Pentagon Underreporting War Injuries?
Pentagon Underreporting War Injuries?
Veterans Groups: Non-Combat Injuries Being Ignored, Real Number Is More Than Double
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2007
(AP) Veterans groups and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama say U.S. government officials are obscuring the actual number of wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars by leaving out of some public documents troops who suffer non-combat injuries.
From the Pentagon Web site to press materials handed out at the opening of an amputee center in Texas last week, the number of wounded in the wars often circulated publicly is around 23,000.
That number only accounts for those wounded in combat. When troops from those wars who were wounded in other ways are counted, the number more than doubles, to about 53,000.
That latter number is not heavily circulated by the Pentagon. Recently, a Defense Department official publicly criticized a researcher who used it and pressured another government agency to change a public document to report the smaller number.
Obama, a presidential hopeful, wants the government to be more straightforward in reporting on the wounded. He has introduced legislation with Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to require the Veterans Affairs Department and the Defense Department to "start keeping honest figures on our troops and the potential future costs of the war."
"This is a clear pattern by VA and DOD to conceal the escalating human and financial costs of the two wars from Congress, the press and the public," said Paul Sullivan, veterans advocacy director with Veterans for America.
Non-battle wounds can range from injuries in vehicle accidents to illnesses. Some are sports injuries that need care outside the war zone. Many of the wounded return to duty.
"It doesn't make a difference whether you were hit by enemy fire, or injured because your vehicle crashed, or got sick because of serving in a war zone," Obama said in a statement. "The effects on the soldiers and their families are the same. And the impact in terms of the current fighting force and future demands on the VA are also the same."
Some non-battle wounds can be just as disabling as those inflicted in combat. Dave Autry, deputy national director of communications for Disabled American Veterans, told the story of a soldier riding in the back of a truck when it went off a bridge and into an Iraqi canal.
This soldier, who suffered crushed legs and an injured spine, is not among those listed in the Pentagon's more widely circulated tally, Autry said.
The Pentagon updates its casualty totals for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars daily at www.defenselink.mil.
Clicking on "press resources" or "casualties" on the home page leads to a chart that lists the dead and wounded from combat totals but not totals for the non-battle wounded.
A separate, harder-to-find Pentagon Web site that listed casualties by type for each war had all the wounded. Last week, the number of non-combat wounded was dropped from the chart, produced by the department's Statistical Information and Analysis Division.
Since November, the VA had been reporting about 50,000 wounded from the wars on a Web site fact sheet for media. It changed that number last month to about 21,000 after hearing from the Pentagon, VA spokesman Matt Burns said.
Burns said only combat wounded are supposed to be in the tally.
President George W. Bush's proposed budget increased funding for veterans' medical care from $29.3 billion to $34.2 billion. It anticipated VA providing medical care to nearly 263,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans in 2008.
All Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are guaranteed two years of health care at VA when they return from the war. Those with injuries connected to their service get health care treatment beyond the two years.
Also, all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans injured while serving in the wars are eligible for monthly disability payments, regardless of whether they were injured in combat. The amount of the payments is based on the level of disability.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops
AP: Marines fail to get gear to troops
By RICHARD LARDNER
34 minutes ago
The system for delivering badly needed gear to Marines in Iraq has failed to meet many urgent requests for equipment from troops in the field, according to an internal document obtained by The Associated Press.
Of more than 100 requests from deployed Marine units between February 2006 and February 2007, less than 10 percent have been fulfilled, the document says. It blamed the bureaucracy and a "risk-averse" approach by acquisition officials.
Among the items held up were a mine resistant vehicle and a hand-held laser system.
"Process worship cripples operating forces," according to the document. "Civilian middle management lacks technical and operational currency."
The 32-page document — labeled "For Official Use Only" — was prepared by the staff of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force after they returned from Iraq in February.
The document was to be presented in March to senior officials in the Pentagon's defense research and engineering office. The presentation was canceled by Marine Corps leaders because its contents were deemed too contentious, according to a defense official familiar with the document. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly.
The document's claims run counter to the public description of a process intended to cut through the layers of red tape that frequently slow the military's procurement process.
The Marine Corps had no immediate comment on the document.
In a briefing Wednesday, Marine Corps officials hailed their "Urgent Universal Need Statement" system as a way to give Marines in combat a greater say in weapons-buying decisions.
"What we all liked about (the urgent requests) is they came from the operators out on the ground and there was always a perceived better way of doing things," said Maj. Gen. Dennis Hejlik, who was a commander in Iraq from June 2004 to February 2005.
The document lists 24 examples of equipment urgently needed by Marines in Iraq's Anbar province. One, the mine resistant ambush protected vehicle, has received attention as a promising way to protect troops from roadside blasts, the leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq.
After receiving a February 2005 urgent request approved by Hejlik for nearly 1,200 of the vehicles, the Marine Corps instead purchased improved versions of the ubiquitous Humvee.
The industrial capacity did not exist to quickly build the new mine resistant vehicles and the more heavily armored Humvees were viewed as a suitable solution, Marine Corps officials said.
That proved not to be the case as insurgent elements in Iraq developed more powerful bombs that could penetrate the Humvees. The mine resistant vehicles are now a top priority for all the military branches, which plan to buy 7,774 of the carriers at a cost of $8.4 billion.
Brig. Gen. Robert Milstead, chief of Marine Corps public affairs, said cost was not a factor in choosing the Humvee.
"This was not a budgetary decision," Milstead said Wednesday. "You can take that to the bank."
The internal document, however, states that the cost of building new vehicles was a primary reason the request was denied by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va.
Needs of the deployed troops are "competed against funded programs," the document states.
"Resistance costs time," it adds. "Unnecessary delays cause U.S. friendly and innocent Iraqi deaths and injuries."
A second example cited is the compact high power laser dazzler, an inexpensive, nonlethal tool for steering unwelcome vehicles away from U.S. checkpoints in Iraq. The dazzler emits a powerful stream of green light that stops or redirects oncoming traffic by temporarily impairing the driver's vision.
