Support for the troops? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 07-17-2007, 03:54 PM

It is absolutely unforgivable in my mind, that ANYONE would fight the increases detailed below. Let alone the very people placing such pressure on the armed forces we rely on for security.

Quote:

3.5% raise too much for Bush

By Tom Philpott

Talk about lousy timing. With President Bush's popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched tours to 15 months, the Bush administration has said it "strongly opposes" key military pay and benefit gains tossed into the fiscal 2008 defense bill.

Initiatives the administration opposes include:

# A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.

# Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations.

# Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years.

# Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same-price discounts for Tricare retail pharmacy network that are provided on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies.

The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year Tricare fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...08/1018/NEWS08

There can be NO DEFENSE for this action.....NONE!!!!!

Willravel · 07-17-2007, 03:57 PM

I'll just add this to the long, long list of inexcusable things.
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/

reconmike · 07-17-2007, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

It is absolutely unforgivable in my mind, that ANYONE would fight the increases detailed below. Let alone the very people placing such pressure on the armed forces we rely on for security.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...08/1018/NEWS08

There can be NO DEFENSE for this action.....NONE!!!!!

I am not going to defend it, because I think they deserve it, but military pay increases have always gone by the employment cost index +.5%. What the ECI is this year I dont know so is 3.1% fair? I do know that when I was in service I got as low as 2% raise, but I wont say who was president when that occured.

And Will, I watched your vid link, this thread is about US military pay and bennies, do you think ya could start a thread with like Bush lies, they are a liars, they should all go to jail? Oh wait nevermind evey thread turns into that somehow, just a TFP thread as usual, carry on.

Willravel · 07-17-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

And Will, I watched your vid link, this thread is about US military pay and bennies, do you think ya could start a thread with like Bush lies, they are a liars, they should all go to jail? Oh wait nevermind evey thread turns into that somehow, just a TFP thread as usual, carry on.

This thread is about Bush fucking up again.

reconmike · 07-17-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

This thread is about Bush fucking up again.

What is he fucking up in this thread Will? I read a news story from a Honolulu newspaper, I am still looking for his reasons as to why he opposes some of these measures because the OP link doesn't give any.

I actually found the official statement of policy http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legisl...r1585sap-h.pdf

Funny how the "news article" writer does not mention that congress is cutting important war related programs also, and Bush is also strongly opposing them, why do you think that is Will?

And just so you know military pay raises have increased 33% since W has been in office largest increase since Reagan.

Willravel · 07-17-2007, 07:09 PM

So how many wars have there been since Reagen?

dc_dux · 07-17-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

And just so you know military pay raises have increased 33% since W has been in office largest increase since Reagan.

33% in six years?

Do you have a source on that?

reconmike · 07-17-2007, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

33% in six years?

Do you have a source on that?

Quote:

Pay raise: Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 vs. the administration's proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index (ECI). The White House calls the extra half-percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money "that would otherwise be available to support our troops," the OMB statement said.

link http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...324/1009/rss04

If you look at all the other increases in special pays, more housing pay, bonuses, Bush is right in saying the .4% that doesnt go to the troops paychecks would be better spent in equipment and new technologies.

dc_dux · 07-17-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

The White House calls the extra half-percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001.

So...the White House notes a 33% increase over six budget years (an ave. of 5.5%/year...when their own annual budgets dont support that figure.)

mike...you should know better than believing anything coming out of the Bush White House

Not to nitpick, but the Congressional Budget Office said the total military pay increases (at least for enlisted) has been far less:

Quote:

Basic pay, food and housing allowances, and the monetary advantage that derives from the fact that both of those allowances are tax-free, resulted in a 21 percent boost in total compensation for the average enlisted member over the past six years

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0...rypay_070629w/

reconmike · 07-17-2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So...the White House notes a 33% increase over six budget years (an ave. of 5.5%/year...when their own annual budgets dont support that figure.)

mike...you should no better than believing anything coming out of the Bush White House

Not to nitpick, but the Congressional Budget Office said the total military pay increases (at least for enlisted) has been far less:

Yes it is 33% when you factor in all the pay, not base, but combat, housing increase, bonuses.

dc_dux · 07-17-2007, 08:35 PM

thanks..but like most WH comments on their budget figures, they exaggerate and cant be supported by the annual budget documents.

I will stick with the non-partisan CBO figures.

Wasnt it Clinton who began to close the gap with civilian pay that had widened under GHW Bush?

Wasnt it also the Democrats in Congress since 2001 who proposed increases in Family Separation Allowances and Imminent Danger Pay (and making the increases permanent) only to face resistance each year by the Republican majority?

reconmike · 07-17-2007, 08:50 PM

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/milit...06payraise.htm

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- A 3.1 percent military basic pay hike, higher housing allowances and more healthcare and educational benefits for the National Guard and Reserve are all part of the president's proposed fiscal 2006 defense budget unveiled here today.

The package of expanded benefits is part of what a senior defense official called a top priority in the president's $419.3 billion budget request: "taking care of our forces."

"People are our most important asset. We can't do anything without our folks," the official told Pentagon reporters. "Our forces are the best-trained and best-organized on the globe, and we maintain our commitment to them."

The proposed military pay raise reflects a continued trend in better compensation for servicemembers.

Sponsored Links
Military Pay Raise
Military Pay Charts, Photos, News VA Forms, Benefits Updates - Free!
www.military.com

Military Pay Scale
Research Pay Scale Info at 1,000s Of Top Employers In All Industries!
www.Vault.com/Salary

2007 Military Pay Chart
Find 2007 Military Pay Chart Info & Helpful Guides.
MilitaryPaysScales.info
Incorporating the 3.1 percent military increase, basic pay will be up 25 percent since fiscal 2001.
In terms of actual money in troops' pockets, the official told reporters the 3.1 percent increase would raise basic pay for members in the lowest enlisted grade from $12,000 in fiscal 2005 to $15,000 next year, and that of a second lieutenant or ensign from $23,000 to $28,000. Similarly, an E-5 who was earning $30,000 in base pay in fiscal 2001 will be making $39,000 under the new budget, she said.

Federal civilian workers would receive a 2.3 percent pay hike.

The proposed budget provides a 4 percent increase in the basic housing allowance to reduce and, ideally, eliminate out-of-pocket costs for servicemembers living in private housing. "In the past, there was as much as an 18 percent out-of-pocket cost for our military," the defense official said. "And this budget sustains our no-out-of-pocket cost commitment."

The budget also keeps DoD on track in its effort to eliminate all inadequate military family housing units in the United States by fiscal 2007, and worldwide by fiscal 2009. "We are on track" with that effort, the defense official told reporters.

The proposed budget continues to extend privatization to improve military housing and to maximize DoD housing budgets. By the end of fiscal 2006, the official said, this effort is expected to have produced nearly 172,000 new high-quality family housing units during the past 10 years.

In terms of health care, the proposed budget increases funding for the Defense Health Program, with $20 billion in direct funding and $7 billion for military personnel supporting the program. Officials said this funding level will ensure continuing good health care for servicemembers and their families.

Guard and Reserve members will receive additional benefits as well, including expanded Tricare eligibility that provides health coverage up to 90 days before activation and 180 days after mobilization for most members. "This is a significant new benefit," the defense official said.

The budget also includes the GI Bill for Reservists, passed by Congress last year, to provide educational benefits for Guard and Reserve members who have been mobilized. These troops would qualify for up to 36 months of payments, from $400 to $800 a month, depending on the length of active service in support of a contingency operation.

Provisions for quality facilities also are also included in the budget package. The proposed budget funds 92 percent of maintenance requirements.

"So I think what we have here is a healthy benefit package," the official summarized. "We want to maintain our commitment to the forces of the United States."

And in FY 2007 the increase was 2.2% totaling it out at 27.2% base across the board, others received up to 35% depending on rank, NCO's received the largest increase during this time to keep them in service.

Plus the housing allowance is just like pay, because it now costs nothing to live off base as opposed to when we had to pay to live off base.

xepherys · 07-30-2007, 09:39 AM

Hey Mike,

As a deployed soldier I have to rebut your comment about the 0.4% being better suited towards equipment and gear. Lately, the DoD and DoA have been pretty lackluster in their performance creating new and updated gear and equipment for soldiers. I wonder how much was spent in the recent ACU change that fielded flame-retardant ACUs to troops overseas? Since each soldier gets one such set of ACUs, I fail to see how it helps except possibly in the case of dumb luck. I mean, I can only wear the same uniform in this heat so many days before I really just need to wash it. Yes, even infantrymen wash their clothes.

