|
WASHINGTON PULSE
March 2006
Raise Stirs Questions on ‘Fair Pay’
by Sandra I. Erwin
A proposed 2.2 percent pay raise for military personnel — the same raise that the Bush administration recommended for civilian workers — raised eyebrows in Washington in recent weeks. Giving equal salary increments to military and civilians, critics argue, implies that the Pentagon is failing to reward the dangerous work that troops are doing in Iraq.
Not so, Pentagon officials counter. “The 2.2 is what we think is about the right amount,” says Vice Adm. Evan Chanik, director of force structure, resources and assessment for the Joint Staff.
The Army’s budget director, Maj. Gen. Edgar E. Stanton III, says this is not really about fair pay, because soldiers are motivated by more than just money. “Most soldiers have no knowledge about pay comparability,” Stanton says. “They haven’t studied economic cross-indexes. They just know what their compensation is, and whether it’s right for their family.”
Admiral’s Clout Could Pay Off for Shipyards
Another budget-related topic that has roused debate is a Pentagon recommendation — included in its Quadrennial Defense Review — that the Navy increase its submarine production to two vessels per year, despite repeated warnings by Navy leaders that the service only can afford to build one per year, at least for the foreseeable future.
Insiders note that it would be highly unusual for the Pentagon to take such a strong stance in favor of a ship program, except that one of the senior officials in charge of the QDR, Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., is a career submariner with substantial political clout.
When asked to explain the thinking behind the decision to endorse increased submarine production, Vice Adm. Evan Chanik, director of force structure, resources and assessment for the Joint Staff, said, “Adm. G is a strong proponent of that.”
Push to Combine Programs Gets Top-Level Attention
In an effort to consolidate military service programs into “joint capabilities,” top Defense Department officials will recommend specific areas that should be funded and managed jointly, rather than by individual services.
So far, two candidate programs are “joint logistics,” and “joint command-and-control,” says Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. These two areas, Henry says, will become part of a “joint capabilities portfolio” that will shape spending plans beginning in fiscal year 2008.
In charge of this undertaking is the so-called “group of 12,” which includes the deputy defense secretary, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, five undersecretaries, four vice chiefs, and the deputy chief of U.S. Special Operations Command.
“It could add up to 150 different actions,” Henry says. “We want to build capabilities before this administration ends.”
Army Reserves Under-Funded by $7 Billion
Despite a healthy flow of funding into Army equipment accounts in recent years, Reserve units are woefully short of trucks and other tactical vehicles, a senior official says.
The current funding shortfall is $7.7 billion, according to Maj. Gen. Jack C. Stultz, deputy chief of the Army Reserve Command. In a recent presentation at an industry conference, Stultz noted that the Army’s 2006-2011 budget includes $3.5 billion for new equipment for the Reserves, but that the amount is not nearly enough.
“Tactical wheeled vehicles remain the greatest funding requirement for the Army Reserve,” he told the conference. The needed equipment, he added, likely will not be funded until the 2010-2015 budget.
Back To Top
|
Search Tips