In June 2005, Marines stationed in western Iraq filed an urgent request for several hundred of the dazzlers, which are built by LE Systems, a small company in Hartford, Conn. The request was repeated nearly a year later.
"Timely purchase and employment of all systems bureaucratically stymied," the document states.
Separate documents indicate the deployed Marines became so frustrated at the delays they bypassed normal acquisition procedures and used money from their own budget to buy 28 of the dazzlers directly from LE Systems.
But because the lasers had not passed a safety review process, stateside authorities barred the Marines from using them.
In January, nearly 18 months after the first request, the Marines received a less powerful laser built by a different company.
Titus Casazza, president of LE Systems, criticized the Marine Corps' acquisition process.
"The bureaucrats and lab rats sitting behind a desk stateside are making decisions on what will be given to our soldiers even if contrary to the specific requests of these soldiers and their commanding generals," he said.
There are successful examples listed in the briefing document. A December request for an airborne surveillance system — Angel Fire — is expected to be filled this summer. The system provides constant overhead surveillance of large urban areas, such as Ramadi or Fallujah, and is able to track the movement of people and vehicles.
Len Blasiol, a civilian official with the Combat Development Command, said the speed with which requests can be met is largely dependent on how much research and development work needs to be done.
"The first question is, 'Is this something we can go out right now today and buy? Is it sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting for us to buy?' And if it is, then we figure out how to buy it," Blasiol said.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Gas Price Run-Up Continues with Another Record
Gas Price Run-Up Continues with Another Record
By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.Com
May 18, 2007
Another day, another penny and a half for Big Oil as gasoline prices hit a new record for the sixth consecutive day. The national average price for regular self-serve is now $3.129, up 1.5 cents overnight, according to the AAA automobile club.
While gas prices have climbed steadily throughout most of the country this week, in some parts of California prices have dropped slightly, perhaps suggesting the worst of the price run-ups might be easing.
Despite the slight declines in California however, energy traders and analysts are concerned that gasoline supplies are not catching up to demand with the summer driving season right around the corner and those worries are exacerbated by a string of planned or unexpected refinery shutdowns.
The Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday that gasoline stocks, while increasing to 195.2 million barrels last week, remained well below the average for this time of year.
A 10 percent decline in U.S. gasoline imports has also left supplies tight.
The average price of mid-grade unleaded gasoline is now $3.32 a gallon, and premium unleaded gasoline is selling for $3.44 a gallon.
Diesel fuel prices continued to remain stable at $2.91 a gallon.
Drivers in Needles, California are seeing the highest gasoline prices at $4.09 a gallon and drivers in Lindsay, Oklahoma are seeing the lowest price at $2.49 a gallon.
While Big Oil blames record gasoline prices on unexpected refinery shutdowns, Congress is questioning whether industry mergers and investment decisions have erased a supply cushion.
The House Judiciary Committee's antitrust task force opened hearings on oil industry concentration with the committee chairman noting that gasoline prices have soared well above $3 a gallon and asking, "How did we get into this mess?"
"Oil companies today are enjoying record profits, and while they could use those profits to invest in more production capacity, instead they use the money to buy back shares in the markets," complained Representaitve John Conyers Jr., D-Michigan, the panel's chairman.
Round-Up
Here is a look as some gasoline prices from around the country in the weekly ConsumerAffairs.Com Gas Price Round Up.
Texas: Retail gasoline prices have now climbed for a 15 weeks in a row in Texas, according to the weekly AAA Texas gasoline price survey.
The survey showed that regular-grade gasoline in the 11 Texas cities polled climbed an average of 8 cents to $2.95 per gallon. That's 1 cent per gallon from the record of $2.96 reached following Hurricane Rita in September 2005.
"Despite high gas prices and increasing vacation costs, it is estimated that travel for the Memorial Day holiday will be up by nearly two percent this year," said AAA Texas spokeswoman Rose Rougeau. "Consumers will travel smart this holiday, staying closer to home and in less expensive hotels and eating at less costly restaurants."
In recent weeks, the auto club had blamed strong consumer demand, reduced domestic output because of refinery problems and lower gas imports for the climbing prices.
The survey shows the state's most expensive retail gas prices are found in Amarillo, where regular-grade averaged $3.21 per gallon this week, up 13 cents from last week. The cheapest gas was found in San Antonio, where regular-grade rose 6 cents to an average of $2.86 per gallon.
California: More than a week after reaching new records in most areas, some California gas prices have dropped slightly, according to the Automobile Club of Southern California's Weekend Gas Watch.
The average price of self-serve regular gasoline in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area is $3.46, which is two cents cheaper than last week, 15 cents higher than last month, and six cents above last year.
In San Diego, the price is $3.47, which is 2.7 cents below last week's price, one cent above last month, and three cents higher than last year.
On the Central Coast, the average price is $3.59, down 1.7 cents from last week, 15 cents above last month, and 11 cents higher than last year.
In the Inland Empire, the average price is $3.46, 1.7 cents below last week, 12 cents higher than last month, and two cents higher than last year.
"The price decrease is probably barely noticeable to consumers when they're already paying so much for gas," said Auto Club spokesperson Carol Thorp. "At least the numbers are heading in the right direction -- down. But it's still too early to tell if this is true relief or just a price plateau."
The national average is still 39 cents a gallon less than the statewide California average of $3.48.
Florida: Florida motorists are paying an average $3.04 for regular self-serve, surpassing the statewide record of $3.03 from August 2006.
Tampa drivers saw an average $2.96, while Orlando was at $2.97, with both figures approaching previous records. Prices in Polk County averaged $3.04 with some drivers reporting prices of $3.09 in Winter Haven and $3.16 in Lakeland.
The Polk county average is up from $2.92 one month ago and $2.83 one year ago.
"This week is bearing out what we thought. The tremendous upward pressure on prices is still there. It's still a matter of building up inventory," said AAA spokesman Randy Bly. "We are expecting prices to drop off after the Memorial Day weekend. If refiners can build up inventory there's a chance prices could plateau and drop before then, but our window of opportunity is closing."
Bly said that most refiners have finished performing maintenance and completed their transition to summer blends of fuel by Memorial Day.