We upgraded the M1114 HMMWVs to the new FRAG-5 armor kits. While on the surface this seems great, it's actually been a nightmare. The FRAG-5 kit adds several thousand pounds to the base weight of the vehicle taking it, without pax or equipment, far above the chassis' weight limit. In turn, the trucks break down damned near weekly with power steering (and thus brake assist) hoses breaking regularly due to the strain of trying to steer the newly laden vehicles. Being stuck 15km away form any base with a vehicle that has lost power steering (and the loss of pressure in that pump also leaves you, as I mentioned, with no brake assist) is problematic. We have three deadlined vehicles, meaning less people on missions, meaning lower security for those of us on those missions. This has been on-going for the four months we've been in theater so far.

What of the new body armor? They plan to start fielding it to ALL soldiers deployed in theater in the next month or so. The protection is the same and it weighs 3 pounds less. To me, that's a terrible waste of tax payer dollars, and money that would be better spent taking care of the families back home.

So, this 0.4% is better spent continuing a cycle of developing inferior new gear that is all but useless (and in some cases a hinderance) to the soldiers? I think not. Hey, we have pretty green lasers now to use as a non-lethal means of stopping vehicles. Yay! Oddly, these are usually only deployed against non-threats. People intent on delivering a VBIED don't need to see... they don't target very well to begin with. Another waste, IMHO.

Perhaps if they started fielding better gear. Rounds with greater accuracy distance (the M4 is far more capable that the standard ball rounds we use allow for), armor that is lighter (by more than 3 pounds) and/or is more protective. Vehicles with greater armor capacity AND with chassis modifications/replacements that allow for the weight. Those would be useful, but are nowhere in sight.

I'd take the 0.4% additional raise, personally.

Willravel · 07-30-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

I'd take the 0.4% additional raise, personally.

I'd totally vote for that. Maybe we can take some of that contractor money being wasted and invest it in pay raises for the troops (I'd say a raise of at least 5% instead of .4% would be a step in the right direction), in a move to actually support not just the troops but their families, who in turn are powerful morale support for the troops. Not only that, but as Xeph said the Frag5's are useless. They not only cause the vehicle to break down, but they make the vehicle even more sluggish than they already are (as was reported to me from a friend who's deployed).

xepherys · 07-30-2007, 10:32 AM

Willravel speaks the truth! The vehicles do not have the horse power to properly navigate the terrain here with the FRAG-5 kits installed. Going uphill slows the vehicle down to a literal crawl (we're talking 2-3mph) and many of them don't have the power to move in reverse at all without rocking forward and back.

The contracting for the Army is bullshit as well, and a complete waste of money. Even at a higher payrate, using soldiers to take care of things like cooking and cleaning instead of KBR contractors would save a considerable amount of money. Oh, that's right, there's not enough to TROOPS to self-support. Perhaps that is because our Commander-in-Chief has seen fit to spread our numbers too thin globally. Don't get me wrong, I like the KBR guys that work here, and more power to them for finding an amazingly good paying job out here in the 'stan (and Iraq), but it's not really the most efficient means of paying for the war effort.

Oh well! Above my paygrade!

As an aside, I'd like to note that I'm a driver in my convoy team. I have experience with several vehicles in our unit (well, five to be exact). Three have broken down with considerable problems. Once, due to the FRAG-5 and almost at the expense of all soldiers in my vehicle and another towing us. A FRAG-5 M1114 towing another in the mountains is a dangerous proposition, but the only one offered us in many instances. Twice within less than 100m, and to no fault of myself or the other driver, six soldiers, a civilian and a local terp nearly parished due to the FRAG-5 configuration and it's pitfalls.

Thank God for the extra protection, though!

Willravel · 07-30-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Willravel speaks the truth! The vehicles do not have the horse power to properly navigate the terrain here with the FRAG-5 kits installed. Going uphill slows the vehicle down to a literal crawl (we're talking 2-3mph) and many of them don't have the power to move in reverse at all without rocking forward and back.

And the thing is, you could get more powerful engines....but they'd have to be refueled even more often than they are now. That would put even more constraints on things. The real solution is in lighter weight armor technologies already available to private sector organizations like BlackWater. Faster and stronger should both be a concern in moving troops. Also, electric vehicles would do VERY well in an environment where you get so much damned sun. A hybrid with solar panels would make fuel runs a lot less common. Not to mention how light solar panels are now (in weight).

Wouldn't it be ironic to be turning to more fuel efficient technology in a war partially over oil control?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

The contracting for the Army is bullshit as well, and a complete waste of money. Even at a higher payrate, using soldiers to take care of things like cooking and cleaning instead of KBR contractors would save a considerable amount of money. Oh, that's right, there's not enough to TROOPS to self-support. Perhaps that is because our Commander-in-Chief has seen fit to spread our numbers too thin globally. Don't get me wrong, I like the KBR guys that work here, and more power to them for finding an amazingly good paying job out here in the 'stan (and Iraq), but it's not really the most efficient means of paying for the war effort.

Oh well! Above my paygrade!

You're absolutely right. Had we not occupied Iraq, we would have the necessary manpower to have a cheaper (and better) full military presence. Imagine, had we not invaded Iraq, we could deploy 2500 troops and necessary support to Darfur tomorrow and help to support humanitarian aid.

Not invading Iraq would have been the ultimate support of the troops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

As an aside, I'd like to note that I'm a driver in my convoy team. I have experience with several vehicles in our unit (well, five to be exact). Three have broken down with considerable problems. Once, due to the FRAG-5 and almost at the expense of all soldiers in my vehicle and another towing us. A FRAG-5 M1114 towing another in the mountains is a dangerous proposition, but the only one offered us in many instances. Twice within less than 100m, and to no fault of myself or the other driver, six soldiers, a civilian and a local terp nearly parished due to the FRAG-5 configuration and it's pitfalls.

Thank God for the extra protection, though!

Jesus Christ. I'm glad you're okay.

Slims · 07-30-2007, 02:56 PM

The military doesn't need a flat pay raise. They are nice, but near as I can tell they are politically motivated...if the other side points out how retarded it is to continually up military pay for no apparent reason then they are guilty of 'not supporting the troops.'

There are a lot of incompetents in the military who are working desk jobs, poorly, and would be unable to make the same salary in the civilian world. Why should we give them a raise?

There is only so much money to go around, and by putting more money into soldiers pockets, you are reducing what is available to put towards keeping those soldiers alive.

I would, however, support increased pays for soldiers who are deployed.

Just my two cents,
Greg

joshbaumgartner · 07-30-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

The military doesn't need a flat pay raise. They are nice, but near as I can tell they are politically motivated...if the other side points out how retarded it is to continually up military pay for no apparent reason then they are guilty of 'not supporting the troops.'

There are a lot of incompetents in the military who are working desk jobs, poorly, and would be unable to make the same salary in the civilian world. Why should we give them a raise?

There is only so much money to go around, and by putting more money into soldiers pockets, you are reducing what is available to put towards keeping those soldiers alive.

I would, however, support increased pays for soldiers who are deployed.

Just my two cents,
Greg

I couldn't disagree with you more about somehow needing different pay for different types of personnel within the military. There already are special allowances for those troops in unique need situations, such as those whose cost of living is higher than normal due to deployment location. As for REMFs not 'deserving' the same pay as a rifleman, that's rediculous. If they are in combat, they get combat pay, which covers that aspect. A clerk can be called on to serve as a rifleman any time (and currently many clerks are patrolling Iraq alongside 11-B's).

As far as unfit personnel, that is up to the military to evaluate, identify, and rectify. Your average Army private (E-3) makes $1,729.20/mo., equivalent to an average retail clerk at the mall. But we are asking that young person to use an ever increasing array of technology to do a very critical job. And that's not just the combat troops, but the REMFs too. They are working just as hard as our logistics forces are so stretched out supporting the troops in the field. There's hardly an area of the military that isn't being tested right now with a high rate of operations.

The argument of limited resources is true as an isolated factor but it rings hollow when at the same time we are giving away huge sums in tax breaks and the many millionaires are being made off of a military-industrial complex that is collecting billions for programs of quite dubious value. That we are refusing to offer a little more to those getting the smallest pay and making the biggest sacrifice is certainly quite telling of our current attitude as a country.

irateplatypus · 07-30-2007, 06:31 PM

to echo joshbaumgartner... there are pay boosts for those deployed to combat zones already in place. additionally, there are further pay incentives (flight/sea pay, re-enlistment bonuses, etc.) for those in high-demand or hazardous careers that most other career fields do not enjoy. all those joining the military these days do so with the very real prospect of seeing combat. i think further stratification of pay would both be unfair and a blow to overall morale.

just tossing this into the discussion... but few people realize that the Air Force is making dramatic personnel cuts to revamp its fleet. the average age of a USAF aircraft is close to 30 years old. they're literally denying re-enlistments and cutting large swaths of the officer corps to save enough money to invest in new equipment. from the AF's perspective, increasing salary dollars should be a low priority when they're involuntarily separating so many in a time of war.

joshbaumgartner · 07-30-2007, 07:28 PM

Military aviation is my 'first love'... studying it led me to broader military studies, which led me to history, which led me to politics... egad... anyway, I digress...

