Pentagon to Congress: Stop giving troops pay increases!
posted at 3:30 pm on May 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
That isn’t something one hears every day, but it comes at the end of a long string of years where Congress engaged in one-upsmanship on fidelity to the American fighting man and woman through pay raises. Both Democrats and Republicans laid claim to the “support the troops” mantra by offering bigger and bigger raises. It’s as politically safe as, say, waving the flag — as long as you’re not in Morgan Hill, California. Now the Pentagon has told Congress to stop issuing the pay raises and start working on the high costs of health insurance for the military:
The Pentagon, not usually known for its frugality, is pleading with Congress to stop spending so much money on the troops.
Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, with most of them now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.
Congress has been so determined to take care of troops and their families that for several years running it has overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. It has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring health-care costs — which Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said are “eating us alive” — by raising co-pays or premiums.
Now, Pentagon officials see fiscal calamity.
In the midst of two long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials are increasingly worried that the government’s generosity is unsustainable and that it will leave them with less money to buy weapons and take care of equipment.
To some extent, we’re still paying for the sense of national guilt over the way returning Vietnam veterans were treated, and in this sense, paying literally. The undeserved scorn and shunning they received still weighs on the national conscience, so much so that the Vietnam-era service of the man who spotted the Times Square bomb has gotten repeated and significant play in media reports. In order to make sure that history doesn’t repeat itself, we have arguably gone overboard in an attempt to assuage the regrets of more than a generation.
I say arguably because we haven’t really asked the right question: what exactly is the correct relationship between military and private-sector compensation? Should it achieve parity? More? Less? Most private-sector companies don’t ask their employees to be prepared to die to defend their profit-and-loss statements, the dark fantasies of the anti-corporate Left notwithstanding. Private-sector relationships are usually at-will, meaning either party can end the relationship at any time. Men and women in the military don’t have that option, being locked into Uncle Sam’s employ until their enlistment expires. As an issue, having better compensation in the military than in the private sector in and of itself seems rather minor, and perhaps more of a feature than a bug.
The issue of fiscal responsibility, though, is obvious and critical. The Pentagon needs to innovate in weapons design and production while at the same time maintaining appropriate levels of forces to support the defense and foreign policies of the United States. If those policies are critical and necessary, then Congress needs to allocate appropriate levels of funding to support them. If not, then we need to rethink those policies to better fit our budget. The Pentagon itself needs to police its own procurement practices to ensure that we aren’t wasting money on abuse and fraud. Congress is responsible for most, if not all, of these issues and needs to focus its efforts on achieving the best results while applying fiscal restraint and accountability.
However, since Congress refuses to apply those to itself, let alone the Pentagon, I’d assume that they will comply with the Pentagon’s request and roll back some of the pay increases in the short term.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Enlisted men are still hideously underpaid.
A new recruit (E1) still makes less than $1500 a month (granted he is given rations and quarters). A perfect demonstration that the rank of ‘Private’ and the word ‘privation’ have similar roots. A new sergeant (E5) only makes $2305.00 in basic pay. Both are hideously underpaid. (I am plucking these figures from the ‘years in service’ columns that make sense for the grades discussed.)
A brigadier general (O7, one star) with 30 years service makes $11,320 basic pay (quarters and rations additional) which may be a just teeny bit overpaid; but brigadiers work hard and there needs to be a monetary attraction to make folks work hard for this first, most difficult promotion to flag rank.
But if you prove to Congress and the President that you really know how to play the game with successful Pentagon assignments, joint assignments, successful visits to the Command & General Staff College and the War College, successful combat commands (few), and solid sponsorship from the ranks above you, then when you pin on either 3 or 4 stars, your income is more like $16,000 or $17,000 per month. If you are a senior member of the Joint Chiefs or a major combat command commander, then your pay is $19,983. Definitely overpaid IF you consider the $1,447 that the raw recruit is paid. If you are an O-6 (full bull colonel) then you make a well-earned $9,334.
Overpaid? Only if you are a proven politician. Like pays like. After all, if you have 3 or 4 stars on your collar or shoulder (or sleeve, for you benighted goat guys) you have a lot of political influence and Congress feels you should be paid accordingly.
The Pentagon could easily find the money to support the current pay structure if they will simply look more toward defending our country than toward having big, hugely expensive ‘systems’ for the O-9s and 0-10′s (3 and 4 stars) to play around with.
That was why I was all for cancelling the F-22 and concentrating on the F-35 (which is now rapidly becoming as expensive as the F-22). Above a certain price point, senior officers are going to be unwilling to sacrifice their hardware in battle. And as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. If we put 8 F-22s up against 100 Chinese cheap fighters, we are going to lose a couple or a few more. And the generals will then turn to the politicians for a ‘political solution’ to the conflict which means surrender or a settlement that citizens will be unwilling to live with. And the way we see the O9s and O10s fight for these systems for their O8s to manage, we can suspect that they have more affection for these systems than they have for their soldiers.
