It's not offensive, but recognize what it is, a bonus program being recast as an entitlement.

And Michelle's fault?

And the tuition program = everything of concern to military families?

Yes it is something to be aware of and interesting to see how DOD handles its mishandling. But two posts? Must be a quiet month in the defense business.

...I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out the plight of military spouses. These are real issues and require real attention. Where I take (half-hearted) umbridge is the assertion that somehow Michelle Obama is to blame for dropping the ball.

Let me say that I am a civilian, and I defer to Mr. Ricks and others on military matters. But that said, I don't see how Mrs. Obama's role can truly influence the policy making (beyond bending her husband's ear).

Is it more that you'd like to see her being more openly supportive of military spouses? That I can understand. I just don't think she has the power to truly affect tangible change on this front.

I'm sympathetic to the plight of families of service people. But you can't have it both ways. Is this government entitlement? s\Socialism? or not? Or is the whole notion of "socialism" as FOX and the tea types talk about creative hypocrisy?

If you oppose government sponsored programs than you should oppose this, along with farm subsidies, mining subsidies, oil depletion allowances, patents that protect drug companies for a generation, irrigation subsidies, rangeland subsidies, timber subsidies, small business loan subsidies, tax write offs for businesses, and so on.

If not then we need to decide whether to fund adequately, and that does not fall under Mrs. Obama's responsibilities.

That said, thank you ma'am, for your support of military family issues, and for absorbing the hits that your interests have suffered. The world needs community organizers.
------
http://www.linkedin.com/in/onpoynt

Rebecca Noah Poynter’s Summary

I am a writer published in national and regional publications including The Washington Post, The Military Times and The Dallas Morning News.

I consult with non-profits, small business, start-up and tech firms on media, identity and marketing projects. I also work on-call as a writer for FEMA usually deployed to disaster locations.

As a military spouse, I petitioned Congress for Military Spouses Residency Relief which was signed by the President on Nov 11, 2009.

I am a co-founder of Military Spouse Business Association, www.milspousebiz.org

Rebecca Noah Poynter’s Specialties:
My areas of expertise are tech PR consulting and business, feature and opinion writing.

While I do, in fact, agree with most of your above post. I must take exception to the claim that only Democrat party 1st ladies are fair game. Both Nancy Reagan & Betty Ford were lambasted for their behavior. Even Barbara Bush was attacked by some for her pro-abortion stance.

Mr. Ricks,

Any response from the office of the First Lady or the President on all this? I am a supporter of President Obama but if he has dropped the ball on this then he needs to be called on it. Once again, have you Mr. Ricks tried to get a comment from the White House or the Dept. of Defense in regards to this matter and what was their response? Thanks. I learn a lot from your posts and enjoy your keen wit.

The assault continues against the most popular First Lady since Mrs. Kennedy. What is the real motive? Military families? Mr. Ricks could show his support by donating all of the prceeds from his books if he really cared that much. Mr. Ricks seems to think that since Mrs. Obama raised military families as an important issue, she should have to live up to a standard created by Ricks.

This is what happens to people who hang around with power mongers in the District of Coruption. They turn into one themselves.

Mr. Ricks is deliberately picking a fight with Mrs. Obama. His aim is turn military families against the President. It seems this is what Ms. Poynter wants as well.

been paid more!. Single for my entire 20 years in the Navy. I wonder how much less it cost the taxpayers than if I had been married? But they do need single officers: someone has to be the command duty officer (et al) on all the holidays. LOL

p.s. Happily married now.

I did, and came to the conclusion that it´s a condescending hit job against a fine and upstanding woman that I and millions of people all over the world deeply admire.

"Not included was Michelle Obama because the First Lady's office indicated no real interest." Oh really? Prove it.

