by hilzoy
From the Army Times:
"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.
The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.
Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.” (...)
In addition to the pay raise, there are other personnel initiatives in the bill that the White House opposes.
A prohibition on converting medical jobs held by military members into civilian positions drew opposition. “This will eliminate the flexibility of the Secretary of Defense to use civilian medical personnel for jobs away from the battlefield and at the same time use the converted military billets to enhance the strength of operating units,” the policy statement says.
A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations, and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints."
Just remember these two quotes:
"Dick Cheney, my good running mate Dick Cheney and I, have a message to all of our men and women in uniform and to their parents and to their families: Help is on the way."
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Naturally, all the people who lecture us about how saying things like "we're losing this conflict and can't win it" are bad for the troops will arrive to explain how inadequate pay, along with inadequate medical care and all the rest, are good for the troops. *sigh*
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | May 17, 2007 at 01:36 PM
As someone who irregularly meditates, I am beginning to think that "What does 'support the troops' really mean?" would make a splendid koan.
Posted by: JakeB | May 17, 2007 at 01:44 PM
"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.
The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises."
AAAACCCCCK!
The reason you might want greater pay raises is that the nature of the service has changed. In the 1990s you would join the military and you MIGHT fight. Now you WILL. To pretend that those two situations are the same is idiotic!
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | May 17, 2007 at 02:06 PM
Seb: the idea that -- leaving aside the fact that people who risk their lives do deserve better pay -- we don't now have an army in need of more incentives kind of made my head explode too.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 17, 2007 at 02:10 PM
and of course this all comes down during the week that Bush and Cheney's personal financial asset information, showing each to be serious multi-millionaires, was released.
Posted by: Ethel-to-Tilly | May 17, 2007 at 03:53 PM
The thought experiment wherein we imagine the demagoguery that would ensue from the Democrats opposing pay increases for the troops is rather trite at this point, so I'm loath to suggest it.
But why, indeed, don't the Democrats ever get hot and bothered over this sort of thing? Remember Zell Miller's keynote address, in which he memorably lambasted John Kerry for supporting the defunding of weapons programs that Secretary of Defense Cheney had recommended (to be fair, Miller omitted the latter detail)? Why don't the Democrats ever start pounding the table about how Republicans demand our troops stay in battle forever, but balk at giving them an extra 0.5 percent raise? Is this not the way that winning politicians do it?
Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Apart from the rhetoric, the bad guys are probably right this time.
We're going to be out of iraq in a year, before the extra pay gets well-started it won't be such an issue.
And the troops have been re-enlisting quite well. No matter how burned out they get they do re-enlist. It's been only a few thousand that quit and then got forced into coming back and joining understrength units and working with strangers, not like they'd be afraid of that if they quit.
A peacetime army wouldn't need that big a payraise, and the existing army can limp along fine until we pull out.
But I don't understand why they'd fight it. Is there not enough loot to go around that they'd balk at giving a little bit to the troops? Does it all have to go to their croneys?
Posted by: J Thomas | May 17, 2007 at 09:01 PM
*reads thread title*
*swoons*
Marry me :D
Posted by: Anarch | May 17, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Why the high re-enlistment rates? The troops are faced with a choice: re-enlist and collect a bonus, or refuse to re-enlist, miss out on the bonus - and be forced to stay on anyway under "stop-loss" orders. I'm surprised I have to mention this.
Also, isn't it interesting how President Bush thinks that "supporting the troops" means sending them off to get shot at and subjected to IED attacks while denying them the ability to support themselves or their families. I never knew the word "support" was a synonym of "screw."
Posted by: RepubAnon | May 17, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Anarch: Don't be hasty. I came up with this when I realized I had already used 'Supporting the troops: Take N, for N Large.' I expect that sometime or other I will end up with Take Aleph Sub Aleph, and what will you do then if we're already married? ;PPPP
Posted by: hilzoy | May 18, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Hey, it is an insult to insinuate that the soldiers are in it for the money. The main motivations are of course patriotism, glory and the chance to convert interesting people to evangelical Kristianity(TM) before killing them. [/snark]
Posted by: Hartmut | May 18, 2007 at 05:01 AM
“Troops don’t need bigger pay raises”
“strongly opposes”
“unnecessary”
“also drew complaints”
Just when I thought I couldn’t get more disgusted by these guys.
A Sergeant (E5) midway through their 2nd term of enlistment makes $27,885.60 per year in base pay (pdf). The White house is worried about giving him/her another $139.43 per year or $11.62 per paycheck. I’m so glad to finally see Republicans getting concerned about spending.
Posted by: OCSteve | May 18, 2007 at 07:04 AM
Nit: if there's a point to be made regarding soldier pay, here, Army Times fails to make it. How can one compare soldier salaries to private sector if there aren't any soldiers in the private sector?
One could certainly make the point that soldier pay hasn't risen as fast as aggregate private sector pay, but one didn't. It'd be interesting to see that data.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 18, 2007 at 08:13 AM
By the way, hilzoy, was the title of this post inspired in any way by Isaac Asimov?
That's where I first heard heard that reference.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 18, 2007 at 08:28 AM
Repub/Anon, I've run into blog commenters who at least pose as soldiers who say the stop-loss thing is a non-issue. There have only been a few thousand of them and only for critically-needed specialties.
I did a quick web search and it looked superficially plausible. There's a limit to how long they can stop-loss somebody and a limit to how many. (The how-many doesn't help anybody until more than that fail to re-up, of course.) I couldn't tell what was true at that time from a quick google search, and what I saw was liberal websites telling stories about it and these guys who claimed they were actual military who said it was nothing, and the real data didn't show me. I haven't discussed it privately with any soldiers.
Do you have a definitive link I could show the next set of claimed-military blog commenters?
Posted by: J Thomas | May 18, 2007 at 08:29 AM
I can't prove anything, but I know one soldier and one sailor who have each gotten out recently. So they aren't stop-lossing everybody all the time. (Not a strong statement I know).
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | May 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Slarti: no, just number theory. Not a subject I know a lot about, but I got that far, since it touches on logic, which in turn is part of philosophy (among other disciplines.)
Posted by: hilzoy | May 18, 2007 at 10:57 AM
"How can one compare soldier salaries to private sector if there aren't any soldiers in the private sector?"
Ever heard of Executive Outcomes? Or more recently, Blackwater?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Ever heard of Executive Outcomes? Or more recently, Blackwater?
In that case the gap is one heck of a lot more than 3.9%. Try 500%.
Posted by: OCSteve | May 18, 2007 at 11:16 AM
"Try 500%."
Sure. I was just raising an eyebrow at the notion that there was no private soldiering. (Yes, one can write a tautological definition that says otherwise, but that really isn't playing fair; mercenaries have an ancient history, and "private contractors" have less history, but still a rather conspicuous role today.)
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Fine. Given that there is private soldiering, does the comparison hold? No?
Ok, then. Once again, Army Times hasn't really made a point that I could even describe to a sketch artist. Not saying there isn't a point, just that I have no idea what they meant by what they said.
Probably a nit, though. I completely buy the idea that soldiers are underpaid, but when it comes to talking percent pay raises and all, what would bring them up on par with what they're worth? Or at least, bring soldier pay up to some historical norm, adjusted for inflation?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 18, 2007 at 12:37 PM
What's frightening is that this isn't the worst example of the administration telling the soldiers to sit on it, that I saw recently. A few months ago, some DoD official was quoted as saying that disability payments were eating up so much of the defense budget that it was harming military readiness.
Now *that* is a guy whose name I should have noted, because he'll go far in the GOP.
Posted by: Barry | May 18, 2007 at 06:54 PM
Speaking of private contractors:
There's a bunch more.Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2007 at 11:46 PM
In mathematics, Aleph Null, a/k/a Aleph Sub Nought (aleph subscript zero), is the lowest level of an infinite level of the infinities. There was a popular book about the various Alephs (infinities) out a few years ago.
I'm not sure I understand the what the title of the post has to do with the substance of the post. But the post is interesting, at least for the reason that it further illustrates the hypocrisy of the Bush malAdministration.
On the subject matter of re-enlistment, bonuses and such, it strikes me that all one need do on being mustered out is to go to work for Blackwater or one of the other "contracting" operations and make several times the re-enlistment bonus in a short period of time as a mercenary. Reports suggest that there are almost as many mercenaries in Iraq as official US soldiers (approx 100K vs. 150K). These private mercenary armies are becoming quite frightening.
Posted by: raj | May 20, 2007 at 07:08 AM
Sebastian: I can't prove anything, but I know one soldier and one sailor who have each gotten out recently. So they aren't stop-lossing everybody all the time.
Jason Knight, for example.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 20, 2007 at 07:52 AM
Isn't this just the successful Hillary Clinton's brilliant strategy of instead of opposing the war outright, extend contrarian to the positive side of the spectrum. 'Not enough troops'. If the administration would have recommended 3.5%, the ASC would have recommended 4% and so on. Then this whole thread would have existed regardless with different numbers.
Posted by: blogbudsman | May 20, 2007 at 09:06 AM
raj: I think I had earlier threads called 'Supporting the troops', Supporting the troops Take 2', 'Supporting the Troops Take 3', and at a certain point I got tired of checking back to see which iteration it was.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 20, 2007 at 09:19 AM
JebK: Nah, too easy. The answer's obvious. It really means "Support the war."
Posted by: Joshua | May 21, 2007 at 08:25 PM
JakeB, rather. Wow, don't know how I got JebK from that, other than maybe random dyslexia.
Posted by: Joshua | May 21, 2007 at 08:27 PM