thedrifter
05-07-07, 08:11 AM
Raises on the rise
House ups White House pay hike to 3.5 percent
By Rick Maze - rmaze@militarytimes.com
Posted : May 14, 2007
A House subcommittee began an effort May 2 to provide extra pay and extra troops to what lawmakers say is an overworked, underappreciated force.
The House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee approved a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise effective Jan. 1, enough to shave the current 3.9 percent gap between military and private-sector wages to 3.4 percent. The raise would be 0.5 percentage point more than the Bush administration requested.
Also approved was an active-duty personnel increase that is 46,000 people above the level requested by the administration. That includes modest increases in the size of the Navy and Air Force — both of which have been reducing their active-duty strength in recent years.
“Troops and their families must come first,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who had urged the personnel panel to approve the slightly larger military raise and made it possible by agreeing to cover the cost as part of the 2008 wartime funding authorization.
Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., chairman of the personnel panel, said the basic pay and drill pay increase of 3.5 percent, if approved as part of the final 2008 defense authorization bill, would represent the ninth consecutive year of military raises that are bigger than average wage hikes in the private sector, a trend that has allowed the gap between military and civilian wages to drop from a high of 13.5 percent in 1999 to just under 4 percent today.
The panel’s active-duty personnel increases affect the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, which is unusual only because the Navy and Air Force have been getting smaller while the Army and Marine Corps are growing.
Under the plan, the Army would be authorized 525,400 active-duty soldiers by Sept. 30, 2008, which is 36,000 more than the administration asked for. The Marine Corps would be authorized 189,000 people, 9,000 above the request. The increases are aimed at encouraging those services to speed their five-year growth plans, which are too slow to give swift aid to overworked troops already in the ranks.
The Navy would be authorized 329,098 people, an increase of 698 over the number requested, and the Air Force would have an approved strength of 329,563 people, 963 more than requested.
Rep. John McHugh of New York, former chairman of the personnel subcommittee and now its senior Republican, said the personnel increases are critical. “Men and women in uniform are far too stressed — caused largely by the fact there are far too few men and women in uniform,” he said.
Already behind on budget
Snyder said 2008 is shaping up as an “extremely difficult year” for personnel programs because the Bush administration’s initial plan assumed $2.2 billion in savings from cuts in the military medical budget that lawmakers decided, on a bipartisan basis, to block, out of concerns that military medical facilities might be forced to close.
As a result, Snyder said, “We started out behind.” He noted the panel could have done much more for troops and families if it didn’t have to first cover the assumed health care savings. Because he did not want to promise benefits that might not materialize, Snyder said he omitted some benefits improvements from the bill and scaled back on others.
“We did not want to raise any expectations we cannot fulfill,” he said.
One benefit he scaled back was a bipartisan initiative to increase GI Bill education benefits for National Guard and reserve members. Without money to pay for increases in benefits for reservists, whose monthly GI Bill rates have eroded in value because they have not kept pace with the active-duty GI Bill nor with the rise in tuition costs, the best the subcommittee could do was transfer authority over the Reserve GI Bill from the Defense Department to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a move that could someday pave the way for equity.
Also, in what is viewed as a no-cost initiative, the subcommittee approved a modified version of the Pentagon’s ongoing initiative to consolidate special pays and bonuses. This is designed to make those compensation tools simpler for troops to understand, while also giving the services more flexibility in deciding who should receive extra pay and how much they should get.
While more flexibility would reduce congressional oversight over payments, committee aides — speaking on the condition of anonymity — said the services have been fairly frugal with bonus expenditures and that, if anything, they worry that the services don’t spend enough.
Reducing pay offsets
The subcommittee also took a small step toward helping two groups of military beneficiaries — surviving spouses and disability retirees — who have complained their military benefits are offset by other payments received from the VA.
For those eligible for both military survivor benefits and the VA’s dependency and indemnity compensation, the subcommittee approved a plan to provide a new monthly payment to partly make up for the offset in military benefits required of those who also get the VA compensation. The payment, which would begin Oct. 1, 2008, would be the amount of the offset, up to a maximum of $40, Snyder said.
Snyder acknowledged this is less than the full payment of both benefits sought by survivors. “While the financial landscape has been challenging to the committee, I am pleased that we are able to move forward incrementally,” he said, noting that the offset “has been a point of contention among those who have lost their loved ones in combat or as a result of a service-connected injury or wound.”
For disabled troops who were medically retired from the military with less than 20 years of service, the subcommittee bill has expanded Combat-Related Special Compensation slightly to allow some to concurrently receive their full disability retirement check from the Defense Department and their full disability compensation from the VA.
Under the proposal, which also would take effect Oct. 1, 2008, those who have a minimum of 15 years of service and a disability rated at 60 percent or higher that is a result of combat or combat-like training would be eligible for concurrent receipt of both benefits as long as their disability retirement check is more than they would have received if they had retired without a disability.
McHugh called the two initiatives a “creative approach” to helping people with long-standing complaints from being ignored as the government has moved to eliminate or reduce pay offsets for others eligible for both military and veterans’ benefits.
