A Bigger Problem For Military Retention

I spotted Laura Dempsey's Feb. 19 op-ed, "The Military vs. Wives," and started reading with interest. As the wife of a retired soldier, I was pleased to see this issue being brought forward. But the second paragraph -- "My children have had five different nannies" -- made me laugh. Sorry, but I find it hard to feel bad for Ms. Dempsey, and I don't think her tale is one that will open Congress's eyes to the very real problem that exists.

If Ms. Dempsey's husband is one of the captains eligible for the retention bonuses she discussed in her first paragraph, then she is actually pretty lucky. He would have a rank of O-3 and his base salary plus housing and subsistence allowance would probably be about $76,000 (taking his 10 years of service into account). Not too bad, I'd say -- in fact, even in the Washington area, it's possible to support a family on that salary alone.

Now, consider that an E-4 enlisted man with the same years of service would only earn $36,000. I don't think there are any nannies in that picture. Such an enlisted man's family would be in much greater need of a second income and would be more severely penalized by frequent moves limiting the type of jobs his wife could get. And while there are families living on much less in the Washington area, I think most people would agree that the quality of life of such a family would not come close to Ms. Dempsey's.

Many young enlisted service members with families have to resort to food stamps and other types of government assistance to get by, sometimes while living in military housing the military itself acknowledges is "substandard." That is where the real problem lies.

It's time for Congress to do something about that situation. Maybe then retention rates would be higher, and the military would not have to resort to such high bonuses to get people to stay.

JANINE RAUSCHER

North Potomac