But managing an expensive and complex ‘system’ program is the only reliable way that a 2 star (08) can ‘earn his spurs’ in peacetime or a time of low intensity conflict, so these ‘systems’ persist and multiply. Some are justified, but they must be chosen very, very carefully.
We need to continue to remember that to the E4 who just lost a leg in a roadside IED explosion, even a ‘low intensity conflict’ is very intense indeed.
We need to value and reward the human element in our forces, and do away with expensive combat systems that are to precious to lose in combat and continue to instill a warrior spirit that does not place too much value on ‘courageous restraint’.
ElRonaldo on May 8, 2010 at 3:35 PM
I can’t even imagine entertaining this subject while we spend money building turtle bridges in Florida.
Ronnie on May 8, 2010 at 3:37 PM
DoD spends way too much money on social engineering, environmental sensitivity overkill and touchy-feely crap too. Cut there before you stop pay increases, Bob.
Fletch54 on May 8, 2010 at 3:39 PM
It’ the unfunded mandate problem all over again. Congress is telling the Pentagon to do things that will give them political cover while shortchanging the Pentagon on things it needs.
As a person who will be directly affected by this, I can say that I applaud your call for fiscal responsibility, Ed. The pointy end of the spear needs to be sharpened before you buy polish for the shaft.
pookysgirl on May 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM
One might get the idea that this bho and team has no use of our military! I do not think there is enough money the military gets to serve under this bho as cic. If they want to cut something how about the year pay raise for the dc bunch and all the perks they get?
L
letget on May 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM
One thing the military does that doesn’t happen, at least openly, is paying married employees with the exact same job as a single employee a higher wage. Nor is pay cut if you get a divorce, in the private sector.
Perhaps one place the Pentagon could cut is in dependent allotment…it would immediately reduce the number of marriages and pregnancies in order to get more benefits.
ladyingray on May 8, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Myth. Or at least largely so. (The pay was a lot lower than it is now).
Dropping The Bomb on Vietnam Myths
MB4 on May 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM
You get increased BAH (housing), but there is no set pay amount for being married.
pookysgirl on May 8, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Or we could cut the top brass pay and replace them the civilian paper pushing politicos they pretend to not be!! Save some real money, quit.
abobo on May 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM
And even more so on very foolish, very long, “Hearts and Minds”, “Unicorns and Flowers”, “Courageous Restraint” wars.
When you are up to your ass in crocodiles is not the time to be worrying about mosquitoes.
MB4 on May 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM
So the panty-dwellers do not want those who are outside the panty , fighting the fight, to be given pay raises ?
What are their views on payraises for themselves ? Any reports of how many times the panty-critters rejected their own payraises in face of a weak economy ?
macncheez on May 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Stars and Stripes the man behind this push
William Amos on May 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM
I don’t agree at all. While there is some liberal faux guilt, American’s as a whole have been very respectful of the military.
I served from 1980, through the Cold War, Lebanon, the Iranian Incident, Desert Shield/Storm, Sharp Guard (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 9/11, and the beginning of the current Afghan/Iraq wars, retiring from the US Navy in 2004.
I see liberals and progressives as if they are Barbara Boxer. Pining for the days they can spit on the military in public like the Vietnam days. The only reason they give pay raises is to the military is to disguise their true beliefs, understanding that they would incur the wrath of the general electorate if their true beliefs are displayed.
Americans as a whole have nothing to feel guilty about, as moderates and conservatives have been nothing but compassionate and respectful of the military.
Rode Werk on May 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Yes, and single military members don’t get it. That still makes it different pay for the same job. Sorry, it still isn’t “fair”.
ladyingray on May 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Wonder if this or any other democrat will have the guts to say the same thing about SEIU-AFL-CIO-UAW etc , ever.
Ironical isn’t it ?
macncheez on May 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
this is a wild subject, will the brass give up some of their bennies or toys, maybe the way the raises are given should be looked at, maybe a fixed sum plus a percentage.
you also need to realize the military is unlike any other job, how may people would put up with the navy sailors do, sea duty for months at time, little notice for moves, long family separations,long hours no change in pay, and living under some of the restrictions the military member have.
RonK on May 8, 2010 at 4:00 PM
No pay raises and our troops are hungry too?