The Air Force situation is certainly the most stark example of the weighing of size versus quality. Despite all the changes that have happened, much of the force structure of the AF is a remnant of the Cold War. Certainly the large bodies of AF men and organization wrapped up in strategic warfare isn't something you can rapidly reduce. Additionally, current demands on the force are quite different from the long term threats that we may face down the road, but need to be preparing for now.

As for pay though, the main cause of having to reduce personnel is to bring in newer aircraft and systems which are much more advanced than previous ones. This usually requires a smaller force structure to carry the same capability, but the onus is on the personnel to handle the higher end systems. While the fact that you are reducing personnel may seem to indicate less need for high pay and benefits to attract people, in fact I would argue the opposite is possibly true as you need to ensure that the smaller remaining number of people need to be absolutely the best you can get. You don't want to shrink the pool of people to choose from, even if you are accepting a smaller percentage of it, because it is so critical that you maintain ever increasing standards of quality amongst those you do accept. It is also more critical that you retain people you choose to retain during a drawdown in personnel numbers. If your pay and benefits are insufficient, the higher end people will depart as they have brighter prospects elsewhere. If you pay is good on the other hand, you can afford to choose who to shed, and those you want to keep will be eager to remain.

host · 07-30-2007, 10:57 PM

Greg700, irateplatypus, reconmike.... Where DO YOU, come by the opinions that you've posted? Why are you against the troops, "wetting their beaks", with a little more generous compensation, during a "time of war"? The Bush admin. has borrowed all the money to wage their war, anyway...what is the harm in sending a little more the troops' way?...

I vehemently disagree with all three of you on the issue of compensation of the troops for their service..... when everybody...and I mean EVERYBODY....connected with Bush have gorged themselves at the trough of his war spending "opportunity"... his buddy, from Texas, Joe Allbaugh, his CNP benefactors who signed off on his candidacy in 1999..most visible is Erik Prince of Blackwater....his daddy, George HW, his uncle William. brother Neil, his family's consigliere, James Baker, and his VP, Dick... fucking blood money for all of 'em...so..why not "for the troops", too?

Quote:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml
Republican-controlled Carlyle Group poses serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents, but Baltimore Sun ignores it
by Alice Cherbonnier

AN IMPORTANT TENET of journalism is that you should always ask, “Who benefits?”

In the case of a war, the answers to this question become of paramount importance. Suppose, for example, that profits from military contracting were to go in the pockets of a former U.S. President whose son (and a presumed future heir) is now President? Suppose further that such profits escalate in times of conflict. Wouldn’t this be of concern to the public? Wouldn’t you expect the media to be all over such an important ethical (not to mention moral, and maybe legal) angle?

Though described by the Industry Standard as “the world’s largest private equity firm,” with over $12 billion under management, chances are readers haven’t ever heard of The Carlyle Group. Isn’t that a little odd, considering it is run by a veritable who's who of former Republican political leaders. Former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci is Carlyle’s chairman and managing director (who, by the way, was college roommate of the current Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld). And that partners in this mammoth venture include former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III, George Soros, Fred Malek (George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager, forced to resign when it was revealed he was Nixon’s “Jew counter”), and—presumably—George H.W. Bush?......

.........Not only have some newspapers and magazines brought The Carlyle Group out of the shadows it prefers, but this enterprise has attracted the attention of The Center for Public Integrity and Judicial Watch, both of which have concerns about the ethical propriety of having high-placed former government officials—trained at taxpayer expense, too—out there reaping over 20% to 40% a year by working their connections. You have to wonder if these former public servants are just simply greedy, or if they’re telling themselves they’re true patriots by doing behind-the-scenes cloak-and-dagger stuff.

This is a big story. We were wondering if, in the wake of current events, we were the only newspaper that was asking that question, “Who benefits?” And then we found that the Wall Street Journal was asking the right questions, too, and we were vastly relieved not to be left hanging out to dry. On Sept. 27, the WSJ published a “Special Report: Aftermath of Terror” with the headline “Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank.” The “bank” is actually The Carlyle Group (and by the way, we peons can’t invest in it, and it sure isn’t taking deposits from the general public). The lead sentence reads: “If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden’s family.” And, though the WSJ curiously did not mention this, another beneficiary may be George H.W. Bush’s family.

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AA0894D9404482
<b>Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm</b>
March 5, 2001, Monday
By LESLIE WAYNE (NYT); National Desk

During the presidential campaign last year, former President George Bush took time off from his son's race to call on Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a luxurious desert compound outside Riyadh to talk about American-Saudi business affairs.

Mr. Bush went as an ambassador of sorts, but not for his government. In the same way, Mr. Bush's secretary of state, James A. Baker III, recently met with a group of wealthy people at the elegant Lanesborough Hotel in London to explain the Florida vote count.

Traveling with the fanfare of dignitaries, Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were using their extensive government contacts to further their business interests as representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm based in Washington that has parlayed a roster of former top-level government officials, largely from the Bush and Reagan administrations, into a moneymaking machine.

In a new spin on Washington's revolving door between business and government, where lobbying by former officials is restricted but soliciting investments is not, Carlyle has upped the ante and taken the practice global. Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were accompanied on their trips by former Prime Minister John Major of Britain, another of Carlyle's political stars. ....Private equity, which involves buying up companies in private deals and reselling them, is a high-end business open only to the very rich.

Over the last decade, the Carlyle empire has grown to span three continents and include investments in most corners of the world. It owns so many companies that it is now in effect one of the nation's biggest defense contractors and a force in global telecommunications. Its blue-chip investors include major banks and insurance companies, billion-dollar pension funds and wealthy investors from Abu Dhabi to Singapore.

In getting business for Carlyle, Mr. Bush has been impressive. His meeting with the crown prince was followed by a yacht cruise and private dinners with Saudi officials, including King Fahd, all on behalf of Carlyle, which has extensive interests in the Middle East.

And Mr. Bush led Carlyle's successful entry into South Korea, the fastest-growing economy in Asia. After his meetings with the prime minister and other government and business leaders, Carlyle won a tough competition for control of KorAm, one of Korea's few healthy banks.

The steady flow of politicians to lucrative private-sector jobs based on their government contacts is a familiar Washington tale. But in this case, it is being played out for more dollars, on a global stage, and in the world of private finance, where the minimal government rules prohibiting lobbying by former officials for a given period are not a factor. These rules say nothing about potential conflicts when former government officials use their connections and insights for financial gain, and they may attract more notice now that George W. Bush is president. Many of those involved with Carlyle, which invests largely in companies that do business with the government or are affected by government regulations, have ties to the Oval Office.

For instance, Frank C. Carlucci, a Reagan secretary of defense who as much as anyone is responsible for Carlyle's success, said he met in February with his old college classmate Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, and Vice President Dick Cheney, himself a defense secretary under former President Bush, to talk about military matters -- at a time when Carlyle has several billion-dollar defense projects under consideration.

Carlyle officials contend that the firm's activities do not present any potential conflicts since Mr. Bush, Mr. Baker and other former Republican officials now at Carlyle -- including Mr. Carlucci, who is Carlyle's chairman, and Richard G. Darman, Mr. Bush's former budget director -- do not lobby the federal government. Carlyle executives point out that many corporations have former government officials as board members.

''Mr. Bush gives us no advice on what do with with the federal government,'' said David Rubenstein, the firm's founder and a former aide in the Carter White House. ''We've gone over backwards to make sure that we do no lobbying.''

Others, however, see little difference between potential conflicts involving lobbying and those involving investments.

''Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit public interest group based in Washington. ''George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper.''

It is difficult to determine exactly how much money the senior Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker have made. Mr. Baker is a Carlyle partner, and Mr. Bush has the title senior adviser to its Asian activities. With a current market value of about $3.5 billion on Carlyle's equity and with the firm owned by 18 partners and one outside investor, Mr. Baker's Carlyle stake would be worth about $180 million if each partner held an equal stake. It is not known whether he has more or less than the other partners.

Unlike Mr. Baker, Mr. Bush has no ownership stake in Carlyle; he is an adviser and an investor and is compensated by obtaining stakes in Carlyle investments. Carlyle executives cited, for example, Mr. Bush's being allowed to put money he earns giving speeches for Carlyle into its investment funds. Mr. Bush generally receives $80,000 to $100,000 for a speech. He sits on no corporate boards other than Carlyle's.

Carlyle also gave the Bush family a hand in 1990 by putting George W. Bush, who was then struggling to find a career, on the board of a Carlyle subsidiary, Caterair, an airline-catering company.

From Carlyle's point of view, the involvement of Mr. Baker and the former president is invaluable.

