(July 26, 2011 at 6:19 am)theVOID Wrote: Shit, tough spot. I don't understand how your government can neglect their responsibility to those who were injured in service simply because they're broke from spending more money injuring more people for no good reason - It's about as ass-backwards as any policy decision I've ever heard of.
Well, that's the way the set up is here.
The government basically has two types of spending, divided into Discretionary and Mandatory (neither of which means what the terms imply).
Mandatory spending is when a bill is passed that includes its funding. An example of that is when the Department of Defence is tasked with acquiring a new weapons system.
Discretionary spending is when a bill is required to authorise spending every year. This includes things such as military pay, veterans' benefits, foreign aid, &c. It was noted to us by the officers when I was still in the Navy during the last showdown of this type (during Reagan's presidency) that "pay" is not mentioned anywhere in an enlistment contract. Service would be required, even if the government failed to pay us.
That did not occur, of course. But for a nation that has an all-volunteer military, it seems rather short-sighted to tell the armed forces, the guys with the guns, that they aren't going to be paid.
While there has never been a successful mutiny in the history of the US Armed Forces, I wouldn't want to be the government official on watch the first time there is.
"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
