What almost certainly will end, however, is an 11-year string of annual military pay increases that exceeded private sector wage growth by at least a half percentage point.
The House this summer had voted to make it 12 consecutive extra-size pay raises, by including a 1.9 percent military pay hike in its version of the 2011 defense bill, over opposition from military leaders and the White House.
The Senate bill embraces the 1.4 percent raise proposed by the Obama administration, which matches private sector wage growth, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employment Cost Index (ECI). But it also will be the military’s smallest pay raise since 1962.
Pay officials say blame the poor economy for dampening wage growth nationwide. Consumer prices too have been impacted, which is why military retirees, social security recipients and disabled veterans won’t see a January cost-of-living adjustment for the second consecutive year.
With Republican senators opposed to the defense bill’s provision to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, which bars gay military members from serving openly, prospects of passing a final defense bill remained in doubt.
If no defense authorization bill is passed by Jan. 1, existing federal pay law takes hold. It directs that, absent overriding congressional action, military pay is to increase each January based on changes in the ECI, in this case by 1.4 percent.
Even if Senate defense bill is approved, House-Senate conferees tasked to iron out differences for a final bill, are expected to acquiesce to the Senate and administration on the smaller military raise.
Congressional sources cite several factors including the two-year pay freeze planned for federal civilian employees, mounting worries over budget deficits and a jobless rate in the private sector still hovering near 10 percent.
High unemployment helps the services meet and even exceed recruiting and retention targets for quality personnel, despite a grinding pace of operations supporting two war theaters. It also persuades more members of Congress to heed criticism of outside budget analysts that lawmakers have allowed military personnel costs to climb too high.
“Reality has caught up to us,” said a House staff member who has seen support for the larger pay raise weaken.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) posted a statement earlier this month that a federal pay freeze should impact military personnel too, except for those fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere “serving in harm’s way.”
That’s a sharp turnaround. Rep. Susan Davis (D-Calif.), who next month steps down as chair of the House armed services subcommittee on military personnel, said last May that military people continue to deserve bigger pay raises because “the extraordinary high operations tempo has exacted a high penalty on our service members and their families.”
She took that stand, as did the subcommittee in a unanimous 14-0 vote, despite analysis from the Congressional Budget Office that, if housing allowance are counted, growth in military pay actually has surpassed private sector pay growth by 11 percent since 1982, the year the Reagan administration declared that “pay comparability” had been achieved.
Proponents of the larger raise argue that pay growth comparisons using only military basic pay show a gap of 2.4 percent remains. But the Obama administration, just as the Bush administration did, argues the pay gap is gone and that future across-the-board raises should only match changes in the ECI, not exceed that pay growth measure.
From 2002 through 2010, basic pay rose 42 percent and housing allowances 83 percent, compared to a 32 percent rise in private sector wages, Pentagon pay officials contend. If Congress still wants to boost military compensation, any extra dollars should go into special and incentive pays to fill shortages of critical skills.
Obama in late November called for a pay raise freeze for federal civilian employees this January and again in 2012, in sympathy with out-of-work Americans and as a first step toward getting soaring budget deficits under control.
The pay freeze will save more than $5 billion over two years, and more than $60 billion over 10 years, in part because holding down pay raises also dampens future retirement benefits.
The Office of Management, using the most recent ECI data, projects the size of the lost federal pay raise in January 2012 at about 1.6 percent.
“This freeze does not apply to the men and women of our armed forces who along with their families continue to bear enormous burdens with our nation at war,” the president said. He added, “The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government.”
A week later, Obama cut a deal with congressional Republican leaders to sustain for two years Bush-era tax cuts including for millionaires, lower payroll taxes in 2011 on most America workers and extend other tax breaks.
In a glaring contrast to the federal pay freeze, these initiatives would raise budget deficits over the next two years by $900 billion. But also, the president argued, they will spur the economy and create jobs.
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, called it “unconscionable to attack the wages of federal working people while the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street not only get their bailouts and astronomical bonuses; they also get their tax cuts.”
Reagan, in 1986, was the last president to impose a federal pay freeze President Clinton proposed a pay freeze for both civil servants and the military in 1994 but Congress refused to enact it.
To comment, send e-mail to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or write to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111.
Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews , on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .