This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
washington scene
However, the markup includes an active duty pay-raise cap below private-sector pay growth for the second consecutive year, increases out-of-pocket housing costs for military families, and increases pharmacy copayments for prescriptions filled outside of military treatment facilities.


A number of notable provisions in the Senate markup include:



authorizing payment of the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity to a special needs trust;
providing $30 million in impact aid for military schools; and
grandfathering those who join the military before Jan. 1, 2016, from reduced retirement COLAs (future service entrants still are affected by the COLA-minus-1-percent cut passed in December 2013).

Committee members expressed their view that including provisions to “slow the growth of personnel costs” is undesirable but necessary based on congressionally mandated budget levels.


MOAA thinks these proposals reverse much of Congress’ hard work between 2000 and 2010, when Congress eliminated a 13.5-percent military pay gap with the private sector and zeroed-out the 18-percent out-of-pocket housing costs that led to serious retention problems in the late 1990s.


 


 


 


MOAA Counters Joint Chiefs
Association board chair debunks Pentagon rhetoric.
On May 6, the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a rare unified appearance before the full Senate


Armed Services Committee in support of the Pentagon’s FY 2015 budget proposals to “slow the growth” in personnel costs in pay and benefits. Chair of MOAA’s Board of Directors


Gen. John H. Tilelli Jr., USA (Ret), provided the counterargument to the Pentagon’s proposals during a second panel that included representatives from the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), the Association of the United States Navy, and the Air Force Association (AFA). Tilelli explained that while debt reduction is a national priority, a disproportionate share of the burden of reducing it must not be placed on the backs of servicemembers and military families.


 


 


Annual Loss of Purchasing Power from FY 2015 budget proposal (active duty family of four with 10 years of service)


E-5; O-3


Loss of Basic Pay*; $593; $1,130


Basic Allowance for Housing; $1,224; $1,584


Commissary; $2,970; $2,970


TRICARE; $206; $206


Total annual loss; $4,993; $5,890


*FY 2014 and FY 2015 aggregate loss


34 MILITARY OFFICER JULY 2014

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84