tv Jennifer Mittelstadt Discusses Military Welfare Programs CSPAN May 9, 2016 4:00pm-5:31pm EDT
with what i believe has really been a wrecking operation by the obama administration against the united states military, it has deliberately sacrificed readiness and compounded problems that were there when the budgets were not adequate for training purposes, for example. it has essentially pushed off, and definitely thought most of the necessary modernization programs. are using increasingly obsolete equipment. it is true of aircraft and ships -- >> why do you think they would want to sacrifice readiness? would the president want a wrecking operation against the knights is military is the larger question. when he came to office he says he was in the is is of transforming america. one of his core convictions is that strong united his military
has gotten us into trouble, or at least has inflicted injustice around the world and therefore restrained and diminished. i've come up with nine words which i think describe his doctrine. embolden our enemies, undermine our friends, and diminished our country. when you look at what has been done to our military most especially, but a really other insurance of national power, and our alliance relationships, and what has been done to really encourage our enemies to think that this is a moment -- this is a year of living dangerously for the united states, it really as up to a fundamental transformation he inherited from his predecessor. >> a lot of colors. -- a lot of callers. grant, good morning. good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. thank you for being here. announce a to significant law enforcement action regarding north securitys privacy and act also known as health of bill two. it passed health bill to in march 23 of this year. the bill's authors write down an anti-dissemination provision and -- passedassed's ordinance as well as making bathroomsr people use based on their sex at birth. and the governor
place north carolina in direct opposition to federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity. more to the point, they created state-sponsored dissemination against transgender individuals who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security. a right, taken for granted by most of us. last week, our civil rights division notified state officials and north carolina that house bill two violates federal civil rights laws. we asked that they certified by the end of today that they would not comply with or implement house bill two's restriction on restroom access. an extension was requested by north carolina and was underactive incineration. but instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of north carolina and as governor chose to respond by suing the department of justice. as a result of their decision, we are now moving forward. today, we are filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the
state of north carolina. , the northt mccrory carolina department of public safety and the university of north carolina. we are seeking a court order declaring hb 2's restroom description -- restriction discriminatory. seek the lawsuit currently the glare toward relief, i want to note that we retain the option of curtailing federal funding for the north carolina department of public safety and the university of north carolina as this case proceeds. but this action is about a great deal more than bathrooms. and is about the dignity the respect that we accord our fellow citizens and of the laws that we as the people and as a protecthave enacted to them. indeed, to protect all of us. and it is about the founding ideals that have led to this country, halting but inexorably come in the wretch of fairness, inclusion, and equality for all americans.
this is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. we saw it in the jim crow laws that followed the emancipation proclamation. we saw it in the fears and widespread resistance to brown the board of education. and we saw in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian americans might one day be afforded the right to marry. and that right is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our constitution. that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill and a state after state taking aim at the lgbt. community. some of these responsibilities -- but this is not a time to act out of fear. this is a time to summon our national virtues of inclusivity, of diversity, of compassion and open-mindedness.
--t we must not do, west what we must never do is turn on our neighbors, our family members of our fellow americans for something they cannot control and denied the makes them human. and it is like none of us can stand by my state enters the business of legislating identity and insists a person pretend to be something or someone that they are not or invent a problem that does not exist as a pretext for discrimination and harassment. and let me speak now directly to the people of the great state, the beautiful state, my home state, of north carolina. you would been told this law protects honorable populations from harm, but that is just not the case. instead, what this law does is inflict further indignity of a population that has already suffered far more than its fair share. this law provides no benefit to society and all it does is harm
innocent americans. away from ourning neighbors, our friends and our colleagues and let us instead learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of our past. obvious butn the often neglected lesson that state sanctioned discrimination never looks good and never works in hindsight. it was not so very long ago that states, including north carolina, and other signs above rest rooms, water fountains, and on public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference. we have moved beyond those dark days but not without a tremendous amount of pain and suffering and an ongoing fight to keep moving forward. let us write a different story this time. not act out of fear and misunderstanding, but out of the thousands of inclusion and diversity in regard to all that make our country great.
and let me speak directly to the transgender community itself. some of you have lived freely for decades in others of you are still wondering how you can possibly live the lives that you were born to lead. but no matter how isolated, no matter how afraid, and no matter how alone you may feel today, know this. the department of justice and the entire obama administration want you to know that we see you , we stand with you, and we will do everything we can to protect you going forward. please know that history is on your side. this country was founded on the promise of equal rights for all, and we have always managed to move closer to that ideal. little by little, day by day, and it may not be easy but we will get there together. levy also thank my colleagues the civil rights division devoted many hours to this case so far and will devote many more
to seeing it through. at this time i will turn the podium over, who's determined leadership has been essential to the justice department's work. thank you, attorney general lynch for those powerful words. throughout the ark of our tragedys history from to justice, marches of equality, there were pivotal moments when torica's leaders spoke out safeguard the ideal of equal justice under law and history will record your a spiral words and our forceful action today as one of those moments. i also want to thank the entire team throughout the civil rights division who have worked tirelessly over the last several weeks to ensure everyone in north carolina has the full protections of our laws. today we filed a federal civil rights complaint in federal court. before i discuss the details, i want to make one thing clear.
a bathroom bill trivializes what this is really about. translates into discrimination in the real world. the complaint we filed today speaks to public employees who feel afraid and sympathized on the job. -- stigmatized on the job. it speaks to students who feel their tapestries them differently. it speaks to all of us who have ever been made to feel inferior, like somehow we just do not belong in our community. let me reassure every transgender and best individual you you belong to us if are, you are supported, and you are protected. our complaint is under three statutes. of them are like standing against determination. title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 and title ix of the
education amendments of 1972. it is fitting that these statutes, which emerged from our nation's long struggle to banish the legacy of legal discrimination them are now being used to defend come uphold the, and uphold the progress that has resulted in that struggle, progress that represents america at its best, brightest, and strongest. title ix and title vii prohibits discrimination is on fact. the department of justice has for some time now made clear that sex dissemination includes transgender people. that is dissemination based on gender identity. that is consistent not only liquid of the statute but also be legal interpretation adopted by federal court. including the appellate court with the jurisdiction over the state of north carolina. there's nothing radical or even particularly unusual about the notion that the word sex includes the concept of gender.
people are discarded against because their gender identity does not match the sex which was assigned to them at birth. peopleny stringent are something that non-train gender people enjoy and take for granted that access to restrooms consistent with their gender identity. that is sex dissemination plain and simple. whenview is confirmed erez of --when proponents of -- men are men and transgender women are women. the north carolina public safety and the university of north carolina because of sex dissemination in employment. claim is brought against university because of sex nation and its program -- sex discrimination.
designedrecent statute to prevent discoloration against transgender people by entities that accept federal funds. as with title ix, entities that pledgedederal funds that they would not disseminate on the basis of sex or gender identity. our complaint sees to enforce that pledge and hold those entities accountable for discrimination, the kind of information that is required by hb 2. we remain committed to working with any agency to develop a plan to ensure their compliance with federal law. for the reasons i just violatesed, and --hb 2 the law. these items are timeless. --these are values are timeless. they say that you can be you are and you deserve to live with dignity. at this time i will pass the mic
to the attorney general who is available for questions. >> as you pointed out, charlotte passed a law which would have allowed transgender people to choose a bathroom based on how they identify, but there are havemunicipalities do not laws which specifically allow for that. is the justice department thinking of intervening in places that have not passed laws like that, and would you consider intervening in other places that have done what north carolina has done if you see a pattern? i will speak to the last part of your question with respect to jurisdictions which may have passed or are considering laws similar to hb 2 . and viewingoring those situations. we remain open to discussions with any jurisdiction that has questions about whether or not a
particular ordinance is going to fall afoul of federal law. the charlotte hornets in essentially added to its antidiscrimination language, --guage making it clear saying you cannot have that as part of your dissemination laws, moved to strike that down. we would encourage jurisdictions to be as open as possible and their antidiscrimination coverage. >> you said you retain a right to curtail federal funding. what is the threshold for that? ms. lynch: with respect to federal funding, the statutes that we brought this under do provide the opportunity to curtail federal funding under title nine and under the violence against women act. we remain open to discussions with the state. we know the university system has reached out to us.
their board of governors are meeting tomorrow. we're anxious to see what those discussions will bring. we are differing to requesting the curtailing of funding but we do retain at right. it will be premature to give a date. >> today the governor said the justice department is bullying and engaging in overreach. what about that? ms. lynch: i think the people who feel bullied are the transgender individuals who live in north carolina, who live and work beside her neighbors without any problems and have done so for years and are now been singled out for something that they have no control over and as an essential part of who they are. i would shift the issue of bullying considerations along that front. carolina hasnorth been aware that we have been reviewing and monitoring this law for sometime. we have been in communication with the university system for several weeks now.
as i noted in my remarks, extension was requested. lawississippi has passed a that allows people to not services if they disagree with same-sex marriage, for instance. where does the justice department fall on this issue? as a fall into civil rights law like this one does? ms. lynch: it's is a state or any jurisdiction may pass laws that allow businesses to disseminate. we will always review those laws and see if there is a basis for federal review and intervention. we remain open to talking to jurisdictions who are concerned about this and where we see laws that are on the books now come we are actively reviewing and monitoring those. but i am not able to comment right now on action we may or may not take. calendar, itction is -- is it too late to take legal action on the clinton e-mail investigation? ms. lynch: that is an ongoing
matter. they will review all the facts in evidence and make a recommendation at the appropriate time. i do not have anything more to say on that particular matter. >> the reason i'm asking is because you moved very quickly on the north american -- north line of matter. the average american is wondering why were taking so long on this e-mail. ourlynch: we do all of reviews carefully, thoroughly, and efficiently. when the matter is ready for resolution a reclamation will be made and we will come to a decision at the time and i cannot give you a prediction. governorher thing the amendoday, perhaps dissemination laws or clarify the intent -- intent of the meeting. specify there's room to , remove any ambiguity?
ms. lynch: the federal law has been clear for some time now that his termination against sex includes dissemination against sexual and gender identity. they made a clear only about to be to go, so i do not have any further comment on the governors of that law. the violence against women act specifically talks about gender identity. we field of the law, the regulations, and the case law around title vii title ix and the bows against women act clearly indicate that hb 2 is a violation of federal law. last 40 hours there have been a lot of talk out of mexico that the extradition of el chapo is imminent. can you give us confirmation on that? is the u.s. concerned with the fact that he was taken to a heferent prison, one that
was at before? ms. lynch: that is a matter that by the mexicand government and the mexican attorney general's office and their court system. we have given them the information they need and we are looking forward to an imminent resolution of that. but because it is being handled by that jurisdiction i cannot give you a timeline or production on one that watch lakhdar. i'm sorry for -- on which that will have --or a prediction for when that will occur. i'm sorry for that. bathroomers to both and changing facilities. can you explain why did i not see a dissension between the two? some people is that if they might want to limit changing facilities because sometimes people are completely naked in a facilities. why do not see any valid
distinction? ms. lynch: hb 2 does not distinguish between them. requires state agencies to treat employees differently -- it is in violation of the law. equallyas they are available to all students and all employees. you cannot single out any one particular group of people to be treated differently. >> if i can follow-up up, doesn't the law also ban all types of lgbt dissemination provisions across the state? i do not see that mentioned in the lawsuit. ms. lynch: this lawsuit today focuses on the federal statute that we have mentioned. as you may know, there are other lawsuits currently pending that we feel will be moving forward at the same time as well, all of which recognize that hb 2 has
set in place state sanctioned dissemination and we support those actions as well. today byou surprised the actions of the governor in your home state? does the department of justice to appeal the voting rights lawsuit? ms. lynch: we actually have a filed a notice of appeal as of this past friday in that suit. we will continue to vigorously enforce every individual's right to vote and keep that right free and open for everyone. that notice of appeal was filed this past friday in the north carolina case. with respect to the governor's action, i do not have any comment on that. we were engaged with discussions with them about the timing of a response in the hope that we could work with them on ameliorating this law in some way. how it will be literally handled is up to the state legislature.
we were hopeful we could have those discussions with them. i think it is unfortunate that the governor's actions this morning curtailed that. but having amy -- that having made the choice we are now moving forward. >> given that this is a touchy subject, did you consult with the white house about any of this? we made our enforcement actions separately and independently. certainly, i think the white house is aware of the law and the issues and they have had their own comments. but we made this decision based on what we thought was the appropriate move to make at this time. toyou just referred expecting an imminent resolution. an imminent relation of the guzman case out of mexico. does that mean his transfer here is imminent? ms. lynch: what we are waiting for is a final order from the
mexican court which would finally order the extradition. we are hopeful we will retain that. as i said before, we are working with mexican authorities to make sure we are providing all the information they need to make that determination. once the order is entered, it is up to the mexican court centered , and we will be in contact with them about the mechanics of a transfer and that has not begun to occur as of yet. >> last question. >> if he is entered i did, how do you determine where he will be prosecuted? you have submitted to exhibition packets -- two x version packets. we determine what particular jurisdiction can generate a case that covers most of the relevant conduct, if not all of the relevant conduct, and will provide the best remedy for his actions.
every case is considered. we often combine cases. there is a process that has undergone here the department. youn two separate cases aggressively went after apple. in both of those cases, the department of justice eventually backed off. in one instance you could get another way to get into the phone, and another case, the defendant was willing to offer his password. do you wish looking back that you might have handled those cases differently? ms. lynch: no. [laughter] when we made those notions, we had exhausted all opportunities but we always look to obtain information. and we undertake -- we live up to our responsibilities and notify the other party that this is no longer needed here but the short answer to your question is no.
thank you, all. announcer: you can watch the press conference with the attorney general again tonight as well as the remarks of the governor of north carolina. that will be in prime time here on c-span starting at about 8:00 eastern time. we're now taking you live to the discussion underway. prof. mittelstadt: it is the same year of the switch to the volunteer force. there was incredible inflation which accompanies this, leading to the new term. all sorts of government spending is on the table for cutting. there are civilian social welfare programs on the table there is the pay and benefits of federal workers on the table, and there is also on the table military benefits.
arguingfits the army is right at this moment need to be expanded. some famous faces from this , makes william proxmire a specific argument against military benefits saying they are too generous and to expand the more is too costly. they argue whatever fiscal scalpels congress takes to civilian programs they should also take those two military programs. statements like this because the deputy chief of staff for the that, quote, it was the worst possible time, i think is what he said, to switch to an all volunteer force which could be imagined. in this context, soldiers are feeling embattled, the army is feeling embattled. and the soldiers and army make their case before congress, they
make their case through serviceonal organizations, and they make their case in the pages of "army times." what was happening is that military personnel started to make explicit comparisons between their programs and civilian social author programs. and to argue that if they were going to be cuts, the cuts should come from civilian social and notprograms military social welfare programs. this is a letter to the editor from an army wife, and what she is saying here is what a difficult time that she is having, she and her husband, in making and's meet. -- making ends meet. that socialgesting welfare programs for civilians become and the savings begin to military personnel and their programs.
she said i feel the money to come from hud. that she talks about the millions and probably billions of dollars she believes are wasted on these programs and could conceivably be better spent on military benefits. these show up with another example. in this particular one, a member of congress had made a theestion that perhaps military families who use the program, that at that point -- at that time was called champus --family members of military personnel, that it might in some way use a kind of medicare or medicaid type of single-payer option. this was too much for this woman. she said she doesn't even want to hear those two in the same sentence.
no comparison between military programs and civilian ones. so in this context, really, what we started to see was pulling away of military personnel and any kind ofm identification of their growing new programs with civilian social welfare. there was an irony here. , in switching to the volunteer force, the demographics of the army actually shifted markedly in od, in a way that i think it was fair to say that people in the army feared that their demographics were not so dissimilar rum some civilian social where fair programs. especially among white soldiers, they became poorer and less educated. there were a much higher number of african-americans in the
1970's and increasing numbers of women at the same time. perhaps in spite of this, or perhaps because of this, military army personnel and army leadership really felt the need to make a growing distinction between recipients of social welfare on the outside and those of expanding programs of the army on the inside. now turn to a second defining moment in the 1970's. this also is a problem of the -- of the austerity of the 1970's. , federalddle of this employee benefits were swept into the budget crisis. labornto the accompanying unrest among public employees, local, state, and national, of the 1970's. into this walks the american federation of government employees, which is the largest, at that time, federal employee union. in the late -- in late 1975 they
say they are going to try to unionize the all volunteer force. they are doing this, they say, because of the threat to benefits. so their benefits, their pay is on the table in congress for cost-cutting, but so also were military benefits. benefits, welitary offer you the opportunity to federation ofcan government employees. if congress will not protect your benefits, the union will protect your benefits. interestingly, about a third of service personnel seem to have been serious interest, and the greatest interest was among senior noncommissioned officers, not surprising that they had been long invested in these benefits and were going to continue to be long invested in these benefits. the unionization never happened, and i would be happy to go into all the reasons
why, not me for the dozens of bills introduced immediately to outlaw military unionization. but even though it never happened, it was a really decisive moment for social welfare programs in the military. and for this reason, it was at that military personnel and military leadership and members of congress took yet another step to distance the growing programs of the military from civilians. and this time, from civilian employees and from civilian employment. so you hear in my be too small this is a see, cartoon from army times that gets to the heart of what would be called the comparability controversy. this has to do with whether or , you were posing the idea
that civilian work and military work is somehow comparable. for much of u.s. history, no one had gone to any greatly to distinguish military work from civilian work, in part because of conscription in times of war, people cycled in and out of the military and in the long cold war period, they did as well. but the distinctions become more important. so the army and army leaders fight back against any notion of work andlity between soldiering, between the benefits that are allowed for federal employees and the benefits it might come to military personnel. stereo is a giant mancal looking union complete with apparently a dunce cap on his head. what he is saying is, the more they shave it down to any old job, the sooner i will take it
over. any old job. is the idea that military service would just be employment was seen as dangerous. this is an army times. it was seen as dangerous by army personnel and by army leaders. what you start to see as a , real our arguments specific arguments that fight against this notion of comparability. so here i have a couple of different quotes that you can look at, one from general andard rogers in the army one from secretary don rumsfeld and his first it as secretary of defense. both of them are notable for the first notwhich they only refuse any notion of comparability between employment and military service, but they also say it is the grading to be compared to civilian work. sort of workocess
a kind of evaluation where employment ends up decidedly less valuable than doing military service. in this moment of distinction is a further moment. not only has the army distanced itself from social welfare programs, but it is distancing itself from all civilians and all government benefits of all kinds. a differenttead category. this would be a category which there was nothing comparable to a soldier. i want to take you to a third moment, and this third defining moment has to do with taking these two previous moments of distinction, of separation, and the army's thoughts about if it was not like the social welfare state the civilians had, if it was not like federal employee
benefits, what was the growing military welfare state? the argument that they make uses a metaphor. a very important metaphor. it's the metaphor of the family. the army describes itself in the 1970's for the first time, very self-consciously. in congress, its own publications, and in its advertisements to soldiers as a family. so the benefits and social services are foreign inward looking, distinct group of people. in the army further says that what this family will do is take care of its own. praise fromvived world war ii when the red cross assisted the many people who were drafted and their families into the war, and this revived phrase actually becomes a hallmark of the volunteer force and a hallmark of military benefits. is new volunteer force
distinct from civilians, it's an army family that takes care of its own. this was a successful cultivation of an argument of distinction, separation, and elevation. were arguments which created and deployed in these first years of crisis become key and are used again throughout the 1980's and even into the 1990's. for all of these efforts, however, to separate the military welfare state and to protect this growth, the truth was that the military welfare state was never secure, and this brings me to my second argument. the military welfare state had opponents from the start. their opposition was directly informed by their understanding ofot just the military, but of civilian welfare programs, and what it meant to bring those programs and programs like does
into a military setting. so the first way the military proved vulnerable was from within, actually. aremilitary leaders recently returned critics who themselves opposed the military welfare state. whichkey early moment in this opposition was expressed was the occasion of the beer report in 1978. it was a product of representative robin beard, republican of tennessee, the only active duty member of congress who was serving in the mean -- marine corps reserve at the time. was a fierce critic of the volunteer force and he had many reasons why he was a critic. one of the most important among them, the one that sam nunn, when he asked beard to testify in the senate, asked him about first. the military was turning into a
welfare institution. expressed the fears of many noncommissioned officers that his staff interviewed and key influential retired figures. what they feared was this, in part. they feared that the military would see its benefits expanded to all ranks and with the benefits growing, attracted the dregs. becaused is in quotes they are not my words. so the army became worried that it was becoming the last four refuge of those unwilling or unable to participate in any other way in the values and goals of the nation. they worried about the lower class origins of the new volunteers in the 1970's, who might see the army as a good meal, a kind free of welfare heaven, if you will.
and this came out in a variety of ways and among a variety of military leaders and it came out strongly in the beard report. these people were not comfortable with transforming the army in this way. that made them worried, and this came out in the beard report and in other ways in the early 1970's, was that they feared that these new social welfare programs were somehow associated with the feminization of the army. and that of course was related to the changing demographic. while the military had been composed of just over 1% women on the eve of the all volunteer force, by 1980, that is up quite high, to around 9%. there is a rapid increase in the number of women. by thelf of all women 1980's who are in the army are african-american women. the fears of feminizing also , military wives.
the all volunteer force is a much more married force than the draft army had been. wives actually take quite an active role in pressing the army for expanded benefits. in fact, they formed what i describe in my book is a kind of social movement within the army in the late 1970's and early 1980's and they were's army leadership to expand things like child care, for example. also counseling and other social service is, especially those for children and for employment for wives. these sort of create an atmosphere of uneasiness that the new benefits and programs are somehow associated with a feminization of the force. both in the beard report but in other settings as well, like a famous article published by jim webb in 1980, worry about the -- becoming, in
these feminized terms, a babysitter. it is too much involved in social rehabilitation. the key here is this. in their view, the army cannot machinea war fighting and an institution that provides social welfare. it's going to have to choose one or the other. so this is a very powerful criticism in the 1970's. it abates in the 1980's somewhat, i argue that it never really goes away. we can talk about other in its is in which it arises. i want to turn now to a second way that the opponents of the military welfare state are influential. this comes from outside the military. toant to turn your attention the influence of civilian in the reform which early 1990's is becoming a new policy consensus in the united states, both among governors and also at the federal level.