I was kind of wary of the "Blame the First Lady" argument, but since you pointed out that the first lady associated herself with policies involving military spouses, I feel that there has to at least be some statement made.
As far as people saying that it is a frivolous bonus, nothing could be further from the truth. Having just moved to a new duty station, my wife has found it almost impossible to get a paying job. She had a career and good references, but the need for a degree is everything, according to our own army community service office. Upon arrival the program was offered to her, then yanked within a week. She knew what she was getting into by marrying into the Army, and was even of the opinion that although the program would have been nice, it wasn't an entitlement. However, it hasn't made the transition to a new post any easier, and it is a kick in the gut. Given that we will have to wait years for her to use my post 911 GI Bill benefits, it seems like military just doesn't care. So many people talk about supporting the troops, but if you really want to help, you need to care of the spouses and families. That makes soldiers' lives so much easier.

If you want to ease the pain of separation during deployment, nothing helps like a career.

to how difficult being a military spouse must be, but Mrs. Poynter's criticism seems a little overheated. Surely she realizes that First Ladies, while certainly coming to the table with the best of intentions, generally take on softball issues for which they can proudly advocate yet typically don't have a thorough substantive role in. Obviously there are exceptions, and I don't know enough to say that this characterizes Obama's role in this particular issue, but it wouldn't be totally unreasonable to assume so.

Having a famous, widely-admired advocate can never hurt, but it by no means guarantees the success of your agenda. I can understand the frustration military spouses must feel if Mrs. Obama doesn't seem to be giving the issue as much attention as she indicated she would, but the reaction in Mrs. Poynter's letter goes too far. For one thing, to harp on her "snub" of not celebrating the new legislation is silly and counterproductive.

Her public statements of support do not automatically make her your personal liaison at the Pentagon. She was never appointed the WH tsar of military spouses. This is one of a multitude of issues she has in her basket. Complaining about her absence seems petty. On top of that, she is likely unable to make any substantive contributions to resolving the mess with myCAA.

I think ultimately this may be a case of too great expectations. Her advocacy gave some military spouses the false impression that they would reach the promised land in terms of having their concerns addressed, and when that impression didn't coincide with reality, they directed their venom at her. It's understandable, considering their obvious frustration, but not necessarily the appropriate response.

What is it with Mr. Ricks and Michelle Obama? What did she do to him to warrant such treatment? Although he presents himself as an advocate for military spouses, he comes across as just another FNC commentator, taking a shot at anything named Obama. Mr. Ricks, you do understand that Mrs. Obama is not an official of the U.S. Government, right?

ISTM an investigative journalist might do a little more than merely passing on complaints from interested parties. Such a journalist might want to look into the origins of this program and then attempt to determine just who's been taking advantage of it. How about an analysis based on military member rank, duty assignment and military spouse educational level and physical location? As a retired officer and taxpayer, I'd find such an analysis most enlightening. I suspect I'd see that officers' spouses, most of whom already have at least a baccalaureate, are represented in disproportionate numbers. I suspect I'd also see that enlisted spouses, particularly those of lower ranking personnel, show up in nowhere near the numbers one would hope to see. In other words, I think we'd see an inverted pyramid.

As a taxpayer, I'm not exactly sure I want to see an inverted pyramid when it comes to what could be an absolutely terrific program for spouses who really need it. As a taxpayer, I want no part of a program that's heavy on graduate degrees for officers spouse and light on two-year and four-year degrees for enlisted spouses. Just out of curiosity, I checked the DoD figures on Regular Military Compensation for a major with ten year's service in the Washington, D.C., area. It's more than $121K per year. I'm not so sure the taxpayers of a nation in dire economic straits should be paying for educational benefits for that major's spouse. Actually, as we know, much of that money is borrowed, which makes the need for stringent rules even more compelling. Show me a sergeant's wife and I may change my mind.

As a nation, we've come to the realization that money really doesn't grow on trees. One wonders if Ms Poynter and Mr. Ricks have. And WRT Ms Poynter's demands on Mrs Obama, well, that's just foolish.

Everybody who's ever served in the military knows how the goodies get distributed. They always go to those who get the word first. This means the officers and the headquarters dudes. Snuffy out in the field is always the last to know. But I think we need to be thinking about Snuffy and Mrs. Snuffy. If we're going to have spousal support programs, we need to weight them towards those who most need them. Frankly, I'd put officers' spouses—no matter how articulate and connected they may be—at the end of the line. And my wife, an officer's wife, agrees. Retention? If the volunteer military falls apart, it'll start at the bottom. There will never be a shortage of officers.

Do today's officers shove their way to the front of the chow line?

My recollection of the campaign is that M. Obama made some fairly vague statements about wanting to support military families. That should mean more than a toy drive, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say that she is responsible for screw-ups in a program she had no hand in creating.

As a citizen, I'm perplexed about what we owe to military families and veterans, esp. given the all-volunteer status of the force. A previous commenter notes that his wife is having trouble finding a job w/o a degree. Well, so are lots of people with and without degrees. Is a military spouse more deserving of a government support for education than the spouse of a firefighter or police officer? Those occupations have something in common w/ military service in terms of educational requirements, risk, and importance to society, but I don't know that there'd be much public support for subsidizing the education of their spouses.

This, though, is beyond the question of whether Michelle is doing what people hoped or believed she would. It's great that you contacted the White House, Tom, I hope you get a reply.

I'm not sure whether or not this particular education program would have the most impact for the dollar, but the larger point is that the DOD still tends to take an industrial age approach to its personnel policies. Apparently, some dinosaurs still subscribe to the philosophy of "if the Army wanted you to have a wife, it would have issued you one."

This is no longer a WWII environment with tight middle class communities for officers and NCOs while junior enlisted are mostly single. Especially with so much housing moved off post in the last 20 years, and such a high deployment rate in the Reserves, social networks among spouses are no longer automatic.

The military recognizes "life cycle" requirements for weapons systems but does an inadequate job of recognizing the holistic role that family plays in the careers of service members. Keeping highly trained and experienced troops during their mid-career phase is a tremendous challenge. Too often the answer is that recruiting and retention problems can be solved merely with higher pay and larger bonuses. Short term thinking is pervasive because of the belief it will only take a couple years to win today's wars, so we don't need to worry about retaining troops over the long term.

Money, while useful, has its limits in an era of high OPTEMPO; psychic rewards are especially important given the sacrifices we expect from our troops. Do we really want a force that is motivated solely by the size of a paycheck?

Knowing that the family back home is being taken care of is a big factor in a service member's performance. While commanding at the company, battalion, and brigade levels, it was obvious to me that "A Happy Family = A Happy Soldier."

Senior officials and policy makers are beginning to realize this, but a heck of a lot more needs to be done to support the role that families play in the long-term quality of our Armed Forces. This is not an issue of general social welfare, but a question of obtaining the best performance from military units and retaining the highest quality troops.

In an age that is ever less happy with the tangential consequences of distant war, there is little community solidarity such as would exist if the homeland were being directly defended. This is what Mrs Poynter misses but it is not the fault of the First Lady that it just simply isn’t there.

Contractors already outnumber military personnel in Afghanistan. Contractors are mercenaries by any other name and it could be time to allow that imbalance to escalate in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, restoring a more home orientated role to the services. Such a move would dramatically reduce negativity from service deaths and the collateral local damage incurred in such engagements.

The notion is fraught with potential dangers but they could be minimised through contracts with performance related payment schedules, penalty clauses, and high-level supervision. It would also provide a simple system by which governments like those in Baghdad and Kabul could make direct financial contributions to the contractual costs incurred.

"First Ladies, while certainly coming to the table with the best of intentions, generally take on softball issues for which they can proudly advocate yet typically don't have a thorough substantive role in."

WTF?? Nancy Reagan & "Just Say No", Hillary Clinton & health care, Eleanor Roosevelt and Universal Declaration of Human Rights/Freedom House/everything else she did.

