re: "Spending bills threaten Foreign Service pay and hiring"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") outlined the demerits of cutting the salaries of diplomats deployed beyond the beltway (and the borders).

Money quote(s):

"Government Executive has an excellent piece on the spending bills before Congress and what this could mean for the Foreign Service.These bills would cut my pay by 16% while I am overseas, on top of the fact that my pay is already frozen for the next two years at least."

Anecdotally, most FSOs I've spoken with understand the necessity for freezing government worker's pay, particularly in an economic environment where many Americans have lost their jobs or otherwise lost ground economically. Nobody's crazy-happy about it (who would be?), but the political necessity, the optics of it, are apparent enough.

Also, the pay freeze simply means that pay rates stay the same; no across-the-board salary increases of some percents or so. Individuals can still advance by promotion or longevity pay to higher pay grades; it's just that those pay grades remain constant for two years.

On the other hand, decreasing, by 16 percent, the pay of FSO serving abroad (while leaving that of those in Washington intact) doesn't pass the smell test.

"Yes, we get free housing overseas. But we still have our mortgage to pay at home. And renting our place doesn't cover that."

"Free" housing overseas is one of those areas where the Foreign Service is more like unto the military (and naval) services than is the Civil Service.

(Caveat: CAA has been a member of not only the Foreign Service and military service, but was also in the Civil Service for several years.)

(Note: There are actually three foreign services; those of the State Dept., USAID, and the Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA. For CAA purposes, assume "Foreign Service" refers to that of the State Dept.)

Most Civil Service folks (there are exceptions, e.g., DIA, FBI, &tc.) are appointed into a position for which they qualify and stay there. Their "rank" is by position, not by individual. And they can stay in that job until the heat death of the universe without penalty; they get promotions by competing for (and being hired into) jobs at a higher grade.

A consequence of this is that, compared to the foreign and military services, is much less geographical mobility. In each of the cases, this is not a bug, it is a feature. Foreign Service and military members expect to move around during their careers; Civil Service much less so.

So, like for military members, housing (or a housing allowance) is provided for Foreign Service members, but only when stationed or deployed abroad.

Military folks get their housing allowances no matter where they are stationed; this is not a complaint, merely a statement of the reality.

Something like 99 percent of FS jobs are in the D.C. area. There are passport centers, diplomatic security field offices, and some facilities that support State operations located beyond the beltway, but the Department's center-of-gravity in terms of personnel is Washington, D.C. This has been true since long before the Department took up residence in Foggy Bottom.

Granted, the decision to buy (or not) a home is an individual one. The government doesn't make FSOs buy houses. That being said, if in the course of your career you're going to be overseas two-thirds of the time and spend the remaining third of your working life in a single metropolitan area, then you're an idiot (or have another plan involving a place to retire to elsewhere) if you don't invest in owning your own residence there. Otherwise you're just micturating your money away on rent rather than building some equity.

"Because most in the FS are not tandem couples like M and I, going overseas means the loss not just of that 16% but of one spouse's ENTIRE income. Most spouses who work in the states have a limited ability to do so overseas, and even when they do, it is for substantially less pay.

Especially for those with children, this is an nearly impossible loss to bear.

None of us mind sacrificing for the country. We know that this is part of the nature of our service. We willing leave our homes, our stability, our families, for the good of the country."

The days of Leave It To Beaver stay-at-home spouses as the rule stopped being true for middle class couples and families as a consequence of the sexual revolution. No big surprises there. As often as not (there are still lots of single-income families out there) though, university-educated couples tend to be two-income couples.

College-educated persons tend to marry other college-educated persons.

It shouldn't be any surpise that at least 98/99 percent of FSOs have at least a university degree (and that 100 percent of FSO have at least some college).

One of the consequences (for good or bad) of Foreign Service life is the difficulty FS spouses (of either sex) have in finding gainful employment during the course their FSO spouse's career. There's been lots of progress made in this arena in terms of creating opportunities for FS spouses to work, where appropriate, in our overseas posts. Even in D.C. this is a problem, in large part because FSO will generally only serve for two years at a stretch in the U.S. before going back overseas for three (or more) years.

This works out to a huge bite out of an FS couple's lifetime earnings compared with similarly-educated/credentialed persons working in the U.S.

I mention this not so much to complain as to explain why nickel & diming FS families on their primary income becomes so significant; much of the time it will be their only income.

"(W)hen you carve out 16% of our pay, bear in mind that the senior levels of the Foreign Service do not experience this cut. The other agencies serving with us at post do not experience this cut. The military and their civilian employees do not experience this cut. Their base salaries are their DC salaries, not some fake base salary with DC locality pay.

It is only those of us in the mid and lower levels who must take a pay cut to serve you overseas."

Shockingly, when Senior Foreign Service (SFS; the Foreign Service's "flag officers") compensation was "reformed" so that D.C. base pay was incorporated, much of the steam seemed to go out of Department's leadership in terms working to get that accomplished for the lower and middle-ranking FSOs.

Fancy that.

All snarking aside, the issue was (at long last) addressed just a few short years ago and a three-step phase-in was begun to bring overseas compensation in line with D.C. pay so that diplomats would not actually have to take a pay-cut in order to serve overseas.

That's right. Diplomats take a pay-cut (to their base pay) when they leave Washington, D.C., and deploy abroad to serve their country.

As a one-time Business Administration major, this kind of financial disincentive scheme leaves me nearly speechless at its utter counter-intuitive idiocy.

Now, to give the whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth, many overseas assignments bring with them certain other pay allowances, such as cost-of-living allowances, hardship allowances, and danger pay. But it still never made any sense that someone leaving D.C. would have go to a post where hardship and danger pay allowance exceeded 2o percent or more just to break even.

So that's what Digger's talking about.

10/7

re: "Since you enjoy your job so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut .... "

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") explains what's stupid about this amendment.

Money quote(s):

"In case you did not see this -- Rep. Thomas Reed, R-N.Y sponsored an amendment that cut the locality pay for Foreign Service officers serving overseas. Mr. Reed's press release touts the removal of the "automatic 24 percent pay raise for foreign service officers," his third successful amendment apparently. And it passed the House over the weekend.

There is locality pay for all CONUS states. Why Congress is only targeting the 11,500 Foreign Service workforce is not clear. About 70% are not in the Senior Foreign Service and could be affected by this cut when deployed overseas. I mean really, that's about 7,600 federal employees serving overseas in over 260 posts. Mr. Reed's state is home to some 69,000 federal employees (not counting the feds working for CIA, DIA, NSA and the other "A"s who may be assigned in the state of New York). Look - that's 9 times the Foreign Service number. Imagine the savings there?"

The overseas locality increase, which is only about two-thirds implemented (it has been being phased in over a period of years since it's long-overdue approval) is being mis-cast as a payraise. And in the current economy, it's hard (politically) to make the case for payraises for diplomats. We get that.

It's why, along with all other federal employees, our salary scale is frozen. We get that too, and I've heard precious little squacking about that, even in private. We all have family and friends back home who're out-of-work or struggling and we get it.

But "getting it" shouldn't be a two-way street.

"(A)s Ed points out "the House bill as enacted has no hope of Senate passage or earning President Obama's signature, so this proposal -- while interesting and certainly controversial -- may not survive."

May not survive this time, that is not to say it won't happen ever.

All that did not preclude folks from slinging around their ignorance online --

You folks working overseas apparently do not pay the first $80K of your income overseas. Did you know that? Hah! That IRS has been cheating on FS folks again! It collected every tax penny from your salary including self-employed spouse's annual income of less than $700. If you believe everything you hear, that IRS did not have to collect anything from your $56K + $700 income? Really.

Go ahead and believe that crap, and you might end up sharing a jail cell with whatshisname actor and tax evader.

Foreign Service folks are not/not exempt from paying full federal, state, and Medicare/SS tax on salaries just because they live in Burkina Faso or whatever the name of the hellhole they're presently assigned to. They pay their taxes happily and willingly, 'cuz if they don't, they could get written up for atrocious unlawful uncivic unprofessional behavior, then they won't get promoted, then they get kick out, then they're just part of the 9% unemployment stats. The end."

Pushing back against this sort of recurring ignorance is one of the unstated purposes of this web log. Okay, it's a (former) mil blog as well as a diplo blog. And sometimes I try to bridge the cultural gap between the two, as well as the greater one with the larger public.

I don't be-grudge military members their being tax-exempt during combat deployments. We don't get that, even when deployed to the same places, because we have a different compensation system as foreign service officers. As a consular officer who's worked American Citizen Services, more than once I've encountered the expat American abroad who declares "I pay your salary."

Um. Unless you're making a lot more than you're letting on (and thus are liable for federal tax on your imcome above the $80 or $90k mark), no, you don't.

Not that it matters in terms of how helpful we can (or can't) be, but it's one of those phrases that can bring a (suppressed) smile to a consular officer's face when he hears it.

"(D)espite prevailing belief to the contrary, Uncle Sam's employees overseas are not exempt from paying taxes (unless they're civies at Gitmo). The foreign earned income does not include amounts paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof. Congress wrote that up. It's the law of the land."

"You also -- supposedly ride around town in a $50,000 Cadillac with diplomatic license plates on the bumper like -- let me get this right -- "like you are better than the very citizens you are supposed to be serving." Ouch! Such sparkling prejudice. Really, a Cadillac? That must be the low level Qatari diplomat riding around in his regular car in DC streets. Have not seen any Cadillac at US overseas posts, not saying there's none, just haven't see any from the embassy compounds I've been to. Saw lots of armored Chevy where you can't roll down the windows. In case you think its armored for decoration, I can assure you it's not. It is armored from front to back and have bullet resistant glass because driving/riding around in a USG vehicle overseas is like driving around with a target mark on your back. What? Um, sorry, not target, they're called cross-hairs now. And in case you think this is vehicle security gone mad, it's not that either. See, the US ambassador to Lome got carjacked recently. And the ICE agents in Mexico who were recently killed/wounded in Monterrey were also using an armored SUV. If not for armored vehicles, not Cadillacs, mind you --- there would be many, many more names up on that memorial plaque on the wall."

