It's baaaaack!

Although it is unlikely to make front page news, Congress is once again debating whether to continue paying Foreign Service Officers Overseas Comparability Pay (OCP).  This time around, they're slipping it into the appropriations bill - if the bill mentions OCP, some/all of it will get funded; if not, it will amount to a 16% pay cut for me and many of my colleagues. 

This is what we call "disincentivizing" overseas assignments.  Not only do our colleagues get paid more for taking Washington, DC, assignments under a non-OCP system, they will also contribute more to their pensions, which, with interest included, amounts to a significant difference in retirement benefits over time.  

This really shouldn't be the case.  Foreign Service personnel should be serving the majority of their careers overseas.  We can't help build institutions in places like Afghanistan and Iraq by sitting behind a desk in Washington.  And we certainly can't negotiate treaties on everything from trade to fisheries via Skype.  Diplomacy is a face-to-face initiative that takes real skill, heart, integrity, and intellect.  We can't conduct our foreign policy only from Washington.  We must get out into the world.  And we must compensate Foreign Service Officers for the experience, drive and passion they bring to public service, often in the most trying of circumstances (I am clearly not referencing my relatively cushy lifestyle here in Buenos Aires - the vast majority of the places in which we serve offer up many dangers and pitfalls, from gunfire to dengue fever to cholera to nonpotable water and beyond.)


I think John Kerry (WOOT! WOOT! Massachusetts!) worded it quite nicely in today's Washington Post:

Amid budget crisis, a defense of foreign aid

By Sen. John Kerry, Updated: Wednesday, August 3, 9:08 AM

This piece is part of a leadership roundtable on U.S. foreign aid, in light of the crisis in Somalia — with opinion pieces by Sen. John Kerry, Fletcher School Professor Astier M. Almedom, Share Our Strength Founder Bill Shore,Wharton School Professor Stuart Diamond, and Executives Without Borders CEO Robert Goodwin.

At this time of budget crisis, a United States senator defending foreign aid might well be advised to get examined by a political consultant if not a mental health professional. But right now it’s more urgent than ever that those of us who believe in robust American leadership step up and articulate the dangers of American retrenchment. Many question whether we can afford foreign aid and development investments, but the reality – however hard to swallow – is that we can’t afford not to.

Energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. It amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. In a world growing more not less interdependent, slashing foreign aid and development investments is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. America can't opt out of a networked world.

The drought in Somalia today is the most recent devastating example. We face tremendous foreign policy and national security challenges worldwide, from leading humanitarian responses to such famine; to helping countries manage peaceful, democratic transitions in the Middle East; to preventing violence, conflict and terrorism from engulfing key partners.

Is there a cost to taxpayers? Of course. But all of our foreign aid programs and foreign policy initiatives— from sending diplomats to Afghanistan to helping reverse the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa—barely make up 1 percent of the annual budget. It is a relatively small investment for such a great return. This year alone we will spend approximately $700 billion on our military. The entire international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of that. As former Secretary Gates once pointed out, if you took the entire Foreign Service roster, you could barely staff one aircraft carrier.

And yet our diplomats are serving on the frontlines of multiple revolutions and wars. They are making vital contributions in Afghanistan, and in Iraq they are planning the transition from a military mission to a diplomatic one so that we can cement the political progress that has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Surely in a tax code spanning more than 72,000 pages of expenditures – many of which are proven to generate no economic activity – we can find the cuts to preserve our investment in reducing security threats, in opening markets for American businesses, and in creating opportunities for American leadership.

Last week, I introduced a bill that would help advance key diplomatic and foreign policy priorities worldwide. Building our nation’s civilian capacity and providing our diplomatic corps with the essential tools to succeed in the demanding jobs we continually require of them is essential. To get the job done, we need our diplomats.

As President John F. Kennedy pointedly articulated at the founding of USAID in 1961, “Widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area. Thus our own security would be endangered and our prosperity imperiled.”

This is all too true.

Failed states are a leading indicator for future instability and conflict. We learned this hard lesson in Afghanistan, and we continue to learn this lesson from other countries today. We no longer have the luxury of isolationism as a fallback, though I don’t believe we really ever did. If we pulled all of our diplomats back to Washington, closed down all of our development programs, and proclaimed to the world that we wanted nothing more than to be left alone, those who want to do us harm would still find us, and our national security would be even more imperiled.

We can either pay now to help brave people build a better, democratic future for themselves or we will certainly pay later with increased threats to our own national security. In Africa, we are helping to midwife the birth of a new nation in South Sudan and to resolve the situation in Darfur. We are leading the fight against global challenges, like nuclear proliferation and climate change. And in countless communities around the world we are providing essential humanitarian assistance.

Why do we do this? Because it’s who we are. It’s in America’s DNA – from the Marshall Plan to our response to the earthquakes in Pakistan and Haiti.

Do we need to do a better job of unabashedly sharing with the American people why we undertake humanitarian and development programs and what benefits we get from them? Yes. By showing the world that we comprehend, and share, their destiny we engender goodwill and strengthen critical partnerships. And of course we must keep working to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs we implement. We cannot rest on our laurels.

But on one point we must remain resolute: This is not time for America to pull back from the world. This is a time to step forward.

Sen. John Kerry is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has served in the U.S. Senate since 1985 and was the 2004 Democratic candidate for president.

On Uruguayan men

Turns out Uruguayan men are just as macho and overly confident as Argentine men.

A few weekends ago, I'm in Montevideo, visiting my friend Kaitlin, and we're standing by the guard shack at the Marine House, waiting for our cab, when...a group of Uruguayans walk past to leave the party.  One of them breaks off from the pack and approaches Kaitlin and I, saying:

"You two are the most beautiful girls here."  (We glance around. There are no other girls in sight.)  "Especially you with glasses."  (Katilin happened to be wearing her reading glasses that night.)  (Meanwhile, all his friends leave the party, totally ditching him as he embarks on the hopeless quest of landing himself a gringa for the night.)

As if it could possibly go any other way, the conversation quickly goes downhill.  Next thing I know, Kaitlin is somehow planting the idea of a threesome in this poor Uruguayan's head, then says something incoherent about how she isn't interested, but maybe she can watch him and I.  Please note: KAITLIN WAS NOT DRUNK.  She just wasn't paying attention to what she was saying.

So Uruguayan man turns to me and says, "What do you like about Latin men?"

I dance around the subject, lacking any sense of commitment: "They're all so different; it's hard to say."

He responds, "What kind of Latin do you like best?"

Again, "They're all so different; it's hard to say."

Kaitlin jumps in with, "I like Brazilian men."  Very confident.  Very much in the vein of "You're wasting my time, Uruguayan man, I prefer Brazilians."

To which our little Uruguayan friend says, in his broken, but easily understood English, "Brazilian men, small penis.  Uruguayan men..." and he holds his hands about ten inches apart from one another "...wide."

And he was so earnest, so hopeful in his less-than-sober appeal for us to take him home that night and rock his world.  It took all my willpower to not laugh my ass off.

Participating in the political process

I probably didn't make an ounce of sense in my last post about Overseas Comparability Pay, but I did finally find the time to send a letter to my representatives in Congress: Senators Kerry and Brown, and Representative McGovern.  Since this is an important issue for me and for my Foreign Service colleagues (and friends!) - and also because it might be more clear than my previous post, I'm reposting the letter I sent below:

Dear Representative/Senator:


My name is Ryan Janda and I am in the United States Foreign Service. I have served in Peru, Mexico and currently in Argentina. I am also your constituent.

I am writing in my individual capacity as a constituent. I support efforts to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending across all our federal agencies as part of the effort to reduce our national deficit. 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.

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 Foreign Service personnel serving their country overseas.

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. 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.

Today thousands of Foreign Service employees serve in hardship assignments around the globe, which now constitute nearly 60% of all posts. The number of unaccompanied posts has increased more than fivefold in the last decade. Assignments overseas are increasingly challenging, difficult and in many instances, dangerous. In my own experience living along the border between Arizona and Mexico, I listened from my bedroom many nights as rival drug gangs shot at each other down the block from my home. Many mornings we would wake up to find that more bodies had been dumped in empty lots around our neighborhood. Yet this didn’t dissuade any member of Consulate Nogales from showing up for work every day to help American citizens, increase bilateral cooperation on security and business initiatives, and respond to the hundreds of daily requests for visas. Although this is just a small glimpse of my own personal experience, I know that my colleagues in Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, among a host of others, are living and working in much more stressful environments, doing what they can to advance American interests abroad.

Due in large part to my colleagues’ unceasing and highly successful efforts to promote peace and development overseas, there has been strong bipartisan recognition that it is time to invest in diplomacy and development. Penalizing Foreign Service employees whose mission is to serve overseas to advance and protect our national interests by cutting their base pay undervalues the importance of their work, widens the gap between those serving in the United States and those facing hardships and sacrifices overseas and creates real disincentives to serving on the front lines of American diplomacy and development.

I am proud to be a public servant and honored to be a member of our State Department Foreign Service. I hope that you will support the Foreign Service and help ensure that its members are not penalized for service overseas.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Amigos

For the first time in a very long time - maybe even ever - I had Jeff and Liz's undivided attention for ten whole days.  Here in Buenos Aires, and then in Puerto Iguazu and Colonia.  It was AWESOME.

I already wish they would come back.

Lovin' the Falls!

The three amigos...

Spoke too soon

Like I've said before, and I will likely say again many times over the course of my career, I am very happy to have both a paycheck and health insurance.  So when I complain about my job, it's because someone or some event out of my control has made things difficult or frustrating for me - this has nothing to do with my overall pride in serving my country as a Foreign Service Officer, or the joy I get out of working with so many talented professionals.  Overall, I am happy with my work, I am happy with my colleagues, and I am happy with the life that I am blessed to lead.

That being said, there are a couple of issues currently ongoing that greatly affect my livelihood.  These issues are complex, but I will try to summarize them for you so you can understand why they are so important to me and my fellow colleagues:

1. As you may or may not be aware, the government of the United States is currently operating under a "continuing resolution."  What this essentially means is that our Congress has failed to agree on the 2011 budget and the U.S. Government is operating on a budget $6 billion lower than 2010 budget numbers until April 8.  If, for any reason, Congress fails to agree on a budget and does not authorize another continuing resolution by April 8, the whole government (except for essential personnel) will go on furlough until a new continuing resolution or a 2011 budget passes.  This means that we will not get paid for several weeks.  When this last happened in 1995-1996, the government lost millions of dollars because of this and eventually did retroactively pay government employees for the furloughed time.  This is not guaranteed this time, nor do any politicians want to see this happen again, as it is a very messy process and makes our Congress and our government look very, very bad.  More related to the State Department, the Congress is seeking to cut $100 billion from the budget, as suggested by the House Appropriations Committee to meet their commitment to reduce U.S. debt.  Both President Obama and Congress have stated that the majority of cuts will come from discretionary, non-National Security spending.  Unfortunately for me and my colleagues, many of our Representatives and Senators do not feel that the work that we do classifies as National Security efforts.  Without a natural constituency (such as that which the Department of Defense enjoys with its military bases in every state) or a strong professional lobby, that means that the State Department and USAID budgets are often the first to be slashed.  It's an easy cut - it doesn't offend the voters in congressional and senatorial districts and our representatives get to look like they are making strong efforts to balance the budget (even though our budgets may represent less than 1% of the total federal budget).  Over the long term, that means that we have fewer resources to meet an ever-growing list of initiatives that must be done, often to keep the peace or extend multi-lateral relations.  We are lucky that we do have some defenders, and I strongly urge you to write to your representatives in Congress to let them know how you feel about this issue. I promise you I am doing the same.

As an excerpt from Senator Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) argument for counting the State Department and USAID as National Security initiatives, I give you this:

"Our Republican friends in the House should know that we cannot counter the influence of al Qaida and other violent extremists through military force alone. They should know that helping countries such as Southern Sudan rebuild after conflict, building stable democratic institutions in countries such as Egypt, preventing the trafficking of nuclear material and other weapons in the former Soviet Union, educating and providing jobs for youth who would otherwise be fodder for terrorist recruiters in the Middle East, combating the corrosive influence of organized crime in Central America, preventing the spread of deadly viruses in Africa and Asia—viruses that are only one airplane ride away from the United States—or supporting NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or U.N. peacekeeping—these are all parts of our national security. It is the diplomats here and abroad, and the funds they administer, that help make U.S. leadership possible around the world."