“Perhaps over time we can do more,” he said.
Ellie
House ups White House pay hike to 3.5 percent
By Rick Maze - rmaze@militarytimes.com
Posted : May 14, 2007
A House subcommittee began an effort May 2 to provide extra pay and extra troops to what lawmakers say is an overworked, underappreciated force.
The House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee approved a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise effective Jan. 1, enough to shave the current 3.9 percent gap between military and private-sector wages to 3.4 percent. The raise would be 0.5 percentage point more than the Bush administration requested.
Also approved was an active-duty personnel increase that is 46,000 people above the level requested by the administration. That includes modest increases in the size of the Navy and Air Force — both of which have been reducing their active-duty strength in recent years.
“Troops and their families must come first,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who had urged the personnel panel to approve the slightly larger military raise and made it possible by agreeing to cover the cost as part of the 2008 wartime funding authorization.
Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., chairman of the personnel panel, said the basic pay and drill pay increase of 3.5 percent, if approved as part of the final 2008 defense authorization bill, would represent the ninth consecutive year of military raises that are bigger than average wage hikes in the private sector, a trend that has allowed the gap between military and civilian wages to drop from a high of 13.5 percent in 1999 to just under 4 percent today.
The panel’s active-duty personnel increases affect the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, which is unusual only because the Navy and Air Force have been getting smaller while the Army and Marine Corps are growing.
Under the plan, the Army would be authorized 525,400 active-duty soldiers by Sept. 30, 2008, which is 36,000 more than the administration asked for. The Marine Corps would be authorized 189,000 people, 9,000 above the request. The increases are aimed at encouraging those services to speed their five-year growth plans, which are too slow to give swift aid to overworked troops already in the ranks.
The Navy would be authorized 329,098 people, an increase of 698 over the number requested, and the Air Force would have an approved strength of 329,563 people, 963 more than requested.
Rep. John McHugh of New York, former chairman of the personnel subcommittee and now its senior Republican, said the personnel increases are critical. “Men and women in uniform are far too stressed — caused largely by the fact there are far too few men and women in uniform,” he said.
Already behind on budget
Snyder said 2008 is shaping up as an “extremely difficult year” for personnel programs because the Bush administration’s initial plan assumed $2.2 billion in savings from cuts in the military medical budget that lawmakers decided, on a bipartisan basis, to block, out of concerns that military medical facilities might be forced to close.
As a result, Snyder said, “We started out behind.” He noted the panel could have done much more for troops and families if it didn’t have to first cover the assumed health care savings. Because he did not want to promise benefits that might not materialize, Snyder said he omitted some benefits improvements from the bill and scaled back on others.
“We did not want to raise any expectations we cannot fulfill,” he said.
One benefit he scaled back was a bipartisan initiative to increase GI Bill education benefits for National Guard and reserve members. Without money to pay for increases in benefits for reservists, whose monthly GI Bill rates have eroded in value because they have not kept pace with the active-duty GI Bill nor with the rise in tuition costs, the best the subcommittee could do was transfer authority over the Reserve GI Bill from the Defense Department to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a move that could someday pave the way for equity.
Also, in what is viewed as a no-cost initiative, the subcommittee approved a modified version of the Pentagon’s ongoing initiative to consolidate special pays and bonuses. This is designed to make those compensation tools simpler for troops to understand, while also giving the services more flexibility in deciding who should receive extra pay and how much they should get.
While more flexibility would reduce congressional oversight over payments, committee aides — speaking on the condition of anonymity — said the services have been fairly frugal with bonus expenditures and that, if anything, they worry that the services don’t spend enough.
Reducing pay offsets
The subcommittee also took a small step toward helping two groups of military beneficiaries — surviving spouses and disability retirees — who have complained their military benefits are offset by other payments received from the VA.
For those eligible for both military survivor benefits and the VA’s dependency and indemnity compensation, the subcommittee approved a plan to provide a new monthly payment to partly make up for the offset in military benefits required of those who also get the VA compensation. The payment, which would begin Oct. 1, 2008, would be the amount of the offset, up to a maximum of $40, Snyder said.
Snyder acknowledged this is less than the full payment of both benefits sought by survivors. “While the financial landscape has been challenging to the committee, I am pleased that we are able to move forward incrementally,” he said, noting that the offset “has been a point of contention among those who have lost their loved ones in combat or as a result of a service-connected injury or wound.”
For disabled troops who were medically retired from the military with less than 20 years of service, the subcommittee bill has expanded Combat-Related Special Compensation slightly to allow some to concurrently receive their full disability retirement check from the Defense Department and their full disability compensation from the VA.
Under the proposal, which also would take effect Oct. 1, 2008, those who have a minimum of 15 years of service and a disability rated at 60 percent or higher that is a result of combat or combat-like training would be eligible for concurrent receipt of both benefits as long as their disability retirement check is more than they would have received if they had retired without a disability.
McHugh called the two initiatives a “creative approach” to helping people with long-standing complaints from being ignored as the government has moved to eliminate or reduce pay offsets for others eligible for both military and veterans’ benefits.
“Perhaps over time we can do more,” he said.
Ellie