maybe most famously, candidate bill clinton, running for office in 1992, says he is going to change welfare as we know it. he and other policymakers are relying on scholars who study but they called multi-problem families, or welfare families, and they are trying to figure out how to switch them from welfare into the labor market and to diagnose what they see as the problem of dependency. although it might seem surprising, these discourses and even these people make their way into the army into the early 1990's. the context for this is operation desert storm/desert shield in 1991. the army for the first time in the volunteer eric fully mobilizes for war and fully mobilizes his vast family created overm it the previous two decades. in that instant, it judges itself to have done quite a good job.
nevertheless, it is cautious. it worries that too many spouses had relied on the army for support and perhaps the support had been too good, in fact. here i'm showing you a cartoon that was done as part of the operation desert storm/desert shield cartooning contest. it was done by someone quite amiliar with the roles of detachment commander. he is fielding questions from about a dozen wives, and they are quite demanding questions. everything from i have no mail from my husband, when is my husband coming home, where is the babysitter, and i need help. this is reflective of what the army itself on about its spouses. so concerned was the army that it hired the same civilian scholars who studied civilian
--re our programs to study welfare programs to study army wives and army families. of theveloped a theory overly demanding spouse, and in a term that comes directly out ,f decades of work on welfare the multi-problem family. this, the army action report decides on the policy should change, that unrealistic care expectations that it had created by promising to take care of its own should in fact be clarified, in their words. instead, they recommended the army benefits and social services start emphasizing self-sufficiency. this is a term straight out of civilian social welfare. it would make soldiers and families responsible for their readiness, just as civilian welfare clients would be made as possible for their own independence.
the way theut in army portrays its programs to the public. the morale, welfare and recreation, the public affairs office, they start to discuss how they can talk differently about military and army benefits to the public. this is from one of their strategy sessions in which they say they are not going to talk anymore about support but rather will talk about how their support programs encourage self-reliance, or geared toward prevention, and are not social services and are not going to help people. eventually working its way up over the years, by 1995, the army decides it will change its thinking about its benefits and social services for soldiers and families. rather than saying the army would take care of its own, it came up with a sort of ungainly new motto, the army takes care
of its own by teaching its own to take care of itself. in case the message was lost on eagle withre is the the giant word self-reliance at the bottom. lastt to talk about one way in which the military social welfare programs were resisted by outsiders. here return to a different group, to free market economists . some people don't know but free market economists were actually responsible for the idea of the modern all volunteer force. chicago, virginia, in syracuse, economists had begun studying the military in the same way as they studied other government institutions and thinking about ways to take these institutions and make them models of free market operations. in the case of the military, what they thought about was a
cash incentive program, not only for luring and retaining people, but also for -- for providing benefits, rather than allowing the military to expand its social where her benefit -- social welfare benefits, alan greenspan and the other free market economists actually ran the president's commission on the all volunteer force and did all the research for it. they refused to endorse any expansion of benefits. but they hoped would happen when that they would be outsourced or privatized or they would offer soldiers simply more cash, and in soldiers could simply choose which benefits they would like to have in their own terms. but it would not be provided directly by the government. these proposals which came as beat as 1968, were handily
back by the military in the 1970's as it made the transition , or otherwise the programs would not have grown as i'm telling you the had. it is fair to say that free theet economists, and by 1980's, many corporate leaders, defense contractors, and many members of congress really watched in horror as the military social welfare programs and benefits grew. the national review referred to them as a model of pure socialism at the heart of the reagan administration. with the end of the cold war, however, the tide turned for them. in militarys budgets, cuts in the overall federal budget as well because of the recession. it was at this moment that a decisive change took place. at this moment, the outsourcing
and privatizing the had hoped or began to come true. it came true from a couple of different places. support for this came number one from the national performance review of bill clinton and al gore. it emphasizes efficiency and effectiveness but in actual fact, a great deal of what it did was outsource federal government activity in a range of federal departments. in the military, this meant createda man to a newly department in the pentagon where he was advised to bring his expertise in the private sector to the goal of outsourcing and privatizing war of defense services, especially those highly costly military social welfare benefits. he was also supported by the defense science board, their well-known outsourcing and privatization report of 1990. business executives for national
security was also a group that issued in 1997 a report strongly in favor of outsourcing and privatizing. members of congress were also quite sympathetic to doing this. on the republican side there were bills to try to outsource more of all government , so there was tremendous political support for this. , majorsult of this social military benefits were privatized and outsourced. care were thealth most costly. try care is a new kind of outsourcing privatized program. here inbe able to see this particular figure -- maybe you cannot. the results of this is that
military services, which are the purple, grow over the course of the 1990's. this is army spending on services. some of these services during the war we might think of as contracted military services. is inal big money military social welfare. the change in military contractors, the largest military contractors from the late 1990's to the end of 2009, part of what you see is the growth of this military contracting of social welfare. some of the largest defense firms are health-care firms. humana for example. some of these major ones in the
intervening years have picked up other units of social welfare. some of them do housing and housing management, some do , some ball private social work companies. there are lots of military contractors who are actually engaged in this. out that by 2000, and the time we are now, military benefits had changed quite substantially. they were no longer publicly provided set of benefits that took care of an army family. they were instead a collection of publicly funded but privately contractors,ugh through outsourcing, set of programs that were largely focused on encouraging independence among soldiers. to draw your attention back to
