29-10-2003 22:00									#1
	Republicans Stab Soldiers in the Back . . . Again! Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Congress nixes extra pay for some troops

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By KEN GUGGENHEIM

Oct. 29, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- House-Senate negotiators considering an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan have rejected a Democratic proposal to compensate federal employees on active duty with the National Guard and reserves.

The proposal by Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., would have made up the differences between the workers' regular salaries and their service incomes, as many states and private employers are already doing. He said 23,000 federal employees would be affected.

The Senate had included the provision in its version of the Iraq spending bill, but senators in the conference agreed to eliminate it Tuesday in a 16-13 vote that was mainly along party lines.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Durbin's legislation would create a disparity between the pay of guardsmen and reservists and those of active-duty personnel. He said other congressional committees should consider the proposal before it is approved.

Senate and House leaders hope to finish work Wednesday resolving differences between the versions of the bill approved by the House and Senate.

"I don't think we're too far apart on too many issues," said Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

The biggest difference is a Senate provision to make part of the package in the form of loans. President Bush has threatened to veto the bill if the loans are included in the final package. Some Republican senators who supported the loans acknowledged they had little hope of prevailing.

"I don't have the vote totals on it, but my sense is they probably have located the votes to get the package" without loans, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a participant in the House-Senate conference meeting Tuesday.

Another Republican senator who supported the loans, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said she wasn't optimistic. She said failing to include the loans "would be very unfortunate."

"I think that public support for the package would be boosted by having some provisions for the loans," she said.

The Senate version of the bill included $18.4 billion for reconstruction of public works and for security but would require Iraq to repay about half of that unless other countries forgave 90 percent of the debt Iraq ran up under Saddam Hussein, deposed as president by U.S. troops. The House version includes $18.6 billion, none of which would have to be repaid.

The bulk of both bills, about $66 billion, would pay for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House and Republican congressional leaders strongly oppose loans, saying Iraq already is too deeply indebted and has no government with authority to borrow more money. Another argument has been that loans secured by Iraq's vast oil reserves could support claims of war opponents that the United States went to war to tap into Iraq's oil wealth.

At a news conference Tuesday, Bush said the administration was working hard with lawmakers "to make the case that it's very important for us not to saddle Iraq with a bunch of debt early in the emergence of a market-oriented economy, an economy that had been wrecked by Mr. Saddam Hussein."

The Senate had voted 51-47 to convert part of the rebuilding funds into loans. Although the House did not include loans in its package, it supported the concept in a 277-139 nonbinding vote.

Supporters of loans said their case was strengthened last week when much of the $13 billion in new aid pledged at an international donor's conference was made as loans.

Also Tuesday, negotiators agreed to add $100 million for the search for conventional weapons stockpiles in Iraq. U.S. military commanders have said many of the explosives used in attacks against American forces have come from supplies taken from former Iraqi military bases.

	29-10-2003 22:10									#2
	Tired of ads?

were they suppose to makeup the difference?

	29-10-2003 22:14									#3
	Got spare money?

National Guard and Reserves? Is that your problem?
Or is it the "loans" to Iraq?
I'm seeing 2 things, though I'm probably mistaken; and even if I'm not, I don't think I have a problem with the nixing.

Here's why.
Why just Reservists and National Guard, if that's a point.
If the point is loans to Iraq, I can hear the outcry were they have to done that.


Or do i just not understand?




And the answer is crocodiles.
I knew deep down, you really wanted to know.

	29-10-2003 22:16									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

"The proposal by Sen. **** Durbin, D-Ill., would have made up the differences between the workers' regular salaries and their service incomes, as many states and private employers are already doing. He said 23,000 federal employees would be affected."

Yup, the Republicans love our soldiers so much they're helping their families into poverty.

	29-10-2003 22:23									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't think that amount should be made up. It would create a pay disparity between the reserves and other soldiers.

	29-10-2003 22:24									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Where's the pressure on the private employers and/or States that are not ?
And if it's done for those personnel covered by NOT, do we relieve companies and States who are currently meeting the difference?
Another outcry goes up.

And besides THAT, you're just pissed off about your reservist friends that got fooled.

	29-10-2003 22:25									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You had the answer right in the text

"Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Durbin's legislation would create a disparity between the pay of guardsmen and reservists and those of active-duty personnel."

Since you're not ex military, maybe you cant see the dissension in the ranks it would cause to have different pay scales for the same job.

	29-10-2003 22:25									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

oh, i thought it was about bush saying the "mission accomplished" banner behind him on the uss abe lincoln wasn't his media staff's doing, but rather a bunch of people on the carrier.

	29-10-2003 22:26									#9
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I guess they should have worked for Haliburton.

	29-10-2003 22:27									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And I wouldn't go and make a lot of "loans" to Iraq.
Hell. You sat right here and said it was over oil.
If Iraq is so damned rich with oil, let them give us "loans".

