TOPICS
TOPICS
House panel backs 2.7 percent military pay raise
A House subcommittee on Wednesday approved legislation calling for a 2.7 percent across-the-board military pay raise next year, upping the ante on President Bush, who has backed a 2.2 percent boost for both military service members and civilian federal employees.
The inclusion of the higher figure in the version of the fiscal 2007 Defense authorization bill (H.R. 5122) passed by the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee already has prompted calls to give all federal employees a more generous pay hike.
"A larger increase for military families clearly is in order," said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "So too, however, is a larger increase for the men and women of the government's civilian workforce."
Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the military personnel subcommittee, included the 2.7 percent figure in the version of the authorization bill he presented to his subcommittee for consideration Wednesday, meaning it was not subject to a separate vote.
Bush's proposal in his fiscal 2007 budget request for identical military-civilian raises left proponents of pay parity little room to bargain for a higher raise. In recent years, the president has proposed lower annual raises for white-collar civilian employees than for their military counterparts, touching off congressional calls to bump up the civilian figure to the military level.
The 2.2 percent 2007 raise proposed by Bush would be equal to the change in the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index. But in an opening statement at Wednesday's markup, McHugh noted that the final military pay raise often exceeds the ECI. If the 2.7 percent hike is adopted, this would be the eighth consecutive year that the military boost has exceeded that index, he said.
The higher raise would narrow the gap between military and private sector pay from 4.5 percent to 4 percent, McHugh said. The version of the bill considered by the subcommittee included $300 million to pay for the increased basic pay, as well as $263 million for an additional pay raise for warrant officers and midgrade and senior enlisted members that would take effect next April.
"When taken together with the across-the-board raise, these targeted raises will enhance retention efforts directed at experienced and highly skilled noncommissioned officers and warrant officers," McHugh said.
COMMENTS
- Let the good times role! I think most Americans -- especially middle class -- are just fed up at this point. GovExec.com reader Posted April 27, 2006 4:53 PM
- Nice to see that next year's military pay raise uses the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index as a starting point, but more is being offered, and it will be applied to all military salaries on a global basis. The contrast to NSPS civilian pay could hardly be starker. According to the Official DoD NSPS website, civilian locality pay will be scrapped and replaced with annual local market supplements which are based upon mission requirements, local market conditions, and availability of funds. Notice that increases to offset inflation are conspicuously absent from the determination. So under NSPS if your job is not sufficiently valuable to "mission requirements" or if the local market conditions are "adverse" or if "sufficient" funds are not available, not only will you not get an annual pay raise, but you may be actually eligible for an annual pay cut! All of this to be established at the command level by our local military leadership on an ad hoc basis. I'm sure they will know how "to dish it" out to the civilians under NSPS. Why does annual military pay increases use as its starting point with the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index, a known national standard? Why not use the NSPS local market supplement process to address military annual pay raises? Why should a soldier at Ft. Sill, Okla., get the same pay raise as a soldier based in Washington, D.C. as the cost of living is vastly different? Also why isn't a deduction taken for cost of living offsets received with the availability of tax free, taxpayer subsidized commissary and exchange shopping? The answer is simple: The military lobby has clout and it is politically safe to ignore civilian employees. I suspect that the current administration seriously wonders why civil service should even be allowed to exist. The only explanation that I can see is that civil service is needed to provide employment for retired military officers and they will get their inflation protection through their retired military pay. The civil service "double dip" pay will be an added bonus. GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2006 9:58 PM
- Getting shot at has never been more profitable. Sign us up!! Dis-gruntled GovExec.com reader Posted April 27, 2006 8:54 AM