Note to residents of and visitors to Washington, D.C., New York City, and other cities which host diplomatic and consular missions from other countries within the United States: the diplomatic and consular license plates you may notice on cars parked illegally or cutting you off in traffic? Not being driven by American diplomats.

Hard to imagine, but we don't get diplomatic plates (or immunity) when we're stationed at home.

Those annoying diplomatic luxury cars you may encounter? Driven by foreign diplomats.

"We have unarmed diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan where they hate/hate the USA terribly and now think all diplomats are spies. And you don't ever get a tax break for service in those posts."

It would be nice, don't get me wrong. But we don't expect that it will ever happen. And that's okay. Just don't erroneously assume and accuse us of getting what we don't receive and aren't entitled to, at least not as a pretext for denying that which we are.

"I just don't think the FS has the numbers. Even if the entire Foreign Service, and spouses and kids write to their congressfolks and senators, that may not really matter when push comes to shove. The diplomatic service needs to tell its story better. You need more than employees and family members to step up and say -- it's unfair to single out a small group of people for a pay cut."

This is a common lament. The Department of State and the U.S. Foreign Service (and its members) have no domestic political constituency of any consequence. Which is why I'm never shy, when I have a happy American customer who's thanking me profusely, about suggesting they drop their congressional representative a short note or email, if they really are that happy about the service and help they've received, and share their impressions.

They don't have to commend anyone by name, it's not about individual credit, but there are always plenty of congressional inquiries being initiated about complaints, fair is fair.

re: "In Case You Needed Proof of Congress's Disdain for Federal Employees...."

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") highlights rudeness and incivility in high places.

Money quote(s):

"Coburn's reaction to overseas comparability pay is particularly infuriating..."it's going away." How someone who is supposed to represent Americans and who certainly benefits from the Foreign Service, particularly when he travels overseas, can be so glib about handing us a 24% pay cut is beyond comprehension.

I certainly hope that the next time he travels overseas, he travels economy class, because in his words, "we just don't have the money." And I hope he gets very little assistance from post, because he doesn't seem terribly interested in us."

Well, that's not too likely to happen.

re: "Telling Our Stories "

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") notes a recent Washington Post article you should read.

Money quote(s):

"This piece is exactly the kind of story the State Department and AFSA need to be getting out.

Our biggest problem, the reason we keep being the whipping boy for the budget cutters, is that we are no ones constituent. We are small and not well understood, so that makes us an easy target.

These kinds of stories help the American public get a better idea of the challenges we face."

We're small, elite (and perceived as elitist, which is even worse), deployed in dribs and drabs all over the world so we're out-of-sight-and-out-of-mind, not concentrated in any one congressional district, and we don't have big bases all around the country where we're stationed when we're not abroad.

When we're "home," 99% of the time that means we're in D.C., where we (deliberately) blend in with all the other government employees, riding the Metro to work and clogging the line at Starbucks.

"We have an awesome, exciting job that we are priviledged to get to do. We also have a frightening, challenging job that demands great personal sacrifice.

America needs to know."

It is an awesome job, often exciting and frequently meaningful.

I wouldn't trade it, and the chances its given me to "make a difference" for all the world, but.... it's still not fair to single us out for a 24% pay cut when we have the affrontery to actually deploy overseas to do our jobs.

Who else in government and military service does that?

re: "Overseas Pay"

Smallbits at, er, Small bits ("the bits and pieces that I am okay sharing with the world at large") weighs in from one of the border posts.

Money quote(s):

"Much is being said in FS circles about overseas pay for Foreign Service officers. I have said my piece in several places but I guess I should repeat it here. We are happy to take the 16% overseas pay cut if it is part of true reform and true change. We love our country and we want it to be solvent for our 4 kids. If that means my husband takes a pay cut, he takes a pay cut. And we will make the adjustments necessary. However, in exchange, I want real solutions."

In terms of the overall budget, it's chump change. Still, every little bit helps. And if every other federal employee had their pay reduced by a quarter, that'd amount to quite a bit of change.

Still, it'd also mean I go bankrupt and/or lose my house.

"I want my reps to tackle to big problems facing us: social security, medicare, etc. No window dressing. If they are looking at cutting overseas FSO pay, fine. Cut away. However, what other excesses are they looking at cutting? Are they cutting their own pay? Are they going after the budget items that cost the most? Are they going to cut things Defense asks for even if it affects their own voters?"

This looks suspiciously like one of those "rhetorical questions" that implies its own answer. But that's just my suspicious nature talking; Small bits seems more trusting and nice than I am.

"FSOs are middle class on the pay scale but we do get benefits overseas. Housing is paid, some utilities are paid, school allowances are paid for the kids. (However, kids in the US have free school too. My husband and I pay property taxes and state income taxes that support schools our kids will never use. Also, overseas schools vary widely in quality). In some cases at larger posts, there is a health unit at post. Sometimes not. A lot just depends on where you are. It might be a garden post with great travel opportunities. Or it might be pretty rough like here. You go where you are needed and do the job regardless of where it is. I think FSOs are compensated enough to live fine if we are frugal. There are lots of unseen costs though. For example, we have always driven older cars and driven them for a long time. Our next post will not allow either of our cars and so we have to buy a new one that is less than 3 years old from the manufacture date not the model year. Not something we usually do and completely out of our control. We can make the choice to go carless of course and we might do that."