Knucklehead on May 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Why should my son who has no wife or child, but the same EXACT risk of dying, receive less benefit/pay than his married friend? If the friend can’t afford to support a family on equal income, like those of us in the private (not to mention, other “public”)sector have to manage to do, then perhaps the friend shouldn’t marry or have children.
ladyingray on May 8, 2010 at 4:03 PM
I agree the military procurement policy is a greater source of waste than Personel benefits and pay.
The armed forces is a government agency and has bloat as well. But taking it out on the servicemen without addressing the core problem of administrative and congressional pork really is hitting the low end buy to protect the higher end politician.
William Amos on May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Or even their own congressional benefits and payraises.
William Amos on May 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM
I personally know 3 people that were formally engineers in the military. Saw no combat, cushie jobs. They got out and now earn over $200,000 a year at their new job but continue to get $3500 to $5000 per month for the rest of their life, free prescription drugs, tax free purchases on base, etc. I think that’s a little much – don’t you?
suzyk on May 8, 2010 at 4:07 PM
You actually just proved the Pentagon’s point. What is more important to my son, who is in the military? McDonald’s or ammo…
…I am pretty sure I can say it’s ammo.
ladyingray on May 8, 2010 at 4:08 PM
RE: proper/adequate compensation.
You pay what is required to get the people you need to accomplish the goal. Paying someone a ‘fair’ wage is impossible.
By increasing pay the politicians who run government make those who are employed by that government dependent on that pay just as much as the unemployed and those on welfare.
Don’t the democrats always say that those in the military have to join the military because they have no other choice? It’s the way liberals think.
If the democrats succeed in destroying private enterprise, then we will all be ‘working for’ those politicians who control government, one way or another.
Skandia Recluse on May 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Instead of the F-35 and F-22s, why not start building new versions of the F-15 and F-16?
Holger on May 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM
How in the world did you manage to type all of that and still be the first comment? Last night must’ve been a big HotAir party night.
David Shane on May 8, 2010 at 4:14 PM
The junior enlisted guys like me aren’t paid that well.
Dr. Manhattan on May 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM
Yuck Foo, Pentagon.
How about we return to reason and make it law that if basic needs of our troops are not being met, there will be not a single dollar for R&D?
It is disgusting that people are encouraged to send body armor in care packages. It is disgraceful that the richest nation on the planet can’t spare a few dollars from the military GI-Joe gadget budget so that the grunts have three square meals.
Dark-Star on May 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM
No. You serve where the military sends you. If they weren’t deployed into combat, they never received combat pay either or enjoyed tax free status on their base pay. Their retirement benefits are the same as everyone elses who meets military retirement status. There are no distinctions. Besides, how do you know how cushie their jobs were? Did you serve with them?
Fletch54 on May 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Doesn’t seem to be an issue when paying the other 2 million worthless government employees…
repvoter on May 8, 2010 at 4:35 PM
If you look at the private sector, E-1s are paid better.
Holger on May 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Most of the DOD budget is paying it’s employees and not procurement. That’s a fact. The F-22 is a drop in the bucket compared to covering everyone’s paychecks. I find it hard to believe folks would advocate that we settle for almost 40 year old airframes while other major powers are striving to build 5th generation aircraft. Doesn’t seem like we would keep our superpower status that way; we always need to be a step ahead. Unless you don’t care then I get it. I however care. Just because our current conflict is Infantry centric, doesn’t mean the next one will be.
gator70 on May 8, 2010 at 4:48 PM
There was a time when we weren’t quite as well compensated, and it was causing many to leave after their first enlistment. I remember receiving less than $600 a month after taxes and my $100 GI Bill payment as an E-3 in my first year (1988). Now I get considerably more than that (E-8 over 20), and I feel I am very well compensated, to the point where, as I am looking for outside employment, I am finding it hard to find a comparable job that pays the same, even including my upcoming “retirement” retainer.
The cost of a soldier, Sailor, Marine, or Airman is more than just pay – and it’s causing the forces to cut personnel at an alarming rate – causing lots of problems with readiness. For example, it costs the Navy an average of $120,000 per year for a Chief Petty Officer (E-7) in the Navy, counting medical (including their family), commissary, exchange, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation(MWR), family services, daycare, housing (both on-base and out in town), and many other things I can’t name right now.
So, the Navy has been replacing many “non-pointy-end” billets with civilians and contractors who cost the navy much less, and the Sailor is let go, allowing the total cost for the Navy to go down. This makes for fewer personnel available to fill jobs at sea, and readiness suffers. Trust me, I know – I train ships on a weekly basis and see the difficulties the fleet is having with lack of staffing first-hand. Now, throw personnel requirements for the war on terror. Yes, the Navy puts “boots on the ground” (in addition to our special forces) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gitmo, too. Personnel are literally yanked from their current job and sent out, individually, for up to a year, leaving their billet empty for that period of time – and it can’t be filled because he’s still “attached” to your command.
