Senate bill would give American war troops a 50% pay raise

Knight Ridder Newspapers | April 5, 2003 | Sumana Chatterjee

[HAL9000]

WASHINGTON - Cash-strapped families of American servicemen and women may get a pay raise for facing hostilities overseas.

Without fanfare, the Senate voted Wednesday for a 50 percent pay increase for those facing imminent danger, and a 150 percent increase for family separation. The measure was tacked on to a nearly $80 billion measure aimed mainly at paying for the Iraq war and homeland security. The Senate approved the pay raise by voice vote.

The measure now must be reconciled with the war-spending bill passed by the House of Representatives, which contained no military pay raise. The Bush administration had not sought one either.

House members must weigh the $700 million annual cost of the pay raise - which would swell already huge federal budget deficits over $300 billion a year - against the political price they might pay for opposing such a popular proposal.

"Right now, a soldier facing imminent danger receives only about $5 a day for putting his or her life on the line," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who spearheaded the effort. "You can't put a price tag on that kind of service," he said.

At an estimated $700 million cost per year, the bill would raise the imminent-danger pay of servicemen and women, including reservists, from $150 to $225 a month. The Pentagon decides which assignments warrant the special pay increases.

The measure also would increase by 150 percent the amount a family receives when a member goes on active duty. That would bring family-separation allowance from $100 a month to $250 a month. Both danger and separation pay increases are retroactive from Oct. 1, 2002 and good to Sept. 30, 2003, but Congress could extend them or make them permanent.

The move to increase pay comes as some military families are struggling financially under pressure of fighting the war in Iraq. Reservists are particularly hard hit, because they typically leave higher-paying private sector jobs when their units are called up for active duty.

Congress last raised the danger pay during the first Persian Gulf War, to $150 a month, up from $110. Separation pay has not changed since 1997, according to Durbin.

Servicemen and women also receive allowances for housing, food and clothing as well as medical benefits. The troops are also set to get a 4.7 percent pay raise, regardless of their tour of duty.

[HAL9000]

"Right now, a soldier facing imminent danger receives only about $5 a day for putting his or her life on the line," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who spearheaded the effort.

That is positively obscene.

[cherry_bomb88]

I agree, it is obscene...however I think that the dems are pushing this knowing it's a HUGE price tag we can ill afford...they want to back the president into a corner and make him look like the bad guy if he vetos it. Although I agree they deserve that and more...I wonder if the dems would be willing to give up some of their pork barrell pet projects

(((((((((Mud, Sultan)))))))))))) you two care to get in on this conversation?

[1stFreedom]

That's baloney.

Troops get free room and board, full health and dental insurance, 30 days off per year.

On top of that, the lowest paid soldier is paid $1064 per month. That's way more than $5 per day.

Obviously, numbers are being juggled for policial gain.

It's an obvious trap to say the Repubs are against the troops. I'd swicth it back by saying "50% isn't enough. We are going to give each soldier 100,000 per month. If you don't vote for it, you are against the troops."

[homeagain balkansvet]

What they're talking about here is increasing the HAZARDOUS DUTY PAY bonus of $5/month by 50%.... to $7.50 a month.

What a crapulous pile of horse hockey.

[LouD]

Obviously, numbers are being juggled for policial gain

The $5 a day number is the additional, incremental pay for serving in a designated combat area.

[Theophilus]

That's baloney.

I think you simply misunderstand, because the article misstates the facts. The $5.00 mentioned is for "imminent danger pay" on top of base pay. I think 150% more money is more than justifiable.

[1stFreedom]

People volunteer for the military. I volunteered.

Risking your life is your choice. Police officers do it all the time.

Risking your life does not entitle you to earn a lot of money.

Considering the age, education, and so forth of the young soldiers, they are making a decent living.

I'm an army brat, and a veteran. Believe me, these kids have nothing to do with the money but blow it on expensive stereos, cameras, etc.

What would be better then pay increases is better retirement bennies. They get cut left and right all the time. Our vets get shot up and years later they rot in VA hospitals.

[cherry_bomb88]

I don't know about $5. a day, but my ex husband received $300 a month in combat pay when he was over in Kuwait last year. That's $10 a day. I think that $5 is an average based on rank. I don't have a problem with raising just the combat pay, when they are no longer in combat, they no longer receive that pay. It is necessary, the families back home have increased expenses (ie: babysitting, home repairs they have to hire out, etc) that they wouldn't have if their spouses were home. Additionally, it costs more to live apart like that. PLus, they are risking their lives. I'm all for them getting a cost of living raise too on their base pay. HOWEVER, they can't just go in and giave a 50% raise on anything without researching it and bait the republicans to shoot it down and look like idiots.

Having been a military dependent, and my kids still are, I have mixed feelings...but I trully think the Republicans are being baited.

[1stFreedom]

You hit the nail on the head.

I have an Idea. Offer to give soldiers raise if the congressional members take pay cuts to pay for it directly. Anthing else but agreeing is against the troops.

[1stFreedom]

I remember when I first joined the army. Was like $640 a month for brand spanking new private. Now it's like $1050!!

What a difference.

[cherry_bomb88]

They wouldn't have to even take pay cuts, just give up some of their pork barrell projects...heck, they probably get twice that much in pork barrell stuff every year!

[Ruth A.]

My thoughts exactly. Let the Congress use social security as their retirement plan, too. Why should their plan make them millionares?

[cherry_bomb88]

I remember those days.....when I first married my ex husband and he was a corporal with dependants & BAQ he took home like $1200!!!

[cajun-jack]

you must be a youngster...I enlisted on may 29, 1967 and the monthly base pay was $90.60 per MONTH and they had just gotten a raise. In Nam in 70-71 "combat" pay was $65.00 per month (if i remember correctly)

[Quix]

Guess I'm for the raise but I'd love to take it out of congresspersons' salaries--especially fat retirement incomes; travel junkets etc.

And especially Bwitch Shrillery's.

[1stFreedom]

My joined in 64 I think. I believe he took home $50 a month.

[Nayt2]

this whole thread is obscene. how can any of you say we're paying the troops enough? $700 million is a lot!?

the food stamp program alone costs over $20 billion per year, and virtually nobody really needs that. $700 million is nothing. hell, take the $20 billion and give that for military pay raises. the troops deserve every penny they make, and much, much more.

[NeilSmith]

All you have to do is cut taxes to pay for the increase.