September 01, 2013 | Terry Howell
According to an article by Rick Maze of the Military Times, President Obama has notified Congress that he intends to use his authority to set the 2014 military pay increase at 1 percent, rather than the 1.8 percent, which is currently required by the federal pay formula.
The 2014 military pay raise is only one of many defense budget issues that has lawmakers and President at odds. The House budget plan includes the 1.8 percent raise, while both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the President’s proposed budgets include a cap of 1 percent.
The President announced the move on Friday August 30, right before the Labor Day weekend.
source: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2013/09/president-determined-to-cap-2014-military-pay/
You need to be a member of Navy Dads to add comments!
Replies
Let's look at the other side, IF cuts have to be made, then what? I'd rather see smaller raises than ERB. There are plenty of jobs in the world that don't get automatic raises. While I'd love to see my son make as much as possible, I do understand the government has a ton of budget problems.
To be honest, I'd prefer smaller raises to promotion freezes.
George Nelson said:Thanks for the info Mr Young. I`m new to NavyDads.
Sammy Young said:
I`m not going to get political but give me a break. Only %1? Really? These men and women are protecting us and that`s all the government wants to give them. I work in the natural gas industry and my raises are more than that. They deserve more than I do. Anyone else agree with me? I hope so. Bless all of our sons and daughters out there.
from the Navy regarding Oct 1: http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/09/25/answers-to-your-shutdown-que...
Looks like there's no escaping gossip and drama even in the military sheez...
Yes, Gary, the Navy Times, Army Times, Air Farce Times, Marine Times (for those that can read!), and Military Times are all pumped-out by the same news service. I still love going to the Navy Exchange and seeing all the headlines that all say the same freakin' thing, just different headers and different pictures on the cover story....
I just re-read your post I gather Military Inquirer as well heheh... Thanks again for the heads up Sammy will take these postings with a grain of salt...
Sammy thanks for the heads up on this! The article above was from Military Times per the source. Is that publication and Navy Times synonymous?
ATTENTION NAVY DADS- Please DO NOT get caught-up with ANY headlines from Navy Times or Military Times. 98% of their articles are outdated, out of context, or simply just spreading BS around. Seriously... anybody in the Navy longer than a year that has read them knows this. We affectionately call Navy Times "Navy Enquirer" (in reference of course to the National Enquirer).
In this case, they are discussing news that is not news. The FY-2014 Defense Appropriations Budget (which is just a guideline of what the DoD PLANS on spending on our Navy) calls for a 1.8% raise, while the FY-2014 PROPOSED Defense Authorization Act (which takes the guidelines in the Appropriations Budget, makes modifications to it (like this one), and TELLS the DoD what to spend money for our Navy.
Appropriations are bookmarks for future spending- Authorizations give the money to the bookmarks.
So this is no news.
And besides, the difference between an 1.8% increase and 1.0% is about $12 bucks per month on the average.
Let's talk about China's gearing-up for something in the South Pacific or how Russia is still building new nuclear powered submarines but still have over 300 old ones rotting away in harbors in the Pacific waiting to unleash an environmental disaster from hell any day now- now THAT'S news (but you won't see it in Navy Times!). They are too busy reporting non-stories like this or giving sketchy details about incidents that the rest of us already got the dope on a month before.
Seriously....