To the American people,

     Article VI of the military Code of Conduct states, “I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.”

     American principles. Not conservative principles or liberal principles, Republican or Democrat, left or right – American principles.

     General Colin Powell said, “The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.

     Both of today’s political parties seek office in the interest of power, position and perpetuating both. Leadership has nothing to do with it. Winners revel in their victories while the losers reevaluate their message. Neither strives to accomplish anything for the better good. They are more like beggars on the street corner asking for money from the public to support their efforts to gain a political position with a promise—there is always a promise.

     The media, whose job it is to watch over the process, reports less and cheerleads more.  

     Then comes individuals like Bill O’Reilly. The self-proclaimed protector of the people. He’s looking out for you. Promise! Yesterday in his Talking Points, he spoke about “Your Future”. “How much should the federal government help Americans in distress? We believe in self-reliance. Depending on the government for your well-being is a losing proposition. But, some Americans can’t help themselves: kids, older folks, people who are sick, the mentally handicap. It is noble to help people in need.”

     I have tried to contact Mr. O’Reilly on numerous occasions via e-mail and calling his soon to end radio show to share with him the following information about military personnel and their families.  I was able to save the e-mails but the attempts to get past his screener are documented only in my mind.

     As you read what follows you can decide if Mr. O”Reilly or our elected officials can’t help service members and their families or conclude that they do not care. He could have at least included them in his talking points with the: kids, older folks, people who are sick and the mentally handicap; as they are apparently not self-reliant enough to take care of themselves. I doubt many, however, will see the nobility in this.

     These are facts as compiled by the United States General Accounting Office, The Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Defense and the Rand Corporation:

• One of the most significant demographic changes in the active duty military since the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973 has been an increase in service members with family obligations.
• The 1983 DoD policy on military housing is to rely on the private sector as the primary source of housing for military personnel
• In 1993, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that taxpayers would save about $3,800 annually per military family by paying a housing allowance (BAH) versus providing military housing
• In 1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported the estimated savings had increased to $5,000 per military family (In its 1999 report, Rand would report that the estimated savings had ballooned to $10,000 per military family)
• Per the GAO 84% of unmarried junior service members prefer to receive a housing allowance and live off base instead of being forced to live in barracks on base
• Barracks construction costs taxpayers as much as $80,000 to $100,000 per sleeping space
• In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, which allowed DoD to work with the private sector to build and renovate military housing. This conflicted with DoD’s stated policy of relying on the private sector first for housing.
• Developers and financiers found significant venture capital opportunities in DoD housing.
• Per DoD’s 1999 Survey of Active Duty Personnel, 72% of military personnel would prefer civilian housing if costs were equal
• In 1999, The Rand Corporation report found that, “On the margin, members and the military services would both benefit from higher housing allowances (BAH) and less military housing.”
• From 2000-2005 taxpayers paid to increase military housing allowance (BAH) by 60% across the board to allow military members to afford civilian housing
• Instead of complying with their own DoD policy and enticing military members to buy or rent civilian housing, greatly limiting the need for costly construction of base housing and saving taxpayer's money Congress increased the use of private contractors running base housing
• This effectively took the 60% taxpayer funded increase in (BAH) intended to help military members acquire civilian housing and transferred it to the base housing contractors
• In 2001, GAO reported that DoD housing officials told them that maintaining family housing is not a core mission for the military services
• In 2001, DoD Inspector General and GAO reported that the services use inaccurate housing market analyses when determining the need for military housing resulting in the DoD failing to maximize the use of private sector housing. They concluded, DoD risks spending millions on infrastructure that it does not, or will not, need.
• Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is tax-free to active military members
• The formula for determining BAH is based on rental property costs.  Due to the principles of supply and demand in the housing market this results in military members being paid a higher housing allowance (BAH) when housing is most affordable

THE SAME POLICY THAT REQUIRES THE MILITARY TO RELY ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF HOUSING FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL ALSO REQUIRES THE SURVIVING FAMILY OF AN “AMERICAN HERO” LIVING ON BASE TO LEAVE WITHIN 90 DAYS.

    A 2006 DoD report titled, "Report on Predatory Lending Practices Directed at Members of the Armed Forces and Their Dependents"   In summary passages, the DoD report states:

    “Predatory lending undermines military readiness, harms the morale of troops and their families, and adds to the cost of fielding an all volunteer fighting force.”  “Financial issues account for 80 percent of security clearance revocations and denials for Navy personnel.”  “Many of our youngsters must attain and maintain security clearances that demand complete and unquestionable integrity. A service member saddled with debt, fear, and considerable stress could suddenly find his integrity compromised. His job performance will probably suffer, and he most likely will lose his security clearance and be temporarily removed from his assignment. Between 2000 and 2005, revoked or denied security clearances for Sailors and Marines due to financial problems have increased 1600 percent.” (Appendix of DoD report – statement by Capt. Mark D. Patton, USN Commanding Officer, Naval Base Point Loma, CA)

    The DoD report cites mounting evidence that military families disproportionately suffer the effects of predatory payday lending.  Military members and their families pay over $80 million in abusive lending fees every year just on payday loans.

    People like O’Reiily and our elected officials are OK with maintaining the status quo on this matter. Just like the problems at Walter Reed their “concern” for the troops didn’t last long. He will continue to sell his books and they will continue to fight with each other over power. Promises—don’t forget the promises.

     Americans serving in the military need the rest of us to demand that they be given the same opportunities to share in the “American Dream” as we do. This starts with demanding the Congress to require the Pentagon to read and comply with their policy. Honor the desires of the vast majority of military members and their families and stop wasting taxpayers money.