The MyCAA program was for education and / or technical training ( up to $6000) of almost any kind. Medical transcription, cosmetology, Certified Nursing Assistant and may other fields that a sergeant's wife might want to enter.

Another point is that military families MOVE every couple of years, unlike fire, police and other public service workers. If you have not lived it, you wont get it.

I believe the First Lady's staff let her down by not checking into the program before she announced it at a press conference. The program was pulled 3 weeks later, a phone call to the pentagon by a staffer would probably have kept her out of the fire.

Military spouses don't blame the First Lady for the failure of the MyCAA program, but SHE pledged to support military families and other than a couple of photo ops she has not.

A full understanding service family/spouse issues is a career in itself, and maybe beyond someone that hasn't lived them, as one commenter suggested.

Accepting Tom's/Poynter's thesis, that the FL made a commitment that she hasn't fulfilled, and that she actually has enough clout to make a real difference over her tenure, what should she do, besides meeting with small informal groups, or organized groups like Ms Poynters?

Maybe this discussion can move beyond MyCAA discussion, solicit more spouse responses as to what Michelle's moral suasion could be brought to bear on.

The military base staffs and the organized unit spouse network has been working these questions for some time. Michelle drinking three cups of tea with folks like Ms Poynter is a valid suggestion, but it shouldn't be a cold-start for her staff.

I've got mixed feelings on the issue, and it's hardly the first or last promise the government will break. If you doubt me, keep an eye on your taxes. It's unfair to whack the first lady over this issue, but politics is unfair, and if she plays, she pays. I'll save my sympathy for the Bush girls and Chelsea Clinton.

Full disclosure, my daughter is married to an Army Captain, and has spent nearly half of her married life alone, with him in Iraq for well over two years total on two tours. Fifteen months of that was her, alone, living off-base in Germany.

I'm formerly a Sergeant in the Marine Corps, but I didn't marry until just before I got out - there was simply no way I was going to let my wife lead that sort of life. Luckily, I ended up in a field that was in high demand in civilian life, and I waltzed into a stable and comfortable life. I won't say we're well off, but we make enough to have to pay pretty much all of our kids' college tuitions.

My daughter would like to go on for her Master's degree, and would certainly have had the time, but not the money, earlier. Now they are better situated financially, but have a child. She's voluntarily put any career aspirations on the back burner and has made supporting his career her career.

The government has a finite amount of money, and I think this sort of thing could help a lot with retention, but it needs to be focused on the wives of the junior enlisted personnel first, then junior officers.

Perhaps they could cut the alternative engine program for the F-35 to pay for it. That's corporate welfare we can't afford for less purpose.

When people love Obama they are not in for just a penny nor a pound. They put up their entire bank balance. Here's the flipping point for all posters who keep saying, "So what?" You either can't stand your parents or your kids can't stand you. The point I'm making is...when I say something I darn well mean it. I say what I mean and mean what I say. If I tell my kids I'm going to do something it gets done. On the rare occasion that I try as hard as I can or things fall through my fingers because someone else dropped the ball I sit them down and apologize with the reasoning. My parents did the same to me. Other kids had these horrible parents who would say one thing and then renege even though they were not just punking their kid but me too! She apparently has zero compunction about just telling lies...then again, I bet I know where she learned that from. The simple fact is if those doting, slobbering fools would quit going to her lunches and speeches and showing up to be seen at her appearances then she wouldn't have an audience to fib to.

Find authentic designer handbag at wholesale discount prices up to 80% off and below wholesale prices to sell on ebay.

You're all complaining because you didn't get a party after meaningful legislation was signed into law that righted several wrongs? Really? As a gay citizen of this country, I am denied rights left and right, every single day. And not only don't I get a party, but I don't get the legislation either. Let's all have a little perspective.

At this point in time, NO ONE in the military enlisted/re-enlisted without full well knowing what was being expected of you. Even a full 6 year deployment right before OIF kicked off (Jan 2003 + 6 years = Jan 2009) would mean you volunteered for this.

