October 4, 2005--Trench Warfare: Troops and Teachers Together
Base pay for a US Army recruit is $1,064 a month. If in a war zone, soldiers get $225 a month in combat pay, or what the Pentagon calls “imminent danger pay.” Multiply both of these numbers by 12 and you get $15,468 a year for someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Average pay for public school teachers, including new teachers as well as the most senior, is about $45,000 a year. There is, however, no imminent danger pay for teachers, though many are in fact in daily imminent danger.
I suspect you might agree that our troops and teachers are performing vital roles. Needless to say, both are grossly underpaid and underappreciated. But they have something else in common. Neither can get reimbursed for expenses they incur to safely or adequately carry out their jobs.
The NY Times reports (see link below) that for more than a year the Pentagon has failed to complete guidelines that would allow soldiers, their families, or charities to be reimbursed for combat equipment they privately bought for use in the field. Combat equipment that one would expect the military to supply—body and vehicle armor, hydration gear (it gets to be 120 degrees in Iraq), global positioning devices, and advanced combat helmets. Not to speak of gloves, extra boots, and flashlights. A Sergeant Bowers said goggles his father bought for him saved his sight when he was shot in the face by a sniper. But under current rules the sergeant’s father cannot get reimbursed for the goggles.
What are we talking about here? We’re talking about a bill that both houses of Congress passed that would allow troops and families to receive up to $1,100 for their out of pocket expenses for this kind of essential equipment. How much would it cost taxpayers if the Pentagon would stop stalling? Let’s say 150,000 soldiers would get the full $1,100. By my calculations, that would total “just” $16.5 million. What are we spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? I lost track. Conservatively, $200 billion and counting.
If you have friends or family who are teachers you know that they are inveterate rummagers--rooting around in search of spent light bulbs and autumn leaves and paper towel rolls and such to bring to class to use in arts and crafts projects or as teaching tools. This is all very charming, creative, and admirable. But less charming is the fact that teachers on average spend at least $500 a year of their own money to supplement supplies that are not available, and for which they too cannot be reimbursed.
How the Defense Department sees this sadly sums up not only how they view the equipment situation but also how one can imagine education administrators view their own circumstances: Officials in the DOD who oppose the reimbursement program claim it would present two problems—it would be “a financial burden” ($16.5 million is not chump change after all) and it would “undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment used in combat.” Tell that to Sergeant Bowers.
Average pay for public school teachers, including new teachers as well as the most senior, is about $45,000 a year. There is, however, no imminent danger pay for teachers, though many are in fact in daily imminent danger.
I suspect you might agree that our troops and teachers are performing vital roles. Needless to say, both are grossly underpaid and underappreciated. But they have something else in common. Neither can get reimbursed for expenses they incur to safely or adequately carry out their jobs.
The NY Times reports (see link below) that for more than a year the Pentagon has failed to complete guidelines that would allow soldiers, their families, or charities to be reimbursed for combat equipment they privately bought for use in the field. Combat equipment that one would expect the military to supply—body and vehicle armor, hydration gear (it gets to be 120 degrees in Iraq), global positioning devices, and advanced combat helmets. Not to speak of gloves, extra boots, and flashlights. A Sergeant Bowers said goggles his father bought for him saved his sight when he was shot in the face by a sniper. But under current rules the sergeant’s father cannot get reimbursed for the goggles.
What are we talking about here? We’re talking about a bill that both houses of Congress passed that would allow troops and families to receive up to $1,100 for their out of pocket expenses for this kind of essential equipment. How much would it cost taxpayers if the Pentagon would stop stalling? Let’s say 150,000 soldiers would get the full $1,100. By my calculations, that would total “just” $16.5 million. What are we spending in Iraq and Afghanistan? I lost track. Conservatively, $200 billion and counting.
If you have friends or family who are teachers you know that they are inveterate rummagers--rooting around in search of spent light bulbs and autumn leaves and paper towel rolls and such to bring to class to use in arts and crafts projects or as teaching tools. This is all very charming, creative, and admirable. But less charming is the fact that teachers on average spend at least $500 a year of their own money to supplement supplies that are not available, and for which they too cannot be reimbursed.
How the Defense Department sees this sadly sums up not only how they view the equipment situation but also how one can imagine education administrators view their own circumstances: Officials in the DOD who oppose the reimbursement program claim it would present two problems—it would be “a financial burden” ($16.5 million is not chump change after all) and it would “undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment used in combat.” Tell that to Sergeant Bowers.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
10:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home