2. One of the State Department budget items that has strongly come under attack is a pesky line item called Overseas Comparability Pay.  In the face of the two-year wage freeze that President Obama imposed on the federal government, many in our current Congress believe that this constitutes a salary raise, when in fact, it is not.  The best description I have seen comes from the form letter the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) provided us to send to our representatives in Congress:

"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 Foreign Service personnel serving their country overseas.

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. 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.

Today thousands of Foreign Service employees serve in hardship assignments around the globe, which now constitute nearly 60% of all posts. The number of unaccompanied posts has increased more than fivefold in the last decade. 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 whose mission is to serve overseas to advance and protect our national interests by cutting their base pay undervalues the importance of their work, widens the gap between those serving in the United States and those facing hardships and sacrifices overseas and creates real disincentives to serving on the front lines of American diplomacy and development."

 So, as you can see, Overseas Comparability Pay is incredibly important to me and my colleagues, as it determines our contributions to retirement and puts us on an even playing field with our civil service counterparts.  Moreover, our civil service colleagues often do not have to choose between their jobs and the ability of their spouses to have a fulfilling career that contributes to household finances.  In righting an inequity in our overseas payscale, Overseas Comparability Pay allows our Foreign Service families to be able to better afford to serve our country, even when our spouses cannot work.  A much more organized and compelling argument was made previously by a friend whose wife has an engineering degree and has the difficulty of trying to find work every few years, except in those countries where we have no bilateral agreements that allow it.  I encourage you to read his story.

3. Let's talk about that 2-year wage freeze.  I've already talked about how this relates to our Overseas Comparability Pay, but I haven't yet touched on a wider issue: that of our Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs).  In every U.S. embassy and consulate overseas, we have a host of local employees (usually from the host country, sometimes from a third country) that form an integral and necessary part of our staff.  I don't pretend to know all of the laws and regulations affecting their pay and benefits, but I do know these two things: their salaries are paid in the local currency (here in Argentina, that makes it the Argentine peso), and, as U.S. government employees, they are subject to the 2-year wage freeze.  Without going into too much detail (partly to keep myself from appearing incredibly ignorant by publishing incorrect or badly understood information), let me just say that this is wreaking havoc on our FSNs.  Largely due to perceived wage increase injustices in the past (whether or not that is true, I cannot say) and the fact that Argentina "enjoys" one of the highest rates of inflation in the world (not currently recognized by their government however), this has been very traumatic for our Argentine staff.  As you can easily guess, on top of greatly affecting their purchasing power (many have to find new housing, move their children into different school systems, and make other life-altering household budget cuts), this is also harmful to our FSN-American staff relationship.  We are working to remedy this situation as best we can here, but progress is rocky at best.  It is easy for us, as Americans, to say, "Well, if the work environment is so bad, just leave," but this alternative is not available to all our staff.  Hiring practices in Argentina are not the same as they are in the U.S. and the EEO laws are certainly not on par.  More and more young adults are finding that their advanced degrees do not help them land jobs and are increasingly living at home with their families for even longer periods of time.  On the older end of the scale, it is my understanding that there is a lot of age-ism practiced here - if you're over a certain age, your hireability apparently drops off a cliff.  I've even been told that if you don't "look the part," you don't get hired.  These limitations make it such that, even with the wage freeze, a job at the U.S. embassy is still one of the most appealing options out there (despite our not very Argentine work hours).

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

So you can see that I and my colleagues are closely watching our Congress (and the rest of our government), waiting to see how we will fare over the coming months.  We are committed to doing our part to elevate the reputation of the United States abroad; to working with our foreign counterparts to create a more receptive environment for U.S. business interests and peace; and to sharing our culture with the rest of the world.  But it is certainly frustrating to see that our jobs are often misunderstood or poorly imagined by our compatriots at home, so badly so that no one bats an eye as our budget gets massacred because our Foreign Service is viewed as "discretionary" spending.  In the end, we will certainly make do with the budget we are authorized, but as our resources dwindle, so too does our ability to make forward progress.

