I don't know what to think about this. I'm aware that US troops are relatively well paid compared to most other nations but isn't a 2.2% pay increase a bit mean? Especially at this time.

Army.com

The Pentagon is seeking a 2.2 percent pay raise for troops in 2007, which is the lowest increase since 1994 and well below the average for the last 10 years. The raise, in the $439.3 billion fiscal 2007 defense budget, is tied to the rise in wage growth in the United States, according to Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Defense Department spokeswoman. The budget proposal now goes to Congress, where the House and Senate will hold hearings and work separately on its various provisions.

__________________

'Never was so much owed by so many to so few.' Sir Winston Churchill.

Nearly 750,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion. That is a cause for shame, not pride.

The defense authorization act makes it a requirement for us to have a pay raise (min) of .5% above private sector wage growth. So, in other words, some might say "be happy for what you get."

This may turn out to be a pretty bad move given the problems we were having with retention of some our senior NCOs. The threat of higher wages offered from PMCs is still out there, and instead of wasting so much money on bonuses, I am not sure why they didn't give us a nice cushy pay raise. Certainly it would have cost a bit more, but the end results could save the military from losing guys at around 15/16/17 years, which in training costs would about even us out. Congress may up it a bit before they are through with it.

I can't really complain about our pay, we are well paid by military standards and our benefits while in service are very good. With all of the extra pay I get, I bank quite a bit each year.

I am wondering why no emphasis was put on combat pay.

I believe that the army is willing to pay initial entry enlisted bonuses at the expense of wage increases for senior members in order to assure numbers in the future. I do not believe that the army would lose many members with a significant number of years because the pay raise is at 2.2%. We have a history of this pattern. The government will give larger increases to build and retain numbers while preparing for the possibility of war and then need to find a way to cut expenses and maintain retention during times of war.
Although, I will admit that this is the smallest increase I can rember for quite some time. I'll take the 2.2% added to my current salary as a sgt over the pay I was making as a fifth year high school teacher any day.

__________________
Sarge-JC

People do not leave because of the raises, or lack of raises..they leave because PMCs pay four times as much for less time. We certainly can't compete with that, but it would be nice to work more on wage increases than short increases in bonuses.

It costs millions of dollars to train certain MOSes add to that the years of experience and OTJ training, that's a bundle of money to lose out on. Instead of offering up 150K bonuses when SNCOs start to jump ship, it would be smart to start looking at long term solutions to retention.

The amount of the raise is the lowest in years, but it isn't horrible and congress may very well raise it for fear of upsetting John Public. My pay is good, and along with the recent bonuess those in my series got, we're all sitting pretty happy right now even with the high OPTEMPO.