<http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/10/2011-military-pay-debate/> 
http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/10/2011-military-pay-debate/


 <http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/10/2011-military-pay-debate/> 
Military Pay Debate – Cut Pay or Troops?


October 28, 2010 •  <http://militaryadvantage.military.com/author/terry/> Terry 
Howell

Mil­i­tary pay and ben­e­fits have been a hot topic this fall; from the  
<http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/retired-pay/retired-cola> zero 
increase in mil­i­tary retiree and vet­eran cost of liv­ing adjust­ments to the 
pro­posed reduc­tions in future  
<http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay> mil­i­tary base pay raises, 
there are plenty of issues for Ser­vice­mem­bers and mil­i­tary retirees to 
focus on.

 

As ear­lier reported in this blog, the  
<http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/10/congressional-politics-leaves-military-pay-hanging/>
 Sen­ate left on recess with­out pass­ing the National Defense Autho­riza­tion 
Act for 2011. The NDAA 2011 ( 
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.5136:> H.R. 5136) includes a 
House pro­posal for a 1.9 per­cent across-the-board increase in mil­i­tary base 
pay, in addi­tion to exten­sions that would con­tinue pay­ing cer­tain types of 
spe­cial pay and allowances. Accord­ing to many reports, the Sen­ate is 
lean­ing toward reduc­ing the House’s pro­posed pay increase by .5 per­cent to 
1.4 per­cent, which would match the White House’s pro­posal.

 

Ear­lier this sum­mer we reported that  
<http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,218378,00.html> two sep­a­rate DoD 
advi­sory pan­els had rec­om­mended reduc­ing the DoD’s per­son­nel bud­get by 
lim­it­ing the size of pay raises and cut­ting retiree ben­e­fits. The panel’s 
reports are being debated this fall as Con­gress and Defense Depart­ment 
offi­cials look for ways to reduce the deficit in a lag­ging econ­omy. 
Chair­man of the Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Per­son­nel sub­com­mit­tee, Sen. Jim 
Webb (D-Va.), has sug­gested that cut­ting the num­ber of troops would be a 
bet­ter way to reduce the cost of mil­i­tary per­son­nel.

 

 

 

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, 
[email protected].
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[email protected]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [email protected]
  Unsubscribe:  [email protected]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to