Our
GIs Earn Enough
Cindy Williams
The Washington Post, January 12, 2000; Page A19
This month every member of the U.S. military is getting a 4.8 percent pay raise,
the biggest inflation boost the military has seen in 18 years. The ink on the
paychecks is not yet dry, but already some politicians and lobbyists are
clamoring for bigger raises in future years. Just this week the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that most military people
feel they are not paid fairly.
Proponents of additional hefty raises argue that even after this month's raise,
the military suffers a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector. But
in fact there is no pay gap worthy of the name; our armed forces are already
paid very well compared with the rest of America. It makes no sense to pour
money into outsized pay raises. The 25 percent pay hike that some proponents are
backing would cost taxpayers more than $12 billion a year.
The "gap" of 13 percent does not measure the relative levels of military and
civilian pay. Rather, it is supposed to reflect the differences between military
and private sector raises since 1982. The calculation is set up to make the
differences seem as large as possible. For example, it includes the growth in
what the military calls "basic pay" but not the growth in allowances for food
and housing. And it compares the military and civilian raises over separate time
periods. Just correcting for those two problems cuts the result in half.
Comparing raises and calling it a pay gap makes no sense anyway. If you get a 5
percent raise this year and your neighbor gets 10 percent, it hardly means your
pay has fallen behind your neighbor's: If you earned twice as much as your
neighbor to start with, you still earn more than he does. Wage data show that
our troops typically earn more money than 75 percent of civilians with similar
levels of education and experience.
For example, after four months in the Army, an 18-year-old private earns about
$21,000 a year in pay and allowances. In addition, he or she gets a tax
advantage worth about $800, because some of the allowances are not taxed. That's
not bad for a person entering the work force with a high school diploma. By way
of com
At the higher end of enlisted service, a master sergeant with 20 years in the
Marine Corps typically earns more than $50,000 a year--better than a senior
municipal firefighter or a police officer in a supervisory position, and
comparable to a chief engineer in a medium-sized broadcast market. Among the
officers, a 22-year-old fresh out of college earns about $34,000 a year as an
ensign in the Navy--about the same as the average starting pay of an accountant,
mathematician or a geologist with a bachelor's degree. A colonel with 26 years
makes more than $108,000.
In addition to these basic salaries, there are cash bonuses for officers and
enlisted personnel with special skills. There are also fringe benefits: four
weeks of paid vacation, comprehensive health care, discount groceries, tuition
assistance during military service and as much as $50,000 for college afterward.
Enlistment and reenlistment bonuses can run to $20,000 and more.
Advocates of additional big raises maintain that military people should be paid
more because they are more highly qualified--they exceed national averages in
verbal and math skills and percentage of high school graduations. But while
these facts may help explain why the majority of our soldiers already earn more
money than 75 percent of Americans, they don't explain why their future raises
should exceed civilian wage growth by a large amount.
Some advocates contend that we need a large boost in military pay because the
services are finding it difficult to attract and keep the people they need. But
recruiting can be improved much less expensively by pumping up advertising,
adding recruiters and better focusing their efforts and expanding enlistment
bonuses and college programs. Pay is not necessarily the most important factor
in a person's decision to stay in or leave the military. We might get better
results by reducing the frequency of deployments, relaxing antiquated rules and
improving working conditions.
Proponents of higher pay also note that military people put up with hardships
such as long hours and family separations. Yet many civilian occupations make
similar demands, and firefighters, police and emergency medical personnel, like
many in the military, risk their lives on the job.
The report that CSIS released this week points to problems of morale and
dissatisfaction across the military. But those problems are not all about pay.
According to CSIS, they reflect concerns about training and leadership, the
demands of frequent overseas deployments and unmet expectations for a
challenging and satisfying military lifestyle. Higher pay will not fix these
problems.
The writer, a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, was assistant director for national security in the Congressional
Budget Office"
Now...Ol' Cindy whips around some impressive figures there, eh? However, her
"figures" are bogus!
An E7 at 20, married, would earn (with BAQ and seprats) #41K a year...not the
$50K plus she presents! Now, I'd say an error of 20% kinda makes her PhD in math
kinda weak!!!!
January 11, 2005
Making the Cuts, Keeping the Benefits
By CINDY WILLIAMS
Cambridge, Mass. — IN an effort to reduce the growth of the military budget, the
Bush administration is poised to cut back a wide array of Pentagon programs,
from jet fighters to a missile defense system. Pentagon leaders say the cuts
will save more than $55 billion over six years.
Whether these reductions herald the end of the rapid rise in military spending
that began in 1999, however, is open to question. While fewer weapons systems
than planned will be purchased during the next six years, in financial terms,
putting an end to the buildup will require cutting far more than what is now on
the chopping block. One reason is that much of the recent rise in spending has
been fueled not by new tanks or missiles, but by new costs associated with
military personnel - especially retirees. These costs amount to a permanent
increase in the military budget. Unlike spending on equipment, they cannot be
canceled or deferred.
Since the start of the buildup, the rising costs of military pay, retiree
benefits, health care and family housing have greatly outstripped inflation and
added more than $40 billion to annual Pentagon budgets, even though the number
of active-duty troops has essentially stayed the same. Moreover, the annual
costs continue to grow rapidly. The program reductions that are reported to be
under consideration would not be enough to offset the growth in spending for
military pay and benefits anticipated during the next several years. Even
holding the increases in the military budget to the level of inflation would
require tens of billions of dollars in annual reductions.
To the extent that added pay and benefits ensure the nation does right by the
men and women who fight for it, these increases would seem worthwhile.
Unfortunately, a large share of new spending is devoted not to helping soldiers
serving today, but to improving the benefits for military retirees - that is,
the small minority of veterans who stay in the military for 20 years or more and
are eligible for immediate benefits upon their retirements.
In recent years, Congress has expanded retiree benefits substantially, making
them the fastest-growing category of entitlements for military personnel. In
1999, Congress reversed a 1986 law that would have trimmed pensions for retirees
who joined the military after 1986. That change costs the Defense Department
some $1 billion annually. A health care entitlement granted by Congress in 2000
pays virtually all medical expenses for older retirees and their spouses -
including the cost of prescription drugs - that are not covered by Medicare.
That entitlement costs the Defense Department nearly $4 billion now and its
costs will rise over the coming years.
Another benefit, granted by Congress last year and scheduled to be phased in
over a decade, will permit retirees who depart the military with moderate to
severe disabilities to collect retirement pensions in addition to their
disability payments. Its cost, about $500 million this year, will rise to some
$2.5 billion a year in six years. In addition, a change authorized in October
2004 will enrich the pensions of spouses who outlive retired service members, at
a cost of about $200 million this year and nearly $1 billion in 2011. As
expensive as these new benefits are, advocates are pressing Congress for more.
These deferred entitlements do nothing to help men and women now in uniform.
These members of the military face long and frequent family separations,
deployment to distant lands, fighting in a dangerous counter-insurgency and
more. Cash bonuses, improved family services, modern and well-maintained
equipment and increases in troop strength (which would mean less frequent
call-ups and deployments) are far more likely to serve their needs.
In fact, most active-duty military will never get anything - because they will
leave the service before they are eligible to retire with benefits. Fewer than
one in 12 of today's living veterans qualify for retiree benefits, and fewer
than one in five of today's active-duty service members are expected to stay for
the 20 years it takes to receive them.
Moreover, deferred benefits will not help the Army or the National Guard
overcome the recruitment and retention problems they face as a result of the war
in Iraq.
The prospect of receiving such benefits in the distant future is virtually
worthless in helping the military to persuade an 18-year-old to join the
military or encourage a 23-year-old to re-enlist.
The rapid growth of retiree benefits has already greatly complicated the budget
picture for military leaders. Even if Congress decides against further expansion
of such benefits, the ones it has already granted will make it hard to slow
budget growth without further reducing the size of the military. Giving in to
pressure for another round of entitlements, in the face of the challenges facing
the troops serving in Iraq and elsewhere, would be irresponsible.
Cindy Williams, a principal research
scientist in the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, is the editor of "Filling the Ranks: Transforming the
U.S. Military
Personnel System."