The AAA spokesman also said the record highs in Florida are surprising because the previous high of $3.06 on September 5, 2005, came in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
"Here we are exceeding that with no similar scenario whatsoever, it's just the marketplace," Bly said.
North Carolina: Gas prices soared in the Asheville area, in some cases by 20 cents a gallon. Prices at some stations hit $3.13 a gallon, leaving drivers with major sticker shock.
Asheville has the highest average price in the state at $3.06 a gallon, according to AAA Carolinas in Charlotte, which tracks gas prices. The average price statewide went up from $2.99 to $3.02.
“Gas prices have gone up 50 percent over a few months time, and that’s hard to take,” said Jayne Cannon, a AAA Carolinas spokeswoman.
Copyright © 2003-2007 ConsumerAffairs.Com Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Council backs neighbors in flap, orders flag down
May. 18, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
Council backs neighbors in flap, orders flag down
Hummer dealership may challenge action
By DAVID McGRATH SCHWARTZ
REVIEW-JOURNAL Call it a show of patriotic pride. Or call it a crass red-white-and-blue marketing ploy.
Either way, the city of Las Vegas has ordered a Hummer dealership to take down an American flag that flies 100 feet above the business.
Dan Towbin, owner of Towbin Hummer, said he was in disbelief at the City Council's decision this week to require the business to take down the 30-by-60-foot Stars and Stripes that has flown since May 2006 in front of the dealership.
"It's ridiculous in today's day and age to suggest removing an American flag," he said.
Towbin must remove the flag within 60 days, though he said he was contemplating a lawsuit to challenge the council's unanimous action.
When Towbin originally got approval for his flag in May 2006, he agreed to a six-month review, contingent on complaints from neighbors of the dealership on Sahara Avenue near Lindell Road.
At Wednesday's City Council meeting, some residents showed up to complain about the noise from the flapping flag when the wind blows and the aesthetic effect of the looming flag pole.
At the meeting last year, Towbin employee Carl Marcello told the City Council that the dealership planned to build a memorial for military veterans at the base of the flag pole.
On Wednesday, council members and others questioned why Towbin had not built the memorial.
Steve Sanson, president of the locally based Veterans in Politics International, said he didn't believe the flag was about love of country but was instead intended to make the Hummer dealership a landmark.
"What disturbs us is the exploitation of veterans," said Sanson, a Marine in Desert Storm. The flag "is being used for selfish financial gain."
Wayne Earl, 80, who lives near the dealership, said he wasn't bothered by the noise like some of his neighbors but wanted it removed anyway.
"I like to see the flag flown. I don't like to see the flag used as a commercial draw," said the World War II veteran. "It should be flown reverently, not auspiciously."
Towbin insisted the flag is only about his patriotism.
"Whether my heart is in the right place, only I would know that," he said. "How would anyone else know that?"
He pointed to his involvement at Nellis Air Force Base where, he said, he is an honorary commander.
Towbin said the veterans memorial hasn't been built because he was waiting for the City Council's final approval of the flag.
A video of last May's City Council meeting shows Marcello, with Towbin standing next to him, telling the council that he understands they can review and order the flag pole removed after six months. Marcello then said the flag would be dedicated with a plaque and representatives from Nellis Air Force Base to coincide with the city's centennial celebration, which ended later that month.
The six-month review slipped through the cracks at City Hall, and it wasn't until recently that residents approached Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian to ask her about it.
Those for and against the flag's location lobbed accusations of un-Americanism at their opponents on Wednesday.
Towbin read a letter written by Joseph Esposito, president of Liberty Lock & Safe, next to the dealership.
The flag "fills my entire team of 55 employees with pride," Esposito wrote. "Any individual or group that would refer to this symbol of America as a nuisance, eyesore, or noisemaker should be looked at by the Department of Homeland Security to see where their sympathies lie."
Esposito, reached at his store Thursday, said he was "outraged" by the council's vote.
But Tarkanian, after extolling her love of the flag, told Towbin, "You're not doing this for the right reason."
Last May, Tarkanian had made a motion to allow Towbin to erect a 75-foot flag pole. But Towbin had said he had already bought the 100-foot pole and the flag. Tarkanian's motion failed 6 to 1.
Mayor Oscar Goodman then made the motion to allow Towbin to build the 100-foot-tall flag pole, with a six-month review.
"I would say publicly, whatever this body decides to do, I will live by it," Towbin said.
On Thursday, Goodman said he voted to take down the flag because the veterans memorial was not built.
Goodman said Towbin can reapply for a new flag pole.
The mayor also parried any accusations that the council's decision is unpatriotic by pointing to an ordinance passed under his watch that bans homeowner's associations from prohibiting the flying of American flags.
But Alan Lichtenstein, general council for the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said flags can't get any special treatment under the law.
"There can be reasonable time, place and manner restrictions," he said. "But there can't be special rules based on content."
Lichtenstein noted, however, that the city gives variances all the time, often inconsistently.
David Chesnoff, Towbin's attorney, said any potential lawsuit would argue that "the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and also because of the First Amendment implications, that you can't fly a flag you've been flying for a year."
This isn't the first run-in Towbin has had with the city over flags.
Just before Memorial Day in 2004, Las Vegas code enforcement ordered small flags flying from vehicles at the Prestige Infiniti dealership removed because they were "attention gaining devices."
Towbin said he continued to fly the flags on the cars, and the city backed off after the story got national attention.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
Pentagon Limits Troops' Web Access
Pentagon Limits Troops' Web Access
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Lt. Daniel Zimmerman, an infantry platoon leader in Iraq, puts a blog on the Internet every now and then "to basically keep my friends and family up to date" back home.
It just got tougher to do that for Zimmerman and a lot of other U.S. soldiers. No more using the military's computer system to socialize and trade videos on MySpace, YouTube and more than a dozen others Web sites, the Pentagon says.
Citing security concerns and technological limits, the Pentagon has cut off access to those sites for personnel using the Defense Department's computer network. The change limits use of the popular outlets for service members on the front lines, who regularly post videos and journals.
