculated. If the numbers are there, it’s undeniable proof that the commissary system is beneficial.

Are you concerned about proposed changes to the commissary? What are you doing to voice your concerns?

Commissary Spends Nearly $4 Million

By

The government is constantly looking at ways to save money and each year the commissary budget comes into question. How can they cut the $1.4 billion commissary budget? Over the years many ideas have been presented, from privatizing the commissary to creating a private brand or even using variable pricing.

It has mostly just been a lot of talk.

The government has finally decided to do something more progressive and hired an outside firm to study ways to save money. These cost-cutting studies will cost the commissary nearly $4 million.

The Defense Authorization Act gave the DoD the responsibility of determining how to save the government money by cutting the commissary budget. The Department of Defense contracted Boston Consulting Group to conduct 2 studies in order to determine exactly how to cut the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) budget. These two studies cost nearly $4 million and yes, that came out of the commissary budget.

The first study, which started in January 2015, has already been complete and cost $2.3 million. Its purpose was to determine any cost-cutting possibilities. Another contract, this time for $1.44 million, was also awarded to Boston Consulting Group and is already in progress. The goal of this study is to develop a way to compare civilian grocery prices with commissary prices to determine a baseline savings.

The Defense Commissary Agency says that customers save on average 30 percent compared to civilian grocery stores based on their own research. The government doesn’t want to just take their word for it however. Boston Consulting Group is now creating a methodology to determine price comparisons.

Will all of this research be worth the cost? It’s hard for the average consumer to see the justification in spending nearly $4 million of the commissary budget on researching how to save money.

The saying “you have to spend money to save money” comes to mind, but that’s a lot of money. What will the return on investment be? What will commissary patrons get out of this?

The second study isn’t complete yest, but the results of the first study are in. The Boston Consulting Group recommended ways to save money in the commissary budget by utilizing variable pricing and creating a private label of products. They also recommended consolidating all of the military exchange systems but that idea has already been turned down.

The Defense Authorization Act gave the Department of Defense the ability to test some of these money-saving options out, such as variable pricing. Variable pricing would mean pricing products differently across the country based off the price in the market. Products in the north typically cost more than some in the south. That means families in some parts of the country will be spending more on groceries than others.

Critics of variable pricing are quick to point out that military service members receive the same base pay no matter where they are stationed, with only basic housing allowance adjusting for location.

As the law currently stands, the commissary is only allowed to sell products at cost plus 5 percent surcharge. While Defense Authorization Act gives the commissary the ability to test variable pricing in areas, the law would have to be changed to implement it permanently.

The creation of a commissary private label was recommended as another option. Those opposed to the idea say that that might actually result in an increase in cost. Civilian grocery stores that have their own private label spend a large sum of money marketing their products to consumers. You have to build up a trust. As it stands, military families trust that the commissary offers quality products at cost plus a small surcharge.

What recommendations will the government take into consideration and when might patrons see changes?

That is yet to be determined, as the second study has not been completed yet. As most things with the government, this is a long drawn-out process.

Do you think these cost-cutting studies will help identify ways to operate the commissaries without taxpayer money?

Is the Military an Easy Target for Budget Cuts?

By

Oh, budget cuts. We military families cringe when we hear that in association with the military. Why do we see these cuts happen and why do they have to hurt so much? Why is cutting Tricare, housing and other benefits the best way to handle the budget?

Is the Military an Easy Target for Budget Cuts?

The truth is, only 1 percent are serving and because of that, a lot of people don’t understand what we need.

I have been a military spouse for more than 10 years now and I have seen plenty of other ways to cut the budget instead of cutting where it hurts the most. That makes me wonder, why is the military an easy target for budget cuts?

One reader wrote this in a comment about proposed changes to the commissaries:

This is a reduction in benefits any way you look at it. Another pay cut. The military is an easy target since they aren’t allowed to be political.

Is this true? Is the military an easy target for cuts because the military is not allowed to be political? I think there is some truth to this but it isn’t the main reason.

The biggest reason is because few people in the government have a real connection to the military. You are more likely to make cuts to something you think that a small percentage of the population will actually be affected by.

Although military members themselves can not be political, others who are associated with the military and who care just as much can be. Spouses and those who have served in the past. Those with children serving or with parents who have served. They are people who can get political about the cuts.

Because of this, there has to be more to the cuts than just the fact that those who serve can’t be political.

When my husband joined the military, we didn’t know too many people who were also making that choice. Over the years that has changed as we have met more and more military families. However, when we go home we still feel like the minority when it comes to the military. This isn’t true for everyone of course. Others come from big military communities and have known the military life before they became a part of the service themselves.

The truth is, only 1 percent are serving and because of that, a lot of people don’t understand what we need. They don’t understand that when you sign up to fight for your country, you expect your family to be taken care of in return. That you shouldn’t have to worry that your health care will be cut, that services for your special needs kids will suddenly be taken away or that you have to worry that you will not make enough each month to support them.

If we could figure out a way to make sure everyone with the power to change this knows what military families need and what we don’t, things might change. If they could hear the voices of the military spouses and other family members, maybe they would find another way to make their cuts. If they could truly understand what the budget cuts do to the 1 percent serving in the military, maybe they would do something else.

This means that change needs to come from us, those that stand behind those serving in the military. We need to be aware of the changes that are being made and do what we can to stand up against them. This won’t always be easy and sometimes things will feel like we are not even making a difference, but the more people understand what military families need, the better chance we have for things to change.

Do you agree with that statement the “military is an easy target since they aren’t allowed to be political?” Why or why not?

Two Commissaries in Germany Will Close Their Doors This Spring

By

In a never-ending drive by the government to cut the military budget, the Pentagon has proposed to cut the commissary budget for 2017 by $221 million. How would this budget reduction impact the every day consumer?

Commissaries will be closing. Not all commissaries; no need to panic. Stateside commissaries are safe for now. Those in Europe, on the other hand, are on the chopping block.

The first 2 commissaries slated to close are in Germany; they are the commissaries at Sembach and Illesheim.

In 2015, Sembach sales were $3.8 million and Illesheim was only a mere $2.5 million. Both of these commissaries have been in operation since the 1960s. They are small stores, with only 4 checkout lanes each. This puts them at the bottom third of commissary sales. There are 240 commissaries and these two just aren’t holding up to standards others are setting.

Officials are quick to say that closing these 2 commissaries isn’t a big deal for customers since they are within a 30-minute drive of 2 larger commissaries from Sembach and a 35-minute drive to the next commissary from Illesheim. Shoppers from Sembach could make that commute if they wanted to shop at Vogelweh or Ramstein Air Base. Those at Illesheim would have to drive to Ansbach for their next closest commissary.

A 30- or 35-minute commute might not sound like much to government officials in Washington, D.C., but it can be significant for families living abroad.

The commissary’s slogan, “it’s worth the drive,” might just take on a whole new meaning. This holds especially true for single service members who are use to just popping into their local commissary often.

If you are using either of these 2 commissaries as your main source for purchasing groceries, note that Sembach closes April 29. Illesheim’s commissary will close on March 31.

One good thing at least, there are sure to be great sales as they try to move inventory off the shelves.

Don’t make a sigh of relief yet if you’re stationed in Germany, but not near these 2 commissaries. There are more commissaries slated to close. The Defense Commissary Agency plans to meet budget cuts by consolidating down to one commissary per military community. Grafenwoehr and Kaiserslautern will be the only exceptions to this.

That means commissaries in Stuttgart will be part of the plan to close stores in Europe in 2016. Those at Patch, Kelley Barracks, Robinson Barracks and Panzer Kaserne will all see their final days this year.

A new commissary on Panzer is being built to compensate for this. Construction hasn’t begun yet and these commissaries will remain open until the new one is ready so you still have time to shop at your favorite commissary before the doors close for good.

The saying “you can never go back” keeps playing in my mind as I write this. I lived in Germany for 5 years. I truly will never be able to go back to Robinson Barracks where my family shopped regularly when we were stationed in Stuttgart. It’s a 20- to 30-minute drive from Robinson Barracks to Panzer for those that live in the area.

There is always a constant worry about losing military benefits and talk of commissary closures are a norm. This is one instance that rumors are true.

Hopefully families and service members that shop regularly at these commissaries will be able to adjust their routine grocery shopping trip accordingly knowing ahead of time that their stores are closing.

Are you concerned more commissaries will close? Tell us your thoughts in the comment section.

Hot Topic: Should the Military Pay for Tributes at NFL Games?

By

The defense budget is getting slimmer. Spending cuts, in some form, are expected to hit the military this year. Congress is looking at retirement reform, cuts to housing allowances and Tricare prescription fee increases. And don’t forget about the sad proposed pay increase of 1.3 percent.

Combine all this doom and gloom funding discussions with this headline,

“The Pentagon paid 14 NFL teams $5.4 million to ‘salute troops’ ”

and many military families, including myself, are left shaking their heads in disbelief.

Should the Military Pay for Tributes at NFL Games?

The NFL was paid to provide salutes to service members. Do you think this type of advertising is effective for recruiting? Or is it a waste of taxpayer money?

The Pentagon reportedly signed contracts with 14 NFL teams stipulating that teams would be paid sums ranging from $60,000 to $1 million each. These 2011-2012 contracts required professional football teams to pause before kick-off and to salute the city’s “hometown heroes.”

What I thought was a kind gesture for our men and women in uniform was basically one giant recruiting poster.