I love how she drills this down to the personal level to make it less abstract and more like something a reader can relate to.

Personally, my own experience with "garden posts" and "pretty rough" has been that the "garden posts" are way too expensive for a junior officer to take much advantage of, and the "pretty rough" ones can be divided into those where the gunfire is directed at you and those where it's more-0r-less random and/or unaimed (i.e., "happy fire" or "celebratory gunfire").

"The next thing I want is for my reps to realize that the FS is not a walk in the park. As I said, some posts are pretty nice. A lot of posts aren't though. It comes across as insulting to say that FSOs always have these posh wonderful lives. Yeah, it is a really cool life and I am so glad we are here. It comes at a cost sometimes though. Numerous FS bloggers have discussed this. It is not a shock and awe measure. It is simply filling the need to educate Americans, including Congress, about what the FS is and what things happen. For every FSO touring Paris, there is another FSO riding things out in Iraq, in Libya, or on the border. Again, I am so happy that my husband is here doing what he is doing but it isn't free.

The last thing I want from my reps? I want CODELs to mean something. I think any time a politician goes to a place overseas, they should submit a report of how much it really cost (including to State and to the military) and what they accomplished. As a voter and a tax payer, I think this should be public record. I want to know what my reps are accomplishing with these trips. I think they can be very valuable. I don't think anyone can understand the border without spending some time here, on the Mexican side too. I don't think anyone can grasp what a huge job "securing our borders" is without driving along the river here and driving through the wide open ranch land. I would love to have my state reps come here and to give them a personal tour of life around here. My state is heavily affected by immigration and I would love for my reps to see things more first hand. So I think good CODELs are valuable. But they need to be well planned and accounted for. I think there are good Senators and House Representatives who are trying to use CODELs to understand the world better so that they can make better laws."

Codels. A lot of "fact finding" goes on around the world. I've seen congressmen visiting wounded troops whip out their cell phone so a bed-bound soldier or airman could call their family.

(It should be mentioned that the cell phone in question actually belonged to the State Dept. and was provided to the codel by the FSO control officer for that visit. So the taxpayer got the bill. But I still cant' fault their impulse.)

I've also seen codels stumble off their VIP air force jet dead drunk and wanting to have the base rental car opened up in the middle of the night.

What's funny is that both events I mentioned involved the exact same congressmen on the exact same trip.

Conclusion: Our congressmen are human beings, just like regular folks, only with a bit more pull in getting what they want when they want it.

(And no, we talked them out of renting any cars.)

re: "My Letter to Congress Regarding Overseas Comparability Pay"

Four Globetrotters ("The (most likely) incoherent ramblings of a sleep-deprived single mother living overseas with her trio of kiddos.") has written to her congressional representative.

Money quote(s):

"I used a template provided by AFSA here, via Life After Jerusalem and modified it to make it more personal. I urge all of you to take the time and write in. It's long, I know, but I hope that some staffer will take the time to read it. This isn't ill-will on the part of our leaders in Congress. I honestly believe there's no desire to "stick it to the Foreign Service." This is ignorance. This is a product of our own modesty, as Donna at E-Mails From The Embassy stated so eloquently. DOD and other government agencies don't hesitate to toot their own horns and share their life stories. It's time we do the same."

It's a truism within the U.S. Foreign Service that the Department of State is perhaps the only federal department in the executive branch without a domestic constituency. That is, aside from the domestic passport production centers, there aren't any huge contracts being let which employ registered voters back in any congressmen's home districts. Since there are only about 11,000 of us, FS generalists and specialists together, and our home towns (and voter registrations) are scattered across all 50 states, we don't pack much of an electoral punch.

At the working level, at my last post whenever I had a happy and appreciative American citizen bubbling over at the prompt, courteous, and thorough assistance or service he or she had received from our Consular Section, I'd give them a little speech.

I'd tell them that when people didn't like how they were treated or when they didn't get what they wanted (generally because what they wanted was, shall we say, extra-legal; remind me to tell you about my death-threats sometime), they'd often threaten to write their congressman. To which I'd always say it's the right and privilege of every American to write or call their congressional representative and encourage them to do so.

So when I got a happy or satisfied "customer," I'd politely suggest that if they were serious and really liked how they were treated, to think about maybe telling their congressman, because otherwise their congressman won't ever know about his constituents' experience with us and whether their tax dollars were being spent productively out in the far beyond of Country X.

And I'd make sure they had the correct spelling of whomever's name who'd helped them.

"I understand why we will not be receiving cost of living adjustments over the next two fiscal years. However, I am concerned by current legislative proposals that call for reversing a carefully considered bi-partisan plan to modernize the pay system of the Foreign Service that is in the process of being implemented. I have to assume that it is because our mission and our sacrifices are not sufficiently known to Americans, and even to our own representatives in Congress."