"I put my blog on there and my family reads it," said Zimmerman, 29, a platoon leader with B Company, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment.
"It scares the crap out of them sometimes," he said.
"I keep it as vague as possible," he said. "I'm pretty responsible about it. It's just basically to tell a little bit about my life over here" he said.
He's regularly at a base where he doesn't have Defense Department access to the Internet, but he has used it when he goes to bigger bases. He'll have to rely on a private account all the time now.
Memos about the change went out in February, and it took effect last week. It does not affect the Internet cafes that soldiers in Iraq use that are not connected to the Defense Department's network. The cafe sites are run by a private vendor, FUBI (For US By Iraqis).
Also, the Pentagon said that many of the military computers on the front lines in Iraq that are on the department's network had previously blocked the YouTube and MySpace sites.
The ban also does not affect other sites, such as Yahoo, and does not prevent soldiers from sending messages and photos to their families by e-mail.
Internet use has become a troublesome issue for the military as it struggles to balance security concerns with privacy rights. As blogs and video-sharing become more common, the military has voiced increasing concern about service members revealing details about military operations or other information about equipment or procedures that will aid the enemy.
At the same time, service members have used the Web sites to chronicle their time in battle, posting videos and writing journals that provide a powerful, personal glimpse into their days at war.
"These actions were taken to enhance and increase network security and protect the use of the bandwidth," said Col. Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman.
The Pentagon said that use of the video sites in particular was putting a strain on the network, and also opening it to potential viruses or penetration by so-called "phishing" attacks in which scam artists try to steal sensitive data by mimicking legitimate Web sites.
"The U.S. Army's not going to pay the bill for you to get on MySpace and YouTube," said Maj. Bruce Mumford, of Chester, Neb., who is serving as the brigade communications officer for the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, in Iraq. "Soldiers need to know what they can and cannot do, but we shouldn't be facilitating it."
After the warnings of the shutdown went out, military members were allowed to seek waivers if the sites were necessary for their jobs. Often insurgent groups post videos, including ones of attacks or — in some high profile cases — of U.S. or coalition soldiers who have been captured or killed.
"I guess it's a good general policy," Zimmerman said about the ban on MySpace and YouTube." If people could be trusted not to break operational security, then they wouldn't need to have the policy."
If the restrictions are intended to prevent soldiers from giving or receiving bad news, they could also prevent them from providing positive reports from the field, said Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine.
"This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets," he said. "And they are muzzling their best voices."
Among the sites covered by the ban are the video-sharing sites YouTube, Metacafe, IFilm, StupidVideos and FileCabi; social networking sites MySpace, BlackPlanet and Hi5; music sites Pandora, MTV, 1.fm and live365, and the photo-sharing site Photobucket.
___
Associated Press writers Robert Weller in Denver and Maya Alleruzzo in Baghdad contributed to this story.
___
May 14, 2007 - 6:21 p.m. EST
Copyright 2007, The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP Online news report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright ©2007 Cox Ohio Publishing, Dayton, Ohio, USA. All rights reserved.
Pasadena Paper May Outsource 'Local' Coverage
Media
Pasadena Paper May Outsource 'Local' Coverage Morning Edition, May 11, 2007 · A Web site in Pasadena, Calif., takes outsourcing to a new level. It advertised for a journalist to report on Pasadena's city government and politics, but will base the "local" reporter in India. The publisher says it makes sense, since City Council meetings are available on the Web. The India-based correspondent will be able to e-mail anybody he wants for an interview.
Copyright 2007 NPR
Study finds lapses in battlefield ethics
Study finds lapses in battlefield ethics
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 5, 11:56 AM ET
In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.
More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.
"It is disappointing," said analyst John Pike of the Globalsecurity.org think tank. "But anybody who is surprised by it doesn't understand war. ... This is about combat stress."
The military has seen a number of high-profile incidents of alleged abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the killings of 24 civilians by Marines, the rape and killing of a 14-year-old girl and the slaying of her family and the sexual humiliation of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison.
"I don't want to, for a minute, second-guess the behavior of any person in the military — look at the kind of moral dilemma you are putting people in," Christopher Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute think tank, said of the mission in Iraq. "There's a real tension between using too much force, which generally means using force to protect yourself, and using too little and therefore exposing yourself to greater risk."
The overall study was the fourth in a series done by a special mental health advisory team since 2003 aimed at assessing the well-being of forces serving in Iraq.
Officials said the teams visited Iraq last August to October, talking to troops, health care providers and chaplains.
The study team also found that long and repeated deployments were increasing troop mental health problems.
But Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, the Army's acting surgeon general, said the team's "most critical" findings were on ethics.
"They looked under every rock, and what they found was not always easy to look at," said Ward Casscells, assistant secretary of defense for health.
Findings included:
_Sixty-two percent of soldiers and 66 percent of Marines said that they knew someone seriously injured or killed, or that a member of their team had become a casualty.
_The 2006 adjusted rate of suicides per 100,000 soldiers was 17.3 soldiers, lower than the 19.9 rate reported in 2005.
_Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.
_About a third of troops said they had insulted or cursed at civilians in their presence.
_About 10 percent of soldiers and Marines reported mistreating civilians or damaging property when it was not necessary. Mistreatment includes hitting or kicking a civilian.
_Forty-four percent of Marines and 41 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or Marine.
_Thirty-nine percent of Marines and 36 percent of soldiers said torture should be allowed to gather important information from insurgents.
Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Marine Corps spokesman, said officials were looking closely at the ethics results, taken from a questionnaire survey of 1,320 soldiers and 447 Marines.
"The Marine Corps takes this issue of battlefield ethics very seriously," he said. "We are examining the study and its recommendations and we'll find ways to improve our approach."
Pollock said officials concluded from the overall study that "there's a robust system in place to provide mental health care, but issues continue with the stress of a combat deployment."
Based on the findings, officials have revised training programs to focus more on Army values, suicide prevention, battlefield ethics and behavioral health awareness, Pollock said.
The study team said shorter deployments or longer intervals between deployments would give soldiers and Marines a better chance "to reset mentally" before returning to combat. The Pentagon last month announced a policy that extends tours of duty for all active duty Army troops from a year to 15 months. Pollock acknowledged that was "going to be a stress" on troops.
