WaterfowlForum.Net

This sounds like bullshit!

The Pentagon brass made a last stand Tuesday in the months-long battle for military compensation reform, imploring senators to back plans to trim troops’ pay raises and benefits in the fiscal 2015 budget.

They‘ve already lost on the other front of the fight, with members of the House Armed Services Committee last week rejecting the proposed compensation changes in its initial draft of the annual defense authorization bill.

If the Senate follows suit later this month, that will all but doom defense officials’ plans to cut about $2 billion from personnel costs next year and redirect the money into training and modernization programs.

Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and six fellow four-stars — his own deputy, the four service chiefs and the head of the National Guard Bureau — argued that those savings are crucial to preserve military readiness and modernization accounts, a refrain they have repeated to lawmakers ever since the budget proposal was unveiled three months ago.

“Implementing this compensation package now will help us remain the world’s best-trained, best-led and best-equipped military,” Dempsey said. “Otherwise, we’ll continue to hemorrhage readiness and cut into modernization funds.”

At issue are plans to cap the military pay raise at 1 percent next year, cut housing allowance rates by 5 percent in coming years, reduce the commissary benefit and reorganize the Tricare system to include new fees for non-active-duty users.

But outside advocates — and a growing number of lawmakers — have argued the compensation plans cut too deeply into troops’ wallets, leaving them with greatly diminished buying power even if their paychecks do not actually shrink.

They’ve argued that DoD should hold off on any changes until at least next February, after the Military Compensation and Retirement Reform Commission issues a final report and recommendations on all pay and benefits programs.

Dempsey said that timetable will delay meaningful reform until the 2017 budget, and cost DoD up to $18 billion in potential savings.

“We have enough information to request these nominal pay and compensation changes now,” he insisted. “We know this budget features difficult choices ... but we have created a balanced package that enables us to fulfill the current defense strategy.”

Senators again reiterated dissatisfaction with self-imposed budget caps and looming sequestration spending cuts that have forced Pentagon belt-tightening, but have not offered any firm plans on a different way forward.

Members of the armed services committee’s personnel panel have indicated they want to wait for the commission report, although Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee chairman, appeared more unwilling to simply punt decisions to next year.

“We do not have the option of simply rejecting these compensation proposals,” he said. “We would have to make alternative cuts.”

On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee is expected to finalize its draft of the annual authorization bill with a $521 billion total cost, but without the Pentagon’s requested compensation changes.

Pentagon planners will know if their lobbying efforts before the Senate committee were more successful by early June.

Makes it really hard to stay in. It really does.

3geese4me wrote:Makes it really hard to stay in. It really does.

I have seen it before, they ask to cut personnel costs, they don't get it and they get additional unprogrammed funds added. Try not to let the political maneuvering get to you.

AKPirate wrote:

3geese4me wrote:Makes it really hard to stay in. It really does.

I have seen it before, they ask to cut personnel costs, they don't get it and they get additional unprogrammed funds added. Try not to let the political maneuvering get to you.

I know, I just hate being a politicians puppet. On one hand, I want to get out. But on the other I see myself with almost 11 years in and so close to retirement.

How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

What???

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

Do you not think that's fair?

Goldfish wrote:

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

What???

A month?

Feelin' Fowl wrote:

Goldfish wrote:

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

What???

A month?

Yes.

Feelin' Fowl wrote:

Goldfish wrote:

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

What???

A month?

Yes. That is per month. Except he's way off. General at 30 years makes 17k a month

The officer/enlisted pay scale difference is a tad out of tolerance.

It's pretty antiquated.

3geese4me wrote:The officer/enlisted pay scale difference is a tad out of tolerance.

I've been saying this for years. I'm an E-5 with 7 years in with technical training and a brand new O-1 makes more than I do in base pay. Once I get my over 8 pay raise next year I'll finally make as much as an O-1 with less than 2 years in.

I'd say being in charge of 20k people is far more responsibility than anything of an E6 in any general career field.

I guess what I mean is, 50 years ago there was a pretty substantial difference between the two, but not so much anymore. For example, when I was in, I was responsible for managing 2 12 soldier interrogation teams. I had a specific job, with specialized training, a bachelor's degree, and a year and a half of language school. My base pay was $1,200 a month. A second lieutenant, with a bachelor's degree, no specialized training, and a superficial knowledge of MI skills, who responsible for managing the three of us received about $1,600. Silly.

assateague wrote:I guess what I mean is, 50 years ago there was a pretty substantial difference between the two, but not so much anymore. For example, when I was in, I was responsible for managing 2 12 soldier interrogation teams. I had a specific job, with specialized training, a bachelor's degree, and a year and a half of language school. My base pay was $1,200 a month. A second lieutenant, with a bachelor's degree, no specialized training, and a superficial knowledge of MI skills, who responsible for managing the three of us received about $1,600. Silly.

Lts are funny but everyone has to start somewhere.

Eric Haynes wrote:I'd say being in charge of 20k people is far more responsibility than anything of an E6 in any general career field.

A two star divisional commander will make about $12K a month. His sergeant major, who has just as much time, and actually supervises far more people, will make $8K. Yes, it is a little out of whack.

Eric Haynes wrote:I'd say being in charge of 20k people is far more responsibility than anything of an E6 in any general career field.

