Posted on 08/14/2003 8:32:27 PM PDT by TexKat
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moving to quash a political firestorm, the Pentagon on Thursday denied that it will cut the pay of nearly 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by $225 on Sept. 30 when special military pay hikes approved by Congress are due to expire.
Defense officials said that even if lawmakers do not reinstate increases passed in April in both "imminent danger pay" and "family separation allowances," the Pentagon will make up the pay losses to troops in those countries in other ways.
Undersecretary of Defense David Chu answered sharp criticism from Democratic presidential candidates over a press report that the Pentagon favored cutting the pay of combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because it supported letting the special increases expire.
"No one ever said we wanted to reduce pay in Iraq and Afghanistan," Chu, who is in charge of military personnel and readiness, told reporters.
"We prefer other compensation powers to ensure that we target benefits on the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan," he added, citing incentive and other packages that the Pentagon is authorized to use.
Chu spoke after the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Pentagon wanted to cut the pay of nearly 149,000 troops in Iraq and another 9,000 in Afghanistan because it supported the expiration of increases of $75 monthly in danger pay and $150 in family separation pay.
SPECIAL PAY FOR COMBAT, SEPARATION
Imminent danger pay, given to members of the armed forces in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month by Congress in April for the current fiscal year.
The family separation allowance, which helps military families pay expenses while troops are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.
Democrats running to succeed President Bush in next year's election on Thursday launched a barrage of criticism based on the report.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said it made his "blood boil," Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut called it "unconscionable" and Sen. Bob Graham of Florida said it was "seriously wrong."
"The Bush administration questions the patriotism of those who ask questions about how you win a war," Kerry said, "but I know no deeper violation of patriotism than dishonoring those who wear the uniform of our nation and breaking our promises to our soldiers."
But Chu and Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said the Pentagon planned all along to use incentive and other measures to keep paychecks in Afghanistan and Iraq at current levels, even if danger and family separation pay went down.
"There is no intention of allowing compensation for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan to fall," Chu said.
"The premise that we would somehow disadvantage U.S. forces in combat is absurd," added Di Rita.
They said that the pay of troops serving in Kuwait near Iraq was also unlikely to change.
Chu conceded that the pay of some U.S. troops serving in other difficult areas of the world could fall if Congress did not reinstate the incentive increases, but that the Pentagon favored an end to the broad package as it constantly reviewed compensation in different deployment areas.
"It (the package) is too broad-based. It's like using a sledge hammer to hit a small nail," he told reporters.
LOL. They just jump from one thing to another. I guess they just say lets take a handfull of everything, throw it against the wall and see what sticks.
A.K.A. The NY Times west.
Pentagon to keep imminent danger pay, family separation allowance for troops in Iraq, Afghanistan
By Vince Crawley
Seeking to quell a growing public-relations firestorm, the Pentagon late Thursday vowed not to cut the pay of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones. If Congress allows imminent-danger pay and the family separation allowance to drop when temporary authority for higher rates expires Sept. 30, the Pentagon would use other special pays to make up the difference, which totals $225 per month.
The intent would be to compensate those serving in the greatest danger — troops in Iraq and Afghanistan — without enacting permanent pay increases for the entire force, David S.C. Chu, the Pentagon personnel chief, told reporters late Thursday.
The Times this week reported on the ongoing congressional budget debate on whether to extend temporary increases in danger pay and the family allowance, and the story ended up touching off a storm of criticism.
“It’s hard to believe in a $400 billion defense budget we can’t afford $225 a month for these brave soldiers and their families,” Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said in a statement Thursday.
But the debate is more complex than that. In April, as U.S. troops stormed into Baghdad, Congress temporarily raised monthly danger pay from $150 to $225, and the monthly family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250.
The hikes are due to expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The Senate wants to make the increases permanent. The House wants to create a two-tiered system in which arduous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is rewarded with the higher pays while those on arguably less threatening deployments, such as the Balkans, would revert to the old, lower monthly rates.
What led to the criticism was a July budget document submitted by the Defense Department in which officials recommended rolling back the pays to prewar levels because they had not budgeted for the increased costs.
What the document didn’t spell out is that the Pentagon has a separate plan to target special pays to those in the war zone. If the danger and family pays are reduced, the Pentagon would increase other pays — hardship-duty pay or assignment-incentive pay — by at least $225 for those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chu said such a move would be in keeping with the intent of Congress, which was to provide extra pay for combat troops. As it stands, the increase in family separation pay goes to any troops whose overseas duties require them to be away from home for 30 days or more.
While I agree that the danger in Bosnia/Kosovo isn't as great as that in Iraq/Afghan at this time, the separation is just as real.
The point of the separation pay is to help families with departed spouses deal with extra expenses caused by the absence of the military spouse....things such as increased child care costs, etc.
Therefore, to cut the pay for Bosnia/Kosovo regarding danger is probably reasonable, but not for separation.
It is better to a bean counter to make up some money in Bosnia/Kosovo than to pay out all of it to both Bos/Ko and Ir/Afg.
All newly hired bean-counters must submit to a cardiectomy at Walter Reed before assuming their new positions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD Statement on Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay
In April, after the President's Budget was submitted, Congress authorized an increase in both the Family Separation Allowance (on a worldwide basis) and Imminent Danger Pay and legislated that these increases would expire on Sept. 30, 2003. The department is aware of the problem that would result for those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan if these allowances were allowed to expire. This is an issue of targeting those most deserving, and certainly people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are in these categories. We intend to ensure they continue to receive this compensation at least at the current levels.
The House wants to create a two-tiered system in which arduous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan is rewarded with the higher pays, while those on arguably less-threatening deployments, such as the Balkans, would revert to the old, lower monthly rates. The House Appropriations Committee funded that plan....Even so, Pentagon budget analysts, citing high costs, recommended rolling back the pays to their previous levels for all troops.
The Editorial on page 52 contains more:
The House wants to extend the higher rates only for troops in the Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones, and fully funds that decision with some $263 million in the 2004 bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.