something i said at the beginning, this is a paradox. dissimilar from what happened to civilian social period.over the same there are lots of things we can talk about in terms of implications of this. for example, what it might mean to go to war if you or a soldier or a member of the soldiers amalie with this kind of transformation having taken place. we can talk about what it means for the viability of the volunteer force. we could talk about what it means for military contracting. but as a scholar of politics and social policy, what interests me most is what it might mean for civilian social wealth there to have even the benefits of military personnel outsourced and privatized. at the very least it reminds us of the connections between the military and civilians are closer than we think, and we
should all probably pay more attention to them. and q. -- thank you. [applause] >> now we turn to our question .nd discussion period we have some basic ground rules. these wait to be called on, please wait for the microphone, please use the microphone and please identify yourself and you make your comment or question. who will start us off? >> this is wonderful, i was there at the beginning. i remember when we first talked exciting idea that has materialized in an incredible way. of questions but maybe one to start out with. going back to the moment in the early 1970's when military personnel were trying to distinguish themselves from civilians. when you started talking about
it i said it was because of the racial difference, but as you point out, this is a time when, as you know, there were a lot of challenges to welfare because african-americans were getting more and more civilian welfare wasfits, but the military also becoming more african-american. could you drill down and tell us exactly what was going on in people's minds, was it because of the attacks on civilian welfare, people in the military were felt to be stigmatized by association, or what exactly was going on? theit a hold over from 1960's? tell us a little more about that. prof. mittelstadt: i think there was a lot going on. army times,rces in both in letters to the editor, but a lot of coverage that the army times did.
they really covered benefits wall-to-wall, it may be one of the main goals of that particular publication, to keep track of benefits. i also looked at professional service organizations, i looked at testimony in congress, i looked at the sort of state of the army that the army publishes every year and the informal one that it doesn't army magazine. to tell you the truth, no one because ofitly that attacks on civilian welfare that they feel also may more hostile about it. rather i think what i tried to think about when i was putting the story together was the way it made sense that actually both welfare for civilians but also the army was time,nder attack in this
and both changing in very similar ways. -- they oftenly express anti-welfare sentiments well, iike that -- never went on welfare, instead i left my neighborhood and did something more productive by joining the military. there is a broad political sense of the context of danger in linking them together, and the trends happening among both being similar, that d linking would be safer. then there is an individual sense in which many service personnel come to feel in the they want to like think about how their service is different from what other people are doing, it is different from work, different from all kinds
of civilian life, that it is something special and unique, and there is no comparability, and that they have done what other people from their neighborhood and other places have not been able to do by joining the military, and in their view, avoiding partaking of the civilian social welfare state. there is a lot going on and it is quite complicated, but very telling at the same time. >> what is the relationship between military special welfare and veterans benefits? do they go hand-in-hand, or have there been efforts to separate them as well? prof. mittelstadt: i have to admit that i had a lot of reeducation to do in taking on this project. i had not been trained as a military historian.
i spent an enormous amount of time trying to understand the volunteer army and its service personnel. i admit that quite early on i made the decision that i would not be looking in the archival records of the veterans administration and i would not .e telling that history, per se from my own observations, because i've come across a amount, i would draw your attention to the moment of the 1970's, for example. congress decides that it will not continue with the g.i. bill with the end of the vietnam war. veteransaken by many as a kind of insult. over a periodut of years, but it is seen as kind of a denigration of military service and certainly a diminution of service.
however, just as military social welfare or active-duty personnel starts to grow and rise in the , it is the1980's apogee of social welfare in the military under reagan. it's when reagan and other members of congress agreed to revive the g.i. bill and what came to be known as the montgomery g.i. bill. i cannot make a broad general statement about the relationship between veterans benefits and benefits for active duty personnel, there were particular times and places where i did see a kind of equivalent moment for both of them. >> thank you. amanda in the front here. >> this is fascinating.
i learned a lot. you spoke mainly about the domestic context. at the beginning of your presentation, you showed us examples of a book about european military welfare system. i was wondering if you could talk more about international comparisons or precedence that shaped the american military welfare. i'm curious about allied nations and whether or not military leaders -- i'm curious about during the cold war, you talked about the big expansion in the 1980's, how it's shaping what is .eing done here prof. mittelstadt: i'm so glad you asked that question. i'll go back to the 1970's, when the army is thinking about the necessity to expand the benefits. then when it is thinking about the crisis which is the threat
for cuts in congress and also the threat of unionization. it quite explicitly studies european models to try to see what if anything it can learn from them. on the one hand it is looking at a few european militaries which are unionized. off the top of my head i think it is denmark -- it is the netherlands, thank you. they are considering what that means and the consensus is, it doesn't mean anything good. it's not something that the army would like to incorporate. , when ithinks originally decides it's going to try to argue for these benefits, when it is facing off against three market economists, one of the linchpins of their argument for this is the fact that benefits and social services
given by the military will offer the military in the u.s. context a comparative advantage in recruitment and retention. why? because it does not have universal benefits light european countries for all of its citizens. europe,aries in actually, don't have the same level of what we would call explicit military personnel support and family support. yes, there is housing, because militaries are unique and there are times when you need to put people on post in strange places . so there are support systems in place, but people get health care because all people get health care. families of military personnel in britain get their health care because they are british citizens. the same thing with a variety of other programs as well. so the military quite consciously used as a point of comparison european countries
and their militaries and those benefits as it made the case for why the u.s. could benefit from creating its own vastly expanded military benefits. i never saw anything in the records in the 1980's about using the soviet union as a model, and if anything, i think it was an uncomfortable reality that the u.s. was in fact the service joke that i showed you at the beginning that had to do with the way the u.s. was fighting the soviet union as the most socialistic organization in the united states. of what i looked at in the primary sources, it was more an attempt to downplay those services in the context of fighting the soviet union rather than to draw attention to them. inif i could get a question here that has to do with language or terminology.