Aren't you in the military? That officer doesn't personally manage 20k people. Chain of command.

assateague wrote:I guess what I mean is, 50 years ago there was a pretty substantial difference between the two, but not so much anymore. For example, when I was in, I was responsible for managing 2 12 soldier interrogation teams. I had a specific job, with specialized training, a bachelor's degree, and a year and a half of language school. My base pay was $1,200 a month. A second lieutenant, with a bachelor's degree, no specialized training, and a superficial knowledge of MI skills, who responsible for managing the three of us received about $1,600. Silly.

And I bet whenever there was an issue you made the decision for the LT. He just implemented what you told him needed to be done.

Eric Haynes wrote:

assateague wrote:I guess what I mean is, 50 years ago there was a pretty substantial difference between the two, but not so much anymore. For example, when I was in, I was responsible for managing 2 12 soldier interrogation teams. I had a specific job, with specialized training, a bachelor's degree, and a year and a half of language school. My base pay was $1,200 a month. A second lieutenant, with a bachelor's degree, no specialized training, and a superficial knowledge of MI skills, who responsible for managing the three of us received about $1,600. Silly.

Lts are funny but everyone has to start somewhere.

Exactly my point. They are an entry level employee, with minimal to no skills. Yet they are compensated more than experts in the field with at least twice their experience and probably 5 times the knowledge. In 1944, there was a substantial difference between officer and enlisted, but that isn't the case anymore.

Olly wrote:

Eric Haynes wrote:I'd say being in charge of 20k people is far more responsibility than anything of an E6 in any general career field.

Aren't you in the military? That officer doesn't personally manage 20k people. Chain of command.

Guarantee that 4 star is relying on those below him to effectively manage the force. Once you get that high up in the rank structure you are so far out of the loop on force matters it's not even funny.

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:I guess what I mean is, 50 years ago there was a pretty substantial difference between the two, but not so much anymore. For example, when I was in, I was responsible for managing 2 12 soldier interrogation teams. I had a specific job, with specialized training, a bachelor's degree, and a year and a half of language school. My base pay was $1,200 a month. A second lieutenant, with a bachelor's degree, no specialized training, and a superficial knowledge of MI skills, who responsible for managing the three of us received about $1,600. Silly.

And I bet whenever there was an issue you made the decision for the LT. He just implemented what you told him needed to be done.

The best thing to say to a 2nd lieutenant is: "shut up and listen"

I enjoy telling them that I out rank them because I've been promoted more times. The guys that know their place laugh about it, but every once in awhile a butt hurt lt will get all fussy.

3geese4me wrote:I enjoy telling them that I out rank them because I've been promoted more times. The guys that know their place laugh about it, but every once in awhile a butt hurt lt will get all fussy.

I love challenging officers. One time had this ensign (O-1) who was brand new and he wanted to take a shortcut and walk through our space but the shop I worked at was a secured space and had cipher-locks on the doors and anyone in the military knows you have to be on the access list to enter a secured space. I was the PO that managed the access list and he wanted me to add him just so he didn't have to walk to the further head space. Tried to order me to do it, told him to go take it to the CO. As I was dismissed from the CO's officer after explaining what was going on all I heard was him being chewed out for wasting my and the CO's time with stupid shit.

What I enjoyed most about working with MACV SOG was the respect for experience and how little rank actually meant.
I especially remember one briefing for a cross border recon mission a major from intelligence was giving us when an E-5 buck sgt with many of these missions under his belt spoke up and told the officer how fucked up the mission he just laid out for us was. He didn't bat an eye and just said "okay please explain what's wrong with it"
The sgt. when on to explain in great detail a much better way to execute the mission, we all concured and the major was fine with the changes.
That officer gained an enormous amount of respect from his men that day.

Olly wrote:

Feelin' Fowl wrote:

Goldfish wrote:

3geese4me wrote:

assateague wrote:How about stopping no-bid contracts? How about only allowing 5% cost overruns instead of allowing 100-150% overruns on these no-bid contracts? So much waste, and they want to save money by reducing pay and benefits. Easy for an O-9 making $180K a year to say this shit.

Yep an O-9 with 30 years has a base pay of $12K. I am an E-6 with a little over 10 years and I have a base pay of $3400.

What???

A month?

Yes.

Oh. I thought you meant a year for some reason and was wondering how in the hell that was even possible

waterfowlman wrote:What I enjoyed most about working with MACV SOG was the respect for experience and how little rank actually meant.
I especially remember one briefing for a cross border recon mission a major from intelligence was giving us when an E-5 buck sgt with many of these missions under his belt spoke up and told the officer how fucked up the mission he just laid out for us was. He didn't bat an eye and just said "okay please explain what's wrong with it"
The sgt. when on to explain in great detail a much better way to execute the mission, we all concured and the major was fine with the changes.
That officer gained an enormous amount of respect from his men that day.

Sort of the same thing here. I used to regularly run patrols in the DMZ. A 1LT, who had just finished ranger school but was branched MI told me we were doing it all wrong. (For the record, I wasn't infantry, but was tasked on these patrols because of my language capability, and we often ran into North Koreans in there doing the same thing) So the 1LTtells me I'm fucking up by patrolling in line, that we should be running a wedge. I tell him absolutely not, and I barely had that out of my mouth before he starts chewing my ass and informing me that he was the knowledgeable one.

Only when I could get a word in edgewise, and let him know we patrolled inline because it was a fucking minefield did he back off. He didn't gain a whole lot of respect that day.

I dont know much about "military day-to-day" but I do enjoy reading these stories guys.

3legged_lab wrote:I dont know much about "military day-to-day" but I do enjoy reading these stories guys.

The amount of shenanigans that take place is astounding sometimes.