Cause for Concern: Military Slated for Reduced Salary Increases
May 11th 2010 21:10
President Barack Obama was elected with the help of government employee unions across the nation, and since his election, he has provided them with billions of dollars in stimulus funds to keep them on federal, state and local payrolls. Evidently, he is now prepared to reduce spending for military personnel salary increases.
The weekend edition of the Washington Post included the article, “Pentagon Asking Congress to Hold Back on Generous Increases in Troop Pay”, which said the Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed.” In the view of Pentagon officials, Congress has been too generous with troop salaries during the past decade.
In order to justify this position, the argument being made is that military personnel are paid more than their civilian counterparts for the same type of work, experience and education. However, the statistics given do not seem to support the argument. Further, the military makes sacrifices and faces dangers that the civilian work force is not confronted with. To make the argument even less understandable is the question, “why is the Department of Defense more concerned about the Military Budget than they are with recruiting and retaining a force that has been at war for the past eight years with no end in sight?”
Fortunately, Congress has recognized the value of our military forces as they have a history of providing larger pay increases than Presidential administrations have requested. This was especially true during the Bush years. To no one’s surprise, military officials say that higher compensation helps in the retention of troops once their commitments are met. To give some idea of the significance of higher compensation and troop retention, a Navy survey in 2009 found that about 60% of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, which means serving at least 20 years. In 2005, only about 20% of spouses gave a similar response.
Cuts in the increased percentages of pay for military personnel might be less of an issue if the same standard was being applied to other federal employees, especially those who are working within the unionized sector. For example, the U.S. Postal Service which is losing money ($3.8 billion deficit last year), is scheduled to give letter carriers an increase of 1.9% in pay while at the same time military personnel may be reduced from 1.9% to 1.4% in annual pay increases.
The Pentagon says that it needs to cut salary increases in order to maintain weapons, provide ammunition, and keep the equipment up. Why penalize those who are fighting on the battlefront when those working in the federal government at home are not being called upon to make similar sacrifices?
Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) may have said it best when making the point that the Pentagon needs to do a better job of setting priorities. She said, "Both sides of the aisle are trying to send a very clear message to our military that we appreciate their service. We end up with a false choice -- are we going to fund weapons or are we going to fund people? The reality is, we need both."
The weekend edition of the Washington Post included the article, “Pentagon Asking Congress to Hold Back on Generous Increases in Troop Pay”, which said the Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed.” In the view of Pentagon officials, Congress has been too generous with troop salaries during the past decade.
In order to justify this position, the argument being made is that military personnel are paid more than their civilian counterparts for the same type of work, experience and education. However, the statistics given do not seem to support the argument. Further, the military makes sacrifices and faces dangers that the civilian work force is not confronted with. To make the argument even less understandable is the question, “why is the Department of Defense more concerned about the Military Budget than they are with recruiting and retaining a force that has been at war for the past eight years with no end in sight?”
Fortunately, Congress has recognized the value of our military forces as they have a history of providing larger pay increases than Presidential administrations have requested. This was especially true during the Bush years. To no one’s surprise, military officials say that higher compensation helps in the retention of troops once their commitments are met. To give some idea of the significance of higher compensation and troop retention, a Navy survey in 2009 found that about 60% of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, which means serving at least 20 years. In 2005, only about 20% of spouses gave a similar response.
Cuts in the increased percentages of pay for military personnel might be less of an issue if the same standard was being applied to other federal employees, especially those who are working within the unionized sector. For example, the U.S. Postal Service which is losing money ($3.8 billion deficit last year), is scheduled to give letter carriers an increase of 1.9% in pay while at the same time military personnel may be reduced from 1.9% to 1.4% in annual pay increases.
The Pentagon says that it needs to cut salary increases in order to maintain weapons, provide ammunition, and keep the equipment up. Why penalize those who are fighting on the battlefront when those working in the federal government at home are not being called upon to make similar sacrifices?
Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) may have said it best when making the point that the Pentagon needs to do a better job of setting priorities. She said, "Both sides of the aisle are trying to send a very clear message to our military that we appreciate their service. We end up with a false choice -- are we going to fund weapons or are we going to fund people? The reality is, we need both."
| 74 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics