Top Officers' Raise Hits Nerve

Military.com ^ | October 20, 2006 | Tom Philpott

[Tulsa Ramjet]

The 2.2 across-the-board military pay raise in January is a joke. So is the 8.7 percent raise set for 125 generals and admirals. How about reversing it?

Officers do not need the bigger raise. It’s the enlisted ranks who have people on food stamps and receiving assistance from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. With the price of gas and everything else higher, a 2.2 pay raise is a slap in the face.

It’s also a travesty what else our politicians did to the 2007 defense authorization bill. They basically screwed disabled retirees rated “IU,” or unemployable, by refusing to make them eligible immediately for “concurrent receipt” payments [of both full retired pay and their VA compensation].

Maybe America needs to evaluate what these politicians have as perks, benefits and pay so more of that money goes to the people actually fighting and dying for their mistakes.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

this is an interesting turn of events. I didn't know that admirals and generals were on foodstamps too.

[Nachum]

Where where the Republicans on this?

[2banana]

Actually no - for many years now NCO's have been getting much larger raises than officers - to the point now (at least in SF) the team commander is one of the worst paid on the team...

[liberty_lvr]

Been hearing this every year since the dawn of professional militaries.

Lots of writing and bitching as the fat cats holding the purse strings vote themselves ever-higher salaries but only throw crumbs to those who actually work for a living.

I dare anybody, and I mean anybody, to do something about it besides write a "strongly-worded" letter to their local Lord in the Imperial Senate.

[ozzymandus]

What the hell?

[MNJohnnie]

It is an editorial, not a news story.

[MNJohnnie]

dare anybody, and I mean anybody, to do something about it besides write a "strongly-worded" letter to their local Lord in the Imperial Senate.

Curious. What are YOU doing about it?

[Lekker 1]

It’s the enlisted ranks who have people on food stamps and receiving assistance from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program.

One might make an argument that this is precisely why they do not need as big of raise. [donning asbestos underwear now]

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Strangely, I don't see a lot of flag officers on the Afghan/Iraq casualty list published in my local paper. Maybe they need the money as an inducement to keep from retiring early.

[geezerwheezer]

Philpott is making a point but by using the generals and admirals as focus he is missing the real problem. We don't pay our military folks, admirals, generals, privates, and sergeants much in terms of cash, and we should be paying them a lot more. A 15% across the board raise would make a tremendous difference,and would be a significant way of saying thanks to our armed forces for all of the b.s. we put them through. Any less than that is a real slap in the face of these real heroes, and I feel it is way past due.

[paul51]

Maybe America needs to evaluate what these politicians have as perks, benefits and pay so more of that money goes to the people actually fighting and dying for their mistakes

Are we talking about the GOP controlled Congress?

[L98Fiero]

2.2% is more than I got last year and it's more than my wife got. I seem to remember getting about 3% or so when I was in the Navy. I also seem to remember wives whining about it then as well.

[trumandogz]

Yet, another example of why the Democrats should not control Congress.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

I guess I will always whine when the grunts get less of a raise than those that have more discretionary income.

Maybe someone can come up with an historical chart of the past twenty years and see where both raise trends fall.

[Steel Wolf]

to the point now (at least in SF) the team commander is one of the worst paid on the team...

That's a very misleading statement, for people not familiar with SF teams. A group of E7s and CW3s with 15+ years in and multiple qualifications are going to be very competetive with a fresh O3 who can't lace his boots without the Team Sergeant JMPIing them.

Officers aren't there to really lead an SF team. They're there to gain experience, before being shuffled off to a different rotation. SF teams are NCO teams, lead by an E8, and those NCOs have skills and qualifications that earn them quite a bit of extra money. The officer is basically kept in tow for paperwork purposes, and for liason work.

Other militaries don't understand our NCO structure, and won't listen to somenone who's not an officer. In that regard, many 'team commanders' are simply there as 'translators' for the team sergeant. An important job, but if you've ever been on or worked with an SF team, you know that the commander is the least skilled, and most expendable asset the team has.

[paul51]

A 15% across the board raise would make a tremendous difference,and would be a significant way of saying thanks to our armed forces

Fund this by cutting the budgets related to the Congress. If it meant cutting their operating expenses by 80%, that would be a good thing.

[paul51]

Maybe someone can come up with an historical chart of the past twenty years and see where both raise trends fall

I'd like to see that kind of comparison between our military people and the politicians in congress that vote their own raises.

[Gamecock]

'scuse me?

Base pay:

Captain at 4 years: $4587/month
Staff Sergeant at 12: $2948/month
Master Sergeant at 20: $4071

Housing:

Master Sergeant at Fort Bragg: $1091
Captain at Fort Bragg: $1122


Granted enlisted get bonuses, but at the 20 year mark those don't count a retirement.

[MineralMan]

While most of our enlisted military did not join for the money, we should be paying our enlisted men and women well enough to keep them re-upping, and commensurate with their service.

Military pay has gone up a lot since I was an E-4 in the USAF, back in 1969, getting $256/mo, plus a barracks bed, and locker, and three mess hall meals.

It's still not high enough for a man to successfully raise a family on. It should be.

[napscoordinator]

I worked in my career with some top officers and they basically run companies - CEOs. So they get 100,000 dollars a year and people are complaining. The only way for people in the military to make more money is to make rank!!! Those Admirals did not begin at making a low six figure salary. They probably began making 12,000 as an 0-1. I hear the complaints all too often. After almost 20 years, I am so used to it. I tell my folks to ADVANCE and you will see a VERY good pay raise. BTW, I started as an E-1 and now am an E-7 so I don't make huge bucks, but I do see many people in the Exchange buying the latest gadgets a lot! I just wanted to kind of even the complaint abit with another look. If everyone in the military made 100,000 dollars, nobody would strive to be better and that is the truth. By the way, thank you so much for supporting us!!!! It means ALOT!!!!!