One down, 19 to go...

My one-year anniversary as a Foreign Service Officer just passed.  That is a whole year with a paycheck and health insurance, guys!  ROCK.

On Argentine Men: One wink too many

As part of Steve's Hannukah gift extravaganza for his wife, Katie, Petra and I volunteered to babysit FROGMAN! one night so they could go out for a date.  Steve cashed in on our offer a few Saturdays ago and Petra and I had a fantastic time, ordering out pizza, Chinese food, and ice cream.  What?!!!  A girl's gotta eat.

So we're sitting there, with our computers, surrounded by this feast, and FROGMAN! is out cold in his room.  Even George and Gracie (the dogs) are stretched out on the floor somewhere, leaving us to our dinner and chatting.

Of course, at one point the conversation turns to men.  Since Petra is leaving for Norfolk, VA, in June, she decided to post a profile on Match.com in the U.S. to see if there was anyone in the Norfolk area who might be willing to be her tour guide when she arrives.  We think it might be interesting to peruse Match.com's catalogue of men here in Buenos Aires, while we have the site up. 

Turns out that there is a completely separate Match.com for Argentina and the only way to browse the participants is to open a profile.  Since Petra has the U.S. profile, we sign me up for the Argentina profile.  Being the survey-loving fool that I am, I actually fill out some profile items, like my height, eye color, amount of physical fitness activity, my dislike of smokers, and the fact that the one thing I can't live without is oxygen.  Yes, yes, most people answered the question of what they couldn't live without a little less realistically and entered things like their i-Pad, coffee, and their dog, but I thought they were wrong.  It really is amazing how many things we can live without, but oxygen?  There's just no getting around that pesky gas.

So, needless to say, we start cruising around Match.com Argentina and, in the male looking for female category, aged 31 to 42, we compiled the following observations:

• Argentine men are not modest.  About 75% of them have as their main profile picture a shot of them topless.  I decided right there and then that I clearly can't use Match.com Argentina as a dating medium.
• In the 31 to 42 age range, about 75% of Argentine men are divorced with children.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does make me feel like I missed out on the first round of marriage.  (Although secretly I hope that my life only has ONE round of marriage.)  It also reminds me of the high rate of divorce around here.  What is up, Argentina??!
• Argentine men write profile summaries like Hallmark cards.  Very, very sappy.  I hear that Argentine women like this, just as they like their men to text or call them 15 times a day, tell them how wonderful they are every hour on the hour, and just woo them into a willing puddle of romantic goo, but...BUT.  I am my mother's child and I find the overly saccharine language to be a bit overwhelming.  It reeks of a man who is far too dependent and needy...which makes sense since Argentines generally live with their parents until they get married.  Needless to say, not my cup of tea.  (Hey, in theory it sounds great, but in practice, well, I'd be all like, "Yeah, yeah, I'm fantastic, I know.  Now would you please get up off your ass and take the trash out?!!")

So Petra and I laugh and make fun and oogle the better-looking men, and then move on to other topics.  Eventually, Steve and Katie come home, all aglow from their night out on the town without FROGMAN!  So we leave and move on with our lives.

You probably know what's coming next...

I completely forget about signing up, but Match.com Argentina approved my profile and the emails started pouring in.  The first email was from a good-looking thirty-something who writes, "You don't have a picture up, but I really like your height."  And it just started going downhill from there.  Match.com Argentina gives you the ability to "wink" at people, too, which seems to be the internet version of, "Hey, I think you're cute.  Wanna suck face some time?"  In less than a week, I had racked up at least 20-30 emails and a good 50-60 "winks."  Most of the guys just wanted to connect with someone and hoped that they would find romance.  However, I even had some Brazilian write to me, hoping I could help him with his Spanish (oops, forgot to mention on my profile that I am a gringa).  But I finally deleted my profile when a 57-year-old man "winked" at me.  As much fun as the attention of a number of desperate Argentine men can be, I draw the line at men older than my parents.  I just can't do it.

Although, to be fair, I had no intention of dating ANY of the men on Match.com Argentina.  Call me old-fashioned, but I like meeting people the more traditional way: drunk in a bar.

Tee-hee!