Posted on 02/06/2013 9:37:42 AM PST by kristinn
Just days before he leaves office, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is recommending military pay be limited, effectively decreasing troop salaries next year.
Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a 1% increase in 2014. The Pentagon has calculated that the Labor Department's 2014 Employment Cost Index is expected to be above 1% but wants to still cut back on pay because of "budget uncertainties," a department official told CNN. In 2013, a 1.7% increase was approved, based on the index, which has been the basis for military pay for the last several years.
Three Pentagon officials have confirmed details of the plan to CNN. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have also agreed to Panetta's proposed pay plan. Final approval for the pay would come from Congress in the form of the 2014 budget.
The recommendation is tied to the Defense Department's 2014 budget recommendation, which was expected to be sent to Congress this month, one of the officials said. But the officials acknowledge it is going to be seen as an effort to push Congress to stop the automatic budget cuts that could go into effect if no deal is reached on spending reductions.
(Excerpt) Read more at security.blogs.cnn.com ...
Numbers. There are more active duty. I’m only talking Dept Of Defense fed employees. The civilians pay have been frozen for a while now. You only get step increases if elegible. Mil retirement pay have been frozen too. They claim it’s because the cost of living have not increased the last three years. No idea what drugs they are smoking.
I think last year there was a retiree pay increase but medical costs went up so it was a net zero.
I’m kinda happy because I know a few who voted for this.
The government found something they want to cut! Shocker that it is this.
The pay 'cuts' just happen to coincide with women getting combat status.
The glass ceiling rears its ugly head again!
What does Panetta have to lose politically for this timely scare tactic? Dear Leader will just blame the rich (while continuing to screw over the middle class). Win-Win.
Should not be cutting military pay. Should be a Constitutional Amendment limiting Congressional raises to 1% per year. You know, perhaps all of us should hold an annual vote for their raise?
This will free up more money to pay that $50,000 to those imaginary pig farmers who don’t know the front end from the back end of a hog. They need more money to buy votes.
“during a war”
Okay, but this war, or these wars, are more “wars” than actual wars. They could go on for generations like the “cold war.”
What's our response? Cut the muscle and feed the fat.
Executive and Legislative Branches first.
Limit AF-1 flights as well
“My God, is there no end to what these ba$tards will do to our military, our families, our country, and our homes? Is there no end?”
There is.
It will come when they have
- dismantled the military
- broken up your families
- taken possession of your homes, and
- destroyed the country.
Calm down a bit, there. Nobody raped your mother. This is one of those gubmint “cuts,” whereby it goes up, just not as much as previously planned. It’s a bit silly to get all up in arms about, considering: a). we’re broke, and b). they’re so far away from being paid a market wage that anywhere we set it is arbitrary.
What has been the average raise in the private sector?
In many areas, a 1% is typical.
“why in the world would they consider cutting military pay and not fed employee pay pay?”
Votes. Military employees are fewer than federal employees in general.
By the way, when you hear military pay you think of Johnny what got his gun, but it’s probably one out of a hundred or some ridiculous figure that are actually in harm’s way. Most of them are bureaucrats or humps just like everywhere else.
Panetta isn’t recommending anything. It’s the traitor in chief that is doing it. Panetta is just his little minion.
Both are cowards of the worst sort.
I don’t know about the prez, but I think it’s illegal to cut Congress’ pay in the middle of the game, and that’s because of how we wrote the law intended to forestall pay hikes.
Why not recommend a pay cut for the House and the Senate?
And the C-i-C?
Only in Washington is a 1% increase in pay, a pay cut...
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.