''It punches up the brand awareness for us globally,'' said Daniel A. D'Aniello, a Carlyle managing director. ''We are greatly assisted by Baker and Bush. It shows that we are associated with people of the highest ethical standards.''

With $12 billion from investors, Carlyle claims to be the nation's largest private equity fund and makes money by investing in undervalued companies and reselling at a profit. These numbers put Carlyle in the same league as better-known private equity firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and Forstmann-Little & Company.

Two hundred forty Carlyle employees are stationed throughout the world either raising money or finding ways to spend it. Carlyle has ownership stakes in 164 companies, which last year employed more than 70,000 people and generated $16 billion in revenues. About 450 institutions -- mainly large pension funds and banks -- are Carlyle investors.

The California state pension fund invested $305 million with Carlyle, and the Texas teachers pension fund -- whose board was appointed when George W. Bush was governor -- gave Carlyle $100 million to invest in November. Carlyle also works as a financial adviser to the Saudi government.

''Let's say Carlyle is going fund-raising in the Middle East and they bring Bush along,'' said David Snow, editor of Private Equity Central, a trade publication. ''He led the U.S. Army into that region. That will catch the attention of very wealthy investors in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The fact that Bush is involved doesn't mean that Carlyle will make great investment decisions. But it will get them access to certain deals and certain countries that they might otherwise not have.''

One former Carlyle employee said, ''The firm understands that having Bush and Major around is like having movie stars around.''

Yet Carlyle's success is not just because of its high-powered connections. Carlyle has done well for its investors, returning an average of 34 percent a year over the last decade, in line with other private equity funds. It has done this by buying what it knows best -- companies that are regulated by the government. Nearly two-thirds of its investments are in defense and telecommunications companies, which are affected by shifts in government spending and policy.

Carlyle has become the nation's 11th largest defense contractor, owning companies that make tanks, aircraft wings and a broad array of other military equipment. It also owns health care companies, real estate, Internet companies, a bottling company and even Le Figaro, the French newspaper...

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9679C8B63
<h3> Eisenhower, Ignored</h3>

Published: March 8, 2001

To the Editor:

Re ''Elder Bush in Big G.O.P. Cast Toiling for Top Equity Firm'' (front page, March 5):

Eisenhower's warning to resist the influence of the military-industrial complex on our government was obviously in vain. The military-industrial complex as represented by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, involves not only a former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and a former secretary of defense, Frank C. Carlucci, but even a former president, George Bush, and through him, our current president, George W. Bush. This is now our government.

PHILIP WALKER
Santa Barbara, Calif., March 5, 2001

Quote:

Bin Laden Family Is Tied To U.S. Group
By Wall Street Journal staff reporters Daniel Golden and James Bandler in Boston, and Marcus Walker in Hamburg, Germany. Wall Street Journal

Sep 27, 2001

If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden's family.

Among its far-flung business interests, the well-heeled Saudi Arabian clan -- which says it is estranged from Osama -- is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies.

Through this investment and its ties to Saudi royalty, the bin Laden family has become acquainted with some of the biggest names in the Republican Party. In recent years, former President Bush, ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci have made the pilgrimage to the bin Laden family's headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund, while Mr. Baker is its senior counselor. Mr. Carlucci is the group's chairman...

...But the Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued subpoenas to banks used by the bin Laden family seeking records of family dealings, a person familiar with the matter said. This person said the subpoenas weren't an indication the FBI had found any suspicious behavior by the family. A family spokesman said he had no knowledge of the subpoenas but that the family welcomes them and has nothing to hide.......

...."If there were ever any company closely connected to the U.S. and its presence in Saudi Arabia, it's the Saudi Binladin Group," says Charles Freeman, president of the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington nonprofit concern that receives tens of thousands of dollars a year from the bin Laden family. "They're the establishment that Osama's trying to overthrow."

Mr. Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, says he has spoken to two of Osama's brothers since hijacked airplanes rammed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11. They told him, he says, that the FBI has been "remarkably sensitive, tactful and protective" of the family during the current crisis, recognizing its longstanding friendship with the U.S.

A Carlyle executive said the bin Laden family committed $2 million through a London investment arm in 1995 in Carlyle Partners II Fund, which raised $1.3 billion overall. The fund has purchased several aerospace companies among 29 deals. So far, the family has received $1.3 million back in completed investments and should ultimately realize a 40% annualized rate of return, the Carlyle executive said.

But a foreign financier with ties to the bin Laden family says the family's overall investment with Carlyle is considerably larger. He called the $2 million merely an initial contribution. "It's like plowing a field," this person said. "You seed it once. You plow it, and then you reseed it again."

The Carlyle executive added that he would think twice before accepting any future investments by the bin Ladens. "The situation's changed now," he said. "I don't want to spend my life talking to reporters."

A U.S. inquiry into bin Laden family business dealings could brush against some big names associated with the U.S. government. Former President Bush said through his chief of staff, Jean Becker, that he recalled only one meeting with the bin Laden family, which took place in November 1998. Ms. Becker confirmed that there was a second meeting in January 2000, after being read the ex-president's subsequent thank-you note. "President Bush does not have a relationship with the bin Laden family," says Ms. Becker. "He's met them twice."

Mr. Baker visited the bin Laden family in both 1998 and 1999, according to people close to the family. In the second trip, he traveled on a family plane. Mr. Baker declined comment, as did Mr. Carlucci, a past chairman of Nortel Networks Corp., which has partnered with Saudi Binladin Group on telecommunications ventures.

Former President Carter met with 10 of Osama's brothers early in 2000 on a fund-raising trip for the Carter Center in Atlanta. According to John Hardman, executive director of the center, the brothers told Mr. Carter that Osama was completely removed from the family. After Mr. Carter and his wife followed up with breakfast with Bakr bin Laden in New York in September 2000, the bin Laden family gave $200,000 to the center. "We don't have any reason to think there's a connection" between Osama and the rest of the family, Mr. Hardman says.

During the past several years, the family's close ties to the Saudi royal family prompted executives and staff from closely held New York publisher Forbes Inc. to make two trips to the family headquarters, according to Forbes Chairman Caspar Weinberger, a former U.S. secretary of defense in the Reagan administration. "We would call on them to get their view of the country and what would be of interest to investors."

Mr. Weinberger said no trips to Saudi Arabia were planned. "If we went," he said, "we may or may not call upon them. I don't think the sins of the son should be visited on the father or the brother and the cousins and the aunts."

There is no indication President George W. Bush has met any of the bin Ladens, but he was indirectly linked to one of them two decades ago. His longtime friend James W. Bath, who met Mr. Bush when they were both pilots in the Air National Guard, acted as a Texas business representative for Osama's older brother, Salem bin Laden, from 1976 to 1988, when Salem died in a plane crash. Mr. Bath brought real-estate acquisitions and other deals to Salem bin Laden, an ebullient man who headed the family construction business. Mr. Bath generally received a 5% interest as his fee, and was sometimes listed as a trustee in related corporate documents. Mr. Bath acknowledged that during the same period he invested $50,000 in two funds controlled by Mr. Bush but said that stake was unrelated to his dealings with Mr. bin Laden.

Among the properties that Salem bin Laden bought on Mr. Bath's recommendation was the Houston Gulf Airport, a lightly used airfield in League City, Texas, 25 miles east of Houston. But Mr. bin Laden's hope that it would develop a major overflow airport for Houston never materialized, in part due to concern over wetlands. Ever since his death, his estate has sought to sell the airfield -- without success. Today, it is still on the market.

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n13963936/pg_8
Family ties; The Bin Ladens
Sunday Herald, The, Oct 7, 2001 by Home Affairs Editor Neil MacKay
<< Page 1 Continued from page 7.

...... The board of directors included members of the Shakarshi family, linked to a money-laundering scandal and drug-trafficking in Zurich. A member of the Shakarshi family was also a director of the SICO office in London. There have been allegations that the Zurich company was a CIA front used to finance Afghan resistance - in which bin Laden was a prime mover - during the Soviet occupation of the country. Yeslam bin Laden continues to maintain relations with the Shakarshis.

The bin Laden family - and Yeslam in particular - have long- standing links to Al Bilad, a London-Geneva company used as part of the negotiations over the Anglo-Saudi Al Yamama arms-for-oil agreement, which was worth (pounds) 21.5 billion. Present at the negotiations was the now disgraced former Tory minister Jonathan Aitken, sent by John Major to represent the UK. Major claims he has no connection to the bin Laden family, despite his links to them through his job as European chairman of the Carlyle Group. Mark Thatcher was also involved in the Al Yamama deal.

Major is not the only significant world leader to be dragged into this mess. The Carlyle Group also counts former US President George Bush senior among its team. The former president even met the bin Laden family in Jidda in November 1998.

