H.R. 1066, The Peace Corps Expansion Act of 2009 (6 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 111th Congress (2009-2010) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
H.R. 1066 would amend the Peace Corps Act to provide continued funding for the Peace Corps, to increase the readjustment allowances for Peace Corps volunteers and volunteer leaders.
()
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
SCW
February 17, 2009, 7:02pm (report abuse)The volunteers cost $45,000 a year per volunteer and they are sold out to orgs like PEPFAR for the $45,000 or a charge to NGOs because of the 'five year outside the federal budget budget.' PC has another budget. They need to pay the volunteers at least half of this, their worth, and reduce the support cost or give the money to NGOs who can do allot more with less. Any NGO can spend that $45,000 a year much better than the US government.
HB
March 3, 2009, 2:41pm (report abuse)Peace Corps volunteers do not earn $22,500 a year (half of $45,000, as SCW suggests). Each volunteer is given a living stipend equal to a middle class wage of the country where they serve. For many volunteers, this is only a few dollars a day.
The Peace Corps is the most cost-beneficial program the US government has. The volunteers who sacrifice 27 months of their life deserve to have their living adjustment stipend increased at LEAST to keep up with inflation.
TD
July 17, 2009, 10:12am (report abuse)Peace Corps is properly one of the most mismanaged organizaions in the federal government where discriminatory employment and retention practices go unchecked. They should not be given any more money until these problems are fixed.
SCW
August 1, 2009, 11:01am (report abuse)The employees only make a small percentage of their worth or value. That is $47,000 or 57,000 depending on budgets.
The living stipend is not the salary they receive when they return home. It is not equal to a middle class wage in country. It is based on the job done by the employee.
The salary doubling, like the foreign aid doubling is in one bill and bills that pay PC don't have it. The salary increase to maybe 5% of their actual cost doesn't look like it will pass with the other budget bills, so this is usually handled by increasing the in country salary stipend and calling it the raise to the re-settlement salary. The equal pay for the job to the country nationals is an excuse to hire PC employees in country when a host country national can do the job just fine and probably be paid more;
SCW
August 1, 2009, 11:03am (report abuse)depending on the slaries that should increase. The PC living allowance salary needs to be studied as it is not equal to those in country; the in country stipend raise is usually done based on economics and not a salary study. For example, a teacher or trainer in country may be making that $22,500, but it is not studied and documented for a real assessment.
The re-settlement salary increase is needed, but Congress and Obama have been saying double foreign aid for two years now and it's since tripled or quadrupled, depending on how you add it up. 'Doubling' PC employees pay in poverty and keeping them there makes no sense. The excuses for paying federal workers below poverty and keeping them there can be seen by increasing the re-settlement salary to something reasonable to their value, like that $22,500 that they receive when they get home. No in country money worries.
PC Corps is one of the most wasteful programs in the US government
SCW
August 1, 2009, 11:06am (report abuse)Each PC in country costs over $47,000 a year. They make a very small percentage of their value, cost jobs in country and may keep wages down. Who is better off with that $47,000 a year? It is obvious that an NGO or in country program would be more efficient.
The disrimination problem is obvious in the employees fired for aquiring AIDs and White House Office of AIDs policy. PC's answer was to possibly change after a long study. By federal laws these issues had to be solved quickly. They still fire emplyees who aquire AIDs. Hillary and State and hiring RPCVs for policy hasn't changed this. PEPFAR funding and hiring of PC employees should stop until this issue is resolved.
PC is a great program, but costs WAY too much and isn't doing much, but grab on to NGO and other federal funding programs. The third goal issues are there and that's why we discuss all this and make change, but there isn't enough participation, so the value is lower and the costs are much higher...