the framework here is welfare. but another way of looking at it is simply employment. you take many large firms in the 1950's and 1960's, they provide health care, they provide a broad range of benefits. companies provide substance abuse counseling and the like. housing is different, there's something distinctive about the military, obviously, but whether you're working for general in the 1940's or 50's or today you don't call it a welfare system, is part of the benefit package. that is how we sell it in order to recruit people to the university in an otherwise competitive environment. scholars talk about the rise of the private welfare
state in the absence of universal benefits in the post iod, many of the benefits are privatized. if you could reflect on the language of the use of the welfare state as opposed to what the military is doing in various ways what employers do, generally speaking, which is to packages toitive attract employees and to retain them. prof. mittelstadt: i would say a couple of things in speaking about that. the first is this. enormous like many bureaucracies, is not monolithic. that in the era of the volunteer force, there were periodsders, at various over the last few decades of the
20th century in the beginning of the 21st, who talked about the military as if it were a kind of corporation, as if it were a large employer of some kind, and that soldiers were employees. it sometimes came out, especially in recruitment, when inruiters and people recruiting command would speak the language of the job market of people they wish to recruit. it sometimes came out in congress when they wanted to thatabout the social roles the military plate and it sometimes came out when they talked as corporations and wished to be perceived as a more corporate like institution, particularly in the 1990's when the army joined the conference board and start sending officers to business school. so it does come out in that way, but in large part i took my cue from the army in thinking about
the military as a welfare state. that really comes from so many people who are in the army refusing to accept that soldiering is employment, and actually rejecting that model of military service as employment. and thinking of it as something different. it sometimes not quite clear what they are thinking, maybe it is more of an avocation, maybe more of a unique family that has sacrificed to do a difficult thing, but they reject language of employment and embrace the language of caring. the army takes care of its own. concernshey have their about it. i think i would say this, too. i would say that your benefits package is welfare. i would come back and insist on that, as is mine. i am an employee of rutgers
university, a state university of new jersey. as a government employee, i think there is a very important case as to why we should think about government employment and its benefits as part of the welfare's eight, but also private institutions, because of the incentives that the government offers to institutions whether for-profit or not-for-profit, to provide private benefits, or the mandates a government makes that they should be provided, that this impact is part of what makes the american welfare state unique. i want to sayons, that this came to be the model that seemed like it made the most sense, when i considered all these benefits and social services. . >> very good. please introduce yourself.
>> i'm with the department of labor. in the civilian welfare state, fraudommon in cases of and abuse and stories of outrage and everything. is there much fraud and abuse in the military? prof. mittelstadt: it's interesting that you raise this question. i don't know of any studies of fraud and abuse. what i contend you about, however, are too persistent strains of discussion that permeate this era of the all volunteer force and relate to its benefits that i think partake of the sphere of fraud. one is a pervasive discussion among single soldiers about how people the -- people families get over, because they get so much more than single soldiers
the military provides according to your need. they don't provide it on an individual basis. you will get a higher allowance and a larger place to live if you have a spouse and children than a single soldier will get. sometimes is persistent through army times. it comes up in congressional testimony, it comes up in the service organization. tends all the way to an accusation of fraud, that people are in fact getting married just to get more stuff, right? this you will actually find among all so non-single personnel. the place where i noticed it was on military spouse blogs which i started following as part of my anthropological-sociological
education of myself about things military. i read these blogs compulsively for the past seven or eight years. there is a particular term that comes up that i think is relevant here. i don't know if you have heard of it. it is pretty offensive. ependopotomus." it refers to women who are assumed to be large and lazy, not unlike the classic critique of a welfare client and simply depending upon the largess of the military to survive, rather than doing anything particularly productive or supportive. i think that kind of persistent discussion or perhaps the legitimacy in the use of it might come as close as i can think of to answering your question about fraud.
>> there are parallels to the benefits on a different scale than we have at the state department. i was struck i when you are trying to articulate how military work is different from a computer programmer. ,oing back to the recruiter where you started, you talked about benefits and not about service, about duty and the .lement of patriotism that is a big component of it and that is part of the reward as big as the benefits. i thought that was kind of missing from the presentation. did it occur to you that the recruiter was not mentioning that, or is that part of the recruitment package now? prof. mittelstadt: i am confused what you are asking.