Current President George W Bush is also tangentially linked to Osama. Bush's lifelong friend James Bath acted as a representative in Texas for Osama's older brother, Salem, between 1976 and 1988. Bath bought real estate for the family, including Houston Gulf Airport.

Other companies and organisations connected to the Binladin Group family business include General Electric - the most valuable US company - and Citigroup, the biggest US bank, as well as Motorola, Quaker, Nortel, Unilever, Cadbury Schweppes and the investment bank ABN Amro.....

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0218,gray,34384,6.html
The Carlyle Connection
How the Pentagon Learned to Love the Weapon No One Wanted
by Geoffrey Gray
May 1 - 7, 2002

by Rob Nelson
Frank Carlucci never trained much as a salesman. The former CIA spook turned Reagan defense secretary has been working as chairman for the Carlyle Group, the nation's 11th largest military contractor, and for the last five years, he's been championing the the production of 482 Crusader armored vehicles, over $11.2 billion dollars' worth of self-propelled Howitzer firepower.

He might as well have been going door-to-door with vacuum cleaners. Nobody seemed to want the damn things. They were bulky, outdated, expensive. "It looks like it's too heavy; it's not lethal enough," Bush said during a 2000 campaign debate. "There's going to be a lot of programs that aren't going to fit into the strategic plan for a long-term change of our military."

What a difference a war can make.

Late this March, as part of the post-9-11 military buildup, Donald Rumsfeld gave United Defense, Carlyle's subsidiary, the full monty: over $470 million to continue development on the problem-riddled Crusaders, puzzling some military analysts.

.. "Influence is tough to measure, but it's certainly had a friend somewhere."..

Make that a very close friend. Two internal Defense Department documents—letters between Carlyle and Rumsfeld—recently made available to the Voice show the intimate relationship between the Bush administration and the Carlyle Group.

"Dear Don," reads the first note, dated February 15, 2001..

Quote:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002009.php

09.25.03 -- 10:58PM
By Josh Marshall

...Let me introduce you to New Bridge Strategies, LLC. New Bridge is 'Helping to Rebuild a New Iraq' as their liner note says.

Here's the company's new blurb from their <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030810105715/http://newbridgestrategies.com/index.asp">website ...</a>

New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration. The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C. and on the ground in Iraq.

A 'unique company'? You could say that. Who's the Chairman and Director of New Bridge? That would be Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's longtime right-hand-man and until about six months ago his head of FEMA. Before that of course he was the president's chief of staff when he was governor of Texas and campaign manager for Bush-Cheney 2000.

Allbaugh was part of the president's so-called <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/teambush072399.htm">'Iron Triangle'</a> -- the other two being Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. And now Allbaugh's running an outfit that helps your company get the sweetest contracts in Iraq? That sound right to you? Think he'll have any special pull?....

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9433
US: Neil Bush's Business Dealings
by Thomas Catan and Stephen Fidler, Financial Times
December 12th, 2003

....Today, Neil Bush's business partners have a new venture, in keeping with the times. <h3>New Bridge Strategies was set up this year to help companies secure contracts in Iraq following the war</h3>. Mr Howland is chairman and chief executive of the company, while <h3>Mr Daniel</h3> is a member of the advisory board.

The company briefly hit the headlines this autumn because of the impressive roster of Republican heavyweights on its board, most of whom are linked to one or other of the Bush administrations or to the family itself. The company's website has not been shy about advertising its contacts in both the Middle East and Washington.

"The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington DC., and on the ground in Iraq," it said. That phrasing has since been changed.

The list of directors and advisory board members is indeed impressive. Joe Allbaugh, the chairman of the company, was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) until March 2003 and before that, chief of staff for George W. Bush while he was Texas governor. As national manager for the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000, he was one side of the "Iron Triangle" of aides credited with propelling him into the presidency.

Ed Rogers, the company's vice-chairman and director, was a top aide to George H. W. Bush while he was in the White House. Lanny Griffith, another director, also worked in Mr Bush senior's government and on his election campaigns. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who was elected last month as governor of Mississippi, was on the board of Milestone Merchant Partners, a Washington-based private equity fund affiliated with New Bridge, according to the New Bridge website.

A spokesman for Mr Barbour, who is also close to the Bush family, said he resigned from that position in February.

All three are partners at Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, a Republican lobbying firm in Washington, DC. The firm shares an office with New Bridge at 1275 Pennsylvannia Avenue, on the 10th floor.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
The Relatively Charmed Life Of Neil Bush
Despite Silverado and Voodoo, Fortune Still Smiles on the President's Brother

By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 28, 2003; Page D01

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush...

... Meanwhile, back home in Texas, Bush serves as co-chairman of a company called Crest Investment. Crest, he revealed in the deposition, pays him $60,000 a year to provide "miscellaneous consulting services."

"Such as?" Brown asked.

"Such as answering phone calls when <h3>Jamal Daniel</h3>, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Bush replied.

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush, who seems to be living the lifestyle immortalized in those famous Dire Straits lyrics: "Money for nothin' and chicks for free." ......

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print...503/S00019.htm
Neil Bush & Crest - Another Profiteering Scheme

By Evelyn Pringle

Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for Independent Media TV and an investigative journalist focused on exposing government corruption.

----

Neil Bush, has a $60,000-a-year employment contract with a top adviser to a Washington-based consulting firm set up to help companies secure contracts in Iraq, according to the Nov 11, 2004 Financial Times.

Neil disclosed this employment during a divorce deposition on March 3, 2003. He testified that he was co-chairman of the Houston-based, Crest Investment Corporation, which invests in energy and other ventures, and said he received $15,000 every three months for a average 3 or 4 hours of work a week doing "miscellaneous consulting services." "Such as?" his ex-wife's Attorney asked, "Such as answering phone calls when Jamal Daniel, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Neil answered.

<h3>Crest's co-chairman, Daniel, sits on the advisory board of New Bridge Strategies, a firm set up in March 2003, just in time to cash in on the Iraq reconstruction contracts, by a group of businessmen with close ties to the Bush family, </h3> and both Bush administrations. The firm's chairman is Joe Allbaugh, who was W's campaign director in the 2000, and who was appointed Director of FEMA once Bush took office.

In addition to paying him for "consulting" work, Crest has provided funding for Neil's educational software company Ignite! In fact, Daniel sometimes introduces himself as a founding backer of the company, and has persuaded the families of prominent leaders in the Middle East to invest in Ignite, according to the Dec 11, 2003 Financial Times.

Overall, Crest goes to great lengths to show Neil how much it values his membership on the team. For instance, when Neil got remarried in 2004, Daniel held a wedding reception at his home, and Crest arranged a 5-year rent-free cottage for Neil and his new bride in Kennebunkport, Maine, so they could spend time near Mom & Pop Bush whenever they wanted to.

Another Jackpot - Thanks To Brother W

As usual, during his deposition, Neil forgot to mention a few facts about his earnings potential with Crest. First of all, he didn't mention that he attached his signature to letters soliciting business for New Bridge in obtaining contracts in Iraq, and two, that he attached his name as a reference for an extremely lucrative proposal submitted by Crest to obtain a lease on a parcel of property located on the island of Quintana, Texas, that will result in payments of at least $2 million a year to Crest.

When W took office in 2001, he vowed to make it easier for companies to build coastline facilities to store liquefied natural gas (LNG), a cooled and condensed form of natural gas, shipped in from countries around the world.

That promise sent US companies scrambling to secure coastline property on which to build the LNG processing facilities. One company looking to enter the market was Crest. Although the firm had no experience whatsoever in LNG processing, it had a very influential asset, a co-chairman by the name of

Neil Bush. click to show

Quote:

Los Angeles Times
Sep 17, 2003.

THE NATION; Payments to Cheney Questioned; Deferred compensation to vice president from his former employer, Halliburton Co., stirs complaints from Senate Democrats.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton Co., has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company since taking office while asserting he has no financial interest in the company, Senate Democrats said Tuesday.

The Democrats demanded to know why Cheney claimed to have cut ties with the oil services company, involved in a large no-bid contract for oil reconstruction work in Iraq, when he was still receiving large deferred salary payments.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said the revelations reinforced the need for hearings about the no-bid contracts Halliburton received from the Bush administration.

"The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton," Daschle said in a statement.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" program on Sunday, Cheney, who was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 to 2000, said he had severed all ties with the Houston-based company.

"I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years," he said.

Cathie Martin, a Cheney spokeswoman, confirmed that the vice president has been receiving the deferred compensation payments from Halliburton, but she disputed that his statements on "Meet the Press" had been misleading.

Cheney had already earned the salary that was now being paid, Martin said, adding that once he became a nominee for vice president, he purchased an insurance policy to guarantee that the deferred salary would be paid to him whether or not Halliburton survived as a company.

"So he has no financial interest in the company," she said.