	29-10-2003 22:28									#11
	Suffering from ads?

Yup, it's okay for America's soldiers to be nobly sacrificed, but taxing the rich is an unfair burden.

	29-10-2003 22:35									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm split on this issue...

On one side of the coin 23,000 American SOLDIERS (though reservest and NG) may (or may not) have families at home with financial problems because their work does not compensate for their slaray differences, and that sucks. What kind of job wouldn't do that!? I can see some one who is self employed/buisness owner not getting this, but then they are probably rich already. All others I feel bad for.

On the other side of the coin the Reservists have been getting paid for their 1 weekend a month +1 week a year plus for their regular job, some of them for a while now. If they didn't plan for the possibility that being in Arm Forces may mean going to war than that is just stupid on their part, and should of been counting both salaries as one salary if the knew one would disappear when called to perform a duty they signed up for and have been getting paid for... (not even going to touch on the fact that many Reservists I know are there for the GI bill for their kids).

I don't know.

They are serving their country and are being paid for it. Their families should be effected any more by it. Yet, they felt they could take advantage of the government, when they couln't....

I just don't know.

	29-10-2003 23:36									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Reservists can only be deployed for 270 days on a single , and they know that they can be called to active duty and deployed at any time.

Regulars can be deployed indefinitely, and they (along with reservists) know what the pay scales are. Their families don't take it any easier, and it costs the same to live, whether you're a regular or a reservist. Regulars (especially those with families) just have a generally lower standard of living.

Seeing reservists get preferentially taken care of will just breed a huge amount of resentment among the regulars, who are the backbone of the occupation force, the backbone of all the combat capability throughout the military.

If you're going to increase pay, do it across the board, not preferentially for some reservists who have a particular kind of regular employment.

	30-10-2003 02:24									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

Just to pile on che (), it would be a horrible idea to increase the pay for the reservists and not for the other branches of the military. It should be an across the board pay increase.

Che, any response? Or do you know you've been bested and just turned tail and ran .

	30-10-2003 02:34									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Reservists can only be deployed for 270 days on a single , and they know that they can be called to active duty and deployed at any time. .

er, is there any precedent for large numbers of reservists being called up for more than say, 100 days in a single year any time since Korea? When we still had a draft and something close to complete mobilization? I think the assumption most reserve/NG guys had was that theyd be called up in relatively short spurts for things like civil disasters - and that theyd only be deployed overseas for a short, intense, conventional war. Not that theyd be overseas for 6 months or more at a time. Now it may be true that this was misreading their enlistments, but it doesnt seem unreasonable in terms of history.

It means they are giving up civilian salaries they expected to keep, which is not the case with respect to the regulars.

Now you can go ahead and change things, sure. And appeal to the letter of the enlistments. But from everything ive heard its Army reserve/NG recruitment/retention that is suffering NOT regular recruitment/retention. So Id like to see what the SOLUTION is.

(I also think that the lack of a general attitude of mobilization is a problem - whos paying for this war - not the taxpayers, but the reservists - if were going to ask for sacrifice, there needs to be sacrifice all around)

	30-10-2003 02:36									#17
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Seeing reservists get preferentially taken care of will just breed a huge amount of resentment among the regulars, who are the backbone of the occupation force, the backbone of all the combat capability throughout the military.

Are the regulars pissed about the private employers who make up the difference to reservists?

	30-10-2003 02:40									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand And I wouldn't go and make a lot of "loans" to Iraq. Hell. You sat right here and said it was over oil. If Iraq is so damned rich with oil, let them give us "loans".

Iraqs prewar production was less than 3 million barrels a day. Thats about 1 billion barrels a year. At a profit of $20 a barrel, thats about $20 billion a year. Not enough to fund reconstruction, etc. Now they have sufficient reserves that they could expand production, but THAT will be costly and will take several years.

And they have billions of dollars in debts. Even if a large part of that is forgiven, theyre still prettty deep in a whole.

	30-10-2003 03:49									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by DanS I don't think that amount should be made up. It would create a pay disparity between the reserves and other soldiers.

So?

The reservists are giving up their higher-paying civilian lives to sacrifice for their country. They're missing out on a lot of money they could be making, whereas the Regular Soldiers make what they make (they're soldiers, that's their job, they always get paid the same).

It's simple opportunity cost.

Compensate the reservists for what they're losing.

	30-10-2003 03:50									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I guess they should have worked for Haliburton.

MY dad used to work for them... but that is not the point...

Chegitz... I am sick and tired of your misdirected criticism. The Republican party is very much pro-military.... not the democats.

	30-10-2003 04:24									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Why should Federal workers be guaranteed a subsidy while state and private workers are not?

Sorry Che, but this is again a situation where the people involved went into with both eyes open and again another situation involving voluntary contracts between private parties that the Left wants to somehow redefine as "exploitation."

We're not buying it.