Yes, I know, it’s tough all over, and for the most part, these commands “take it out of hide” and work to fix the holes in their manning structure by cross-training and being creative in how they employ the personnel they do have. But it’s getting close to not being able to handle more than one thing at a time, like fighting a fire and firing on the enemy.
This restructuring also creates a huge imbalance in shipboard (sea duty) and ashore jobs available – to the point where the Navy recently mandated everyone’s first sea tour would be a minimum of 5 years long, and some are as long as 6 years. In my rating, the first two sea tours are each 5 years and the next two are 4 each. Shore duty is either 2 or 3 years each in between. So a career now is roughly a year in schools (boot camp and job/specialty training), a 5 year sea tour, 2 years shore, 5 years sea, 3 years shore, and then 2 years of a four year sea tour to “retire” at twenty years. Or stick it out (provided you reach E-7) for 2 more years of sea and then only 2 final years of shore to retire at 24. If you make it to E-8, you get one more year of shore and have to do 3 years of a 4 year 4th sea tour before being forced to retire. Make E-9, and you do one more year and then a 3 year shore tour before retiring. As a contrast, my sea tours throughout my career were 4, 4, and 3 (I’m looking at a 4 year 4th sea tour right now).
Basically, with all this extra compensation, the job is getting more difficult and stressful in a very real way. That money is being earned. You could get paid 80% of the pay and have 50% of the stress out in the civilian world.
JeffWeimer on May 8, 2010 at 4:50 PM
Holger on May 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Halliburton has been known to hire experienced truck drivers as contractors for fuel supply in Iraq. Those contractors have been known to be paid upwards of $100K for the risk.
I’m pretty sure the E-5 and below that drive most convoy equpiment are paid considerably less than that, even after figuring in rations and housing.
BradSchwartze on May 8, 2010 at 4:53 PM
One thing you have to take into account is the “free” room and board. It’s not much (3 hots and a cot!), but it is there. It allows every penny of an E-1′s pay to be considered discretionary income. Add the cost of rent and food to that paycheck and it more than balances out. Add Medical insurance premiums, too.
JeffWeimer on May 8, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Thank you. My first thought after reading this post was that this is a back door push from the WH. They don’t want their fingerprints on it, so Webb and the Pentagon push it. How nice.
During his brief tenure, Carter did the same thing by freezing all BASE PAY increases for the military. It would be no surprise if BHO and his Administration did the same thing. Yet, they’re sly enough to go through others.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 4:54 PM
The 5th Generation Fighters to be produced by the Rest of the World could be taken down by an F-15 with technology derived from the Raptor and JSF programs.
Holger on May 8, 2010 at 5:01 PM
When I went into the Army in 1697, an E-1 made $96 per month. On my first payday, I thought I’d fallen into a tub of butter – food, clothes, a clean warm barracks to sleep in and 96 bucks to boot. When I got out as an E-6 my base pay was $380 per month plus $50 combat pay, $55 jump pay and $80 separate rations. Inflation’s a bitch.
lonesomecharlie on May 8, 2010 at 5:02 PM
Similar experience? I never had a job where getting shot at was part of the job. What planet do these people live on?
How about saving money by bringing the troops home by allowing them to fight to win and thereby winning the war?
Screw the Pentagon Perfumed Princes and their PC RoE.
platypus on May 8, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Cut military pay after you stop congressional payraises, Giving Fannie and Freddie endless money, Giving jobs via the Census, Earmarks, Bailouts, Other government waste programs, ect ect…
William Amos on May 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Amen.
Fletch54 on May 8, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Your son and his married colleague ARE getting the same pay. It’s called BASE PAY. The BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) is different based on status: dependents or no dependents. A single person doesn’t need the living space that a married couple needs. Dependents (children) increase the amount. The difference in BAH isn’t much anyway. Check the charts for yourself.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM
As much as I hate to say it, Webb is right – we cost a bundle. Of course, he’s part of the problem, too. The new post-9/11 GI Bill is his legislation, and it will cost an order of magnitude more than the Montgomery GI Bill I originally signed up for. There’s no buy-in like I had ($1200), and it pays nearly full cost for as long as one uses it, plus extra (E-5 housing allowance) to help pay for other incidental costs. It’s transferable to family members, too.
JeffWeimer on May 8, 2010 at 5:07 PM
You mean the single enlisted and officers don’t receive any type of housing?
chemman on May 8, 2010 at 5:11 PM
So you are saying that 5th generation technology just transfers over to older platforms? Just like that? It’s not just about a new radar, or electronic gizmo. If it were that easy 5th gen fighters wouldn’t cost so much. It’s about identified capabilities and requirements that our current fighters can no longer meet no matter how we modify them. What requirements? Sorry Jane’s defense weekly doesn’t get those. You would need to Join the service, get your TS clearance and go work at the Pentagon. I am just making a natural assumption you do not.
gator70 on May 8, 2010 at 5:12 PM
We just gave free health care to millions of Americans and we are getting stingy with US troops many of them hurt by their military service via wounds in action or on duty ?
