Outcry erupts over 1% pay raise for military
Military families and their advocates are battling an Obama administration proposal to limit troops' pay raises to 1 percent in 2014, the lowest increase in half a century.
“We're sending the wrong message to the ones who have worked the hardest in our country by the multiple deployments and family separations,” said Michael Hayden, deputy director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America.
White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden, no relation, said Obama is committed to “a sacred trust” with military members but needed to reduce the pay raise, partly to offset congressional refusal to cut spending on “outdated weapons systems.”
Elizabeth Robbins, a Pentagon spokeswoman, called the limit on pay increases a “tough decision.” But she said the Defense Department must pay for proper training and support, and “fair compensation that recognizes the sacrifices (troops) make for our country ... while adhering to the budget constraints.”
Pentagon officials briefing family representatives framed the 1 percent increase as a trade-off — “They believe servicemembers and families would be willing to give something on the size of pay raises to ensure funding for the mission,” the National Military Family Association explained to members.
This triggered angry questions from spouses, who asked whether this wasn't a false choice.
“We understand that funding training and readiness are vital to the servicemember and the Department of Defense, but why should something this important be an either/or?” says Joyce Raezer, executive director of the association.
Pentagon records show that a 1 percent increase would be the lowest since 1963, when there was no raise followed by a double-digit increase later that year. The second-lowest raise since then was in 2011 at 1.4 percent.
Military pay increases by law are now linked with private sector growth as reflected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index, an assessment that would call for a 1.8 percent increase in 2014, which advocates are seeking.
But the Pentagon is asking Congress to limit it to 1 percent and save $540 million. The Defense Department is also seeking to raise or establish certain fees in health coverage for retirees and military dependents, a savings of $1 billion.
Doubts were also raised by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., head of the Senate Armed Service Committee sub-panel that will examine the issue. “There are a lot of ways the federal government can cut costs and save money, but targeting salaries and benefits for our troops and civilian personnel should not be one of them,” she said on Wednesday.
Non-military federal workers have seen their pay frozen for three years and Obama exempted troops from the impact of sequestration furloughs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Defense memo reveals plan to protect transgender troops
- Mich. high court strikes down mandatory fees for state employees in unions
- New TSA administrator vows training to address security gaps
- Obama hopes he has enough votes to sustain a potential veto of Iran nuke deal; pro-Israel groups aim to stop it
- Cruz switches targets, takes exception with IRS practices
- Ohio cop indicted on murder charge in traffic-stop shooting
- Cincy officer indicted on murder charge in fatal shooting of motorist
- Feds accuse Philadelphia congressman Fattah of corruption
- 911 dispatcher hung up on caller before wounded teen’s death in June
- El Niño helps, harms economies
- L.A. bans handgun, rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds