Posted on 06/11/2007 2:47:37 PM PDT by nckerr
The Senate Armed Services Committee practically assured military personnel a 3.5 percent pay raise next January by including that figure in the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill it approved in late May.
The House of Representatives already had voted to give the military a 3.5 pay raise next year, which is a half percentage point higher than proposed the Bush administration.
After the House vote, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said the bigger pay raise was “unnecessary” and urged congressional leaders to instead back a 3 percent increase which would match recent wage growth in the private sector.
Senate Republicans ignored the White House pleading and joined with Democrats in supporting the bigger raise. It now appears likely that 2008 will be the ninth consecutive year of military raises set at least .5 percent above private sector wage growth as measured by the government’s Employment Cost Index (ECI).
The House voted to sustain this string of ECI-plus-a-half-percent military raises through 2012, long enough nearly to wipe out a perceived pay gap with the private sector. At one time, the gap exceeded 13 percent. The Senate committee’s bill deals only with the 2008 raise. Any differences in the bills will be ironed out by a House-Senate conference later this summer.
Here are more details from Senate committee bill:
TRICARE Fees -- The Senate committee did vote like the House in rejecting for a second year the Bush administration’s call to raise TRICARE fees and deductibles as well as TRICARE retail drug co-payments. Senators want to delay action on any such changes for at least another year. Lawmakers and their staffs want to study the final report of the Task Force on the Future of Military Healthcare which is due in December.
Chapter 61 Retirees -- The Senate committee bill would take a more dramatic step than does the House to expand eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) to Chapter 61 retirees -- members forced by service-connected disabilities to leave service short of 20 years. The Senate language would allow any Chapter 61 retiree with combat-related disabilities to receive both disability compensation and CRSC. Their CRSC payment would be the equivalent of retired pay based on years served.
The House voted to expand CRSC eligibility only to Chapter 61 retirees who served at least 15 years and have combat-related disabilities rated 60 percent or higher.
Reserve Retirement -- One item that will spark negotiation is the Senate committee’s language to lower the start of reserve retirement below age 60 by three months for every 90 days a reservist or National Guard members is recalled to active duty.
This change at first glance looks like a boon to career reservists mobilized for Iraq and Afghanistan. But the committee could find no money to apply this change retroactively to deployments since the attacks of 9/11. This change, therefore, only would lower retirement age for reserve and National Guard personnel mobilized after the date the bill is signed.
SBP-DIC Offset -- The Senate bill is silent on ending or phasing out of the so-called SBP-DIC offset that impacts 61,000 surviving spouses. Current law requires that payments under the military’s Survivor Benefit Plan be reduced by amounts surviving spouses receive in Disability and Indemnity Compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The House bill would take a first step toward elimination the offset by paying up to a $40 a month survivor indemnity allowance starting in October 2008.
Though the Senate committee ignored the SBP-DIC offset issue, an initiative still might be added when amendments voted on during floor debate on the authorization bill later in June.
Survivor Benefits -- Meanwhile, the committee did adopt two smaller changes to survivor benefits. One provision would allow guardians and caretakers of dependent children to receive SBP benefits, closing a coverage gap brought to light with U.S. deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Grandparents or other guardians have been left to care for surviving children but they are ineligible for SBP to help raise them.
The Senate bill also would allow service members to designate in writing anyone as beneficiary of their death gratuity. This change would treat the death payments more like an insurance policy.
Drug Discounts -- Both the House bill and Senate-committee bill would squeeze pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide federal pricing discounts to medicines dispensed through TRICARE retail pharmacy network. Such discounts already are given on medicines dispensed on base, through the military’s mail order program and through VA clinics and hospitals. The Senate language orders the discounts for TRICARE retail outlets. The House language isn’t as rigid. It would allow the department to exclude drugs from the TRICARE retail formulary if drug makers do not provide the discounts. The Senate committee decided the House approach could hurt patients.
Accumulated Leave -- The Senate committee voted to allow any service member to carry up to 90 days of unused leave into the fiscal year. The current ceiling is 60 days for members not in a war zone. Senators said that is too limiting given the pace of operations today.
To comment, e-mail milupdate@aol.com, write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: www.militaryupdate.com
Shaking my head and saying damn.....
If you dig deeper, Bush probably opposed a bill which had other riders on it, so do the research first.
It sounds like he opposed the military pay raise specifically.
MY pay under President Bush went up over $1000 suring his firts term before I retired.
He's given several 7%-8% targeted pay raises and this is the accross the board pay raise on top of the targeted pay raises.
W could pay for the larger raise for our troops by furloughing the entire State Department.
It’d be a win-win, baby!
Glad I checked this..
Here are a couple of documents on this from the Federal Budget office that gives full account as to the numbers, and they don’t match the article.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-21.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-02.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr5122sap-h.pdf
Note the last one was co-authored by Duncan Hunter. The key points are on page 3 of 7. Seems overall a mixed message in relation to the article.
Letting Harry Reid get to your right on matters military? That takes some heavy lifting!
In the interests of troop morale they should be given the 3.5% and their health care costs shouldn’t rise faster than their pay.
The President has spoken out specifically on the 3.5% raise and has said he is opposed to it. Riders have nothing to do with it.
Check the links in post #10.
Who do you generally see showing up? How many opt into things like "Arctic Snowmobile Repair Specialist 1st Class" to avoid going to Iraq?
You will not convince many here.
They will jump to a "it's Bush's fault" stance no matter what.
That's what I was thinking. Bush is too Pro-military to turn down hired pay raise for them. There has to be something more to this.
It’s the understanding of many in the military that Bush is specifically against the 3.5% pay raise. He’s also trying to cut the TRICARE benefits...
Dr. Jeckyll and Mr Hyde wants all the money for his illegal immigrants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.