Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
But when it comes to $9.2 billion — total — from 2011 to 2015 to pay for wage and housing increases for our men and women who serve, well that’s just too damn much.
more from USAT…
And you did not even get to the great retirement plan and health benefits!
Funny, they sure seem to be heaped up in one area there. Wonder how come?
Wait. Isn’t this backwards.
hf’s quote made me think that the author was against military pay increases. I’m glad I clicked over first.
I guess my sarcasm meter needs repair.
Well happyfeet, there’s a few things that go unmentioned in the USA today piece.
1) Military pay rates were much lower than private, or other government, sector pay scales prior to the Bush administration altering that.
2) There is absolutely no mention of the effect of base closures, and the concomitant higer density of force concentration at the fewer remaining bases, on that “increased prosperity” for the towns adjacent to miltary installations.
Have you begun to subscribe to the “wingnut welfare” mindset? Do you think there is any comparison between military salaries and the higher GSers and Senior Service salaries?
And given that the number of Flag level officers is decreasing, while apparently government senior staff is increasing, where is the comparison there?
I could personally see a pay freeze for flag level officers and the most senior enlisted personnel, but not for the junior officers and enlisted.
But just what point are you trying to make happy?
the point is that maybe a three-year military wage freeze absent inflation is an entirely reasonable policy to pursue given that inflation-adjusted military wages have increased dramatically in the last ten years
I see your point, feets. However the military pay and benefits pale in comparison to so many Government workers, both Union and mgmt. The fact that this committee is not including questions about what is needed to be done with their, far greater, part of government spending creates questions of accountability. Let’s face it, military pay was very low up until Bush’s increases while government pay has been increasing almost exponentially, especially after the last two years during global recession.
That’s what needs to be examined and achknowledged.
No. The point is the number of public sector government jobs making 150K or more is exploding. Separate from that, with the US embroiled in overseas conflicts, the administration is willing to freeze military pay.
Whether or not a military pay freeze is reasonable is one thing. Whether it is reasonable when weighed against the dramatic rise in pay for bureaucrats is another.
And that was the point of the post.
Jeff G. #9 … exactly. All of government pay should be reviewed which would make the military question comparable to other pay in government.
You’re ignoring all of the time that predates the last 10 years.
That said, I’d agree to the freeze for Flag level officers and senior NCOs; but not the more junior personnel.
And why aren’t we getting rid of the overpaid GSers and senior staff bureaucrats instead?
Will someone please remind me who performs the constitusionally mandated activities? I am a little fuzzy on that provide for the common defense part. I wish my Dad was still around. He knew all the answers to the tough quetions. He had a very succinct opinion of Mrs. Roosevelts idea that the military should work for free.
I’m going to be sick.
and the idea that the military is being frozen and the civilians aren’t is almost criminal. It’s the same kind of thumb-in-the-eye that California Social Democrats pull when the citizens have the audacity to say “no” to yet another spending scheme — they start cutting the funding for police/fire first and only.
Which is why the citizens should take the cranky-d cudgels ® to the pol’s feet and ankles first, so’s they can’t run away.
I live in Costa Rica. The recent situation with Nicaraugua should highlight to some the importance of a proficient military. Ticos have made a point to me on many occasions that they have a superior form of governance, due in part, to not maintaining a standing army. Now, not so much. I think they will eventually appeal to the U.S. to solve their force problem.
Thank you, Gulermo. When feets can point out the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the DOEd get back to me. That is supposed to be left to the states by Amendments 9 and 10.
I saw we abolish the department of education first thing it is a very silly department
I *say* I mean
Now I’ve got a very serious question ; what does the Department of education do? I mean, besides compiling reports and making recommendations.
If you asked a teacher in the classroom what the Dept of Ed does for them, they’d have to honestly respond NOTHING.
the department of education exists to reward campaign donors
Oh, the DOEd hands out money. That’s how any federal agency not mandated in the Constitution gets a constituency to defend it in the political arena.
Really when you get right down to it, the question “What does [insert name of silly federal agency here] do?” should always be a rhetorical one, preferably with a healthy dollop of cynicism on top.
How are we gonna get by without a Safe Schools Czar?
we’ll just have to manage
How about a Safe Schools State Czar? Managing, we are?
…or fisting kits?
‘feets, DofEd has exactly as much Constitutional justification as Social Security: NONE. Funding a military, OTOH, is most specifically provided for. Thus, keeping our troops well paid is a far higher priority than keeping the Ponzi scheme going.
it doesn’t follow I don’t think Mr. SDN that just cause we overpay our useless government union flunky workforce that we need to boost military pay – it would make a lot more sense given the failshit nature of brokedick America’s finances to address the situation by simply busting down the pay of the union whores
How about the upward creeping cost of food, gasoline and other consumables, despite the government’s cooked numbers purporting to show that the real danger is deflation?
I think doing right by the people who defend this country is kind of important.
Feederal civilan wages and military wages are tied by law–if the federal civilians get a raise, the military gets one too, of equal or greater amount. This was done to start closing a pay gap–people doing essentially the same job being paid wildly differently.
McGehee– you haven’t got the memo? There is no inflation. Seems that the Consumer Price Index indludes labor costs as a seperate item in the basket, despite that labor is part of cost of goods. Since labor costs ahve plummeted, it balances against the increase in the cost of other goods.
I love:
The smell of Napalm in the morning.
and
The blessings of Chemo and Radiation therapy.
and
BJTex back on the blog.
(All of which are somewhat related;^)
Keep firing!!!
I’d want to see the data. Notice that not one source claiming this has linked to the actual data.
I mean, it’s possible that LtCol John is all of a sudden rolling in dough, but it’s also possible that military compensation includes such things as clothing & personal items all being worn out at a much more ferocious rate in theater, and also housing in theater. IOW: that part of the increase in compensation is being reflected by the increased cost of keeping soldiers fed & housed in theater.
Not to mention increased cost in healthcare benefits due in part to the fact that they’re being shot at, bombed, etc.
The hazard-duty pay is probably not big enough to be worth mentioning.
In short: you’re being a dick.
Meh. He’s being true to himself.
Mr. Slart if you click through to Mr. Jeff’s article and then click through to where that guy got his numbers from and then click through to where that guy got his numbers from – you’ll see that Jeff’s post is based on a USA Today analysis of government data, which is the same place my numbers on military pay come from.
You forgot the quotes around “analysis”.
USA Today is not your go-to source for incisive analysis of, well, anything. Garry Trudeau kind of nailed them a couple of decades back with his graphic that said something like: America: where a staggering 38% of people rarely eat beets!
That directorblue used the article as a source for one category of thing doesn’t bless everything they do. But if you can come up with a similar change in circumstances that might boost federal worker’s compensation since 2005 like, maybe, going to war might do for soldiers (given some of the really broad definitions used for “compensation”), why, have at it!
my only argument is that directorblue isn’t making a very good case for boosting military pay I don;t think. It’s not good reasoning to say that just cause our failshit little country is boosting union bureaucrat pay through the roof that we should damn well do the same for the military.
Sounds like a cunning cloward piven trick to me.
Yeah. He’s all about the socialism, that one.
Oh, it’s:
but what’s the basis for arguing that we need to pay the military more? Particularly if the record shows that military pay has been outpacing bureaucrat pay…
I’m not arguing more pay, hf, I’m arguing that your claim that military compensation (and, by implication, pay) has increased 84% in less than a decade is unsupportable.
Unless you can support it, that is. Otherwise, though, it’s pure bunk.
that’s USAT’s claim, and it’s supported the exact same way that Mr. directorblue’s chart is supported…
but I was very clear in #7 what I was arguing
if you’re saying that no actually military pay hasn’t increased very much at all then find some data to support that – and if the military has been underpaying its peeps then I have absolutely no problem at all getting their pay up where it should be – just, so far in the discussion there’s no evidence at all that they’re being underpaid and this lack of data is set against a USAT story that suggests maybe they’re all set.
Do try and pay attention, hf. If you follow USA Today’s data back to its source, you’ll find out that where you are is BER’s website, which doesn’t seem to have that specific piece of data available. What is there, though, is discussion of what they mean by “compensation”, which includes housing, clothing allowance, hazard pay, etc. Likely it includes healthcare costs, too, on a per-capita basis.
But they don’t tell you how they compute those things, or how much of “compensation” is money in the pocket.
With federal workers, compensation is more straightforward, hence my comment about things that might have changed since 2005 that might affect their pay in a way that doesn’t result in them being paid a lot more. Unless there’s some analog of war occurring in DC, in a way that’s substantially different than the state of war in DC before 2005.
This isn’t a difficult line of reasoning to follow, I think.
Deployments that lasted longer/were more frequent than what was signed up for?
I dunno. Just spitballing here.
federal workers retire at 65 so it’s hard to go apples to apples and I wouldn’t know the first thing how to do that…
but all I’m saying is that pointing to skyrocketing bureaucrat pay as a rationale for raising military pay is silly.
So is doing the reverse, either as “rationale” or as an excuse…
if you’re arguing for boosting military pay, as directorblue does, you should have a reason for it, and “cause of the bureaucrats got a raise” isn’t a particularly compelling argument I don’t think
how hard is that?
I’m also not arguing counter to other things that you’ve said, here, including what I’ve quoted above.
Nor am I agreeing with (or disagreeing with) Jeff’s or directorblue’s point, here.
You may have some good points; actually I haven’t considered them one way or the other. It’s the point that I think is suspect that I’m picking at. You could concede this, or yeah, but – the conversation to death.
Indeed.
ok Mr. slart you are right I do concede that maybe the link I linked does not make an airtight case that military pay has been adequately raised, but I think it does suffice to raise a question about the necessity of further raisings
Did I argue for an increase in military pay?