Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
No, its not the key, in fact its missing the point. The argument on the side you are supporting is that since others have done it, he should be able to do it too and we all shouldn't complain.
The point of the policy is clear: Military people move all around and may not end up where they want to live for the rest of their lives, and should be fully compensated for moving to where they want to live upon retirement.
I think that's a good policy, but it doesn't fit a situation where the general just wants a smaller house but still lives in the area he calls home.
I don't care if it was abused in the past. The point is the policy was abused here, much like expense policies have in the Senate for decades. And in the military, I'm sure.
|
Well all I ask is that you show how it was abused? If the guy shouldn't have been entitled to have these expenses covered its really up to DND to make that call, not him.
I think people are expecting someone to be way too altruistic here. Like "I could get the $70k in expenses covered, and its totally within the rules and regulations, but instead I should just pay that." It just doesn't make any sense.
Is the rule in need of some tinkering where people should have to move a certain distance? Probably. But for the government to tarnish an individuals reputation over that is just wrong. Just announce that the policy needs tweaking and heres why. There is really no need to drag someone through the mud because he used the system as its set up.