But Lautenberg said that Cheney's financial disclosure filings with the Office of Government Ethics listed $205,298 in deferred salary payments made to him by Halliburton in 2001, and another $162,393 in 2002. The filings indicated that he was scheduled to receive more payments in 2003, 2004 and 2005.

"In 2001 and 2002, Vice President Cheney was paid almost as much in salary from Halliburton as he made as vice president," Lautenberg said.

The U.S. vice president's salary is $198,600 a year.

The financial disclosure forms also said Cheney continued to hold 433,333 unexercised Halliburton stock options, with exercise prices below the company's current stock market price.

Cheney's spokeswoman said he had placed these options in a charitable trust, and no longer had control over them.

On "Meet the Press," Cheney also said he had no involvement in the awarding of government contracts to Halliburton.

"As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said.

In March, Halliburton was granted, without competition, a contract by the Army Corps of Engineers to repair and restore Iraq's oil fields. The corps says the cost of this contract to taxpayers is about $1 billion.

Under a second military support contract, Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root unit has racked up over $1 billion in expenses in Iraq, according to the U.S. Army Field Support Command.

*******
E-Mail Links Cheney's Office, Contract Officials Say Only Involvement in Halliburton Deal Was Announcing It. By Robert O'Harrow Jr. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun1.html

<b>Halliburton Stock Chart....the Invasion of Iraq Began in March, 2003:</b>
<center><img src="http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal"></center>

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...325971,00.html

Bush special envoy embroiled in controversy over Iraq debt

Consortium plans to cash in as Baker asks countries to end £200bn burden

Read the documents

Naomi Klein
Wednesday October 13, 2004
The Guardian

President Bush's special envoy, James Baker, who has been trying to persuade the world to forgive Iraq's crushing debts, is simultaneously working for a commercial concern that is trying to recover money from Iraq, according to confidential documents.

Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to collect $27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest creditors, by using high-level political influence. It claims Mr Baker will not benefit personally, but the consortium could make millions in fees, retainers and commission as a result.....

.....Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and a leading expert on government ethics and regulations, said this meant that Mr Baker was in a "classic conflict of interest".

"Baker is on two sides of this transaction: he is supposed to be representing the interests of the US, but he is also a senior counsellor at Carlyle, and Carlyle wants to get paid to help Kuwait recover its debts from Iraq."

She added: "Carlyle and the other companies are exploiting Baker's current position to try to land a deal with Kuwait that would undermine the interests of the US government.".....

Daddy Bush claimed in 2003 that he had severed his ties with Carlyle, but here is, still shilling for them, just last year:

Quote:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../21/2003298492
Former US president lobbies China over Citigroup bid: report

AFP, SHANGHAI
Tuesday, Mar 21, 2006, Page 10

<b>Former US president George Bush has personally lobbied the Chinese government to back a Citigroup-led consortium's bid</b> to buy into Guangdong Development Bank (廣東發展銀行), state press reported yesterday.

"On my personal behalf, I vigorously ask the Chinese government to support the US companies' efforts to buy into Guangdong Development Bank," Bush said in a letter to China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

"I sincerely believe that the deal would be conducive to the overall development of the Sino-US relationship," the official 21st Century Business Herald quoted the letter as saying.

<b>The consortium led by US banking giant Citigroup has reportedly bid 24.1 billion yuan (US$3 billion) for an 85 percent stake in Guangdong Development Bank.

The Carlyle Group, a US venture capital firm with close links to Washington, is also part of the consortium</b>.

The Citigroup consortium's main rival is a French-led consortium headed by Societe Generale, which has reportedly offered 23.5 billion yuan for more than 80 percent of the troubled southern Chinese bank.

Societe Generale appears to have its own powerful supporters, with its head of international retail banking, Jean-Louis Mattei, saying last month that an unnamed French government-owned agency intended to become a minor shareholder.

Bush's letter was sent to the foreign affairs ministry at the end of January and passed on to the China Banking Regulatory Commission, a government agency with an important say in the deal.

It appeared to back speculation that state-to-state relations, as well as the merits of the individual bidders, could prove important in determining the winner.

Diplomacy and business strongly overlap in China, where the state owns most of the country's assets, including the nation's banks.

Quote:

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/d...rld-nation.htm
Bush uncle benefits from war spending
By WALTER F. ROCHE JR. , Los Angeles Times

Date of Publication: March 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — As President Bush embarks on a new effort to shore up public support for the war in Iraq, an uncle of the chief executive is collecting $2.7 million in cash and stock from the recent sale of a company that profited from the war.
A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shows that William H.T. Bush collected a little less than $1.9 million in cash plus stock valued at more than $800,000 as a result of the sale of Engineered Support Systems Inc. to DRS Technologies of New Jersey.
The $1.7 billion deal closed Jan. 31. Both businesses have extensive military contracts.
The elder Bush was a director of Engineered Support Systems. Recent SEC filings show he was paid cash and DRS stock in exchange for shares and options he obtained as a director.
Missouri-based ESSI experienced record growth prior to its purchase by DRS through expanded U.S. military contracts — many to supply current U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan — and an aggressive buyout strategy targeted at other defense contractors. The military contracts, some awarded on a sole-source basis, include a $77 million pact to refit military vehicles used in Iraq with armor.
Other ESSI products used in the war include radar and detection services, field medical stations and field electrical generator units.
SEC filings show there are two ongoing federal investigations of ESSI — one involving a stop order issued by the federal government on the ESSI contract to supply field generators. The order was issued because of operational problems with the units.
The field-generator contract was a major source of revenue, but SEC files show ESSI did not inform stockholders of the stop order until last June, about seven months after it was issued.
During the interim, several ESSI executives, including Bush's uncle, cashed in stock and stock options worth millions of dollars, SEC filings show.
According to one recent filing, both the SEC and the U.S. attorney in St. Louis are investigating the delayed disclosure and other matters. Unnamed members of the ESSI board and corporate officers have been subpoenaed, according to documents filed with the SEC.
William Bush, 67, SEC filings show, exercised options on 8,348 shares of ESSI stock Jan. 18, 2005, about two months after the stop order was issued. He collected about $450,000 in cash.
Bush, known in the president's family as "Uncle Bucky," joined ESSI's board in 2000, several months before his nephew became president.
The Bush uncle heads a St. Louis investment firm and is a younger brother of former President Bush.
William Bush declined to comment yesterday. However, in an interview last year, he said he played no role in ESSI getting federal contracts.
"I don't make any calls to the 202 (Washington, D.C.) area code," he said.
Patricia Williamson, a spokeswoman for DRS, would not comment on the status of the federal investigations. The company has disclosed that it is cooperating in the investigations, which also involve an inquiry into an ESSI insurance contract.

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...9682-3,00.html
Victims of an Outsourced War
Thursday, Mar. 15, 2007 By BRIAN BENNETT

( <h2>Post #234... Erik Prince = Council for National Policy, aka CNP !:</h2>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2246346 )

.....Blackwater Becomes a Player

Erik Prince, 37, Blackwater's ambitious founder and sole owner, could have taken over his father's billion-dollar auto-parts empire. But he was attracted to the battlefield from a young age. He enrolled in the Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., and although he finished college at a school closer to home, he eventually became a naval officer and was attached to the élite Navy seal Team 8 based in Norfolk, Va. He served in Haiti, Bosnia and the Middle East. In 1995, when his father died, Prince left the Navy and returned to Michigan. He and his sisters sold the company, and Prince took his share and founded Blackwater USA.

Before 9/11, Blackwater mostly trained swat teams and other specialized law-enforcement officers at its 6,000-acre campus on the edge of the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina. With the war on terrorism, however, a new niche business developed. The State Department did not have the internal resources or Marines to protect all of its diplomats and overseas embassies, but Blackwater had access to a deep roster of former special-forces soldiers who, it argued, could do the job. It wasn't long before Prince was offering a broad range of services, from protection by bodyguards to aerial surveillance, for the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. In 2003, Blackwater landed its first truly high-profile contract: guarding Ambassador L. Paul Bremer in Iraq, at the cost of $21 million in 11 months. Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects U.S. officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.

Prince's political connections may well have helped his company win these crucial contracts from the Bush Administration. He was a White House intern under George W. Bush's father. His family have long been G.O.P donors; his sister Betsy Prince DeVos chaired the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000 and from 2003 to 2005. And Blackwater has hired U.S. national-security vets onto its executive staff. Among them: Cofer Black, the onetime head of counterterrorism at the cia, and Joseph Schmitz, a former Pentagon inspector general whose duties included investigating contractual agreements with firms like Blackwater.

The Pentagon didn't plan for the contractors going so heavily into the war theater, says Lawrence Korb, Department of Defense manpower chief under President Ronald Reagan. "When they went into Iraq, the assumption was they had won," he says. "They did know there was going to be continuing fighting. This thing grew far beyond where anybody thought it would."....