those were quotes from other people who were talking about this non-comparability. i'm not saying anything about whether or not duty or service orpatriotism are important not. in point of fact, i think they are important. in surveys of military personnel, after they join, as to why they joined, they are sort of scattershot but they are always there on the list of why people say they join and there are certainly things that recruiters mention and that officers will mention to their own personnel when they are asking them to re-up again and reenlist, they will mention that. this, in thesay is minds of people who are trying to make the differentiation between what military personnel were getting in their benefits and civilians were getting with employment benefits. i think not so much patriotism
but sacrifice would be the word that would come up, and not even so much duty, but the sheer difficulty of the position was thought not to have an analog in civilian life. what is interesting is that if you look at earlier times of --itary history when we have back to world war ii, you don't see those kinds of arguments being made about the special arduous nests of military service, in large part because civilians cycle in and out and don't see military service as something incredibly unusual, but something that most american men have found a passing relationship with and have purchased hated in. it's more connected to citizenship rather than a notion of voluntary sacrifice. ofhink it's really a moment
re-conceiving what military service -- service means in a volunteer era. it means the special distinctions, it's not social , it's not employment. but this development of an idea of sacrifice does become more important in the volunteer era and it is used after this moment in the 1970's to legitimate the benefits that military personnel and their families serve. >> i am an independent scholar. following up on a question, i'm also wondering whether there are in fact others making the argument that we are special. my brother is also in the foreign service and he has certainly encounter danger there
. the other part i'm wondering the tax analogous to aspect of the welfare state. those service members and members of the intelligence community get all kinds of tax breaks by virtue of their employment and that is now also --ther way prof. mittelstadt: the latter point is an astute observation and an important point. i cannot remember their original will that i showed you that show benefits thatx absolutely it's an important component of the benefits of military service. i would go back a little bit, because your first comment reminded me of something, which
was whether or not there are other professions that had this concept a special sacrifice. the work thee of army and the military did in the 1970's and trying to think about why they can talk about the event as special and non-comparable. there was a brief time in which the defense department in one of its quadrennial reviews considered whether or not to talk about firefighters as a kind of analogous group in american society. it came up both with unionization and benefits. after all, it's quite a dangerous job. you're working your regular hours in many cases and you have to be ready at different times. it is also a highly masculinized field. they considered whether or not they wanted to think about this for comparability purposes. they decide not to for two reasons.
one the firefighters union consider them to be unreliable because firefighting unions like other public unions have struck and they don't want to provide a thinkthat strikes and to about that in a military context. ultimately they decide that the better argument is to make no analogy with civilian work. and to make no analogies with other federal employees like people in the foreign service, but rather to demarcate this is a very specific and different environment. >> my research is veterans services experience for the ukraine. about howve a review the service system changed for arebled veterans
particularly health care for disabled veterans or four hiv-aids veterans? prof. mittelstadt: the quick answer to that is no, i did not. as i mentioned earlier, i decided early on that i cannot take on both the history of the active-duty military and the history of veterans. those are quite distinct federal government institutions. it's worth noting that have not .ad the same trajectory they are not at the same point now. there are questions, as you may know, about whether or not to privatize the a and the a health care right now. the military has already made those decisions long ago to take that route. so they are not at the same point in time. the only of observations i can make, not having gone into the archives at
all of the veterans administration. >> thank you very much. timeems to me that at a when the military is becoming much more like the civilian workforce, the idea of danger, the military of to maybe 10% or fewer because you have the computer programmers and so on and so forth. the jobs are very similar to civilian jobs, even the people operating the drones these days are not really in danger. military dealing with this problem of not wanting -- being faced with the
fact that in so many ways it's more and more like the civilian workforce, including the addition of women are more or less equal basis. thank you. that is aelstadt: great question, and it is an irony that i don't think came out in the talk, but this moment of differentiation is strangely also a moment of true convergence. if you look at the work of military sociologist, we are looking -- where studding the military in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. one of the key terms is civilian civilianization. with the volunteer force, a lot of people choose not to live on ands, they live off post
various branches are off-base, for example. it also occurs in a merging of civilian culture and military culture. the advent of credit cards in the military, for example, in the 1990's is considered a key point when finally the military let service personnel is credit cards. the jobs they are doing in a highly technical era are also jobs that are not the similar from civilian positions. and of course the all volunteer force was not mobilized for major war until 1991. about 160,000 who are mobilized and then it is not untilzed in any huge war iraq and afghanistan.
in the 1990's there are deployments for what we might inc. of as peacekeeping and operations other than war which are significant, to be sure. so it is an irony, and i don't know what to say about that except that you are astute. it makes you think about the hard political work that has to be done in making these arguments. at a time when there is convergence between civilian and military life. one of things that has happened, i think there are ways in which it is much less similar since the 1990's and into the 2000's. similar service is less to civilian life. i think that's because so much of the detail has been outsourced. so that part of what you have with the outsourcing and
privatization is a revolution in isitary affairs, as it called. it's an attempt to think about making the army -- actually the entire military. to think about it being a force thatre lethal is made up of a higher percentage of what they would call more years and a smaller percentage of people who are doing things like logistics -- that they would call warriors. programmers are very few relative to the amount there were in the 1980's who are still in the military. if you talk to officers in logistics, they will tell you frankly that they could do very little without military contractors and that most of the people he might be supervising would-be contractors. so maybe since the outsourcing and privatization, there is less
of a convergence between civilian employment and military service. >> we are running out of time, so let's take two final questions. first the lady in the blue sweater. you did not have a question? ok. next a couple of points. very briefly. >> the historical depth of your argument seems very shallow in the sense that many of these about civilian as asian
of americans support services in the 17th and 18th century. there was a kind of professionalization of america in the 19 century which changed substantially that. but the specific question has to do with rather than firefighters, a police force, which has been closely related to the military as a kind of , i just -- in fact wondered if it had entered into of theitary discussions kind that you were talking about. will go to the gentleman right there. a very brief question. i think danger is only one
part of the distinction between the military and civilian sectors. there's a whole multitude of other hardships and things that go along with that. was publicly -- what was being done to create more independents. i would like for you to it -- independence prof. mittelstadt: very briefly, i will speak to the question of the shallowness of the research. this is a presentation, but the book actually talks about thinking about this privatization and outsourcing as re-privatization, and it does put that in that larger context because militaries themselves, the services had been contractedt