All of the armed services are concerned with improving adequate housing for their men and women in uniform. Financial resources appropriated by Congress, however, define limited and conventional programmatic exploration for solutions that end in stalemate, because of appropriation tradeoffs. Each service could benefit from a radical pilot proposal that promises to improve the existing shortfall of quality housing by targeting our junior enlisted who are married. If leadership believes this is important enough to enlist the will of the American people, we can start breaking the ground for new housing.
The U.S. Navy has realized that a mixed-gender crew has ramifications for ship design, and the guided-missile destroyer The Sullivans (DDG-68) was the first destroyer built from the ground up to reflect this fact. The cost of taking this into account was a necessary cost, reflecting a sea change in personnel-assignment policy.
The shift from single to young married enlisted sailors and Marines dictates a similar sea change in base housing at Navy and Marine Corps bases and stations.
The consequences for our bases and stations of early enlisted marriages are significant. Prior to the All Volunteer Force, the young enlisted man or woman on active duty in each of the services was usually single. Remember, being married with children was grounds for a draft deferment during the early days of the Cold War.
What is important to accept as criteria for measurement of the young married enlisted is the same yardstick we employ in assuring their single counterparts are taken care of in our barracks. That is, do we provide the best possible environment for their lives?
A definition of the best environment for the single enlisted service member has evolved over decades of familiarity with barracks and Bachelor Enlisted Quarters. Consider the experience gained by an officer corps that has been inspecting such facilities for generations. Recent upgrades confirm that leaders have been listening to the troops.
On the other hand, few officers have any familiarity with the quarters occupied by young married enlisted personnel. These service members deserve exactly the same priority, and yet they have been left behind. Remember that the young married enlisted population working aboard our bases and stations:
- Is interested in social peer groups of other young marrieds
- May work 7/24 when not deployed because of field duty
- Is interested in furthering personal education (as is spouse)
- Probably is unfamiliar with local area
- Probably is away from extended family
- Is an easy target for scam artists or criminals
- Probably is a single car owner
- May need access to clothes washer/dryer
- Requires childcare (if spouse working)
- Does not need large living quarters
- Is unfamiliar with rental agreements
- Is prone to use Family Services
- Does not have school-age children
- Likely is subject to deployments
- Is at the bottom of the pay scale
- Is a candidate for reenlistment
Appropriated family housing for young married enlisted sailors and Marines is one of the greatest realities for the All-Volunteer Force. The unintended consequences of not dedicating sufficient military construction funding years ago for this segment of today's (and tomorrow's) service present a challenge at most bases and stations.
When we understand the demographics of this population, it would seem that young married enlisted personnel are the natural candidates for housing on board bases and stations, an assumption reinforced by studies conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses and other organizations that confirm the preference of young military families for base housing. Why, then, has this part of our military community been left behind?
The reason is that housing for young married enlisted is not a very high priority—and will not be until the leadership realizes the true cost of not making the investment. Allowing the issue of taking care of military families to be framed by ongoing discussions targeted at the quality-of-life issue has not been successful in leveraging dollars for housing. What we tend to forget, unfortunately, is the effect that military housing has on readiness.
Improving family housing for our young married enlisted population because of its contribution to readiness is the right thing to do—and such housing is an ideal candidate for outsourcing. Granted, you still have to find the money, but in this case it will be less money. The Office of the Secretary of Defense sponsored the Military Housing Privatization Initiative Program to "help fix a 30-year housing problem in 10 years." Where is the funding to come from? There is an innovative way:
Given that many young married enlisted personnel receive food stamps because of their low incomes, why should these same sailors and Marines be denied other special attention regarding their housing needs? The federal government already has focused concern for housing low-income families through various programs outside our military bases. Why are our young married enlisted sea service members on our bases denied similar attention?
President Lyndon B. Johnson created the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of his War on Poverty. At the time of its inception, it was meant to address America's housing needs by creating a decent home and suitable living environment for all Americans.
Among the department's assets is the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), a wholly owned federal corporation that pioneers mortgage-backed securities and has added more than $ 1 trillion to the supply of affordable mortgage funds. Ginnie Mae's Multifamily Mortgage-backed Securities Program guarantees privately issued securities backed by government-insured FHA mortgages.
This program provides lenders with a means of funding multifamily mortgages in a highly structured and liquid market that provides investors with very attractive incentives: safety of principal, liquidity, and high yield. To date, Ginnie Mae has backed more than $36 billion of mortgage-backed securities.
Suppose the Department of Defense asked Congress to issue a series of multifamily mortgage-backed securities dedicated exclusively to providing family housing for our junior enlisted married population? Legal hurdles aside, the resuit would be to stop housing funding from competing in the readiness arenaa competition it can never win.
I am confident that the American investing public would purchase tax-free bonds issued by the federal government for construction of quality housing for young married enlisted service personnel.
Both private and institutional investors would purchase such bonds. Consider that such bonds have a ready market with retired and reserve individuals. As the federal government continues to benefit from a revenue surplus and is aggressively purchasing the existing tax-exempt debt in the financial markets, opportunities for new allocations of tax-free debt instruments may arise. Consider further that the housing backed by these bonds would be located on military installations and a much better risk than in the civilian sector-safe as houses, as the expression goes.
If we want to solve the housing problem, we should let the private sector get involved. We already have invited various fast food chains to come on board our bases and benefit corporate stockholders. It is time we welcomed the American investor with another offer of safety of principal, liquidity and high yield. It is a smart way to go.
Colonel Bergmeister is the Director for Institutional Effectiveness at the Marine Corps University, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia. He is a Certified Financial Planner, Chartered Financial Consultant, Chartered Life Underwater, and an Instructor at Park University for Financial Markets and Institutions.