.......The highest-paid independent contractors are known as tier-1 personnel. These are the former U.S. special-forces soldiers. On Helvenston's tour in Iraq, he was making about $600 a day. He was on a 60-day rotation and stood to make some $36,000 in two months.

What Went Wrong in Fallujah

When Helvenston was killed, Blackwater was expanding its business in Iraq from being just bodyguards. The company wanted to make a bid to take over security for convoys delivering kitchen supplies to U.S. military bases in Iraq...

.....The Pentagon seems likely to keep creating opportunities for private contractors. The agency's 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, a strategic assessment of the future for the U.S. war machine, envisions their expanded use. The report describes contractors as an integral part of the "total force" and describes ways to further integrate contractors into war-fighting capability. The previous strategic report, published before 9/11, doesn't even contain the word contractors.

Despite the Pentagon's support, U.S. lawmakers are calling for a dramatic reappraisal of how the military uses these men. There is certain to be greater demands for transparency. Since private contractors now are not required to open their books, no one can be certain how many are in Iraq; even the Pentagon doesn't keep track. Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, who has taken a personal interest in Katy Helvenston's story, introduced a bill in the House that would, for the first time, require the creation of databases to monitor the deployment and cost of contractors. Only last fall did the Department of Defense conduct a poll of some contracting companies, which came back with the suspiciously round number of 100,000 contractors operating in Iraq. "An owner of a circus," says Peter Singer, author of Corporate Warriors, "faces more regulation and inspection than a private military company."....

irateplatypus · 07-31-2007, 04:07 AM

host, it's not like the one necessarily entails the other. a person can be against a certain level of compensation yet still object to abuse where it is found.

contracting woes are a byproduct of skimping on defense spending in the last 15 years. not that the budgets haven't been enormous, just that they haven't been equal to the mission the military has been tasked with. many jobs once performed by uniformed personnel are now contracted out. the idea was that we could save money by contracting out those functions instead of having additional military personnel on the books in purely support roles (for whom the gov pays medical/insurance/training costs). well... now that we're in two protracted conflict those costs are ballooning. wide gaps are opening in the system's practicality and sustainability... and to this "troop" contracting out so much of our defense doesn't seem like such a very good idea.

xepherys · 07-31-2007, 06:53 AM

There seem to be a few misconceptions about military pay in the past few posts that should be cleared up.

First of all, servicemen deployed to a combat zone DO in fact get additional pay already. This was stated, but I'm just backing that point here. We get combat pay as well as an increased BAH (basic Allowance for Housing) as well as and end-of-tour travel voucher allowance to reimburse for packages mailed home at the end of deployment (getting stuff home), haircuts, laundry and the like.

However, a flat pay increase is beneficial. While there are some nitwits here that would probably fare no better in the civilian world, there are many who willfully took a significant paycut to deploy for what they feel is right.

At home, I make upwards of 60k per year and not long ago made more than 70k. This, by the way, is not a bragging point, but I feel is needed to fully bring this into light. When I first enlisted I was even making 50k or so. I joined the National Guard after 9/11 because I felt it was my obligation as an American citizen. While things have gone awry with the invasion of Iraq (in my opinion), I still feel that I made the correct decision. 9/11 after all was a terrorist attack on our own sovereign soil, and I doubt many if any TFPers would disagree that homeland security (as in actual security, not political DHS bullshit) is important at this juncture in the world political climate.

I was "voluntold" that I was deploying, pulled from my unit to fill an infantry spot in an infantry unit (I am not an infantryman, but a combat engineer). When I was first given the news, I applied for a hardship discharge due to having a young baby and being the primary breadwinner for the family. Please, before judging on that, note that I had previously, before having another child, volunteered for deployment three times and not been sent. So be it! After my CO told me the discharge was all but assured at the next officers gathering, I spent my second drill with this new unit. After that I emailed my CO asking him to terminate my application. I could not look at myself in the mirror if I had backed out and let these brethren go and possibly fall in my stead.

Here I am, a newly promoted E-4 making far less even with combat pay and tax exclusion than I did at home. Yes, I chose this for myself and my family, and my family universally supported my decision. This does not mean that additional pay would not make my mind more at ease knowing my wife was better able to care for herself and our child.

As for the USAF pay issues, please note that congress budgets money for military spending specifically for the purpose of pay, including bonuses. This does not take away, specifically, from monies put into place for R&D, equipment purchases and repairs. As I stated before, at least on the Army side of the house, much of the funding seems to be going towards useless technologies. Without being able to go into detail, let's just say that one of the most beneficial and expensive technologies we have in the field today could be easily overcome by the jihadists trying to blow us up if they thought a bit harder about it. Overnight, hundreds of millions of dollars could just be flushed down the toilet from our side. It's sad, really.

Willravel · 07-31-2007, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xepherys

..."voluntold"...

ROFL

Yes, I think what's really important is that DoD and the war are getting more funding than any other war in history, and yet the soldiers still aren't compensated fairly. In a perfect world (assuming we invade in a perfect world for no reason), we would have helped Iraqi contractors get on their feet so they could rebuild their own country, rebuild their own economy, and proverbially learn to walk. This would have been at a small fraction of the cost of the real war, and would have meant that there would have been the funds available to make sure that our soldiers are taken care of.

xepherys · 07-31-2007, 08:49 AM

The same goes for Afghanistan Will... we are pouring a metric shit tonne of money into the economy and into rebuilding here, but honestly, I don't think many of them care. And the local contractors we DO pay to do most of the work are lazy and do a terrible job. It's frustrating, and I'm not sure we'd have better luck in Iraq.

Willravel · 07-31-2007, 09:04 AM

Fair enough.

Plan9 · 07-31-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

The same goes for Afghanistan Will... we are pouring a metric shit tonne of money into the economy and into rebuilding here, but honestly, I don't think many of them care. And the local contractors we DO pay to do most of the work are lazy and do a terrible job. It's frustrating, and I'm not sure we'd have better luck in Iraq.

Aaah, first hand experience.

I know it well.

Willravel · 07-31-2007, 09:43 AM

Well obviously the best solution would have been to never invade in the first place.

Now that I think about it, we should have had humvees to Home Depots to pick up the Latin American workers. They work for really low prices and already have training necessary to building and development.

Slims · 07-31-2007, 03:53 PM

Edit: Don't know why I got sucked into this argument to begin with.

07-17-2007, 03:57 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'll just add this to the long, long list of inexcusable things. http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/64513/detail/ Last edited by Willravel; 07-17-2007 at 04:12 PM..

07-17-2007, 08:35 PM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	thanks..but like most WH comments on their budget figures, they exaggerate and cant be supported by the annual budget documents. I will stick with the non-partisan CBO figures. Wasnt it Clinton who began to close the gap with civilian pay that had widened under GHW Bush? Wasnt it also the Democrats in Congress since 2001 who proposed increases in Family Separation Allowances and Imminent Danger Pay (and making the increases permanent) only to face resistance each year by the Republican majority? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-17-2007 at 08:54 PM..

07-30-2007, 09:39 AM	#13 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Hey Mike, As a deployed soldier I have to rebut your comment about the 0.4% being better suited towards equipment and gear. Lately, the DoD and DoA have been pretty lackluster in their performance creating new and updated gear and equipment for soldiers. I wonder how much was spent in the recent ACU change that fielded flame-retardant ACUs to troops overseas? Since each soldier gets one such set of ACUs, I fail to see how it helps except possibly in the case of dumb luck. I mean, I can only wear the same uniform in this heat so many days before I really just need to wash it. Yes, even infantrymen wash their clothes. We upgraded the M1114 HMMWVs to the new FRAG-5 armor kits. While on the surface this seems great, it's actually been a nightmare. The FRAG-5 kit adds several thousand pounds to the base weight of the vehicle taking it, without pax or equipment, far above the chassis' weight limit. In turn, the trucks break down damned near weekly with power steering (and thus brake assist) hoses breaking regularly due to the strain of trying to steer the newly laden vehicles. Being stuck 15km away form any base with a vehicle that has lost power steering (and the loss of pressure in that pump also leaves you, as I mentioned, with no brake assist) is problematic. We have three deadlined vehicles, meaning less people on missions, meaning lower security for those of us on those missions. This has been on-going for the four months we've been in theater so far. What of the new body armor? They plan to start fielding it to ALL soldiers deployed in theater in the next month or so. The protection is the same and it weighs 3 pounds less. To me, that's a terrible waste of tax payer dollars, and money that would be better spent taking care of the families back home. So, this 0.4% is better spent continuing a cycle of developing inferior new gear that is all but useless (and in some cases a hinderance) to the soldiers? I think not. Hey, we have pretty green lasers now to use as a non-lethal means of stopping vehicles. Yay! Oddly, these are usually only deployed against non-threats. People intent on delivering a VBIED don't need to see... they don't target very well to begin with. Another waste, IMHO. Perhaps if they started fielding better gear. Rounds with greater accuracy distance (the M4 is far more capable that the standard ball rounds we use allow for), armor that is lighter (by more than 3 pounds) and/or is more protective. Vehicles with greater armor capacity AND with chassis modifications/replacements that allow for the weight. Those would be useful, but are nowhere in sight. I'd take the 0.4% additional raise, personally. __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage

07-30-2007, 10:32 AM	#15 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Willravel speaks the truth! The vehicles do not have the horse power to properly navigate the terrain here with the FRAG-5 kits installed. Going uphill slows the vehicle down to a literal crawl (we're talking 2-3mph) and many of them don't have the power to move in reverse at all without rocking forward and back. The contracting for the Army is bullshit as well, and a complete waste of money. Even at a higher payrate, using soldiers to take care of things like cooking and cleaning instead of KBR contractors would save a considerable amount of money. Oh, that's right, there's not enough to TROOPS to self-support. Perhaps that is because our Commander-in-Chief has seen fit to spread our numbers too thin globally. Don't get me wrong, I like the KBR guys that work here, and more power to them for finding an amazingly good paying job out here in the 'stan (and Iraq), but it's not really the most efficient means of paying for the war effort. Oh well! Above my paygrade! As an aside, I'd like to note that I'm a driver in my convoy team. I have experience with several vehicles in our unit (well, five to be exact). Three have broken down with considerable problems. Once, due to the FRAG-5 and almost at the expense of all soldiers in my vehicle and another towing us. A FRAG-5 M1114 towing another in the mountains is a dangerous proposition, but the only one offered us in many instances. Twice within less than 100m, and to no fault of myself or the other driver, six soldiers, a civilian and a local terp nearly parished due to the FRAG-5 configuration and it's pitfalls. Thank God for the extra protection, though! __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage Last edited by xepherys; 07-30-2007 at 10:34 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-30-2007, 02:56 PM	#17 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	The military doesn't need a flat pay raise. They are nice, but near as I can tell they are politically motivated...if the other side points out how retarded it is to continually up military pay for no apparent reason then they are guilty of 'not supporting the troops.' There are a lot of incompetents in the military who are working desk jobs, poorly, and would be unable to make the same salary in the civilian world. Why should we give them a raise? There is only so much money to go around, and by putting more money into soldiers pockets, you are reducing what is available to put towards keeping those soldiers alive. I would, however, support increased pays for soldiers who are deployed. Just my two cents, Greg __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

07-17-2007, 07:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So how many wars have there been since Reagen?

07-30-2007, 06:31 PM	#19 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	to echo joshbaumgartner... there are pay boosts for those deployed to combat zones already in place. additionally, there are further pay incentives (flight/sea pay, re-enlistment bonuses, etc.) for those in high-demand or hazardous careers that most other career fields do not enjoy. all those joining the military these days do so with the very real prospect of seeing combat. i think further stratification of pay would both be unfair and a blow to overall morale. just tossing this into the discussion... but few people realize that the Air Force is making dramatic personnel cuts to revamp its fleet. the average age of a USAF aircraft is close to 30 years old. they're literally denying re-enlistments and cutting large swaths of the officer corps to save enough money to invest in new equipment. from the AF's perspective, increasing salary dollars should be a low priority when they're involuntarily separating so many in a time of war. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

07-30-2007, 07:28 PM	#20 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	Military aviation is my 'first love'... studying it led me to broader military studies, which led me to history, which led me to politics... egad... anyway, I digress... The Air Force situation is certainly the most stark example of the weighing of size versus quality. Despite all the changes that have happened, much of the force structure of the AF is a remnant of the Cold War. Certainly the large bodies of AF men and organization wrapped up in strategic warfare isn't something you can rapidly reduce. Additionally, current demands on the force are quite different from the long term threats that we may face down the road, but need to be preparing for now. As for pay though, the main cause of having to reduce personnel is to bring in newer aircraft and systems which are much more advanced than previous ones. This usually requires a smaller force structure to carry the same capability, but the onus is on the personnel to handle the higher end systems. While the fact that you are reducing personnel may seem to indicate less need for high pay and benefits to attract people, in fact I would argue the opposite is possibly true as you need to ensure that the smaller remaining number of people need to be absolutely the best you can get. You don't want to shrink the pool of people to choose from, even if you are accepting a smaller percentage of it, because it is so critical that you maintain ever increasing standards of quality amongst those you do accept. It is also more critical that you retain people you choose to retain during a drawdown in personnel numbers. If your pay and benefits are insufficient, the higher end people will depart as they have brighter prospects elsewhere. If you pay is good on the other hand, you can afford to choose who to shed, and those you want to keep will be eager to remain.

07-31-2007, 04:07 AM	#22 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	host, it's not like the one necessarily entails the other. a person can be against a certain level of compensation yet still object to abuse where it is found. contracting woes are a byproduct of skimping on defense spending in the last 15 years. not that the budgets haven't been enormous, just that they haven't been equal to the mission the military has been tasked with. many jobs once performed by uniformed personnel are now contracted out. the idea was that we could save money by contracting out those functions instead of having additional military personnel on the books in purely support roles (for whom the gov pays medical/insurance/training costs). well... now that we're in two protracted conflict those costs are ballooning. wide gaps are opening in the system's practicality and sustainability... and to this "troop" contracting out so much of our defense doesn't seem like such a very good idea. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

07-31-2007, 06:53 AM	#23 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	There seem to be a few misconceptions about military pay in the past few posts that should be cleared up. First of all, servicemen deployed to a combat zone DO in fact get additional pay already. This was stated, but I'm just backing that point here. We get combat pay as well as an increased BAH (basic Allowance for Housing) as well as and end-of-tour travel voucher allowance to reimburse for packages mailed home at the end of deployment (getting stuff home), haircuts, laundry and the like. However, a flat pay increase is beneficial. While there are some nitwits here that would probably fare no better in the civilian world, there are many who willfully took a significant paycut to deploy for what they feel is right. At home, I make upwards of 60k per year and not long ago made more than 70k. This, by the way, is not a bragging point, but I feel is needed to fully bring this into light. When I first enlisted I was even making 50k or so. I joined the National Guard after 9/11 because I felt it was my obligation as an American citizen. While things have gone awry with the invasion of Iraq (in my opinion), I still feel that I made the correct decision. 9/11 after all was a terrorist attack on our own sovereign soil, and I doubt many if any TFPers would disagree that homeland security (as in actual security, not political DHS bullshit) is important at this juncture in the world political climate. I was "voluntold" that I was deploying, pulled from my unit to fill an infantry spot in an infantry unit (I am not an infantryman, but a combat engineer). When I was first given the news, I applied for a hardship discharge due to having a young baby and being the primary breadwinner for the family. Please, before judging on that, note that I had previously, before having another child, volunteered for deployment three times and not been sent. So be it! After my CO told me the discharge was all but assured at the next officers gathering, I spent my second drill with this new unit. After that I emailed my CO asking him to terminate my application. I could not look at myself in the mirror if I had backed out and let these brethren go and possibly fall in my stead. Here I am, a newly promoted E-4 making far less even with combat pay and tax exclusion than I did at home. Yes, I chose this for myself and my family, and my family universally supported my decision. This does not mean that additional pay would not make my mind more at ease knowing my wife was better able to care for herself and our child. As for the USAF pay issues, please note that congress budgets money for military spending specifically for the purpose of pay, including bonuses. This does not take away, specifically, from monies put into place for R&D, equipment purchases and repairs. As I stated before, at least on the Army side of the house, much of the funding seems to be going towards useless technologies. Without being able to go into detail, let's just say that one of the most beneficial and expensive technologies we have in the field today could be easily overcome by the jihadists trying to blow us up if they thought a bit harder about it. Overnight, hundreds of millions of dollars could just be flushed down the toilet from our side. It's sad, really. __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage

07-31-2007, 08:49 AM	#25 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	The same goes for Afghanistan Will... we are pouring a metric shit tonne of money into the economy and into rebuilding here, but honestly, I don't think many of them care. And the local contractors we DO pay to do most of the work are lazy and do a terrible job. It's frustrating, and I'm not sure we'd have better luck in Iraq. __________________ The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible... -- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato My Homepage

07-31-2007, 09:04 AM	#26 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Fair enough.

07-31-2007, 09:43 AM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well obviously the best solution would have been to never invade in the first place. Now that I think about it, we should have had humvees to Home Depots to pick up the Latin American workers. They work for really low prices and already have training necessary to building and development.

07-31-2007, 03:53 PM	#29 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Edit: Don't know why I got sucked into this argument to begin with. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 10:18 PM..