Thursday, October 26, 2006

This is two-week-old news if you're in the military (or in a military family), but I don't think a lot of civilians know about it:

Top generals big winners in 2007 defense budget
161 highest-ranking officers receive 8.7-percent pay raise

... In January, when most servicemembers will receive a 2.2 percent basic pay raise, their smallest in 12 years, America's 36 four-star generals and admirals, and its 125 lieutenant generals and vice admirals, will see basic pay climb by 8.7 percent, or $1,100 a month.

More significant are changes in the way their retired pay is calculated. To use one prominent officer as an example, Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command, could see his future retired pay jump by almost $37,000 a year.

...[Abizaid's] retired pay after 33 years could be 82.5 percent of the new basic pay rate of $15,234 a month for an O-10 with at least 32 years' service. His monthly retirement check could be $12,568, instead of $9,500, and annual retired pay $150,816, not $114,000....

That would be a 32% increase.

This is not being well received:

The 2.2 across-the-board military pay raise in January is a joke. So is the 8.7 percent raise set for 125 generals and admirals. How about reversing it?

Officers do not need the bigger raise. It’s the enlisted ranks who have people on food stamps and receiving assistance from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. With the price of gas and everything else higher, a 2.2 pay raise is a slap in the face....

Via e-mail

Great. The same individuals who got us into this quagmire in the Middle East are getting an $1100-a-month pay raise, and my E-3, who is packing his bags next week for a year of "fun in the sun" Iraq, is to get a whopping $33. Unfreaking real…No, how shameful.

Rick T.
Via e-mail ...

Bush economics for the troops -- what a surprise.

No comments: