| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| GAO Suggests Troops Overpaid |
| 2005-07-29 |
| Many service members are not well informed about their hodgepodge of pays, allowances, benefits and tax breaks, and therefore don't recognize the real worth of their compensation packages. The observation is made by the Government Accountability Office in a new report that questions the "reasonableness, appropriateness, affordability and sustainability" of military compensation. It adds timbre to a rising chorus of warnings from defense think tanks and senior defense officials like who? Kerry? that military personnel costs are soaring and that too much money goes into deferred compensation, such as military retirement and lifetime health care, which are seen as inefficient tools to attract recruits or even to retain careerists. Anyone ask the service folks what they think? The GAO study might be viewed as timely by defense officials, who last spring formed a Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation to study private-sector-like changes to military pay and benefits. A draft of that report is due in September. Last February, the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments published a report detailing the sharp rise in military compensation since 1999 and warning of an affordability crisis. There we go! We can't afford the War on Terror! In a New York Times commentary, economist Cindy Williams of MIT's Security Studies Program argued that much of the recent spike in military compensation helps retirees and survivors but does little to attract recruits or sustain the current force. The GAO says total annual government spending on military pay, allowances and benefits jumped 29 percent, or $35 billion, from 2000-2004. The government, it adds, spent an average of $112,000 per active-duty member last year on compensation. That average is across the force, officers and enlisted, and includes the cost of benefits to members from other departments, including Veterans Affairs, Labor and Education. Because military compensation costs are paid by four departments, decision makers lack the "transparency" to manage them and likely are missing a trend that, in time, will squeeze budgets for other defense priorities, GAO suggests. Military pay and allowances alone are "competitive" with private sector wages, exceeding salaries or wages of 70 percent of Americans of similar age and education, GAO says. Which is why recruitment is doing so well then, right? "While some specific skill groups could likely make considerably more in civilian jobs, such perceptions of noncompetitive compensation seem to be inaccurate in broad terms," the report says. I'm all for the men and women understanding how they are compensated. Meanwhile, military benefits remain "much greater" than those of civilian peers, it adds. Despite the competitiveness of military compensation, GAO found in focus groups with active-duty members that many still believe benefits are eroding. Oh! Somebody did ask the troops! That perception, GAO says, "is in direct contrast to the reality that costs to compensate service members have risen dramatically in recent years and benefits are projected to rise even more dramatically in the future." |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #9 Maybe it will be cheaper to lose the WOT. I bet the parents of Beslan were excited about the cost-savings they enjoyed by fielding an ineffective military. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-07-29 22:48 |
| #8 The US has decided to go with a vounteer military. The proper pay amount is when you have enough people with the right skills to meet your force requirements. Supply and demand states that when demand or difficulty increases, pay must increase to match the new equilibrium point. The question is the military getting enough/just right/excess of the right people to meet its mission? Comparision with a civilian peer group is moot. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-29 22:16 |
| #7 They should compare to mercs. Not normal jobs. Compared to mercs they are way underpaid! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2005-07-29 21:30 |
| #6 Military pay and allowances alone are "competitive" with private sector wages, exceeding salaries or wages of 70 percent of Americans of similar age and education, GAO says. The comparison should be to positions with similar duties, working conditions, and responsibilities. This results from a bunch of REMF accountants who think they are overworked if they put in a 9 hour day. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-07-29 21:17 |
| #5 I think the GAO has their head up their ass. As I recall from my days in uniform - Uncle Sam owned my ass 24/7. I can't say that I was particularly well paid based on having to avail myself of that kind of duty. Some days (Field Problems) I was "on duty" actively "doing shit" 24 hours a day. In addition, I can't name any civilian jobs that require you to sleep in a armored box on a steel floor, have people shoot at you and/or shoot back. Not that I'm an expert on pay or anything - but it seems to me like Blackwater Security personnel are being paid something like $200K+ dollars to do their work in Iraq for similar duties to our soldiers. So - GAO; BITE ME! |
| Posted by: Leigh 2005-07-29 19:57 |
| #4 I think some members of the GAO needs to be reassigned to create a spreadsheet detailing Caribou guano north of the Arctic Circle --- they need to do it in person... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-29 18:30 |
| #3 Over-paid and under-worked. Always seemed to describe the GAO to me. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-07-29 17:47 |
| #2 Let's use those relatively cheap GAO employees to clear IED's in Iraq, and save our expensive paratroopers for real offensive operations with a better cost-benefit ratio. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-07-29 17:20 |
| #1 Article: Despite the competitiveness of military compensation, GAO found in focus groups with active-duty members that many still believe benefits are eroding. That perception, GAO says, "is in direct contrast to the reality that costs to compensate service members have risen dramatically in recent years and benefits are projected to rise even more dramatically in the future." Some of this is due to aggressive lobbying by groups fronted by liberal ex-military personnel that claim their benefits are horrible and criticize the war because they really enlisted for the benefits. I keep getting e-mails from one of these groups. These guys are frustrated union organizers. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-07-29 17:16 |