Marine tours are seven months, one likely reason that soldier morale was lower than Marine morale, she said.
Pike contrasted Iraq's campaign to World War I, saying: "The trenches were pretty stressful, but a unit would only be up at the front for a few months and then get rotated to the rear. There's no rear in Iraq; you're subject to combat stress for your entire tour."
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Deployed troops fight for lost custody of kids
Deployed troops fight for lost custody of kids
Children taken from single parents in uniform when they are mobilized
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:48 a.m. ET May 5, 2007 She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, making sure schoolwork was done. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with Dad.
A year and a half later, her assignment up, Crouch pulled into her driveway with one thing in mind — bringing home the little girl who shared her smile and blue eyes. She dialed her ex and said she’d be there the next day to pick Sara up, but his response sent her reeling.
“Not without a court order you won’t.”
Within a month, a judge would decide that Sara should stay with her dad. It was, he said, in “the best interests of the child.”
What happened? Crouch was the legal residential caretaker; this was only supposed to be temporary. What had changed? She wasn’t a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an abusive mother.
Her only misstep, it seems, was answering the call to serve her country.
Crouch and an unknown number of others among the 140,000-plus single parents in uniform fight a war on two fronts: For the nation they are sworn to defend, and for the children they are losing because of that duty.
A federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is meant to protect them by staying civil court actions and administrative proceedings during military activation. They can’t be evicted. Creditors can’t seize their property. Civilian health benefits, if suspended during deployment, must be reinstated.
And yet service members’ children can be — and are being — taken from them after they are deployed.
Some family court judges say that determining what’s best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers.
Even some supporters of the federal law say it should be changed — that soldiers should be assured that they can regain custody of children.
Military mothers and fathers speak of birthdays missed, bonds weakened, endless hearings.
Fighting insurgents and the family court
They are people like Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley, helping to fight the insurgency in Fallujah, Iraq, at the same time he battles for custody of his son in a Kansas family court.
Like Sgt. Mike Grantham of the Iowa National Guard, whose two kids lived with him until he was mobilized to train troops after 9/11.
Like Army Reserve Capt. Brad Carlson, fighting for custody of his American-born children after his marriage crumbled while he was deployed and his European wife refused to return to the States.
And like Eva Crouch, who spent two years and some $25,000 pushing her case through the Kentucky courts.
“I’d have spent a million,” she says. “My child was my life ... I go serve my country, and I come back and have to go through hell and high water.”
In 1943, during World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the soldiers’ relief law should be “liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation.”
Shielding soldiers allows them “to devote their entire energy” to the nation’s defense, the law itself states.
But child custody cases are different.
“The minute these guys are getting deployed, the other parent is going, ‘I can do whatever I want now,”’ says Jean Ann Uvodich, an attorney who represented Bradley.
Bradley had already joined the Marines, and his young wife, Amber, was a junior in high school when their son Tyler came along in 2003. With Bradley in training, Amber and the baby lived with Bradley’s mother, Starleen, in Ottawa, Kan.
When the marriage fell apart two years later, Bradley filed for divorce and Amber signed a parenting plan granting him sole custody and agreeing that Tyler would live with Starleen while Bradley was on duty.
In August 2005, Bradley deployed to Iraq. A month later, Amber sought residential custody of Tyler. She didn’t fully understand what she had signed, she said.
Bradley learned of the petition in Fallujah. He worked during the day as a mechanic, then at night called his mother to hear the latest from court.
“My mind wasn’t where it was supposed to be,” he says. And the distraction cost him. One day he rolled a Humvee he was test-driving. Though uninjured, Bradley was reprimanded.
Uvodich sought a stay under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, arguing Bradley had a right to be present to testify.
But the judge said he didn’t believe the case was subject to the federal law because “this Court has a continuing obligation to consider what’s in the best interest of the child.”
The judge awarded temporary physical custody to Amber. Last summer, that order was made permanent.
Bradley, now 22, is stationed at Camp Lejeune, N.C., awaiting his second deployment to Iraq. He gets to Kansas on leave, seeing Tyler for four days at a time.
“The act states: Everything will be put on hold until I’m able to get back. It doesn’t happen,” he says. “I found out the hard way.”
Whose best interest?
Dale Koch, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said that as state court judges, those deciding custody cases are obligated to follow their family codes — and “in most states there is language that says the primary interest is the best interest of the child.”
“We recognize the competing interests,” says Koch, an Oregon judge. “You don’t want to penalize a parent because they’ve served their country. On the other hand ... you don’t want to penalize the child.”
But what does “best interest” really mean? Koch mentions factors such as stability and considering who has been the child’s main emotional provider, parameters that conflict directly with military service.
Iowa Guardsman Mike Grantham thought he was serving the best interests of his children when he arranged for his son and daughter to stay with his mother before reporting for duty in 2002. He had raised Brianna and Jeremy since his 2000 divorce, when ex-wife Tammara turned physical custody over to him.
After mobilizing, Grantham was served with a custody petition from Tammara. A trial judge temporarily placed the children with her. A year later, though Grantham had returned, the judge made Tammara the primary physical custodian.
An appeals court sided with Grantham, saying: “A soldier, who answered our Nation’s call to defend, lost physical care of his children ... offending our intrinsic sense of right and wrong.”
But the Iowa Supreme Court disagreed, saying Tammara was “presently the most effective parent.”
Now, Grantham says, his visitation rights mirror those that his ex-wife once had: every other weekend, Wednesdays, and certain holidays — Father’s Day, for example.
“Being deployed, you lose your armor,” he says.
Thousands of active duty single parents
Military and family law experts don’t know how big the problem is, but 5.4 percent of active duty members — more than 74,000 — are single parents, the Department of Defense reports. More than 68,000 Guard and reserve members are also single parents. Divorce among service personnel is rising.
Army reservist Brad Carlson lived in Phoenix with his wife, Bianca, and three kids before deploying to Kuwait in 2003.
A year later, his wife indicated she wanted to end the marriage and remain in Luxembourg, where she had moved the family and where her parents lived.
Carlson filed for divorce in Arizona, and later invoked the Servicemembers Act, but in vain. A Luxembourg court awarded custody to Bianca.
“I feel really betrayed,” Carlson says.
The solution, some say, lies in amending the federal law to specify that it does apply in custody cases.
Some states aren’t waiting for congressional action.
In 2005, California enacted a law saying a parent’s absence due to military activation cannot be used to justify permanent changes in custody or visitation. Michigan and Kentucky followed suit, requiring that temporary changes made because of deployment revert back to the original agreement once deployment ends.
Similar legislation has been proposed in Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and North Carolina.
'I can't leave my child again'
When Crouch was mobilized back in 2003, her ex-husband, Charles, wanted 9-year-old Sara with him. They drew up a temporary order, moved Sara’s belongings, and Crouch headed out — to Iraq, she thought, although she wound up at Fort Knox. The fortunate assignment allowed her to visit Sara most weekends.
But when the time came for Sara to return to her mom, Charles says his daughter expressed a desire to stay with him. She liked her school, had made new friends.
“I had no intention of trying to talk her into staying or anything,” he says. “All I wanted was what was best for my daughter.”
Last year, the state Supreme Court cited Kentucky’s new law in overturning the trial judge’s decision granting custody to Charles.
Last September, Eva Crouch got Sara back.
Remarried now, Crouch is expecting another baby this August. But with 18 years in the military, she knows she could be mobilized again. One thing is clear to her now: Serving her country isn’t worth losing her daughter.
“I can’t leave my child again.”
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2007 MSNBC.com
© 2007 MSNBC.com
TSA loses hard drive with personal info
TSA loses hard drive with personal info
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Sat May 5, 7:54 AM ET
The Transportation Security Administration has lost a computer hard drive containing Social Security numbers, bank data and payroll information for about 100,000 employees.
Authorities realized Thursday the hard drive was missing from a controlled area at TSA headquarters. TSA Administrator Kip Hawley sent a letter to employees Friday apologizing for the lost data and promising to pay for one year of credit monitoring services.
"TSA has no evidence that an unauthorized individual is using your personal information, but we bring this incident to your attention so that you can be alert to signs of any possible misuse of your identity," Hawley wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "We profoundly apologize for any inconvenience and concern that this incident has caused you."
The agency said it did not know whether the device is still within headquarters or was stolen.
TSA said it has asked the FBI and Secret Service to investigate and said it would fire anyone discovered to have violated the agency's data-protection policies.
In a statement released Friday night, the agency said the external — or portable — hard drive contained information on employees who worked for the Homeland Security agency from January 2002 until August 2005.
TSA, a division of the Homeland Security Department, employs about 50,000 people and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems, including airports and train stations.
"It's seems like there's a problem with security inside Homeland Security and that makes no sense," said James Slade, a TSA screener and the executive vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union chapter at John F. Kennedy International Airport. "That's scary. That's my identity. And now who has a hold of it? So many things go on in your mind."
The agency added a section to its Web site Friday night addressing the data security breach and directing people to information about identity theft.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (news, bio, voting record), D-Texas, whose Homeland Security subcommittee oversees the TSA, promised to hold hearings on the security breach. She said Homeland Security buildings are part of the critical infrastructure the agency is charged with protecting.
"We should expect it to be secure," she said.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., called the security breach "a terrible and unfortunate blow" for an agency he said already suffered from low morale.
It's the latest mishap for the government involving computer data. Last year, a laptop with information for more than 26.5 million military personnel, was stolen from a Veterans Affairs Department employee's home. Law enforcement officials recovered the laptop, and the FBI said Social Security numbers and other personal data had not been copied.
___
Associated Press writer Ted Bridis contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Police: Ohio couple shocked, caged son
Police: Ohio couple shocked, caged son
By JOHN SEEWER, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 4, 11:05 AM ET
TOLEDO, Ohio - When Jessica Botzko's son was a baby, authorities temporarily removed him from her care when she was charged with child endangering. Nearly a decade later, the boy took matters into his own hands, authorities said.
Botzko is again accused of child endangerment after her 10-year-old son ran away from home with his younger brother and told investigators he was tired of being put in a dog cage, police said. The older boy also had been forced to wear a remote-controlled shock collar, authorities said.
At least once the 10-year-old boy was made to wear the collar — designed as a training device for animals — while inside the cage and was repeatedly shocked, court documents said. The cage, less than 2 feet tall and 2 feet wide, had a chain across the top with two locks on each end, said police Capt. Ray Carroll.
"He had to tuck his knees into his chest and he fell asleep in there on a couple occasions," Carroll said. "It wasn't continuous. It was probably on and off for punishment."
The older boy and his 5-year-old brother ran away from home Tuesday night when their father was away and their mother was dancing at a strip club, police said. They were found a few blocks away on a neighbor's porch.
Botzko, 28, and John Westover, 37, appeared briefly in court Thursday on charges of child endangerment and making or selling drugs in front of the children.
Botzko returned to court Friday but she did not have an attorney. Municipal Court Judge Michael Goulding told her to hire one over the weekend.
"If I'm not working I don't have any money," she told the judge.
Westover has an extensive record and was wanted on a child endangering charge in suburban Toledo, authorities said. The couple had a daughter who died of sudden infant death syndrome a few years ago, Carroll said. Police plan to take another look at her death.
A court hearing for Westover was continued because he did not have a lawyer. Both remained in jail.
A message seeking comment left for them at the jail was not returned.
Both told police they put the boy in the cage to punish him, Carroll said. The boy told officers that he also was caged when his father was using or making drugs, Carroll said.
Authorities said the boy weighed only 61 pounds, appeared thin for his age and told officers he had not eaten in two days.
It was not clear whether the younger boy had been put in the cage, Carroll said. Police plan to interview the boys again in the next few days. They were placed in the custody of Children Services.
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Bush, Democrats to meet today on Iraq
Bush, Democrats to meet today on Iraq
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 2, 2:30 PM ET
President Bush showed little appetite for compromise Wednesday, hours ahead of a session with congressional leaders aimed at crafting a new bill to fund the war in Iraq.
Fresh from his Tuesday night veto of spending legislation that set timelines for U.S. troop withdrawals, Bush stuck firmly to his demands on what a follow up bill should look like. The Democrats who control Capitol Hill, and their Republican counterparts, were due at the White House Wednesday afternoon for discussions with the president, just after a planned attempt in the House — sure to fail — to override Bush's veto.
The 1 p.m. EST vote was primarily procedural, as Democrats lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto. Prospects for override were similarly bleak in the Senate.
"I am confident that with goodwill on both sides that we can move beyond political statements and agree on a bill that gives our troops the funds and flexibility to do the job that we asked them to do," the president said in a speech in Washington before The Associated General Contractors of America.
Of the original bill pushed through Congress by Democrats, Bush said: "It didn't make any sense to impose the will of politicians over the recommendations of our military commanders in the field."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) told reporters Wednesday that he hopes to have a new bill passed in the House in two weeks, with a final bill sent to the president before the Memorial Day recess.
"We're not going to leave our troops in harm's way . . . without the resources they need," said Hoyer, D-Md.
Hoyer was reluctant to say exactly what the bill will look like, but said he anticipates a minimum-wage increase will be part of it. He also said the bill should fund combat through Sept. 30 as Bush has requested, casting doubt that Democratic leaders would adopt a proposal by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., to fund the war two or three months at a time.
The president defended his argument that U.S. troops must remain in Iraq to help stabilize that country, even as he predicted that "casualties are likely to stay high."
"If I didn't think it was necessary for the security of our country, I wouldn't put our kids in harm's way," Bush said.
There were few signs from lawmakers that they were willing to deal, either.
"The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
Democrats will work with the White House, she said, "but there is great distance between us right now."
In his veto message to Congress, Bush said "the micromanagement in this legislation is unacceptable." He also called the original bill unconstitutional for directing war operations "in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency."
The situation has the Democratic caucus in a difficult position. Because Democrats control the House and Senate, the pressure is mainly on them to craft a bill that Bush will sign, and thus avoid accusations that they failed to finance troops in a time of war.
The party's most liberal members, especially in the House, say they will vote against money for continuing the war if there's no binding language on troop drawdowns. The bill Bush rejected would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
"I think the Democrats are in a box," Rep. Eric Cantor (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., said in an interview. "We're pretty resolute on our side. We are not going to tie this funding to any type of withdrawal deadline or any type of redeployment deadline."
Some Democrats believe the GOP solidarity will crack over time, noting that polls show heavy public support for a withdrawal plan.
Numerous possible compromises are being floated on Capitol Hill, all involving some combination of benchmarks. Some would require Bush to certify monthly that the Iraqi government is fully cooperating with U.S. efforts in several areas, such as giving troops the authority to pursue extremists. Others would require an Iraqi-run program to disarm militias and a plan to distribute oil revenues fairly among the various population groups.
The key impasse in Congress is whether to require redeployments of U.S. troops if the benchmarks are not met. Many Democrats insist on it, and many Republicans vow not to budge. It's far from clear whether Bush would accept such an approach.
Under one proposal being floated, unmet benchmarks would cause some U.S. troops to be removed from especially violent regions such as Baghdad. They would redeploy to places in Iraq where they presumably could fight terrorists but avoid the worst centers of Sunni-Shia conflict.
Still another possibility would change the bill that Bush vetoed only by allowing the president to waive the redeployment requirements under certain conditions
A new spending bill "has got to be tied to redeployment," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., the House's fourth-ranking Democratic leader. Emanuel conceded, however, that Democrats have yet to figure out where they will find the votes.
Said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) of Kentucky: "You've asked me if there is an area where there's a potential common ground, and I think benchmarks are a possibility."
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
GM's Wagoner Gets $10.2 Million in 2006 Total Pay
GM's Wagoner Gets $10.2 Million in 2006 Total Pay (Update4)
By Jeff Green and Greg Bensinger April 27 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., the largest U.S. automaker, said Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner's total compensation for last year was $10.2 million, as the company narrowed its loss.
Pay for Wagoner, 54, included $1.28 million in salary, $769,566 in other compensation, and stock options and awards valued at $6.67 million, the company said in a U.S. regulatory filing. Detroit-based GM also is proposing two new board members.
Wagoner's salary was 42 percent less than the $2.2 million he got for 2005, because of a 50 percent pay cut he agreed to in February last year. GM said today that Wagoner's salary for this year will be $1.65 million, restoring half of the cut.
``Maybe it's a little too early for a salary increase, but the automaker has made a lot of progress over the last year,'' said Mirko Mikelic, who helps manage $14 billion at Fifth Third Asset Management in Grand Rapids, Michigan, including GM debt. ``The union also made a lot of sacrifices so maybe it would be better for salaries to be flat going into negotiations'' that start in July for a new contract with the United Auto Workers.
The compensation details come three days after Wagoner learned that Toyota Motor Corp. had unseated his company as the global auto-sales leader in the first quarter, threatening GM's 76-year reign. GM's shares rose 58 percent last year, the most of any company in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The company's net loss narrowed to $2 billion from $10.4 billion in 2005.
GM has shifted more of Wagoner's 2006 and future compensation from salary and direct pay to pay based on the company's performance, spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem said. About 83 percent of his 2006 pay was ``at risk,'' GM said in the Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
Proposed Directors
The automaker is proposing the election of new board members Errol Davis and Kathryn Marinello. Davis, 63, is chancellor of the Georgia state university system and a director of BP Plc, Union Pacific Corp. and PPG Industries Inc. Marinello, 50, has been CEO of Minneapolis-based Ceridian Corp., a provider of human-resources and payroll services, since October.
The SEC approved rules last year that require companies for the first time to provide a single figure for total compensation of their five top-paid executives and made other changes in the way stock options and stock grants are valued. The changes make it difficult to compare figures from the previous year.
GM a year ago reported Wagoner's total pay as $5.48 million for 2005, including stock options valued at $2.88 million. He hasn't gotten a cash bonus since 2004. Based on GM's adjustment to compare this year's options on the same accounting basis as last year's, his total 2006 compensation was about $4.88 million.
