Army Charity

[gailkate]

This AP story is very disturbing, but i don't know if it's lopsided. Since it reports that similar funds in the other services are more liberal with aid to vets, it seems evenhanded. Any insights from you military people?

AP IMPACT: Army charity hoards millions
By JEFF DONN, AP National Writer Jeff Donn, Ap National Writer – Sun Feb 22, 5:33 pm ET

FORT BLISS, Texas – As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows.

Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/army_s_stingy_charity_abridged

[doctork]

From what is not said I think the article may be biased. The use of the word "hoard" is pejorative. I speak from a civilian perspective of course, but my dad was a career military officer and I grew up in that life..

I am not clear on where the $345 million figure comes from. There is a portfolio of securities totaling $214 million, down from $296M due to stock market conditions, and $117M was put in reserve while $64M was given out in direct aid.

Some or most aid is in the form of loans while a small amount (perhaps only those loans that are not repaid) count as "gifts" to the recipient. Having a revolving loan fund leverages ability to assist more in need. As money is repaid, more loans can be made; if they were only direct charitable gifts, the only source of funds is interest income from assets or additional donations, and fewer people can be helped.

The charity was likely set up with a structure to determine whether they spend only interest income, or if capital can be given/loaned as well as money from interest. Necessary reserve amounts will vary based on this. Repayment of loans prevents depletion of capital.

Being in the military is different from being an employee of a Fortune 500 company, many of whom also have associated charitable foundations which support people and projects aligned with corporate goals. Being "regular Army" is a 24/7 lifestyle, not just a job. The commanding officer can OK a loan, but he also knows if it's not repaid, there won't be money to loan to the next person in need. Those in the military are held to a code of conduct that encompasses personal and private behavior, not just what is done at work, and the CO has the responsibility to enforce moral behavior, such as paying your bills, not beating your spouse, not having an extra-marital affair. And if you don't behave accordingly, you won't get a promotion, or a requested transfer, or whatever.

I'm sure there are CO's that are inappropriately heavy-handed in asking for donations or suggesting that "good soldiers go to church." Some of us have been pressured in private companies to contribute to United Way or donate to the boss's favorite charity, or live in the right neighborhood or join the right country club.

I don't know enough about the specific organizations and ratios to tell if the AP report is comparing apples to apples here, but they might not be. If so, there is an anti-Army bias.

[rmn]

Doc K, well stated. You walk the walk, and you're respected from this end. I cannot speak to the AER to any degree. I can speak to the fact that few gave a rat's butt to the USMC back in the day. Bottom line is that we have to take care of our own who have been meeting our obligations in the desert. Bless you always, K.

r

[gailkate]

And you see nothing questionable about the Army's practice in relation to the other services?

[rmn]

I'm out of the military loop, so I cannot answer accordingly. I'll simply say that we ought to take care of our own, i.e., military members and their families. if we have the wherewithal to assume the mortgages of ne'er-do-wells, then we damn well have the ability to care for our troops. If the AER is failing in its mission, then it should be corrected. I believe it ultimately will.

[gailkate]

I couldn't agree more about caring for our military and their families.


_{I do have to say that the career military member of our family was a ne'er-do-well who relied on the Army to make every decision for him, pay for his booze and fund his "retirement" at something like 42. There are bums everywhere.}

[doctork]

Mar 1, 2009 0:12:37 GMT -5 gailkate said:

And you see nothing questionable about the Army's practice in relation to the other services?

From the data given, I can't tell if the comparison to other services' aid organizations is valid.

It looks like some of the AER assets are outstanding loans, since the securities held total much less than what is listed as the AER "hoard."

If AER is primarily a revolving loan fund, not an organization that hands out monetary gifts to those in need, its financial reserve amounts will differ from an organization that hands out donations.

An organization that takes this year's contributions to give out aid next year to the needy does not need much in the way of reserves, since in bad financial times, they just give out less aid.

If an organization does not touch its capital but hands out aid only from interest income, they will need larger reserves to generate more interest income.

I do not see enough information about the financial structure or purpose of any of the organizations to make a valid comparison. Omission of that information combined with the use of the word "hoard" makes me suspicious that the writer has an anti-army bias. Or does not understand financial management or various charitable structures.

[doctork]

Mar 1, 2009 10:15:01 GMT -5 gailkate said:

_{I do have to say that the career military member of our family was a ne'er-do-well who relied on the Army to make every decision for him, pay for his booze and fund his "retirement" at something like 42. There are bums everywhere.}

In my opinion, military officers' lifestyles encourage the use and abuse of alcohol. I believe alcoholism is a medical illness with significant genetic and behavioral components, so personally I disapprove of the lifestyle that standardizes going to the Officers' Club at 5 pm Monday-Friday and drinking too much. Rinse and repeat to further excess on the weekend. That can be deadly for alcoholics.

Some military careers are well-suited to letting others make your decisions for you while you plod through the check boxes, but most require good character, discipline, responsibility, and strong leadership. Some will choose the former and retire after 20 years with the pension, benefits and privileges accorded by law. Others continue the latter (for up to 30 years, when benefits are usually more generous), and then retire.

For better or worse, there is not a mechanism for varying retirement benefits according to how well one performed. Service members who join up at age 18 and serve 20 years can retire to a potentially lucrative second career at age 38 - that's the way the laws are written. If it weren't that way, we'd be short a lot of commercial pilots like USAir Captain Sullenberger, since many gained their training and experience in the military.

If these benefits were excessively generous, there would be no need for military recruiting.

[gailkate]

//join up at age 18 and serve 20 years can retire to a potentially lucrative second career at age 38//
I didn't understand this was a law. Perhaps all federal jobs, military and civil service, come under some sort of federal law so that they are uniform.

State govt in MN (maybe Federal, too) is full of ex-military who show up and take management positions in agencies which already have qualified people ready for promotion. However, their years of service in those agencies make them rather boring known quantities, without the confidence and cachet of the ex-officers. It causes considerable resentment. Women, of course, are particularly frustrated at losing out to some new guy with no experience in the department.

I certainly mean no disrespect to your father, K. I was responding to "ne'er-do-well." I think we all know that being in the service doesn't make you a hero any more than being a cop or a doctor does. But as far as this article is concerned, I don't care if some of them are undeserving, I believe we must support them all and unstintingly.

It sounds as if the story needs more clarification. (However, the headline could have been written by whoever's job that is. I'm always getting ticked by headlines that are clearly intended for drama or just to fill a certain number of spaces.) Often headlines or picture captions are written fairly late in the process.

[gailkate]

I see Iwas wrong about that - "hoard" is used throughout the story. But on second reading, I find it hard to explain their practices.

[doctork]

The story doesn't tell us enough to assess the practices - they could be exactly as greedy as the tone indicates. Or not - can't tell.

I wasn't taking any offense on behalf of my father, gk. He served honorably for 30 years, but he was also an alcoholic, and the military officer lifestyle at his time and place was not conducive to his good health.

For federal jobs there is a "veteran's preference" which gives an advantage to veterans over non-veterans, if two candidates are equally qualified. Some other employers may also follow this practice, which probably reflects that soldiers who have served their country return to civilian life and have difficulty finding jobs.

The 20 year retirement practice for military, law enforcement and some other fields reflects that some physically demanding jobs become too difficult to perform as people reach their 40's.