Its sad to see the dems wanting to cut costs in just this area and no where else.
William Amos on May 8, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Great point. I never understood how this program would be funded long term, especially with family members utilizing it which I think is a bad mistake long term. The original system was based off of the fact we all payed in but only a fraction utilized it. Now everyone want a piece of it, and there is no pay in.
gator70 on May 8, 2010 at 5:14 PM
1969, E-3, base plus overseas and combat pay came to about $225 a month.
Tom
marinetbryant on May 8, 2010 at 5:15 PM
l
Single guys have their ‘room and board’ paid for – they get three hots and a cot – married guys don’t which is the reason married guy get the “extra money” as you put it – so they can afford to pay for a roof over their families heads and keep food on the table on the local economy.
And when married guys deploy or are sent on unaccompanied overseas PCS, most times they lose their “separate rats” as we used to call it. They might also lose or have their housing allowance cut. So then the married and single guys are getting the same pay more or less, but the family guy has to support his family on the ‘same’ but ‘less’ pay if you understand my meaning.
Military pay may not be ‘fair’ to the uninitiated, but things tend to balance themselves out.
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM
I don’t see the public sector union “workers” taking any hits. Why should the troops, whose lives, limbs and minds are on the line every single day get paid s*** when government bureaucrats (who do nothing but live to bother us and suck the economy dry with their sweet sweet salaries, health care plans and pensions) don’t?
They are owed raises and the best health care possible, after fighting these idiotic nation-building wars that the bi-factional ruling party is so GD fond of.
Rae on May 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Honey, you are worth every damn nickel to me. Katy to the Pentagon: pound sand.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM
Well done concern troll. B+
Yes, the flag officers make much more than enlisted and junior officers, but there are fewer of them. Yet, the price they pay–and ALL active duty members–is great. This is a 24/7/365 job. All AD members (and their families) go where Uncle Same says to go, when, and how long. You have some say, but when you sign up and make it through boot camp you are the “property” of the US government. The higher up on the totem pole you make more money and benefits, but the more responsibility you have. You can look at the top base pay rates and think they make so much money. But guess what? They don’t see their spouses or families much (unless the spouse is able to travel with them, but rare and few can do so).
Yet, people continue to sign up willingly. Even with the low pay and real possibility of dying or losing limbs for their country, being separated from their families for months or a year at a time, lousy pay, crappy healthcare, they sign up. Why? Because they love our country and are willing to give their lives to defend it.
Active duty military members are an elite bunch. There are so many people who join the military, but don’t make it through boot camp for a variety of reasons. You have to maintain to stay in or you’re out. They should get pay raises because they deserve it.
If the Pentagon wants to be fiscally responsible, then Congress can help out by cutting their frivolous pork spending, the bailouts, terminate Fannie & Freddie, and repeal the healthcare bill–the primary reason the Pentagon cites for pay freezes.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Snort, Dad volunteered for the Navy Dec. 8 1941.$35 biggies a month. 4 straight years in the Pacific on a tin can. He was on the USS Radford for most of it.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM
More. Much more. Should be 1.5 to 2 times as much.
JustTruth101 on May 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM
Army base pay
MB4 on May 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM
I agree – Democrat administrations, Clinton included until 1995, look to the military to find cost savings to fund their pet projects. Pay raises really began in earnest under his administration – Republicans proposing it, and Clinton triangulating with it. After 9/11, it was political suicide to even mention scaling back.
Also, I imagine Obamacare will eventually take over all the patchwork – no VA, no military medical (except for fighting forces maybe?).
Also, don’t forget, it was GHWB who started the “peace dividend” in the very early 90′s (under D pressure, of course) – our forces were cut drastically after the buildup of the 80′s and we’re still losing ships. We have the lowest number since the 20′s. But don’t fear – the US Navy is fully 50% of the worlds naval forces even at that. Everyone else has cut back even more drastically, or haven’t yet (I’m talking to you, China) built theirs up to even come close.
JeffWeimer on May 8, 2010 at 5:33 PM
OT BREAKING Bob Bennett will leave the Senate. Just voted out at the Utah GOP convention…
Edouard on May 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM
After racking up a $17 TRILLION deficit over the next decade, the answer to reducing ‘spending’ is by sticking a knife in the back of the military.
Wonderful.
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 5:37 PM
No.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 5:38 PM
On this, I agree with you. The new GI Bill seems like a big time boondoggle. That it is transferable to family members makes it worse. I understand their sentiments, but I think it’s over the top. (And I could make use of this bill if i wanted to, but I won’t. I’d feel like a mooch.)
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 5:38 PM
This is why you’re one of my favorite HA commenters. :-)
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM
I spent six years (2000-2006) enlisted on a submarine in the Navy. In my opinion, I was underpaid for the work I was doing, even with sub and sea pay. That being said, the amount of money I saw being wasted blew my mind. Civilian workers getting paid overtime would take turns sleeping and keeping watch. We would have shopping sprees with government credit cards at the end of the fiscal year so we wouldn’t come in under budget. I could go on and on. Yes, the military wastes money in all kinds of ways, but the compensation for the enlisted is not one of them.
Bill Scrunty on May 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Also LIG, I’ve seen too many young enlisted folks driving around in cars I couldn’t afford as an E-7 after twenty-two years of service. Not saying your son is a spendthrift but I’ve seen too much of it to shed nary a tear for the financial ‘plight’ of many single enlisted folks.
Context is a wonderful thing…
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Yes they receive housing. They can live in military housing or find their own place. That is what the BAH is for. Depending on where you’re stationed (your zip code) and whether you have dependents or not, you receive BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing). You can use this for rent or a mortgage payment. Housing is part of the package.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 5:46 PM
I agree with you. I find it puzzling that a Constitutional responsibility of Congress (Article 1, section 8) like raising and Army and Navy is considered “discretionary” spending, but SS and Medicare are considered “mandatory” spending, as an example. They would go a long way by jettisoning much of the pork they stick in to help friends and buy votes. They use military spending for this, too, BTW (but at least they can point to THE document for support). And I am 100% on board with them “leading by example” and freezing (or even cutting) their own pay raises as at least a symbolic recognition of the trouble we face. Fat chance of that, I imagine.
JeffWeimer on May 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM
They have misplaced priorities. Eventually, the bill will need to be paid and their pockets will be empty. That’s the day I dread.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM
Depends on your rank, too. All Married Sailors, all officers and Single E-4 over 4 years or E-5 and up any years service are eligible for housing allowance to live off-base.
It wasn’t that way so long ago. Until about 1996, for single Sailors, only E-7 and up were entitled to housing allowance. My first two ships, I lived onboard. Needless to say, I didn’t collect much extra junk. Hey, more money for beer!
JeffWeimer on May 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Yeah thanks. I wasn’t very clear in that post. All those variables determine how much the BAH is. Depending on where you’re stationed and your rank, you have to live on base. When we were in Germany, we had to live on base.
Regardless, the BAH has never been enough for us. We’re always stationed in high cost-of-living areas and can never afford a house or rent for our family near the base. We’d rather spend time together and live on base, than live in a house that fits our family but with an hour commute.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 6:04 PM
No, I don’t. Are you sure your name isn’t really Barry O?
Kevin71 on May 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Look, you can drive a friggin’ Bugattti as far as I am concerened. Put your life on the line for my country? You earned it.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Completely agree. This new GI Bill is a monster.
Kevin71 on May 8, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Yet you seem to have no problems paying congress over 175 a year.With perks. Have you all lost your AnniCa minds?
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Ed accidentally posted the story early – by the time I had written and posted my comment, the story had been pulled down and rescheduled. I simply saved my comment until Ed’s kind email told me the story would reappear. When it did, it was a fast paste and yes, I was the first.
That’s how. Besides, substantially the same story was posted elsewhere. First time I had looked at military pay scales in over 5 years probably. Last time I looked, the absolute max you could make in the military as a 4-star was about 10 grand/month.
ElRonaldo on May 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Huh? I never said any such thing. Cool your jets.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM
I said no such thing either.
Kevin71 on May 8, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Sorry dudes but it sure seems that way. “I didn’t get mine,you can’t get your’s.” Our VOLUNTEER miltary joined to protect us.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 6:43 PM
My family has served this country since the Revolutionary War. Many for ree. Cooling my jets is not an option.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Yes, the individual who serves in the military should be the recipient of the GI bill, not a family member. And I have skin in this game. I won’t take the money.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Kindly disagree if the original recipient dies through circumstances arising from his or her service, the funds would go to a family member such as an offspring.
Holger on May 8, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Pay increases been happening every January 1 to catch up if civilian pay levels. Congress might give a smaller increase for January 1, 2011, but will never roll back the increases granted in 2010 and earlier years.
slp on May 8, 2010 at 8:12 PM
My comments keep disappearing…
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Katy,
I was making the point to Lady in Gray that many young enlisted folks spend their money on extravagant stuff since most of their money is ‘discretionary income’ – they have no bills to speak of since they are provided for. It seemed to me that LIG was making the point that married military members, since they – sometimes – get extra allowances were somehow not entitled to them and that the pay wasn’t ‘fair’.
