Washington Post: Guam Buildup's $10 Billion Wage Add-On "Too Costly"

By Jeff Marchesseault - Guam News Factor

GUAM - A Washington Post editorial just published online is adding to the growing criticism of the $10 billion more in Guam construction wages called for in the House version of the 2010 Defense Authorization Act.

Amendments added by the House Armed Services Committee and passed by the full House would ensure that 70 percent of the federal construction jobs associated with Guam's 2010 military buildup plans would go to U.S. citizens and that industry wages would be pegged to the prevailing rate in Hawaii -- more than double that of Guam.

The effect would add another $10 billion to the cost of a buildup already estimated at $15 billion. The Post editorial says the provision should give U.S. senators and taxpayers pause and offers an alternative:

If giving U.S. workers jobs on Guam is a priority, this could be accomplished without driving wages up artificially to such a high level. You could, for example, keep the 70 percent restriction on foreign workers and let the market determine their wages. But given that Japan is paying for much of the relocation, does it make sense to limit the participation of Japanese construction firms and their workers?

The Post makes no mention of the Philippine workforce preferred by Guam officials on grounds of precedence (Filipino construction workers have built much, if not most, of post-war Guam), cultural similarities, and English-language proficiency.

The Post does recognize, however, the high cost of the amendments to U.S. taxpayers, who are already suffering the effects of a major recession:

These provisions will complicate a process already fraught with challenges. Guam's overburdened infrastructure will be sorely taxed by the new arrivals, who will amount to a 14 percent population increase, requiring an estimated $6.1 billion of work on roads, water, sewerage, waste processing and the power grid. Since Guam's annual budget is less than $1 billion, this money will have to come from outside. Why add to the burden on taxpayers with these unnecessary provisions? It is tempting to seize on any plan that tries to offer Americans jobs, but this cost is too great.

John Dela Rosa contributed to this analysis.