By Tom Philpott
Military Update focuses on issues affecting pay, benefits and lifestyle of active and retired servicepeople. Its author, Tom Philpott, is a Virginia-based syndicated columnist and freelance writer. He has covered military issues for almost 25 years, including six years as editor of Navy Times. For 17 years he worked as a writer and senior editor for Army Times Publishing Co. Philpott, 49, enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard in 1973 and served as an information officer from 1974-77.
Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark., has assumed chairmanship of the Armed Services personnel subcommittee with some specific goals and fresh ideas to make defense budget 2002 another good one for military pay and benefits. His goals include:
 Targeting the January 2002 pay raise to deliver bigger increases to mid- and senior-grade enlisted personnel.
Enticing members in critical job skills to extend their careers in return for thousands of dollars in U.S. savings bonds, which could then be used, tax-free, to cover family education expenses.
Rescinding a century-old law that bars "concurrent receipt'" of both earned military retired pay and tax-free VA disability compensation for service-related disabilities.
Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., the new personnel subcommittee chairman for the House Armed Services Committee, also sees reason to target next January's pay raise, but he also wants agreement from the Bush administration that it would be an efficient use of tight defense dollars. "I’d like to do it collectively,'' he said. "We don't pass anything [into law] without the Senate and the president's agreement.''
Both Hutchinson and McHugh said military pay still lags private sector wages by 10 percent to 12 percent, and the gap’s size likely varies by rank. "Part of our job," said Hutchinson, "is ensuring that that [next] pay raise is targeted properly.''
A draft report this winter from the Ninth Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, a Pentagon study group, notes that mid- and senior-grade enlisted people are more underpaid than other service members when pay comparisons with the private sector focus both on experience and education.
Not all the services favor targeting, however. Some officials argue there hasn't been enough time in this budget cycle to debate pros and cons. And some say the dollars involved aren’t enough to boost retention.
Hutchinson and McHugh both plan to wait to see what Bush proposes when 2002 budget details are announced in April.
Hutchinson isn’t waiting, however, to launch his new family education savings bond.
Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., had sought authority for members to transfer unused GI Bill benefits to spouses and children. It’s costly. Instead, Hutchinson wants to offer officers and enlisted people in critical specialties U.S. savings bonds if they extend their service obligations by six years.
The savings bonds, under current tax law, could be redeemed at maturity, tax-free — if the money is used on education of the member, spouse or children.
Under the plan, people in critical skills with less than three years of service would be offered bonds with a worth at maturity of $5,000. Members with three to nine years would be offered bonds worth $15,000. Those with more than nine years could get up to $30,000 in face value.
Savings bonds are bought at prices equal to half the face value. That means the immediate worth of a $5,000 bond is only $2,500.
Hutchinson said he also wants to end the dollar-for-dollar reduction in retired pay that occurs when full-term military retirees begin to draw VA compensation for service-related disabilities.
Removing that ban is long overdue, he said, but the fight, as always, will revolve around dollars.
On this and other issues deserving of reform, said McHugh, "meritorious needs far outweigh the likely resources."
Both panel chairmen said they are still confident the legislative year will be another good one for military personnel. This despite President Bush’s surprise announcement in February that he will stick, for now, with the defense budget ceiling of $310 billion set by the Clinton administration.
Working out funding details for the TRICARE for Life program and TRICARE Senior Pharmacy benefits will be another priority, Hutchinson said.
McHugh’s subcommittee already has a TRICARE hearing set for Wednesday.
Comments and suggestions are welcomed. Write to Military Update, P.O. Box231111, Centreville, Va 20120-1111, or send e-mail to: milupdate@aol.com.
[back to top] |
