U.S. Warriors — Overpaid?

[Lemur]

I think I'm finding this offensive.

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.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em!

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

[Ice]

I think I'm finding this offensive.

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.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em!

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

This is one thing I wouldn't mind increased spending on. Our soldiers deserve better pay.

[Tribesman]

Our soldiers deserve better pay.

Your soldiers deserve a better commander in chief

[Ice]

Your soldiers deserve a better commander in chief

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

[spmetla]

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

I agree, better CinC and better pay.

[Papewaio]

Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

Wouldn't those on extended rotation have better rank/specialisation/experience and hence meriting more pay through normal means?

Or should there be a loading based on combat tours served factored in while on a combat tour. Say a 1% increase in pay per combat tour served, so 4 combat tours, serving the 5th get a 4% pay increase while on a combat tour.

[Lorenzo_H]

I think I'm finding this offensive.

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.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em!

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

The US army pay, when compared to that of our soldiers here in Britain, is very little. Right now the UK Army are paid, when you convert the currency to dollars, almost double.

On the counter balance, the US army invest a lot of money in technology and giving their troops the best availible. They invest trillions in research and so on. Here in Britain they spend jack nothing on technology. They either beg it from the US, or do what they normally do and go without. Look at our Navy. The once mighty Royal Navy which was able to secure trade routes over sea to a quarter of the planet is now looking more like a rusting WWII coast guard. Another example is the Tornado Fighter Jet. They were all supposed to be replaced by the much better (and pretty sweet looking) Eurofighter Typhoon, but the government doesn't have enough money. Same with the Challenger 2 tank - we only have about 200 of them.

By contrast, the US army does nothing in half measures; they give their troops the best there is availible, no expense spared. The US army also offers a few more side benefits to joining, like pensions and stuff after you leave.

[Tribesman]

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

[Redleg]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

What in the world are you talking about? You should just stick with your orginial comment that a better commander in chief is required.

Better pay for the military has been an ongoing issue since before I joined the service in the late 1980's, and will be an continuing issue for many years.

You know the same military that has had success and failures under different Commander in Chief's over the past several decades.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

I'm guessing the "contract" reference is to the political terms of the leadership and not the contracts of our military enlistees. My guess is you're trying for a dash of humor here, but the pitch was "just a little bit outside..."


1. I have no problem paying our soldiers (see Ice comment above).

2. Soldiers already receive a combat "bonus" -- no income tax if serving in a combat zone. That's up to 28% depending on bracket.

3. Yes, other things being equal, those deployed earn more "points" toward promotion than those who do not.

4. The federal budget is so boondoggled with "entitlements" and earmarked pork that cutting the military budget -- or slowing its growth -- is one of the few ways an administration can keep budget numbers in line without goring too many political oxen.

[Tribesman]

What in the world are you talking about?

simple , if the soldiers cannot do the job they are alloted then why should they get a pay rise . sack 'em .

I'm guessing the "contract" reference is to the political terms of the leadership and not the contracts of our military enlistees.

Nope , the numbers are what the military was supposed to be able to deliver , it hasn't delivered....typical government workers eh .

[KukriKhan]

What in the world are you talking about?

Not to put words in his mouth, I think our 'resident riddler' is trying to make 2 points:

1) comparing the job requirements of an infantryman (for example) and any civilian occupation is silly; therefore the "comparability" cited in the article as a goal is fruitless.

2) if, however, for argument's sake you try to compare civilian compensation schemes to military pay, you should go all the way, and make that pay contingent on mission (job) completion, with monetary penalties for failing to achieve 'x' job, on-time, on-budget, etc., as in the civilian contracting world.

So, if the US military were a stand-alone company/corporation, working for a contractor (US gov't) the managers would likely be 'sacked' (and pay witheld) for failing to deliver their promised product on-time and on- or under-budget.

[Ice]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

I understand your point of view, and normally I'd agree, if we are talking about a civilian job/firm. I really don't think our soldiers, overall, are shirking their efforts and furthermore, I doubt this would send a message to anyone. It would most likely just piss off a lot of people.