You re-upped knowing you're facing 2 to 3 deployments.
You re-upped knowing you'd be away from your family for multiple years.
You re-upped knowing you'd be going to some craphole in the middle east....or maybe Korea if you were lucky.

This non-sense about the stresses of wives being away from their husbands is just that. They could of told their husbands not to join the army, or to not listen to retention. They wanted that deployment money, so they sent their husbands to "war" (low intensity conflict, COIN) so they could get that new car or fancy TV.

I would call the bluff about the big draw-down of the volunteer forces due to spouses, because maybe it would alleviate the carreerist and groupthink themes so deeply rooted in the military now. You want to know why the Army keeps hemorrhaging young talent (people like mention officers, but you have a slew of bright young USMI enlisted jumping ship as well)? Because in this era they know they have the ability to better serve their country through other agencies and not in the military. Why should anybody who truly wants to serve their country stay in a broken organization such as the US Army? They're Young, Single, Smart, and have a college degree......Hell that at the VERY LEAST qualifies them for the DIA HUMINT, where they'll make more of a difference than any Army Colonel in this operating enviroment.

Right now you have the government scrambling to figure out just how in the hell they are going to pay for the Post 9/11 GI bill (McCain called this one from a mile away) and Wives are complaining that they're not getting their "right" to an education? Please. Your husband is making tax-free bank overseas, and you can't compromise to use that extra income to send you to school part time to pass the days till your beau comes home?

"No one said army life was easy" this is the excuse single soldiers are fed as married E-3's get their own duplex, FAMILY care centers are built in places where there's nothing but barracks around, and single soldiers are forced to pay BAS when they eat at the chow hall/DFAC maybe once a week.

So in summary, get the Wa'ahmbulance for these disgruntled army wives. If it's so tough, maybe they shouldn't of had their husbands re-enlist or enlist in the first place, and right now they should toe the line or leave.

Ms. Poynter, would like some cheese to go with that whine? What did First Lady Bush ever do for military spouses/

A 1:2 deployment ratio is what the military personnel studies came up with as sustainable operational tempo. Deployment duration is relative to intensity, but we know that stress effects (PTSD casualties) rose dramatically during the 15 month deployments for the surge. One suspects that the USN/Marine fleet tempos of 7 month depoyments have some serious thought and experience behind them.

The deployment cycle isn't sustainable for families, not since 2004. That means we have accepted used up non-coms and line officers, broken families, and reduced recruiting/training quality as our new normal. What part of those decisions does Michelle have impact on?

A military family is a long-term project, a life work. It requires a sustainable deployment schedule to survive, let alone thrive. Tom keeps pushing for higher deployment numbers in the two big wars, without calling for reduced commitments in the dozen+ other places where we're housing troops on foreign soil.

When you say you support the troops and their homes, what is your level of commitment Tom? Are you for the families, or for the wars? Gen McChrystal is presiding over a black hole project that would absorb another hundred thousand men from Iraq, and still present very uncertain prospects for success. And no prospect for a sustainable deployment ratio for our infantry.

The wives don't get a morning run with Mrs. Petraeus to voice their concerns.

For the long time I've lurked this blog I've found Ricks to be fair-minded, thoughtful and coherent. I'm afraid I'm left scratching my head here.

While I'm entirely behind programs which alleviate the burdens resulting from a military lifestyle, it's not clear why the buck should stop with Mrs. Obama. As an unelected civilian with no particular authority within the administration, she's relegated to acting as advocate and evangelist for chosen causes.

That the promise of using "every ounce of (her) energy" to" take care of" military spouses somehow translates to "I guarantee you will get everything you want" defies both reason and fairness.

I really can't remember the last time any First Lady was being held accountable for a program within the DoD. Can you?

