Higher pay raises for the nation's military personnel could lead to more readiness shortfalls, a key House Democrat warned Wednesday.
Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee’s personnel panel, said she worries House Republican plans to authorize a 2.1 percent pay raise for 2017 — one-half of a percentage point above what the Pentagon has requested — will “take funds from other critical priorities,” and impede the military's ability to keep its equipment and day-to-day operations functioning optimally.
“Any additional money to a military family’s budget counts, no doubt about that,” Davis said during a hearing on the proposal. “But to give you a sense of the scale involved, this additional 0.5 percent pay raise will provide an E-4 with an additional $11 a month. That will cost a total of $330 million which must be taken out of somewhere else in the budget.”
Davis’ example is based on the monthly pay for an E-4 with three years of military service. For an E-7 with 10 years of service, or an O-2 with two years, the monthly difference is about $19. An O-4 with 12 years see an extra $34 a month under the higher raise plan.
“This proposal would further raid [supply] accounts in order to fund a pay increase of $11 a month,” she said. “When I speak to our sailors and Marines, the message is clear from them: The lack of parts creates a service morale problem.”
Davis’ argument echoes that of the White House and the Pentagon, which have pushed for a pay raise below the anticipated growth in private sector wages in an effort to bolster modernization and maintenance accounts.
The administration has authorized pay raises below that private-sector rate for each of the last three years.
But House Republicans are pushing to end that streak. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., chairman of the personnel subcommittee, said the move is about more than just increasing troops’ paychecks.
“It sends a signal,” he told reporters. “For the last three years, the military pay raise has been less than what is authorized by law. The reason why that formula was put into law was to try and keep military pay commensurate with pay in the private sector, so we don’t lose our best and brightest.
“We felt at this point in time, [troops] should get the full pay raise.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/2016/04/20/higher-pay-raise-concerns-davis/83288138/
