Friday, February 2, 2001

By Lisa Burgess
Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Spending another $1 billion on military servicemembers pay sounded like a great campaign promise. Figuring out if everyone or just a few good — and specialized — troops should get extra dollars next year could become a presidential headache.

While the Pentagon referred all pay-raise questions to the White House, and officials there referred questions to the Pentagon, others said the president’s people are pushing for the additional dollars.

"My clear impression is that the White House will keep the campaign promise and add the $1 billion," a senior Senate aide said Wednesday. "How that will happen is totally unknown at this point, although discussions and debate are going on" at the White House, the Pentagon, the Office of Management and Budget and in Congress.

President Bush called for the extra $1 billion in the spring of 2000 while campaigning. The extra salary became an important plank in the Republican Party’s defense platform, which promised "better pay, better treatment and better training" for military personnel if Bush were elected.

If the $1 billion were applied evenly across the services (not including the planned pay raise of about 3.7 percent next year), the money would probably represent about a 2.5 percent increase. This calculation is based on the $1.5 billion cost to taxpayers in 2001 for January’s 3.7 percent across-the-board raise.

But the raise may not go to everyone in uniform. Currently, there are 1.38 million active duty personnel and 866,934 members of the reserve components on the government’s payroll.

During his campaign, Bush mentioned that his plan to boost the 2002 payroll by $1 billion would include increases for military specialists such as pilots, engineers and computer programmers. Some government officials are saying that the raise should affect only enlisted personnel, the Senate aide said.

Many lawmakers want to increase servicemembers’ pay because they say it will help draw more troops to all of the services and offer them a more livable salary.

In the late 1990s, when military recruitment and retention began a serious nosedive, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other influential officials said low pay was a chief culprit and pushed for higher salaries.

In 1999, Congress implemented a six-year series of pay hikes that are tied to an index that compares civilian and military pay rates.

Legislators claimed military personnel earned about 13.5 percent less than civilians with comparable private sector jobs in 1999, according to a comparison with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index, which measures how much wages and salaries of the civilian workforce have grown over time.

In 2000, servicemembers received a 4.8 percent raise, their largest raise in 18 years. January’s 3.7 percent raise has started to close the gap between civilian and military pay, which is now about 10 percent.

However, groups advocating higher pay for servicemembers, said that these small raises are not enough.

On Jan. 26, the president of the Association of the United States Army, based in Arlington, Va., retired Army Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, sent a letter to newly appointed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, urging him to close the gap between military and civilian pay by 2006.

"Recent actions by the Congress began the process of closing the pay gap. Regrettably, at this pace, it will take 20 years to reduce it to zero," Sullivan wrote. "Soldiers who have not yet enlisted will have retired after a full career and the gap will remain. This is simply unacceptable."

If Rumsfeld closes the gap by 2006, he "will help solidify the bond of trust between the military and the [Bush] administration," Sullivan added.

Back to February's stories
Page Two news roundup
Stories from January, 2001
Stories from December, 2000
Stories from November, 2000
Stories from October, 2000
Stories from August and September, 2000
Stories from June and July, 2000
Home