Couldn't agree more. I STILL can't figure out why all the people that froth at the mouth regarding immigrants, bail-outs, and wasted tax dollars seem to ignore things like Iraq and Afganistan. They are HUGE costs with VERY questionable benefits.

10 more years of the same please?

"We calculated that the estimated average annual cost to recruit an enlisted servicemember over the 10-year period to be about $10,500."

While I would tend to agree with the above statement (atleast with the annual cost to RECRUIT enlisted servicemember), I wonder if that cost takes into account any primary/secondary training that is required before a service member reports to their first actual command. Because in todays military not to many enlisted service members go straight from boot camp/basic training to their first command, most have multiple stops for training along the way. All of which cost money.

This plan would really only work with grunts/infantry type soldiers/marines as I believe to much of any technical rating/job is learned while OJT vice from the school and if you had a high turnover rate across the board it would be counter productive.

Back on topic with Charlie; 10 million? Wow, at least he knows what he is worth. The only surprising thing about our elected representatives is how cheaply most of them can be bought.

As for Charlie's proposal to reinstate the draft, he's got it wrong. The only way a draft works to insure US involvement in moral wars is to mandate the induction of the members of Congress themselves if they are young enough to fight and die, and the sons and daughters of Congressmen and women, no exemptions. I think wars should be fought like in days of old when the King of a country was also the general leading the charge. It kind of makes sure they really believe in the cause and aren't in it just because they're being paid off by a defense industry lobbyist.

And you guys who are arguing about whether it's the Dems or Reps who are corrupt are the tools. Play on.

Sg

Congressional Ethics Committee is an oxymoron.

Indeed. I think it's safe to assume all these folks are corrupt, and it's not hard to understand why. I always have a little chuckle to myself when I see people refer to the fact that legislators don't get paid exhorbitant salaries. By comparison, their salaries are far from eye-popping, but as demonstrated (with authority) by Mr. Rangel in this case, there are plenty of opportunities to supplement their income.

The vast majority of these folks are attorneys by trade. I suppose that stands to reason, as people who make a living practicing law should be the ones best qualified to make laws. Something that most attorneys have in common is that they earn what most would consider a great living; certainly more than a Congressman's salary. So why take the salary cut to serve the public? For the "power," you say? Well, if you believe that money and power go hand-in-hand, you could make that argument, but I think the honest answer is that the supplemental income is substantial. No different from you and I, capitalist dogs that we are, why wouldn't they choose to sieze those opportunities?

I don't like it, but I do think I understand it.

And it looks like another Swamp Drainer is about to bit the big one along with Crooked Charlie, Maxine Waters, a real winner.