"I spent my first Christmas in the Foreign Service at the morgue identifying the body of an American citizen who had been killed in a home invasion. I spent another Christmas in the putrid morgues of a small sub-Saharan African country searching frantically for the wife and two children (ages 4 and 7) of an American citizen who had been aboard an aircraft that crashed upon take off. I loaded my children onto a plane bound for Sierra Leone --where my parents were stationed -- when the situation in Togo, my second post, devolved rapidly after the death of President Eyadema. We may actually be the only people ever to evacuate family to Sierra Leone.

When a member of Congress and her staff were abandoned during this unrest at a downtown hotel by their Government of Togo hosts, I was the only American besides my then-husband, the Regional Security Officer, who could drive an armored vehicle. The Ambassador dispatched me, and I drove through barricades and crowds to reach her and her staff and transport them safely to the Embassy. My husband couldn't go because he was off responding to a distress call from one of our Embassy families. Their house was being invaded.

The mother and two children were holed up in the safehaven while a frenzied group of thugs destroyed their home and personal belongings and worked to break into the safehaven where they were hiding. All of us at the Embassy listened as the frantic calls for help came in over the radio, the children crying in the background. My colleague wept as he heard his wife and children, helpless. My husband knew he had to try and help, even though it would come at great personal danger. He arrived at the house, unarmed due to a policy that did not permit him to carry his service weapon, and engaged at least two dozen thugs. Relying on his training as a former marine, he quickly disarmed one person and used that weapon to disperse the remaining looters. There is no doubt in my mind that had it not been for his intervention, the wife would have been raped or worse, and there is no telling what would have happened to the two children. I waited, bordering on hysteria, by the radio to hear that my husband was okay and that our three children would not be left without a father. He rightfully received the State Department's Heroism Award for his actions on that day.

I, like countless of my colleagues, have defended the United States and had close encounters with those who wanted to do us harm. I remember vividly the day I, a second-tour junior officer, gazed across the bullet proof consular window at a young Nigerian man who simply wanted to go the United States to "visit". I determined he did not meet the standards to qualify for a visa to the United States, and denied him. His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a.k.a the underwear bomber." (Typeface bolded by CAA.)

Every FSO has stories like this. Every single one. Four Globetrotter's are a little scarier than some because of her African postings as well as her evacuation from Tunisia, but they're pretty much of a piece with the rest of ours.

As I mentioned recently, this past month marked the year anniversary of a plane crash case I worked as a consular officer, where several American citizens were fatalities. One thing I didn't mention was that the pilot, also killed, was the father of a personal friend of mine. That was not the first time I visited that particular Third World morgue nor was it the last. As unfailingly kind and courteous as the morgue staff always was, I was never happy to be there. But I'd go again in a heartbeat if that's where my duty took me, and expect that it will, at some other post.

"At the height of the revolution, the streets were packed with rioters, soldiers and tanks. Every night for a week my children cowered in a corner listening to the shooting going on around us. There is no 911 over here. If people had chosen to attack our home we -- a single mom with three children -- would have been helpless. Our own armored security vehicles were unable to respond to distress calls. When I was finally able to drive to the Embassy for our evacuation flight, I was stopped at a military check point and had a rifle pointed at my head by an overly eager young soldier.

The Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 was adopted as a way to reduce the government-wide disparity between the public and private sectors and is a basic component of salary for all civilian Federal employees, based on annual survey data collected by the Department of Labor. As a result of this law, every federal government employee working in the United States received “locality pay” as part of their salary. Until 2009, the only United States government civilian employees who did not receive this part of their salary were entry-level and mid-level Foreign Service personnel serving their country overseas. All others, including senior level State Department officers, and other agencies represented overseas, such as CIA officers under State Department cover, DOJ and DHS, have locality pay factored into their base salary.

Locality pay for Foreign Service personnel and other federal employees serving in Washington, D.C. is now approximately 25%. Under the law prior to 2009, Foreign Service personnel serving abroad sacrificed this part of their salaries and took large pay cuts to their base salaries. Those posted in Washington earned more money than colleagues posted in Pakistan, Yemen, and Beirut to name a few. As a result, because retirement packages are based upon base pay (including “locality pay”), Foreign Service officers representing their country abroad received smaller retirement packages than their colleagues who stayed in Washington. This was not sustainable and in 2009 a bi-partisan solution was found to correct this policy problem. Closing the pay gap is not a pay raise -- it is a correction of a 17- year-old unintended inequity in the worldwide Foreign Service pay schedule—an inequity that grew every year."

The business model that makes it financially ruinous for a diplomat to take overseas assignments pretty much screams out for correction, don't you think?

"Our oath is pretty similar to another oath I know you are familiar with:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Assignments overseas are increasingly challenging, difficult and in many instances, dangerous. There has been strong bipartisan recognition that it is time to invest in diplomacy and development. Penalizing Foreign Service employees -- specifically those of us at the junior and mid-level -- whose mission is to serve overseas to advance and protect our national interests by cutting our base pay undervalues the importance of our work, widens the gap between those of us serving in the United States and those of us facing hardships and sacrifices overseas and creates real disincentives to serving on the front lines of American diplomacy and development."

