This one's for Ref... _________________ Troops decry budget office's plan to trim military pay hikes in 2004 Troops serving overseas reacted with heat, exasperation and occasional laissez-faire to the news that bureaucrats back home want to roll back their 2004 pay raises. “I feel that capping pay raises at 2 percent would be a step back from the progress we’ve made,” said Tech Sgt. Michael Pena, who works in a clinic laboratory at Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany. Pena said he believes that during the last three or four years, troops have made progress bridging the pay gap with civilians. “Lawmakers should realize the sacrifices we make, and taking care of military members should be a priority.” The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., recently asked the Defense Department to lower the 2004 pay raise from its expected 3.7 percent to 2 percent. Daniels also wants future raises tied to inflation, rather than basing boosts on what civilians doing comparable jobs in the private sector might make. Confidentially, military sources say they believe the idea will die on the vine. But they also admit it would save the military billions, particularly with the possibility of troop call-ups prior to a war on Iraq. In the end, if the military fights the Daniels idea, President Bush may have to settle the brouhaha himself. In the meantime, those serving at bases abroad reacted icily to the suggestion that saving even billions should trump making staying in uniform more attractive. Petty Officer 2nd Class Damon Baggs, 26, an aviation electrician’s mate stationed in Naples, Italy, said the military makes sacrifices and deserves the bigger paycheck. He had to leave his wife and children in Norfolk, Va., for a six-month deployment to Italy. “I put in minimum 10-hour days, not including extra duties and collateral duties and watch-stand duties, not to mention spending time away from loved ones.” Baggs said Daniels’ proposal is upsetting, taking into consideration that “people on Capitol Hill give themselves raises. The government should try to save money, but don’t take it away from the people who’re doing the work.” The federal deficit for fiscal 2002 topped out at $159 billion. A mere year earlier, the government instead banked a surplus of some $127 billion. “It’s a crock,” said Petty Officer 2nd Class Levi Robinson, a Naples, Italy, public works mechanic. “If it was 6 percent raise [an adjustment] could be a little more understandable.” Robinson, with six years in the Navy, makes about $25,000 a year. “Mechanics in the States start out at up to $20 an hour” — about $40,000 a year. Robinson believes the perks he receives to compensate for getting paid less than civilians make little difference. “Like free medical coverage,” he said. “I only go to the doctor a couple of times a year. … We don’t use a lot of the perks we get.” Another sailor said the change isn’t merely a juggle of a balance sheet, but will mean real damage to troops’ income. “It’ll hurt us,” said Petty Officer 3rd Class Daniel Wells, also in Naples. “We’ve had a lot of cutbacks already that are making us feel unappreciated.” An airman in Northern Italy believed military pay is the wrong spreadsheet column to fight the national debt. “I think there are a million ways you can trim the deficit,” said Sr. Airman Robert Reed, stationed at Aviano Air Base, Italy. “As active as the military is right now, I don’t think that makes sense.” Another believed the initial raise won’t even keep up with prices. “I don’t think [a 2 percent raise] keeps up with the Consumer Price Index,” said Senior Master Sgt. Stan Nowacki, stationed at Ghedi Air Base, Italy. “I definitely like it to keep up with that at least.” Despite the widespread discontent, one Air Force man wasn’t fazed by the budget news. “I haven’t really read anything about it yet,” said Airman 1st Class Daniel Little, assigned to Aviano Air Base, Italy. “Either way, it’s OK with me. … I get along well enough, I guess.” Soldiers deployed to Kosovo had mixed feelings about the chance their annual pay increases would be cut. “Either way, I’d do my job,” said Army Sgt. Heather Leetsch, a driver for high-ranking officers and visitors to Kosovo. Last year, members of the Armed Services got a nice raise, she said, and she believed that they are well-paid nonetheless. Army Spc. Anthony Thomas, however, said he was disappointed his pay raise would be reduced. “This is a hard job and the pay is part of what makes it easier to do,” said Thomas, 24. “But at least we’re getting a raise. Still it should be more.” Staff Sgt. Gary Rice, a National Guardsman from New Hampshire, said servicemembers, especially those deployed in perilous places, are already paid well, thanks to benefits such as danger pay. He notes that in Kosovo, you pay no income taxes, get danger pay and receive extra money to pay for your housing costs back in the states. “Anyone who said we are underpaid is wrong.” Stars and Stripes reporters Ray Conway, Kent Harris, Kendra Helmer, David Josar and Ward Sanderson contributed to this report.
!!! Reminds me of a story from Scotland. They were building a memorial for Scots who dead in the Napoleonic Wars. They ran out of money in 1822, leaving the memorial unfinished. They refer to it as 'Scotland's Disgrace'. A firend of mine did his medical residency at a VA Hospital. He said VA hospitals were horrible.
meanwhile the current administration is handing out cash bonuses and no one says a word when congress passes their own wage increases and they deserve it less than our troops... even federal workers are getting pay cuts! for shame.
You've got to understand the Bush guys. To them soldiers' pay is a cost, a sort of hassle like welfare payments. It costs them taxes, the tax payer dollars go to average working type people, i.e., the sodiers, which does not excite them greatly. They and their family are never going to do military type of work. Defense spending on weapons systems, while also a tax cost to them, is a major source of profit. Hence major increases for defense weapons system, none for the military personnel. It is sort of similar to their move to gut the unions, and therefore ultimately the pay of the federal workers, who they have transferred to the Homeland Security Agency. Remember how they fought tooth and nail to have the airport screeners be private contractors. None of them are military guys so they can't do a revolving door play later, beside even being a general doesn't pay the type of bread that interests them. They regularly rotate to the heads of companies in the defense or military construction industries. That's where the financial action is. Another favorite ploy, when using taxpayer money, is to priviatize government services, like they tried to do with the airport screeners.. Again,if you take the average government worker whether a janitor, food service worker or an interviewer for social security the Bush guys aren't interested in their pay. However, if you can privatize it, you can then turn it into pork. Then they can give the lucrative govenment contracts for the services to their campaign contributors or if lucrative to themselves after they leave public service. There is a reason that government civil service was created. People got tired of politicians paying off their political supporters down to the jantorial level with jobs. Privatization is a slick newer version of such payoffs. I know they would never think about profiting from government and tax payer money. It just always works out that way for some reason. I remember when Bush first got the governorship of Texas, the Chronicle did a major article on how his firends and associates were profitting handsomely from State contracts.
blah blah blah...typical glynch drivel...blah blah blah...he should save it his hard drive and paste where appropriate...it would save precious keystrokes...blah blah blah... I suppose Dems NEVER do this...Lee Brown, anyone?
Listen...I think the military personnel NEED raises. That article deeply troubles me. There's not much else to say about that. BUT...in regard to being paid the same as somebody in the private sector...what a joke. Working for the government NEVER pays the same as the private sector. You'll NEVER make the same in a breakeven org as you will a for profit company. The average starting salary for a first year attorney at a firm is $55,000. If you go government...it's more like $35,000. It's a substantial dropoff. That's just what you get when you work for the gov.
Attorney salaries for law degree, degree plus 1 year of experience, degree plus 2 years, and degree plus 3 years. GS-11: $45,285 TO $64,502 GS-12: $54,275 TO $77,309 GS-13: $64,542 TO $91,933 GS-14: $76,271 TO $108,642 (Of course, this is for the IRS )
Two points here... 1) Look at the other requirements for getting each of those pay grades. Often there are grade requirements (ie top 10% of class) to get to the higher grades. In the private sector similar persons would make MUCH higher than the average. 2) My numbers are based largely upon state and local numbers I looked at when graduating from law school. I didn't look at federal numbers because they just weren't hiring in Houston at the time.
Refman, I'm disappointed... you sound like a DC bureaucrat. These guys do a job most of us wouldn't want unless the barbarians were at the gates. They deserve more, not less. Unlike the Administration's big business buddies.
Hayes, I'm in favor of a big time pay raise for the military personnel. I think it is a disgrace that those with families have to get food stamps and other types of welfare. Hayes, see my post re Al Haig in the thread on majority support for the war?
I fully support military raises...military men needing food stamps is ridiculous to me. But you can never thing that you'll make as much in a gov job as you will in the private sector...it's just a different ballgame.
glynch, i just saw it and responded there. been out for awhile. I think one of the lessons the Left learned from Vietnam was that it was totally out of line to attack the soldiers fighting in the conflict. That probably is what gives you the room to support the 'individuals' even without supporting a massive military or whatever. I might disagree with a lot of your politics but I think we all can agree that supporting those individuals is the only way to go. I was just pointing out that you should probably be the last person to castigate someone for being in the national guard or not serving in the military, since you did not do either in the face of being drafted. A personal choice I am not really comfortable with nor of which I'm convinced is justified.
