President Again Rejects Military-Civilian 'Pay Parity'

[KingofSwords]

For the second consecutive year, President Bush has proposed a military pay increase more than double that for civilian employees, ignoring bipartisan calls in Congress for equivalent raises for both sectors.

Bush proposed a 3.5 percent average pay increase for members of the armed forces under his 2005 budget released yesterday. In contrast, civilian employees would get a 1.5 percent increase, although agencies could reward top workers with extra performance raises or recruitment and retention bonuses.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6971-2004Feb2.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. This is POLIICS

When all was said and done, the bush budget led to a 2% increase, well bellow the inflation rate and standard MO.

He is trying to get the military to go, he is with us...

Ok maybe, but there are no bullets, troops are down to one hot meal in theater, and no spare parts since Junior came to power.

The armed forces know this, they live it on a daily basis.

SO the show will not go far...

[Taeger]

2. Mercenary pay parity

What ticks me off is those mercenaries who guard the airport get paid up to $1000 a day. Our grunts who do the really dangerous work are paid less than $100/day.

If those ex-Delta Halliburton mercs are so tough, then they should be the ones going out on patrol.

Nope, it's just another waste of money. They don't need those mercenary forces since they are pulling "easy duty" compared to American GIs.

[denverbill]

3. Can you elaborate?

Are you talking about Dyncorp types guarding airports in Iraq, or are you talking Homeland Security types guarding airports in Denver?

[northzax]

6. you think that money trickles down?

you think Haliburton passes on that 1000/day? what a joke.

[salin]

4. Thats because - just like in the midterms... bush promises raises to

military - and that won't take effect until after the election - and then will renege (cut them back to cola) quietly just days after the election. I could be wrong... but that happened in 2002 (with the announcement effectively taking back the proposed raise, happening in late november 2002 or early december 2002). Here we are talking the 2005 budget... watch ... it will quietly be scuttled and put at the cola (cost of living) rate - right after the election.

[freestatevet]

5. I was active duty then

we did not get our pay raises taken back. Deployments became longer and there are more of them, but we got all of our pay raise.

[Tempest]

7. Your pay raise wasn't taken back, but...

It was scaled back.

Bush said the military raise was going to be 4%.

He cut it back to 2%.

[freestatevet]

8. No, it wasn't

We got, as a minimum, 4.1%. Some ranks received a "targeted" pay raise of up to 9%. BTW, Congress decides the ultimate amount we receive, not the Pres.

[Tempest]

9. If you got 4.1%, you were the exception

The groups I'm associated with received 2.2% raises.

No, the president decides the final amount.

The president proposes the raise, Congress can raise it or lower it, but the president makes the ultimate decision in his ability to either approve or veto the bill containing the raise.

[freestatevet]

10. I don't know what groups you are

associated with be they are either:
A. Lying
B. Bad at math.

See attached.

As expected, Congress has approved, without change, the base pay increases proposed by the Bush Administration. This means that all service members will receive a minimum base pay raise of 4.1 percent. Some members (mostly mid-level officers and mid-to-senior level NCOs) will receive an even greater "targeted" raise, ranging from 5 percent to 9.5 percent. This means the so-called "pay-gap" between average military wages and average civilian wages will shrink from 7.5 to 6.5 percent. Additionally, the act requires that minimum pay-raises in the future (until at least 2006) be above the average wage-increases for civilian jobs.

Military members who will receive "targeted" raises above 4.1 percent are: Grade/Years
of Service Percent
of Raise Grade/Years
of Service Percent
of Raise
O-6/14 6.5 W-2/14 5.5
O-5 under 2 8.5 W-1/6 6.0
O-5/8 6.5 W-1/8 6.0
O-5/10 8.5 W-1/10 5.5
O-5/12 6.5 W-1/12 5.5
O-4 under 2 9.5 E-9/20 6.0
O-4/8 5.5 E-9/22 6.0
O-4/10 5.5 E-9/24 6.0
O-4/12 5.5 E-9/26 6.5
O-4/14 5.5 E-8/18 6.5
O-3/4 5.0 E-8/20 6.0
O-3/6 5.0 E-8/22 6.0
O-3/8 5.0 E-7/14 6.5
O-2E/4 5.0 E-7/16 6.0
O-2E/6 5.0 E-7/18 5.0
O-2E/8 5.0 E-6/8 6.5
W-3/14 6.0 E-6/10 6.0
W-3/16 6.0 E-6/12 6.0
W-3/18 6.0 E-6/14 5.5
W-3/20 6.0 E-5/6 6.5
W-2/10 5.5 E-5/8 6.0
W-2/12 5.5 E-5/10 6.0

The base pay raise will be effective on January 1, 2003.

The President proposes, Congress approves. If the President then DOES veto the DAA, then congress can override. Congress has final say on military pay raises.

[Tempest]

18. You seem to be having problems following the thread

We're talking about 2002, you're talking about 2003.

[freestatevet]

22. Nov 02

is fiscal year 03. The Government budgets on fiscal years. Comprende?

[salin]

11. there was a report (budget from admin)

that they had promised to give a 4.1 raise, which was then lowered to around 2.0 raise (for cost of living.) The size of the increase for enlisted was (according to admin press release) sizably trimmed back.

[freestatevet]

12. Show me ANYTHING that backs that up.

I've just showed you what the pay raise WAS! Do you want me to provide you with the 2002 and 2003 military pay charts and then you can compare them? The pay raise was NOT trimmed. EVERYONE in the military received at least a 4.1% basic pay raise. As a matter of fact, the largest pay increases went to enlisted personnel.

[salin]

14. I was trying

to do just that when you posted. As I said - I am glad that this proposal by the Administration was turned back. At the time reading it - given we were already mobilizing more and more folks to the Gulf - it seemed pretty awful.

[freestatevet]

16. Hate to take the Admin's

side, but there was no proposal by the Admin that was turned back. And you are mixing apples and oranges. I was re ponding to a poster who said he only got 2% (instead of the agreed upon 4%) in 2003. That was wrong.

[salin]

23. actually there was - by OMB director Mitch Daniels in December 2002

to scale back the proposed 2003 4.1 increase; and to lower the automatic increases by tying those to cpi as cost of living (in essence keeping the wages at the same rate adjusting for inflation but not 'real' gains). This WAS an administration proposal. That it didn't go into effect means that congress didn't adopt it - thus congress turned it back.

[salin]

24. never mind (and below as well)

so if I have been misreading this.

The scale back is for 2004.

And the lowering of future wages is 2004 and forward.

Did this go into effect?

I do appologize I kept misreading the year of effect.

[freestatevet]

28. Not it did not go into affect

The pay raise for FY04 was at least 3.7% (as per the PB) for everyone, with some getting as much as 6.25%

[salin]

30. good

I hope that future fair raises continue to be forthcoming.

[freestatevet]

27. You are retracting this, right?

[salin]

13. Perhaps he was rebuked in congress - but here is a report

of the announcement by "My Man Mitch" Daniels

http://www.fra.org/mil-up/milup-archive/12-19-02-milup.html

Military Update

by Tom Philpott

December 19, 2002

White House Budget Chief Wants Cap On Military Raises

The director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget has surprised senior Defense Department officials by proposing a series of caps on annual military pay raises, starting in January 2004.

With U.S. troops battling terrorism and massing in the Persian Gulf for possible war with Iraq, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of OMB, has asked Defense officials to expect to cap the 2004 military pay raise at two percent, versus the 3.7 percent planned, government sources said.

Moreover, Daniels wants future military raises tied to inflation, the annual rise in cost of living, rather than to wage growth in the private sector. That could reduce the competitiveness of service pay, but it also would save the government billions of dollars over the next decade, sources said.

--snip--

(oops on edit meant to add more from the article - but it repeated - this edit adds more from the article)

Daniels wants to shelve not only the ECI-plus-a-half but any link to private sector wage growth, a source said. Instead, he wants raises linked to the Consumer Price Index which tracks changes in the cost of goods and services. OMB projections show raises tied to inflation, rather than wage growth, will save a lot of money over the decade.