Stock Awards
GM disclosed March 22 that Wagoner received $2.8 million in restricted stock units this year, the first such grants since 2003, and 500,000 stock options. Those awards will be included in future compensation and aren't part of the filing today.
Shares at GM have risen 40 percent in the 12 months through yesterday and fell 89 cents to $31.56 at 4:21 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Wagoner's 2006 total compensation is less than the $28.2 million that Ford Motor Co., the second-largest U.S. automaker, reported on April 5 for Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally. Pay for Mulally, who took over at Ford in September after heading Boeing Co.'s commercial airplane business, included a $7.5 million hiring bonus and $11 million to make up for payments he would have gotten from the planemaker.
Lutz, Henderson
GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, head of product development, got $8.44 million in compensation, including $1.16 million in salary, GM said in the filing today. His 2007 salary, effective March 1, will be $1.32 million.
Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson, 48, received $5.19 million in compensation, including $1.16 million in salary. Henderson took over as the top financial executive in January. His 2007 salary will also be $1.32 million.
Lutz, 75, and Henderson agreed to 30 percent pay cuts in February last year. Salaries for Lutz and Henderson are still 15 percent lower than they were at the start of 2006.
Wagoner has promised to cut $9 billion from North American costs this year as part of a plan to close 12 North American locations and end losses. GM last year persuaded 34,400 union workers to either accept incentives to retire or leave.
The automaker's shares have fallen 54 percent since Wagoner took over as CEO in June 2000. Wagoner's salary was $2 million in 2001, his first full year in the top job. He got a raise to $2.2 million for 2003 and received that annual amount until accepting the pay cut last year.
GM's $12.4 billion in losses the past two years were its first consecutive annual losses since 1990 to 1992.
The company has sold assets totaling more than $17 billion to fund its restructuring plan. Wagoner hasn't forecast when GM will return to profit.
Wagoner and other top GM executives have been restricted from buying or selling GM shares since April 2005 when the automaker abandoned a profit forecast for the year. GM hasn't given financial forecast since.
To contact the reporters on this story: Jeff Green in Southfield, Michigan, at jgreen16@bloomberg.net ; Greg Bensinger in New York at gbensinger1@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: April 27, 2007 17:53 EDT
2007 Bloomberg LP
2007 Bloomberg LP
Wagoner paid $10M despite GM losses
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Wagoner paid $10M despite GM losses
Sharon Terlep / The Detroit News
DETROIT -- General Motors Corp. CEO Rick Wagoner earned $10.2 million in 2006, a year in which the automaker continued to lose money and market share but managed to trim billions in losses.
In his seventh year leading GM, Wagoner received $1.28 million in salary, down from $2.2 million in 2005, the company said in a U.S. regulatory filing. Wagoner's salary for this year will increase to $1.65 million.
His other 2006 compensation included $6.67 million worth of stock options and awards and $769,566 in other compensation, according to a filing on Friday with U.S. regulators.
The 54-year-old CEO, who's spent three decades working for GM, made $5.5 million in 2005 and $10 million in 2004. However, GM noted that changes in accounting rules last year mean his 2006 compensation should not be compared with previous years. If Wagoner's compensation were calculated under the old rules, he would have made $4.8 million in 2006, GM said.
GM also said the majority of Wagoner's compensation was tied to future performance.
The decision to cut the base salaries of Wagoner and other top executives came last year after Jerry York, a top aide to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian who later joined the GM board of directors, publicly urged GM to cut its executive pay.
GM's Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson, 48, and Vice Chairman Bob Lutz also took pay cuts, bringing each of their base salaries to $1.32 million.
Overall, Lutz, 75, made $8.4 million last year, including his salary, $2.93 million in stock options and awards and $445,679 in other compensation. Henderson made $5.2 million in total compensation.
Wagoner's 2006 compensation was a little more than one-third of the $28.2 million Ford Motor Co.'s new president and CEO Alan Mulally earned during his first four months on the job.
Last year was a critical one for GM, which debuted a string of well-received new vehicles and cut $9 billion in costs, but continued to burn cash and cede market share to Japanese rivals.
For the first time in 76 years, GM this week lost its claim to being the world's largest automaker when Toyota Motor Co. surpassed GM in sales for the first quarter of 2007.
But Wagoner's relentless drive to cut costs has played well on Wall Street. GM's shares rose 58 percent last year, the most of any company in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Executive pay has emerged as a hot-button issue as Detroit's struggling automakers have looked to the United Auto Workers union for concessions in tough times.
A little more than a year ago, GM, in a show of shared sacrifice to UAW leaders, halved its dividend, capped health care benefits for salaried retirees and slashed the pay of Wagoner and other top executives and directors.
"He's got a tough job and he should be well compensated," said Brad Rubin, an analyst at investment firm BNP Paribas. "But the UAW is going to be very disappointed considering all the concessions and givebacks they're providing."
GM lost $2 billion in 2006, a more than $8 billion improvement compared to its restated $10.4 billion loss in 2005. The automaker is in the midst of a sweeping restructuring plan that includes slashing more than 34,000 jobs and closing 12 plants.
In a letter sent earlier this week to top executives, Wagoner acknowledged frustration with being passed by Toyota, but said the company's overall strategy is a good one.
"What's important is that we stay focused on implementing our business strategies around the globe," he said. "Because they are working."
Wagoner and other top GM executives have been restricted from buying or selling GM shares since April 2005 when the automaker abandoned a profit forecast for the year. GM hasn't given a financial forecast since.
The automaker is proposing the election of new board members Errol Davis and Kathryn Marinello.
Davis, 63, is chancellor of the Georgia state university system and a director of BP Plc, Union Pacific Corp. and PPG Industries Inc. Marinello, 50, has been CEO of Minneapolis-based Ceridian Corp., a provider of human-resources and payroll services, since October.
Bloomberg News contributed to this report. You can reach Sharon Terlep at (313) 223-4686 or sterlep@detnews.com.
© Copyright 2007 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.
