Posted on 05/08/2010 9:21:16 AM PDT by SandRat
Every witness before a Senate subcommittee hearing last week on military compensation — all experts on service pay and benefits — called directly or indirectly for Congress to end its 12-year run of voting for annual military pay raises that exceed wage growth in the private sector.
No witness suggested that future raises each January shouldn’t match annual wage gains for private sector workers as measured by the government Employment Cost Index.
But with personnel costs soaring to sustain a quality all-volunteer force in its ninth year of war, lawmakers like Sen. James Webb (D-Va.), chairman of the Senate armed services personnel subcommittee, are investigating ways to make military compensation overall more efficient.
A common theme raised at this hearing was the need for more targeted pays, such as bonuses and incentive pays, versus continuing a string of beefier “across-the-board” raises, which were deemed inefficient and a catalyst for driving up basic pay and retirement costs.
Webb opened the hearing by saying the cost of military personnel — including pay, allowances, non-cash benefits like health care and deferred benefits like retirement — “continues to rise at disturbing rates.”
But he adjourned giving assurances “we are very committed to making sure our military people are well compensated (and that) we retain the quality and the expertise” to keep this “the finest military in the world.”
In between Webb and colleagues heard from three outside pay analysts and a defense policymaker suggesting Congress not continue to push for across-the-board raises in excess of private sector wage growth because it only aggravates the challenge of soaring personnel costs.
William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy, noted that to match civilian wage growth as measured by the ECI, the Obama administration proposes a 1.4 percent pay raise for 2011. Service associations want that raise bumped, again by half of a percentage point, to 1.9 percent.
Webb didn’t tip his hand on what he will support. But his witnesses this day said the extra half percent in basic pay would add $350 million to personnel costs in fiscal 2011 and $2.4 billion over five years, and the benefit for recruiting and retention would be small. A more efficient approach, senators were told, would be to add a more modest sum to re-enlistment bonuses for members having job skills that the services most need.
“Unlike (basic) pay raises, bonuses do not compound from year to year or affect retirement pay and other elements of cash compensation,” said Carla Tighe Murray, a senior analyst for the Congressional Budget Office.
Webb even referred to this argument of “tailing costs” tied to the practice by Congress of boosting basic pay by a little extra each year.
Carr noted in his written testimony that the extra $350 million some lawmakers want to pump into basic pay in January could be used instead to pay $30,000 bonuses to 11,000 more personnel with critically needed skills.
Pay gap no longer a factor
Congress has been backing basic pay raises above the Employment Cost Index for the past decade to narrow a perceived gap with private sector pay. But CBO’s Murray said the pay gap no longer exists if pay comparisons take into account gains in military allowances over a decade.
“Using a broader measure, one that includes housing and subsistence allowances, indicates that the cumulative increase in military compensation has exceeded the cumulative increase in civilian wages and salaries by 11 percent since 1982,” Murray testified. “That comparison does not include non-cash and deferred compensation which would probably add to the cumulative difference” to service members’ favor.
Brenda S. Farrell, the Government Accountability Office’s director for defense capabilities and management, led a team of analysts who reported to Congress last month on the adequacy of military compensation. Farrell testified that service pay and benefits now “are generous” compared to compensation packages offered in the private sector.
She added that across-the-board pay raises “may not be seen as the most efficient recruiting and retention mechanism.” She called targeted bonuses “more appropriate” to keep sufficient personnel in critical skills.
GAO had reviewed recent military compensation studies by CBO, RAND and by the Center for Naval Analyses, which did important work for the Pentagon’s 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation. Farrell said comparing military and civilian compensation is always a challenge given the unique factors of service life and difficulty of comparing benefits like health care or deferred compensation like retirement.
But GAO agreed with the 10th QRMC that the Department of Defense should begin to weigh the value of retirement and health care compensation in making pay comparisons with other Americans.
On this point, DoD’s Carr disagreed, saying military people have become accustomed to comparing Regular Military Compensation (RMC) — basic pay, housing and food allowances plus the federal tax advantage on those tax-free allowances — with civilian wages. RMC now exceeds wage levels for 70 percent of civilian workers of similar age and work experience.
But Farrell said defining and comparing military compensation more broadly could help recruiting and retention. When this yardstick is used, military compensation today exceeds compensation packages for 80 percent of peers in the U.S. workforce.
“We firmly believe the total package should be included,” Farrell said.
James Hosek, a RAND expert on military pay, suggested with unemployment high and the U.S. economy climbing out of a deep recession, Congress should feel comfortable having the services rely more heavily on targeted incentives rather than an enhanced across-the-board January raise.
To comment, send e-mail to milupdate@aol.com or write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111
Venezuela, N Korea, Zimbabwe etc
Its always the military that gets paid and fed.
Do you think they can keep a straight face as they write the propagandist stories?
“Similar civilian jobs?” Such as...
If true, they deserve it. Unlike the rest of the Feds they EARN their pay!
Yeah a Marine pilot gets the same as a civilian aircraft mechanic...
Our military is one of the few parts of our federal government that earns its pay check (and then some). Pay them, and cut 40% out of the rest of the bloated federal bureaucracy, and the net result will be a savings to taxpayers (as well as a sound economy and a strong country).
...We have a prize-winner of a 2012 GOP political ad.
Visualize ... "Obama CUT military pay!"
THAT resonates, n'est ce pas?
.
Illegal alien.
Of course! I’d drive around in an Abrams and shoot off a Ma Deuce for FREE!
mall cop?
Nowhere cited just the generalization obfuscation.
Oui!
I heard on Fox this morning that Gates wants congress to back-off with increasing military pay and benefits, because it will leave less for future weapons systems. That should make him very popular with the troops!
include Cuba,Russia,China......
fact is, totalitarian regimes always have a loyal military willing to do its bidding IF their jobs are not only stable, but have the best pay and the best benefits compared to civilian...
the word "service" used to mean something...you gave up some of your life to "serve"....
increasingly, we are moving away from the "services" to a govt job....
those privates just starting out may not make much, but you can move up pretty regularly and combined with the 6 weeks vacation,the holidays, the base housing or housing allowance,the medical, the dental, the base services, the vacation areas where you can go......and then the pension....then the pension...at relatively young ages...
people like to say that our military or our police won't turn on us....but its already happened ...Waco...Ruby Ridge..tea party protests...
my hubby is set to get his active/guard duty pension..not much mind you....and I have a huge family allegiance to the military starting with a beloved mother and father.....but we better wake up.....
we do not want a military that is rewarded higher than civilians...we want the military to still be full of patriotic and energetic people that will support the civilian population...
Here is a proposal Mr. Webb. Cap pay raises at the rate of inflation but increase “Imminent Danger Pay†from $225 per month to $1,000 per month.
Gotta depend on years of service and which job.
My general civilian profession is probably closest to 25B (Information Technology Specialist). An E-8 with 12 years in the military matches my pay rate on the new 2010 charts. Higher pay grade or more years of service pass my usual pay rate.
But, I don’t know if 25B can actually get to E-8 or if that kind of pay rate is only available to officers. O-2 can hit my pay rate with only 3 years of service, W-4 at 2 years.
Location of civilian job also makes a difference. My area I get paid 25% to 50% less than a similar job in California, Seattle, or New York.
I love it. When was the last time this idiot Webb looked to examine federal payrolls? The fraud, waste and abuse that goes with not firing federal employees and putting up with subpar and substandard work I’m sure amounts to tens of billions of dollars a year.
Seeing as this country is going completely bankrupt anyway,there is not much of a point in discussing wage raises for anyone.
Inccidendaly I assume that Congress won’t be raising its pay.
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.