Probably Jorge, would call it a distortion of the labor market and would oppose it based on his Econ course. What do the rest of you think? ******************* Troops in Iraq face pay cut Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau Thursday, August 14, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Washington -- The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat. Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances." The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken. Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation. Imminent danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while soldiers are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250. Last month, the Pentagon sent Congress an interim budget report saying the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories was costing about $25 million more a month, or $300 million for a full year. In its "appeals package" laying out its requests for cuts in pending congressional spending legislation, Pentagon officials recommended returning to the old, lower rates of special pay and said military experts would study the question of combat pay in coming months. WHITE HOUSE DUCKS ISSUE A White House spokesman referred questions about the administration's view on the pay cut to the Pentagon report. Military families have started hearing about the looming pay reductions, and many aren't happy. They say duty in Iraq is dangerous -- 60 Americans have died in combat- related incidents since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1. Another 69 have been killed by disease, the heat or in accidents. "Every person they see is a threat. They have no idea who is an enemy or who is a friend," said Larry Syverson, 54, of Richmond, Va., whose two sons, Brandon, 31, and Bryce, 25, are serving in Iraq. Syverson appeared with other military families at a Washington, D.C., news conference to publicize efforts to bring the troops home. "You can get shot in the head when you go to buy a Coke," added Syverson, referring to an incident at a Baghdad University cafeteria on July 6 when an Army sergeant was shot and killed after buying a soda. AFRAID FOR HER SON Susan Schuman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., said her son, Army National Guard Sgt. Justin Schuman, had told her "it's really scary" serving in Samarra, a town about 20 miles from Saddam Hussein's ancestral hometown of Tikrit. Schuman, who like Syverson has become active in a group of military families that want service personnel pulled out of Iraq, said the pay cut possibility didn't surprise her. "It's all part of the lie of the Bush administration, that they say they support our troops," she said. It's rare for the independent Army Times, which is distributed widely among Army personnel, to blast the Pentagon, the White House and the Congress. But in this instance, the paper has said in recent editorials that Congress was wrong to make the pay raises temporary, and the Pentagon is wrong to call for a rollback. "The bottom line: If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are not still warranted today," the paper said in an editorial in its current edition. On Capitol Hill, members say the issue will be taken up quickly after the summer recess when a conference committee meets to negotiate conflicting versions of the $369 billion defense appropriations bill. "You can't put a price tag on their service and sacrifice, but one of the priorities of this bill has got to be ensuring our servicemen and women in imminent danger are compensated for it," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "Since President Bush declared 'mission accomplished' on May 1, 126 American soldiers have died in Iraq, and we are losing more every day," Tauscher said. "If that's not imminent danger, I don't know what is." The Senate bill calls for making permanent the increases in combat pay -- the first in more than a decade -- for service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House wants to pay more for service in those two countries than for such duties as peacekeeping in the Balkans. With the money saved, the House wants to increase the size of the active military by 6,200 troops. What won't be clear until Congress returns is whether the Pentagon will lobby against keeping the increase. The Pentagon reiterated Wednesday that its goal was for service personnel to rotate out of Iraq after a maximum of a year in that country. Units of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a major role in last March's invasion, have already come home. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the numbers U.S. troops in Iraq: 148,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan: 9,000 Imminent danger pay: $225 per month, but is scheduled to drop to $150 a month Family separation allowances: $250 per month, but scheduled to drop to $100 per month url
Write to your congressman and senator and give him a choice: 1) Keep the troops overseas and give them a raise 2) Bring the troops home and give them a raise, or 3) Lose my vote BTW, does anyone know if the congressmen gave themselves a pay raise recently?
You've got to be kidding, right? No, I guess not. We have a volunteer military. We need our over-extended military to re-up when it's time to do that. We want MORE people to volunteer to serve. What are they thinking??
This is a very poorly worded thread title. There is no pay cut. There is a potential failure to increase pay. Not a pay cut. Get it straight. I support the troops with every ounce of my being. I also support free labor markets in which people can choose their job and the relevant pay scale that accompanies it.
This is the ulitmate in contempt for the working men and women of America, including those who work in the military. Hey let's cut the taxes on multimillion dollar estates etc. Military wages are just government welfare expenditures to these guys as they can't make a buck off of it like fancy weapons systems or construction projects by Halliburtion/ Brown and Root or Bechtel.
Wrong. Currently, the soldiers are enjoying an increase in both "imminent danger pay" and "family separation allowances". The Department of Defense wants these increases to stop once the current budget expires on the 30th of September, meaning the soldiers pay will be cut come the 30th of September.
Nope. If I work all year, then get a bonus, then my pay returns to my salaried amount, I have not suffered a pay cut, as you so foolishly imply.
Trader_J, it IS a pay cut. And this is far from an ordinary job in "the free labor markets". You know that... just being contentious? We want these people to STAY in the military. We want to make sure people VOLUNTEER for service. They are laying their lives on the line for us, whether we agree on the politics of it or not. I think they are not paid enough as it is. Many of them have families in sub-standard housing who are barely scrapping by. Again, this is not the time to do something like this... we should be increasing their compensation, if anything.
"Congress made the April pay increases retroactive to Oct. 1, 2002, but they are set to expire when the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30 unless Congress votes to keep them as part of its annual defense appropriations legislation." How is Bush doing the cuts? He should reinstitute the pay increases when he gets back.
Now you're just arguing semantics. OK, so it's a decrease in their monthly "bonus" for putting their lives on hold at home and on the line in combat. Doesn't make it any less ****ty in my book. They'll still be receiving the "bonus", it just won't be as big a "bonus". BTW, bonus is a funny word.
The cuts were set to expire on September 30. This pay increase was temporary in nature, much like a bonus payment. Their pay is not being cut, it is being restored to its steady-state level. I believe in the labor market to set fair and just wages. When I hear that certain segments of society are underpaid (i.e. teachers), it makes me want to vomit. I trust the forces of supply and demand to set the marginal benefit contributed to society by the contributor equal to the marginal revenue paid to the contributor.
How can President Bush say that he is 100% behind the troops when he cuts tough duty bonuses, benefits and health care for soldiers?
Excellent point. How is Bush responsible for this. He has yet to cast judgment on it. The thread title is even more appalling when I read it. Typical glynch. Typical jump-to-conclusions lunacy.
Why does it make you want to vomit? I thought you supported free labor markets. Wouldn't that mean that teachers are simply being paid what the market dictates?
Did you seriously miss the point that badly? If so: Uh...that's exactly my point. They are not underpaid, they are justly paid. That's why I want to vomit, because people can't see this. How you misinterpreted that, I'll never know, RM95. Read closer before posting.
You guys are wasting your time. It was established yesterday that Jorge doesn't mean any of the things he says here and also that he 'wins' every 'debate' simply by getting you to reply. The normal rules of debate don't apply here. Jorge is only a BBS character designed to make you 'say underwear' as MacBeth put it. He doesn't believe in anything so it's useless to argue with him. Oh, and p.s., he's wrong here too (as always) but that doesn't matter cause he's Jorge and apparently even he doesn't think he's right.
I apologize for your poor wording. Most people would've worded it "It makes me want to vomit when people say teachers are underpaid". I should've realized that you couldn't even get upset at someone like a teacher or soldier being underpaid.
Of course we don't have a free market economy. Govt. bail outs of businesses, govt. contracts to certain businesses, govt. subsidies to corporations, etc. go against the idea that we have a free market economy anyway. We have many elements of a free market economy, but not wholly. If we had a truly free market economy there would be no internet, few if any airlines, almost no auto industry, computers would be way behind, we wouldn't have near the amount of helpful prescription drugs that we have etc. Govt. subsidies, funding, research, protective tarriffs etc. play a huge hand in all these industries. Thus with govt. playing such a role, it disspells the idea we actually have a free market economy.
OK, that being the case... I still can't believe this is even being considered. And I'll stop asking for your opinion, Trader_J, about Republican Senator and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar's shocking break with the Administration over the war on Iraq.