Recent history illustrates the impact. Federal retirees, Social Security recipients and veterans drawing VA compensation will receive a cost-of-living adjustment of 1.4 percent this month, based on the CPI. Yet the ECI used to set next month’s military raise came in at 3.6 percent.



more...

I am glad to hear the news that the administration did the right thing rather than (again) cut important spending - to help finance the top end tax cuts.

[freestatevet]

15. We were talking about the 2003

pay raise not 2004.

[Tempest]

17. You are wrong

Go back through the thread.

We were clearly talking about 2002, not 2003.

[freestatevet]

19. Here is what I responded to

"and that won't take effect until after the election - and then will renege (cut them back to cola) quietly just days after the election. I could be wrong... but that happened in 2002 (with the announcement effectively taking back the proposed raise, happening in late November 2002 or early December 2002)"

Now, if this was in Nov of 2002 (the announcement taking back the pay raise), we are talking about the 2003 pay raise. So you are wrong, not I.

[salin]

20. I was right - and wrong.

in 2002 = discussing the 2003 raises... the admin made promises for a larger raise to make up for the period of time of lower wage increases.

Just after the election, in 2002, discussing the 2003 pay raises.. Mitch Daniels proposes to scale back the increase, and freeze additional increases at a lower rate (freezing the rate of increase - not freezing the wages.)

Where I was wrong (my first post was by memory, and I was incorrect = proposal vs actual occurence) was that the Congress didn't follow the Administration's budget recommendations (that is what Mitch Daniel as OMD Director did - forwarded the president's budget.) and thus the raises - despite of the effort to shrink the size of the raise - went into effect.

Forgive me that I voiced skepticism at the initial story for this thread. Having watched one part of the admin make promises, and then after the election another part of the same admin try to scale those back... while simultaneously fighting a war and building up for another one... I am glad it didn't go through - but I have no trust for this adminsitration. None.

[freestatevet]

21. Nope you are still wrong

In neither 02, 03, 04 did Congress add money to the PB for military pay raises. They approved what was in the presiden't budget each time. The PB proposed 4.1 in 03 and that is what was approved by congress.

[salin]

25. mea culpa - please accept

reread the mitch daniels admin rec. it is for scaling back future raises in 04 and forward.

[freestatevet]

26. I did

And I don't think the Admin will go ahead with that. That's just one guy throwing out a proposal. I think the DoD will fight it.

[salin]

29. I hope so

but you have much more faith in this adminstration than I. I don't think that they would much bat an eye to increase the defense budget more for contracts and defense industry spending - while stiffing the budget on fair compensation for those doing the real work serving our country. I have grown rather cynical over the years.

[freestatevet]

31. I don't blame you

I don't think it would make sense , politically, to reduce pay raises to less than at least COLA.

[salin]

32. the problem, if I recollect

(but look at where it led us when I was working from recollection last time ;-) ) is that when Bush campaigned - he rightfully raised the issue of low pay for the enlisted - and that the overall rate of pay needed to be raised (full of flourishes of stories of enlisted families needing to be on food stamps). So unless the period of raises has been enough to change the circumstances (which I really have no knowledge of - and can not speak to) - then suddenly freezing raises to colas stems the efforts to raise the overall pay (in terms of real dollars - and making gains compared to the cost of living.)

But - this time I state from the beginning - I could be wrong about the basic salary rates and how that was framed in the 2000 elections ... AND - it could be that the subsequent raises have adequately addressed the problem and that now colas would be fine.

[freestatevet]

33. They are catching up

"the so-called "pay-gap" between average military wages and average civilian wages will shrink from 7.5 to 6.5 percent. Additionally, the act requires that minimum pay-raises in the future (until at least 2006) be above the average wage-increases for civilian jobs. "

BTW, the military is NOT as poorly paid as many people are led to believe.

[salin]

34. thanks

for the information.