Senate Democrats call for more generous military pay raise

Ten Senate Democrats called Thursday for a higher military pay raise than the 2.2 percent President Bush proposed in his fiscal 2007 budget, opening the door once again for a battle to grant civilian federal employees pay parity.

The senators defended their position in a letter to Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D. The committee is responsible for drafting a budget bill -- including the civilian and military pay raises -- based on the president's recommendations.

"As you begin consideration of the president's [fiscal] 2007 budget request, we urge you to include a pay increase that meets the needs and reflects the sacrifice of America's military personnel and their families," the senators stated in the letter.

They cited recruitment and retention as grounds for a larger pay increase, as well as a show of respect for the military in a time of war. The letter did not recommend a specific pay raise figure.

Not everyone agrees that 2.2 percent is too low. On the House side, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters in a Feb. 8 press briefing that the proposed pay raise is sufficient.

"My position on the thing is that the pay raise is higher than the current rate of inflation and the pay raises that we've executed for the last four years are, at this point I believe, [a] 29 percent increase [over five years]," Hunter said. "[That is a] very substantial increase."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who wrote the letter, noted in a statement that a 2.2 percent pay raise would be the smallest increase since 1994. Last year, both the military and civilian workforces received a 3.1 percent hike.

"Our troops are sacrificing so much, in every corner of the world," Kerry said. "Shortchanging them and the families who love them is a lousy way to say thanks."

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., who signed the letter, added: "President Bush's proposed pay increase for the courageous men and women in our Armed Forces is unacceptably small. Our brave troops, who are risking their lives around the world, deserved better from their commander-in chief."

In the letter, the senators noted that the Army, Army National Guard and the Army Reserve did not reach their recruitment targets in 2005: "Individuals choose to serve for many reasons: patriotism, a sense of duty, a desire to defend their country and make the world a better place. But we also know that adequate pay is one of the requirements of maintaining a professional, all-volunteer military."

This was the first year that President Bush proposed the same pay raise for both the military and civilians. Previously, he had recommended a higher pay raise for the military and Congress boosted the civilian increase to match it.

With pay parity achieved, House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va. said there is likely less room to bargain for a higher civilian pay raise. If Congress boosts the military raise on its own, however, a pay parity debate could still ensue.

This pay raise proposal is equal to the Labor Department's Employment Cost Index. Previously, the formula for military pay raises was ECI plus 0.5 percent, which would bring the raise to 2.7 percent. But the fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act called for pay raises from 2007 on to be equal to the ECI, without the extra 0.5 percent.