thedrifter
10-09-07, 07:56 PM
Your pay raise
House, Senate agree on 3.5 percent increase, but have much else to work out
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Oct 9, 2007 19:05:05 EDT
As congressional negotiators finally begin working on a compromise defense budget for 2008, one of the few resolved issues is a 3.5 percent pay increase in January for all service members, active and reserve.
The proposed raise, slightly larger than the 3 percent increase requested by the Bush administration, is included in both the House and Senate versions of the 2008 defense authorization bill, leaving little doubt about the outcome of that issue as negotiators meet to work out differences between the versions.
The charts
2008 Basic Pay Table
www.marinecorpstimes.com/projects/money/pay_charts/2008/basic/
2008 Extended Basic Pay Table
www.marinecorpstimes.com/projects/money/pay_charts/2008/extended_basic/
White House budget officials have tried, without success, to talk lawmakers out of the bigger pay raise, arguing that there is no reason to be overly generous.
Both legislative chambers approved the raise with significant bipartisan support, as lawmakers rallied around the idea of continuing to close the perceived gap between military and private-sector wages by providing an increase in basic pay and drill pay, effective Jan. 1, that is 0.5 percentage points greater than the average 2007 increase in private-sector wages.
Work on a final compromise version of the $648 billion defense bill began Oct. 1 after the Senate passed its version of the measure. The House passed its bill in May and has been waiting for the Senate to catch up so differences between the bills, and differences with the Bush administration, can be reconciled.
Negotiations could take months
There is no firm timetable for completing the bill. With the deadline for getting it done — Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year — already passed, lawmakers are hoping that a final bill can be approved by about mid-November. But congressional aides privately concede that the thousands of differences and some large policy battles with the White House could easily drag negotiations into December.
The Defense Department needs about 10 days of lead time to make changes in the active-duty payrolls. Because the Jan. 1 raise would first appear in mid-January paychecks, lawmakers could continue to struggle with the bill through the New Year and still have troops paid on time.
While the 2008 raise is not in doubt, negotiators drawn from the House and Senate Armed Services committees will have to decide whether to adopt a House-passed formula that would also set military raises from 2009 through 2012 at 0.5 percentage points more than the average private-sector increase, a plan intended to close the 4 percent gap that some analysts say exists today between military and private-sector wages.
The pay gap, the subject of some dispute, is based on wage growth in the military and private sector since 1981, the last time pay levels were deemed to be roughly comparable. White House budget officials have made it clear that they oppose the House pay formula and will seek to have it removed from the bill.
The Defense Department says the pay gap does not exist and has argued that money spent on bigger pay increases is money that cannot be spent on higher priorities, including bonuses and special pays targeted at people in critically needed skills who might otherwise leave the service.
Bipartisan ‘no’ for Tricare fees
On personnel issues, lawmakers have shown willingness to break with the Bush administration and Pentagon. A prime example is a tentative agreement between the House and Senate to prevent the Defense Department from raising Tricare health insurance fees for many military retirees and their families.
Defense officials have pleaded with Congress to allow significant fee hikes to offset rising health care expenses, but lawmakers have rallied around retirees, refusing to accept fee hikes until they are persuaded there is no other way to cover costs.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who co-sponsored a Senate amendment blocking increases in Tricare fees, premiums and pharmacy co-payments, said the military community is making enough sacrifices.
“We cannot burden our military retirees and their families with dramatic increases in out-of-pocket health care expenses,” said Lautenberg, whose amendment was co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
Reservists’ retired pay
The outcome of several other personnel issues will depend on the willingness of negotiators to disregard Pentagon and White House advice. An example is a retirement plan included in the Senate’s bill that would allow National Guard and reserve members mobilized for 90 days or longer since Sept. 11, 2001, to receive retired pay earlier than age 60, when payments currently begin. Under the formula, payment would begin three months earlier for every three months of active service, with 50 being the lowest possible age.
The final Senate plan is more generous than the provision initially passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have counted mobilizations only after the bill is signed into law, rather than giving credit for past service.
The plan passed by the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has drawn White House and Pentagon opposition over fears that it would encourage Guard and reserve members to retire early.
But Chambliss, whose proposal has the support of all of the major military associations, said he is simply trying to revise the retirement system to make it better suited to the duties of today’s reserve forces.
Concurrent receipt on the table
Negotiators also face a decision on how far to extend the so-called concurrent receipt programs that allow some disabled veterans to receive full military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation for the same period of service.
At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a longtime concurrent receipt champion, Senate bill orders retroactive retired pay for disabled retirees whose veterans’ disability ratings are based on the fact that their condition prevents them from holding a job. These veterans can be considered fully disabled even if their formal disability rating is less than 100 percent.
Reid’s initiative, which would overturn a Bush administration interpretation of law that denied full concurrent receipt to thousands of veterans, would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005.
Also up for negotiation are two different plans to eliminate an offset in payments for survivors who are eligible for Defense Department survivor benefits and dependency and indemnity compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Senate bill would eliminate the offset, while the House bill would provide a small monthly payment to partly make up for the pay loss. The White House opposes both ideas.