No whining, but to put it another way, why would you want to pay "inside-the-beltway" bureaucrats more than your diplomats taking tough posting abroad? Do you perhaps sense there's an insufficiency of inside-the-beltway bureaucrats in Washington?

(Which is not exactly how I see the political winds blowing this year.)

re: "Small World"

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("After three years in Beijing, we're headed to Amman, Jordan. For family and friends who want to follow our adventures, this is it...") tells it like it is.

Money quote(s):

"Another friend, currently in Chinese classes at FSI, has just written an excellent post about what it's going to mean if Congress moves forward on their plan to cut locality pay for State employees. For my family, it will mean an immediate 15% pay cut. That's no small amount when you're a one-income family living in an expensive city. To hear the rhetoric, it seems our politicians think State Department employees aren't regular, middle-class Americans, and we are somehow leaching off the American public by collecting our pay. I guess they don't know that my husband regularly puts in 12-hour days (in fact, by law, he's required to work at least 10 hours per day). I guess they don't know he works weekends. I guess they don't know that he has literally put his life on the line to keep other Americans safe. I guess they don't care that our whole family works for the government, every day, merely by putting ourselves out there, presenting an American face to a foreign public, even in countries where it might be dangerous to do so."

re: "Current Events (Or Why We Deserve This Pay Cut)"

Donna at Email From The Embassy ("After three years in Beijing, we're headed to Amman, Jordan. For family and friends who want to follow our adventures, this is it...") has a great summation and some alarming ideas.

Money quote(s):

"In a nutshell: our pay is on the line. Life After Jerusalem and several other bloggers covered the details, which amount to this: Foreign Service officers currently have to take a steep pay cut when they move from DC to their overseas posts, due to something called "locality pay." Several years ago, when the powers-that-be were convinced this was a problem (why should I move to Yemen, or Libya, or Beijing, or really anywhere, if I'm going to make 25 cents on the dollar more to stay in DC?), they moved to phase in overseas locality pay so that this disparity would disappear over time. But now, led by Mr. Reed, some of our politicians have decided to call this an "automatic pay raise," and they want to do away with it. Only for State Department employees, mind you: other agencies overseas get this locality pay, and no one's talking about touching it."

Great summary. Covers all the bases. Well, doesn't mention that the pay gap doesn't apply to members of the Senior Foreign Service; for some reason they never lost out on this.

Who are the SFS? They're the Foreign Service equivalent to the Civil Service's Senior Executive Service (SES); in other words, State's flag officers (i.e., the equivalent of generals and admirals). It is from this group that principal officers (when they are not political appointees) such as ambassadors and consuls general are chosen.

"all you FSOs out there, are you ready for this? Here's what I think: This is all your fault.

Seriously. Your. Fault.

And here's why.

Whenever Mr. or Ms. Important Politician decides to come to post, you all leap to help out. I've seen this happen at every single post where I've lived. You get a cable that Congressperson So-And-So is coming next week. It's probably a national holiday. Or a weekend. But they're coming. They're flying in business class, and when they arrive, you scramble to meet them. With a motorcade. You take them to meetings with other important people at your post. You sit at their fancy dinners at the Foreign Minister's palace so you can take notes. After you drop them off for the night at their fancy hotels downtown, you slog back to the Embassy to write your cables before making the long trek back to your home in the suburbs somewhere. You kiss your sleeping kids, argue with your spouse about why you couldn't come with her to her doctor's appointment (she doesn't speak the language well, but you do). Then you go to bed.

You wake up before dawn so you can get back to the Embassy and pull cables for the congressperson, who needs to be up on the news as she breakfasts in her hotel. And then you set off for another day in motorcades, running from meetings to lunches to parties to concerts, ignoring the calls from your kids' school, because you know your spouse has that covered and you don't even have time to eat.

While you're doing this, someone else at the Embassy is taking the congressperson's spouse shopping for pearls, and then maybe to a fancy lunch at a local hotspot. It could be the CLO; it could be your wife. But someone is out sightseeing with the congressperson's hangers-on. Maybe a quick visit to the Great Wall, or Petra, or the pyramids. This could be a weekday, or it could be a weekend. Either way, whoever is taking these folks out has cobbled together extra childcare and cancelled that dentist appointment in order to be available.

The visit is over, and the motorcade races to the airport, where Important Person waits in the VIP lounge. Even after Important Person takes that business class ticket and boards the plane, you still sit, and wait. You wait until wheels-up, because that's what you do."

Because it just wouldn't do for there to be a mechanical problem and the plane towed back to the gate and unloaded and an entire congressional delegation stranded at the airport with no local cellphone anymore. Actually describing this gave me a chill, and not in a good, Chris Matthews sort of, way.

I've often maintained that we do ourselves a serious disservice by building and maintaining this sort of artificial bubble for our VIP visitors such as congressmen and STAFDELs. It only creates an unrealistic appreciation on their part for our roles, conditions, and capabilities abroad.

Donna gets this.

"Meanwhile, Important Politician stretches out in his business class seat and listens to his wife talk about the pearls! And the silk scarves! And the amazing food! And IP thinks back to that Foreign Service Officer he just met. And he thinks: what a great life that guy has! He goes to parties at the President's mansion. He drinks fancy wine. He drives around in air conditioned motorcades, with people saluting him as he walks into government buildings. He goes hiking - in the middle of a work day, even! - on the Great Wall. What a cushy life he leads, thinks Important Politician.

So you see, all you Foreign Service Officers out there, it's your fault all of these congresspeople think you deserve a pay cut. They have no idea what work you put into that recent visit. They don't know what you just gave up in order to make sure their visit was a success. They don't understand that your life isn't all cocktail parties interspersed with awesome trips to exotic locations. They don't know that you live in a place where your every move is recorded. Or maybe you live in a place where the locals want you dead. Or you live in a place where your baby has nightmares from the malaria medication. Or your spouse isn't allowed to work because the host government forbids it. Or maybe you're black, and the locals don't like black people. Or maybe you're gay, and that's a punishable offense in your host country. Or you're a woman, so you have to cover up when you walk outside. Or the signs are all in Arabic, so every time you leave the house, you're lost, and you can't ask for directions. Or maybe you went permanently deaf in one ear while you were serving in a country without proper medical care. Important Politician didn't see any of this from the window of the Prime Minister's residence."

&

"(T)hey don't get it, these Important People. They don't know just how hard you work for them, and for your country, because when they show up at your post for a long weekend in December, you work your asses off and not a one of you ever tells them you need to go to your daughter's Christmas pageant, or you need to help your spouse find wrapping paper, or you need to get your sick kid to the doctor. You don't even point out that you're working weekends for these people. You just do the work you're supposed to do, regardless of the weather, the date, the personal sacrifice.

And so they don't know, even when they should, and they just see an easy way to cut some money from the budget that won't impact their constituents. When they make these financial calculations, they don't even see your faces."

re: "Since you enjoy your job so much, Congress wants you to take a pay cut .... "

Domani Spero at Diplopundit ("Just one obsessive observer, diplomatic watcher, opinionator and noodle newsmaker monitoring the goings on at Foggy Bottom and the worldwide available universe.") has a locality pay-cut round-up.

Money quote(s):

"There is locality pay for all CONUS states. Why Congress is only targeting the 11,500 Foreign Service workforce is not clear. About 70% are not in the Senior Foreign Service and could be affected by this cut when deployed overseas. I mean really, that's about 7,600 federal employees serving overseas in over 260 posts. Mr. Reed's state is home to some 69,000 federal employees (not counting the feds working for CIA, DIA, NSA and the other "A"s who may be assigned in the state of New York). Look - that's 9 times the Foreign Service number. Imagine the savings there?"

"Could it be because you have "foreign" in your job title? Or it it because you work overseas and is not in real America? And by the way, who knows if you even vote when you are so far away!?!

I think of this as a simple fairness issue. Of course, nothing is ever simple when it comes to money, or politics."

"You folks working overseas apparently do not pay the first $80K of your income overseas. Did you know that? Hah! That IRS has been cheating on FS folks again! It collected every tax penny from your salary including self-employed spouse's annual income of less than $700. If you believe everything you hear, that IRS did not have to collect anything from your $56K + $700 income? Really.

Go ahead and believe that crap, and you might end up sharing a jail cell with whatshisname actor and tax evader.

Foreign Service folks are not/not exempt from paying full federal, state, and Medicare/SS tax on salaries just because they live in Burkina Faso or whatever the name of the hellhole they're presently assigned to. They pay their taxes happily and willingly, 'cuz if they don't, they could get written up for atrocious unlawful uncivic unprofessional behavior, then they won't get promoted, then they get kick out, then they're just part of the 9% unemployment stats."

There's a lot of popular/unpopular mythology and misinformation out there about diplomats, embassies, and the Foreign Service. Such as the erroneous belief that we somehow don't pay federal income taxes.

Not only do we pay federal income taxes, but we pay state income taxes as well, despite the fact that, for instance, I may not have actually lived in my home state for the entirety of the first ten years of my Foreign Service career.

(You're welcome, Old Dominion!)

"(D)espite prevailing belief to the contrary, Uncle Sam's employees overseas are not exempt from paying taxes (unless they're civies at Gitmo). The foreign earned income does not include amounts paid by the United States or an agency thereof to an employee of the United States or an agency thereof. Congress wrote that up. It's the law of the land. And we know that US diplomatic missions are part of that land, even if they are located all over the map, right?

