"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises", White House

[LaWood]

Army Times,
"Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill."

Now here comes the Howler of the Month:

Refusal by lawmakers to approve Tricare fees for beneficiaries, something administration officials view as an important step in holding down health care cost, also drew opposition, along with a provision imposing price controls on prescription drugs dispensed to Tricare users.

I had to read that one a few times to check my disbelief.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/m ... se_070516/

[NeilS]

Sailors, and I would guess the troops as well, are generally unconcerned about 0.5% in a pay raise. Here's why:

1. Example of value of the 0.5% - as a 24 year senior chief in the Navy, I only made 43.3K in base pay. That one half percent would only be worth a little more than $12 per month ($18 gross).

2. Prices of goods and services by the civilain sector in military communities normally raise greater than the annual military pay raise anyways.

Thus, for that measely $12, I would end up $5 behind where I was before the pay raise. We were so far behind the index for so many years that many of my colleages just joked about what they call pay raises and was willing to let the White House and/or congress keep the money just so we could say they did nothing for us.

Keep in mind that a significant portion of military compensation is NOT in the basic pay in which raises are computed and retirements calculated.

Now the Tricare issue in another matter. I guess we have a so many wounded soldiers now that we need them to make some additional sacrifices - pay higher share of their medical bills. In the future, when we promise life-long medical benefits, recruiters should add the disclamier: Peacetime only.

[LaWood]

Thanks NeilS. There's always a new way to "put it to our servicepersonel."

Leave it to Bushies to figure out untold ways to do it.
.

[NeilS]

My point was I wouldn't give a damn about 0.5% when I am already behind the national average by say 10%. A measely $12 per month is meaningless...it's an INSULT!!!!! Pay me what I am worth. Don't insult me with a fraction of a percent then tell me how much you did for me. Keep your half percent then. It's about being spiteful, sort of.

NOW--some young enlisted kid will get much less than the $12 per month increase...that was me as a senior chief with 24 years.

Much of military compensation is in the form of allowances. Pay raise percentage points apply to pay, not allowances. That also means the accumlative impact of the pay raises impacts only the base pay component of compensation.

And the net result of prices increasing in military communities is real. Prices rose more than the pay raises. It was not that everyone wanted a piece of it. Everyone wanted to whole raise. (Now I'm venting.)

Don't, however, mess with my medical benefits. Especially when you (not you, but gov) are going to expose me to more risks, experiment on me with unproven vaccinations, etc. I am more likely going to need the medical care than the average civilian.

Most of my Navy friends and I just got angered over the discussions about a percent or two. Do something meaningful or just shut up about (was our sentiment).

I am out of town for the balance of week, so if I don't reply it's not because I don't have my dander up.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Toward the end of WWII & in the post WWII years, military personnel were fed, clothed, and either housed or given an off-base housing allowance. Prices at the PX were much cheaper than us civilians got, which balanced that lower pay. The VA system, while never perfect, did a better job of healthcare for the vets than the civilian system did/does (I know that isn't necessarily saying much). The GI Bill helped WWII vets get home loans, college, or start businesses. Unfortunately, at least until the Walter Reed scandal came out, most Americans - especially "Red Staters" thought the military was still getting those kinds of programs. The Republican business model has never changed - if it's labor or for labor, it's bad - get rid of it. If it's a boondoggle with high dollars for CEOs and other major stockholders (i.e., all versions of "Star Wars"), it's good - need more of it. Red-staters just never thought the R Party would apply that business model to our troops.

[NeilS]

Regarding military benefits, here's where some things stand today:
1. Education - great benefits. Active duty usually get 100% tuition. Vets (including retired) get about $1100/month for full-time college for about 39 months.

2. Healthcare - still better than most civilian plans. In military communities (i.e., around bases) access is generally easy, prescriptions free or nominal fees. Service branch seems to matter in quality of care at military facilities. VA facilities still have a bad rap...but I think it depends on location. Here's the biggie - range of care available I think far exceeds what people in the same economic brackets in civlian sector can afford.

3. PX - depends on service branch. Navy Exchange prices not competitive with private sector but no sales tax. I hear that prices are very competitive at Air Force and Army exchanges.

4. Housing allowance - now based on geographic areas in addition to pay grade, usually enough for a family to afford average quality housing in civilian community. Now many younger military families can afford to buy homes at the E4/E5 paygrade.

5. VA loan - are only VA backed...BUT..by law, VA backed loans requires less closing costs and no down payment.

6. Base pay has consistently improved over last 20 years, but still fails to keep up with inflation. E1->E3 folks can still qualify for food stamps/WICA. These younger people/families suffer a lot. Every few years this groups gets a much larger raise than the average military raise. But that has not been consistent. Most senior military people support the larger raises for junior personnel.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I'm afraid the original assumption, that E1-3 category service personal are kids still living with their folks, is still prevalent among the powers that be. Like the "welfare queen" myth, that assumption allows people who should know better to cut funding for programs that get people off food stamps/wic, etc.