But these patriotic promotions may be prohibited in the future. Arizona Sen. John McCain, along with fellow Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal presented legislation that would “stop NFL teams from receiving recruiting or advertising money from the Defense Department to honor American soldiers at games.” This amendment also encourages teams “to donate profits from these efforts to charitable organizations that support members of the U.S. military, veterans and their families.”

“Our amendment would put an end to that shameful practice and ask the NFL to return those profits to charities supporting our troops, veterans and their families,” McCain said on the Senate floor.

Related: America’s Support for the Troops is Lip Service

In response, the National Guard and the NFL has defended this relationship. A statement from the NFL said that McCain’s proposed amendment paints a “distorted picture.”

“This amendment paints a completely distorted picture of the relationship between NFL teams and our military. We agree that no one should be paid to honor our troops. Military spending on recruiting efforts should not be confused with programs that support our nation’s active military and veterans,” NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a written statement.

Should the Military Pay for Tributes at NFL Games?

Army Maj. Gen. Roger Mathews, U.S. Army Pacific deputy commander, looks on during the ceremonial coin toss at the 2012 NFL Pro Bowl game at Aloha Stadium in Honolulu, Hawaii. (U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

But then there’s this:

“What makes these expenditures all the more troubling is that at the same time the Guard was spending millions on pro sports advertising, it was also running out of money for critical training for our troops,” McCain said.

Wait, what?

McCain said that in 2014, the National Guard “was facing a shortfall of more than $100 million in the account used to pay its soldiers and potential delays in training.” It should also be noted that last year, the Guard discontinued its sponsorship of NASCAR after spending $88 million over 2 years.

For a complete list of teams that received money to salute the military, click here.

Now it’s your turn: What do you think of DOD spending money on military tributes at sporting events?

Senate to Vote on Cutting Dual-Military Couples BAH

By

Dual-service couples, service members married to other service members, currently can both draw Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH).

In an attempt to cut spending, the Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended reducing BAH to only allow the higher ranked service member to receive BAH if both service members are stationed within reasonable commute of one another in the contiguous states.

This recommendation is part of the 2016 Defense Authorization bill (S. 1376) that will be voted on this month.

There are more than 40,000 dual-service couples in the military and that number continues to grow now that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states. With the recent Supreme Court ruling that same sex partners can marry in America, the number may continue to climb. BAH costs have grown rapidly and in 2001 topped $1 billion annually. The committee aims to curb that cost with this bill.

As it stands, both service members can draw BAH even if they are stationed within the same area. If they do not have children, they both receive BAH at the without dependents rate. If they do have children the higher ranked service member receives the with dependents rate and the other receives BAH at the without dependents rate.

Senate to Vote on Cutting Dual-Military Couples BAH

What do you think of this proposal to reduce housing allowances for dual-military couples and roommates?

If this bill passes the Senate and later the House, dual-military couples could see their BAH rates change as early as October 1, 2015.

Under the new law,

(p) Single allowance for married members assigned for duty within normal commuting distance- In the event two members of the uniformed services entitled to receive a basic allowance for housing under this section are married to one another and are each assigned for duty within normal commuting distance, basic allowance for housing under this section shall be paid only to the member having the higher pay grade, or to the member having rank in grade if both members have the same pay grade, and at the rate payable for a member of such pay grade with dependents (regardless of whether or not such members have dependents).

This proposal would greatly impact a family’s income. An E-7 with children currently assigned to San Diego can draw BAH of $2,499 with dependents and their partner, an E-6 would draw the without dependents rate of $2,052. Their combined monthly BAH is $4,551.

Taking away the second BAH under the new law would lower their annual pay by $24,624. That is a significant amount of money for most military families.

Related: The Ins and Outs of the Tricare Choice Proposal

Dual-service couples are not the only ones that will see a change if this bill is approved. There is a second part to the bill that covers a reduction of BAH for service members that live together but are not partners.

(q) Reduced allowance for members living together- (1) In the event two or more members of the uniformed services who are entitled to receive a basic allowance for housing under this section live together, basic allowance for housing under this section shall be paid to each such member at the rate as follows:

(a) In the case of such a member in a pay grade below pay grade E-4, the rate otherwise payable to such member under this section.

(b) In the case of such a member in a pay grade above pay grade E-3, the rate equal to the greater of–

(i) 75 percent of the rate otherwise payable to such member under this section; or

(ii) the rate payable for a member in pay grade E-4 without dependents.

Many service members choose to have other service members as roommates to save on the cost of rent and utilities. This section of the bill would lower their combined BAH and curb that to a degree.

There is currently no plan to cut individual BAH, but there is talk of a reduction over time that service members will pay 5 percent of rent and utility costs. In the meantime, many eyes will be on the Senate this summer to see if service members’ bank accounts will significantly change this fall.

What do you think of this proposal to reduce housing allowances for dual-military couples and roommates?