Pentagon asking Congress to hold back on generous increases in troop pay

[alienlovechild 75]

The Pentagon, not usually known for its frugality, is pleading with Congress to stop spending so much money on the troops.

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, with most of them now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

Congress has been so determined to take care of troops and their families that for several years running it has overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. It has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring health-care costs -- which Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said are "eating us alive" -- by raising co-pays or premiums.

In the midst of two long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense officials are increasingly worried that the government's generosity is unsustainable and that it will leave them with less money to buy weapons and take care of equipment.

With Washington confronting record deficits, the Pentagon is bracing for an end to the huge increases in defense spending of the past decade. On Saturday, Gates is scheduled to give a "hard-hitting" speech in Kansas on fiscal discipline, in which he will warn military leaders that "we'll have to take some dramatic measures ourselves to sustain the force we have," his press secretary, Geoff Morrell, told reporters.

Clifford L. Stanley, the undersecretary of defense for personnel, told a Senate committee in March that rising personnel costs could "dramatically affect the readiness of the department" by leaving less money to pay for operations and maintenance. Overall, personnel expenses constitute about one-quarter of defense spending.

Health care alone is projected to cost the military $51 billion next year, nearly one-tenth of the Pentagon's budget, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2002, wages have risen 42 percent, compared with about 32 percent for the private sector. Housing and subsistence allowances, which troops receive tax-free, have gone up even more.

But Congress -- including members opposed to the wars -- has made clear that it considers military pay and benefits sacrosanct, especially when service members and their families are struggling to cope with repeated deployments to faraway conflicts.

Advocates for troops and retirees say the main reason for the increase in wages is that they were way too low to begin with. In the late 1990s, after the military had been whittled down in size from its Cold War peak, studies found that service members earned about 13 percent less than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

Military officials said generous compensation packages were a primary reason they were able to meet all of their annual recruiting goals last year for the first time since the all-volunteer force was established in 1973. Although the recession also played a major role, military leaders said surveys show service members are generally happy with their pay scales.

Under current scales, an average sergeant in the Army with four years of service and one dependent would receive $52,589 in annual compensation, a figure that includes basic pay, housing and subsistence allowances, as well as tax benefits.

Vice Adm. Mark E. Ferguson III, the chief of naval personnel, said improvements in pay and benefits have made it more likely that sailors will stick around longer. Last year, a Navy survey found that about 60 percent of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, meaning a stint of at least 20 years. In 2005, he said, only about 20 percent of spouses felt the same way.

The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases. Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.

Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the extra half of a percent may not sound like much, but it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade. "If you continue doing it, it becomes a huge burden on the defense budget in the long term," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050703054.html?hpid=topnews

[Heracles 417]

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, with most of them now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

Dexion, pay attention..

Edited May 9, 2010 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Ask someone who has been through three tours of duty in Iraq if they are overcompensated.

[Darnell 8,478]

weird - I swear 'troop pay' is a seperate line item on the budget - and the 'equipment caps' do not relate to 'troop pay' at all.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Ask someone who has been through three tours of duty in Iraq if they are overcompensated.

[justashooter 430]

i agree that the current salaries are not high enough to compensate for war zone deployment.

i do not agree that every broken ankle in training, broken clavicle in a base basketball game, broken leg in leave time hiking accident, or even every treated concussion sustained in combat, warrants a 90% disability. i am seeing too many young soldiers "90% disabled" these days over less than nothing. i meet lots of them in college that are drawing $2500/month as IU (unemployable) and they are just as fit as most people their own age, mentally and physically. IU is all about clearing cases off the desk, and is not a reflection of reality, in many cases.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Best way to decrease the need for a huge military budget is to bring all troops home worldwide as soon as possible.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Best way to decrease the need for a huge military budget is to bring all troops home worldwide as soon as possible.

Sure why not. I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese will appreciate it.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

i agree that the current salaries are not high enough to compensate for war zone deployment.

i do not agree that every broken ankle in training, broken clavicle in a base basketball game, broken leg in leave time hiking accident, or even every treated concussion sustained in combat, warrants a 90% disability. i am seeing too many young soldiers "90% disabled" these days over less than nothing. i meet lots of them in college that are drawing $2500/month as IU (unemployable) and they are just as fit as most people their own age, mentally and physically. IU is all about clearing cases off the desk, and is not a reflection of reality, in many cases.

I really don't know much about the abuse of disability, but I would guess that it goes on to some degree. That's too bad because it makes it look bad for those who legitimately deserve it.

[Danno 1,228]

anyone have a current pay chart handy?

[alienlovechild 75]

anyone have a current pay chart handy?

There's link in the article.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx

[alienlovechild 75]

i agree that the current salaries are not high enough to compensate for war zone deployment.

The Pentagon knows better the Congress abour the state of our troops. It's repeated deployments can be tough be everyone knows the drill after almost 9 years of war.

Numbers speak for themselves when all branches have met their recruiting goals for the first time since 1973 but that's largely due to the weak economy. The Navy must be great if the spouses want their husbands/wives to make a career of it even during warime and more of them agree with that sentiment than in peacetime.