Unless you've been a military spouse, I guess you wouldn't get it. And after YEARS AND YEARS of being asked "How can we make your quality of life better?" and answering the questions...being promised that life will get better, really how much sacrifice are military families supposed to make? We MARRIED into the responsibility just as MIchelle Obama did. Our spouses career and sacrifice is ALSO OURS. As a family we SERVE the greater good of freedom for all. Yet, when we are living in SUBSTANDARD HOUSING with lead paint & asbestos because even BAH doesn't cover local rates & we can't afford more, because it takes MONTHS for a spouse to find a job, because even TACO BELL won't hire us, because we are "over-qualified" even though we say we just want SOMETHING (yes, they'd rather hire a teenager.) HOW are we supposed to make ends meet?
THE MSRRA that Poynter spear-headed was because we couldn't get in-state tuition rates, because we had to change state residency with each and every move. Sometimes EVERY six months. My husband had 7 duty stations in 9 years! How is a spouse supposed to qualify for in-state tuition and get an education moving every year? I know...we are just supposed to follow our service member around like a lost puppy and hope he doesn't get killed. Because, if they die all we get is a flag and thank you for your sacrifice, now go take care of yourself, because you don't get housing or medical benefits anymore AND you don't have an education.
We aren't looking for HANDOUTS. We just want to be able to accomplish what every AMERICAN should be free to achieve...a career & education, the means to support yourself & your family. I have had the door slammed in my face more times that I can count as a military spouse. And I will admit that I sought counseling for suicide because of pressures of finances, not being able to get a job, and lack of support, distance from family/friends, a baby & husband away. My therapist said..."no wonder."
We make a sacrifice, the lack of a "normal life" and we think no one cares. Then when people say things like "I don't get it & do you want cheese with your whine," It only confirms it. Michelle Obama says she cares and wanted to make this her PLATFORM, yet when the military spouses reach out to her for support & answers she doesn't return the call. This is what military spouses have been getting for decades...how can we help? LISTEN and when you make a promise...KEEP IT. A person is only is good as her/his word.
I respect Tom and Rebecca for standing up and taking the heat on this issue. The public needs to "get it" and understand that the families serve, it is OUR sacrifice and if the country is willing to take care of the needs of illegal immigrants and others, they NEED to take care of those that serve the defense of the country (PAST AND PRESENT) first and foremost.
God Bless, Carolyn

Bravo Rebecca......My thoughts exactly. I was one of the spouses who helped with MSRRA and I am also a wife who is enrolled in MyCAa. It absolutely astounds me that the Obama's are always ready for a photo op, a sound bite and a pat on the back...but for what??? Exactly?? If you take what they say and do at face level...it LOOKS good, but there is NO substance.

I've given the Obama's a very fair evaluation, and to this point, there has been nothing done for military families that makes any sort of difference.

I believe that when someone wrote to Rebecca that she might like some "whine" with her cheese, I had an "ah-ha" moment, because the ignorance from which that statement came is the basis on which decisions are made...."Oh, pulling the money from those spouses? They won't mind," "Military spouses are expendable, don't worry about them, they'll deal with it."

I visualize these types of scenarios when I think of how they actually WROTE the MSRRA down on paper..NOT the intent of the bill, but what was actually WRITTEN into law, which has opened up a can of worms for military families around the globe...UNLESS you were born and raised in the same state as your spouse, and married in that state and then joined the military...That is what...2% of all military marriages?
For that 2% I say...Good on you....Glad for your success! For the rest of us...headaches continue!

This sort of sums it up for me...From the WSJ>>>>>
"So it was just a little disconcerting the next morning to hear the First Lady explain how she came to this issue during last year's campaign. "I think I was like most Americans," she told ABC News. "Pretty oblivious to the life of military families. Sort of taking it for granted."

Apparently...she still is.....

I thank Rebecca, Joanna and Lanette for ALL their hard work, as well as ALL the spouses who labored to help get this passed and who CONTINUE to use social media to pressure our elected officials to do right by military spouses, our children and our families!!!