You also -- supposedly ride around town in a $50,000 Cadillac with diplomatic license plates on the bumper like -- let me get this right -- "like you are better than the very citizens you are supposed to be serving." Ouch! Such sparkling prejudice. Really, a Cadillac? That must be the low level Qatari diplomat riding around in his regular car in DC streets. Have not seen any Cadillac at US overseas posts, not saying there's none, just haven't see any from the embassy compounds I've been to. Saw lots of armored Chevy where you can't roll down the windows. In case you think its armored for decoration, I can assure you it's not. It is armored from front to back and have bullet resistant glass because driving/riding around in a USG vehicle overseas is like driving around with a target mark on your back. What? Um, sorry, not target, they're called cross-hairs now. And in case you think this is vehicle security gone mad, it's not that either. See, the US ambassador to Lome got carjacked recently. And the ICE agents in Mexico who were recently killed/wounded in Monterrey were also using an armored SUV. If not for armored vehicles, not Cadillacs, mind you --- there would be many, many more names up on that memorial plaque on the wall."

I wonder sometimes if people mistakenly think that the cars being driven around D.C. and New York City with diplomatic plates issued by the State Department belong to U.S. diplomats.

Sorry to disappoint, but those are foreign diplomats assigned by their own foreign countries to foreign embassies, foreign missions, and foreign consulates located in the U.S.

So, if you got cut off in traffic by one, or saw one parked illegally, or were otherwise annoyed by one, be untroubled by the notion that it was a U.S. foreign service officer at the wheel.

"We have unarmed diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in Pakistan where they hate/hate the USA terribly and now think all diplomats are spies. And you don't ever get a tax break for service in those posts."

Military members deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., combat zones) get a federal tax vacation for the time they are in theatre. U.S. foreign service officers, even those "embedded" with military units in those countries, do not.

This is not a complaint; it's simply an observation as I note the contrast in benefits with regards to different career fields. It simply is. Comparing the military and diplomatic careers, and their respective benefits packages, is like unto the proverbial apples and oranges. They're all fruit, of course, but there are many differences.

Also, as someone who deployed to Iraq as an Army NCO, I "enjoyed" my 12-month federal tax holiday and don't begrudge that the benefit continues to date. The pay systems are quite different, which is why the more useful comparison is with other federal employees, such as the civil service.

"(I)t's not a complete line up of this United States of America unless you have some really wacky ideas thrown in like this one:

"Close the State Department. Hire mercenaries."

Oh! What a gem, dat! I bet the writer would not suggest that if he/she were ever evacuated out of Abidjan, Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, etc. etc. But just in case Congress takes in that suggestion (because, hey, why not, huh?) -- close the State Department and Uncle Sam somehow hires 'em mercenaries -- here is my simple advice if you're an American in search of an adventure: Do not/do not go to Yemen. What's neat on paper is not always neat in real life. Mercenaries will not arrange an evacuation to bring you back home, they will not notify your next of kin of your welfare or whereabouts, they will not have spouses to cook meals and help check on you in jails or hospitals. And this one is really important -- they will not search morgues to ID your body and ship it home."

The really awful part of consular work are what are non-euphemistically known as "death cases." They are, as anyone with a shred of an imagination might suspect, a bit wearing on those who perform them.

They're also something that good consular officers recognize as being a privilege. It is our honor to be the person who helps take care of those unpleasant chores that an American citizen is simply, to be blunt, too dead to take care of for him- or herself.

Recently, I noted that it was exactly one year since a certain fatal plane crash that involved Americans in my consular district. Out of respect for the families of the deceased I'll omit any unpleasant details, but I will note that was a week when my spouse really helped me deal with the emotional aftermath.

But I wouldn't have ducked the duty, not for anything, because it was my job to be there for my deceased fellow citizens, when no one else could be.

An honor and a privilege and if you ever have a frank exchange of views with my more experienced consular colleagues, you'll quickly notice something: they'll fight for the opportunity to take on a tough job like an evacuation or a disaster. Because they know they've trained for it and they've got the bug that makes them want to help, that makes them run towards events others are running from, like firemen do at fires and like soldiers do when duty calls.

(So, getting back to the original topic, it absolutely dumbfounds me whenever I consider the bass-ackwards business model that financially disincentivizes FSOs from taking overseas assignments. Does. Not. Compute.)

re: "A Response to Utter BS About FS Life"

Digger at Life After Jerusalem ("The musings of a Two-Spirit American Indian, Public Diplomacy-coned Foreign Service Officer") took a "piece by Matthew Nasuti" to school, to the woodshed behind the school, and for some wall-to-wall counseling as well.

Cue me cheering and whistling.

Money quote(s):

"(T)his piece by Matthew Nasuti is one of the most ill-informed pieces of drivel I have read in a long time, and as someone who blogs on the Foreign Service, I read a lot of negative stuff about our work. Nasuti knows nothing about Foreign Service life and employs the most tired and inaccurate stereotypes he can find."

&

"(A)nyone who comes into the Foreign Service as an FS 04 could be earning MUCH more in in the private sector, but we choose to take a pay cut to serve our country. Now, when we serve in Washington, DC, we get 24% locality pay, meaning that FS 06 makes $47,693. Let me assure you, that is not a high salary in D.C. But they lose that locality pay when they go overseas, and they are the only American public servants who do. Folks from other agencies keep their locality pay salary as their base salary, even though they are serving at the same embassies and consulates that we do."

Just read the whole thing.