In theory, I agree with you 100% – if you can afford it, buy whatever the hell you want, enjoy yourself! But it’s really hard to listen to young enlisted members or their family members bitching about how they don’t get paid enough when they piss what pay they do get away. The military seems to be paying enough for some kids to be driving around $50K sports cars – stop whining about the married guy with three kids getting an extra grand for BAH.
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 8:17 PM
Can’t get one of my comments to post; I’ll try again later…
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 8:18 PM
Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!!!
catmman on May 8, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Dear Mean Old Lady,
I am active duty Air Force. For the past 17 years, I have answered my nation’s call. I began enlisted, and after nine years, used my Montgomery GI Bill, got my degree and became an officer. I stand by what I said before: This new GI Bill is a monster. There was nothing wrong with the old Montgomery GI Bill.
I would agree to that one stipulation, but I’m afraid what is going to happen the first time a divorce case goes before a judge who then decides the GI Bill is “community property”, since it is transferable. Also, military “brats” (I have three of my own) are prone to join and serve themselves (they are like a little built-in recruitment population). Transferability could seriously diminish that, as they can use Dad’s (or Mom’s) GI Bill to go to school rather than serve and earn the bill for themselves.
Kevin71 on May 8, 2010 at 8:20 PM
They didn’t pay Washington’s Troops either! So, if necessary, every elected official, and that includes the President, every member of Congress and every civilian worker in the US Government can have their pay cut to make up for any shortfall. After all, it’s our TROOPS who keep their fat a&#es living high on the hog and, if necessary, any pay increase can come put of their pockets. Bastards!!! When I was a grunt in Vietnam I made $2,700 ANNUALLY, and that included combat pay. So, with absolute moral authority I can assure you, these “guys” don’t get paid enough!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on May 8, 2010 at 8:23 PM
You know Active Duty folks are not the only ones sacrificing. Heck, I cant touch my military retirment until age 60. We, the Reserve and National Guard, have to drop everything and go. I will never ever get over the mentality of the Active folks (“We are so much better than anyone else”). Oh well it is what it is.
Claimsratt on May 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Good analysis Ed and a lot of good points. But real experience in the military budgeting and spending is eye opening.
First of all, private contractors in the same theater of our service men and women get paid at least twice as much as a career orientated enlisted or low ranking officer.
I love our military and support them in every way but one. They waste money like it’s going out of style. Let’s start with a simple one, Permanent Change of Station Orders. Our service members are criss crossed over the country and around the world just for the sake of doing it. I have first hand experience of Marines on Okinowa who had been there for 5 years and wanted to stay but were rotated back to the states. Why not leave that guy there and save the cost of replacing him?
Weapons that don’t work. M-16 is a prime example. It replaced the M-14 which was a beast and would fire under the worst conditions. The M-16, which had a shorter range and smaller caliber of bullet, malfunctioned and cost lives. The M-16A2 got the forward assist, but still was not reliable nearly to the point of the M-14. Then the M-16A2 with the 3 round burst. Same crappy weapon with a new feature and still trailing the M-14 in the most important category, reliability.
Thermal imaging for Light Armored Vehicles. It came with a 3,000 hour warranty. Try selling that on the free market. A deployed company of LAV’s would burn that warranty up in two six month deployments.
But we have had some real winners too, the M1A1 tank, while it is a mechanical nightmare, it’s the best tank in the world and worth the effort to keep it in top shape.
Our troops deserve more than they are currently paid. Out of the first 8 Christmas’ my child had, I missed 5 of them while I was out doing the country’s business. No other occupation on the face of the earth can compare to the military, and neither should the pay.
Hog Wild on May 8, 2010 at 8:51 PM
I find it odd a veteran attacking other veterans. Just sayin’…
Hog Wild on May 8, 2010 at 8:58 PM
There’s a policy in existence that transfers the benefits (not sure if it’s all, plus they get the life insurance policy payout) for those who die in combat and also for spouses of retirees, who only get some benefits like TriCare, access to military bases, commissaries, NEX stores, and Space A flights (this is my mom’s situation).