Ellie
House, Senate agree on 3.5 percent increase, but have much else to work out
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Oct 9, 2007 19:05:05 EDT
As congressional negotiators finally begin working on a compromise defense budget for 2008, one of the few resolved issues is a 3.5 percent pay increase in January for all service members, active and reserve.
The proposed raise, slightly larger than the 3 percent increase requested by the Bush administration, is included in both the House and Senate versions of the 2008 defense authorization bill, leaving little doubt about the outcome of that issue as negotiators meet to work out differences between the versions.
The charts
2008 Basic Pay Table
www.marinecorpstimes.com/projects/money/pay_charts/2008/basic/
2008 Extended Basic Pay Table
www.marinecorpstimes.com/projects/money/pay_charts/2008/extended_basic/
White House budget officials have tried, without success, to talk lawmakers out of the bigger pay raise, arguing that there is no reason to be overly generous.
Both legislative chambers approved the raise with significant bipartisan support, as lawmakers rallied around the idea of continuing to close the perceived gap between military and private-sector wages by providing an increase in basic pay and drill pay, effective Jan. 1, that is 0.5 percentage points greater than the average 2007 increase in private-sector wages.
Work on a final compromise version of the $648 billion defense bill began Oct. 1 after the Senate passed its version of the measure. The House passed its bill in May and has been waiting for the Senate to catch up so differences between the bills, and differences with the Bush administration, can be reconciled.
Negotiations could take months
There is no firm timetable for completing the bill. With the deadline for getting it done — Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year — already passed, lawmakers are hoping that a final bill can be approved by about mid-November. But congressional aides privately concede that the thousands of differences and some large policy battles with the White House could easily drag negotiations into December.
The Defense Department needs about 10 days of lead time to make changes in the active-duty payrolls. Because the Jan. 1 raise would first appear in mid-January paychecks, lawmakers could continue to struggle with the bill through the New Year and still have troops paid on time.
While the 2008 raise is not in doubt, negotiators drawn from the House and Senate Armed Services committees will have to decide whether to adopt a House-passed formula that would also set military raises from 2009 through 2012 at 0.5 percentage points more than the average private-sector increase, a plan intended to close the 4 percent gap that some analysts say exists today between military and private-sector wages.
The pay gap, the subject of some dispute, is based on wage growth in the military and private sector since 1981, the last time pay levels were deemed to be roughly comparable. White House budget officials have made it clear that they oppose the House pay formula and will seek to have it removed from the bill.
The Defense Department says the pay gap does not exist and has argued that money spent on bigger pay increases is money that cannot be spent on higher priorities, including bonuses and special pays targeted at people in critically needed skills who might otherwise leave the service.
Bipartisan ‘no’ for Tricare fees
On personnel issues, lawmakers have shown willingness to break with the Bush administration and Pentagon. A prime example is a tentative agreement between the House and Senate to prevent the Defense Department from raising Tricare health insurance fees for many military retirees and their families.
Defense officials have pleaded with Congress to allow significant fee hikes to offset rising health care expenses, but lawmakers have rallied around retirees, refusing to accept fee hikes until they are persuaded there is no other way to cover costs.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who co-sponsored a Senate amendment blocking increases in Tricare fees, premiums and pharmacy co-payments, said the military community is making enough sacrifices.
“We cannot burden our military retirees and their families with dramatic increases in out-of-pocket health care expenses,” said Lautenberg, whose amendment was co-sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.
Reservists’ retired pay
The outcome of several other personnel issues will depend on the willingness of negotiators to disregard Pentagon and White House advice. An example is a retirement plan included in the Senate’s bill that would allow National Guard and reserve members mobilized for 90 days or longer since Sept. 11, 2001, to receive retired pay earlier than age 60, when payments currently begin. Under the formula, payment would begin three months earlier for every three months of active service, with 50 being the lowest possible age.
The final Senate plan is more generous than the provision initially passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have counted mobilizations only after the bill is signed into law, rather than giving credit for past service.
The plan passed by the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., has drawn White House and Pentagon opposition over fears that it would encourage Guard and reserve members to retire early.
But Chambliss, whose proposal has the support of all of the major military associations, said he is simply trying to revise the retirement system to make it better suited to the duties of today’s reserve forces.
Concurrent receipt on the table
Negotiators also face a decision on how far to extend the so-called concurrent receipt programs that allow some disabled veterans to receive full military retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation for the same period of service.
At the urging of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a longtime concurrent receipt champion, Senate bill orders retroactive retired pay for disabled retirees whose veterans’ disability ratings are based on the fact that their condition prevents them from holding a job. These veterans can be considered fully disabled even if their formal disability rating is less than 100 percent.
Reid’s initiative, which would overturn a Bush administration interpretation of law that denied full concurrent receipt to thousands of veterans, would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005.
Also up for negotiation are two different plans to eliminate an offset in payments for survivors who are eligible for Defense Department survivor benefits and dependency and indemnity compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Senate bill would eliminate the offset, while the House bill would provide a small monthly payment to partly make up for the pay loss. The White House opposes both ideas.
Ellie