This new GI bill gives a family member money for higher education if the active duty member does not utilize the program, while that member is living. That’s more like an entitlement and gives no incentive for the family member to do any work or appreciate the value of earning the education, since the AD did all the work. It’s a handout. Sure military family members work hard (I am one) and deal with a lot, especially during deployments, but it’s nothing compared to the actual AD member. They are the ones who should be the beneficiaries of this educational assistance, not the family members. Like I said earlier, it’s a boondoggle, i.e., an enormous waste of money.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM
They need to cut pay of Generals and Admirals, and increase pay for E-1 through E-6 which is still disgraceful.
paulsur on May 8, 2010 at 9:22 PM
So a currently existing benefit can instead be used to pay off the education of a family member… I still do not see that this is such a bad idea that it must be killed.
The argument that it would make the sacrifice that got the GI Bill benefit would be disregarded is specious. I doubt a son or a daughter who went to school on their Father’s GI Bill would take it for granted.
I can see a major benefit to the military!
The son of a Service member uses their father’s GI Bill to get their bachelor degree, and they then join the Military out of college and become a Commissioned or Non Commissioned officer. They then use their second GI Bill to get their Masters. The military benefits from having educated members.
Holger on May 8, 2010 at 9:32 PM
I’ve been in the Reserves since 1985, and I’m not going to complain about the pay I get. I’m an O-4 now (a Major) and I make more than any NCO in the military, which certainly doesn’t reflect the value of our NCO corps.
I’m not sure how it’s possible to compare military pay with civilian pay.
Please tell me what job…
…requires you to be available at any hour of the day or night, every day of the year.
…requires you to risk your life and limb as a basic job function
…can take you away from your family for as long as the job requires it
…won’t allow you to quit your job when you feel like it
…literally judges you on your looks (check out an OER or NCEOR)
…can fire you for your personal life
…can demand that you receive experimental vaccines
…can put you in prison for refusing to obey your boss
…and has never heard of the word “overtime”
Abelard on May 8, 2010 at 9:51 PM
BOOM! And there it is. Way to sum it up Abelard. But the whole truth, he didn’t cover it all. Just as a for instance, the punishment for showing cowardice in the face of the enemy. It’s harsh. Like you would be better off not being cowardly and fighting regardless of the outcome type of harsh.
Put a price tag on that.
Hog Wild on May 8, 2010 at 9:59 PM
First of all, thank you or your service. Second: my comment seems to have not passed. the new HA filter. Revol#ion is not a perjorative. My commemt was that my family has been here since that weird teabparty thing back in the late 1700′s Sorry, vut my family has had “skin in the game” since then.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 10:00 PM
In someone’s first year in the Army, even if were to somehow stay an E-1 the whole time, he gets more than I did in my entire 3 years 5 months and 11 days in the Army. I know there has been a lot of inflation in the last 40 years, but it’s still a little hard for me to feel too sorry for anyone in the military who thinks he is under paid, especially since there is no longer a draft. I feel sorry for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who can get no beer because of Sharia law and because of the McCrystal ROE, but not because of “low” pay. The Generals are most all way overpaid.
MB4 on May 8, 2010 at 10:12 PM
“In the midst of two long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials are increasingly worried that the government’s generosity is unsustainable and that it will leave them with less money to buy weapons and take care of equipment.”
I believe that is the Democrats plan all along. Mandate such massive spending on personnel that they can not buy weapons or fight wars. They couldn’t cut off the budgets so they did the next best thing … mandated that it all be spent on butter so there is none left for guns.
crosspatch on May 8, 2010 at 10:14 PM
NIKE! I worked 40 hours straight there once on a disaster recovery run through. Yup, it was a disaster. Never worked more than about 15 hours straight in the Army. Not only at NIKE was I, and others, on call all the time but we would often get called at all hours.
MB4 on May 8, 2010 at 10:23 PM
In good conscience, I, a military family member, cannot reconcile taking an entitlement like this (federal tax dollars!) when I did nothing to earn it. That’s a handout and reeks of entitlement mentality. It isn’t surprising that a Democrat (Webb-VA) came up with the bill.
Here are the FAQs of the bill.
conservative pilgrim on May 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Let’s bitch about pay for our brave military while we bail out Greece.
katy the mean old lady on May 8, 2010 at 10:42 PM
We live an hour off-post. Ft. Meade is expensive on-post (our BAH is high), and we can get nearly twice the house up here in Carroll County for a hell of a lot less than we would on base. My husband’s an E-6, and we’ve got three kids. When we were younger, and both military, we lived on post there, though.
We’re not going to be a military family much longer, even if my husband makes chief this year. The pay is alright (I can stay at home), but he can make more outside the military, and be happier too. I agree that something needs to be done about military health care costs – it cost far too much money for the service provided. We have the USFHP, which is marginally better than the MTFs, but it’s all Tricare, and it’s a boondoggle. But I know the military knows how to waste money, and it’s healthcare is no exception – but there’s no reason why they can’t fix that without stopping the pay raises. No legitimate reason, in any case.
Anna on May 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »