Higher Pay a Must for Military

In the quarter-century since the United States ended its military draft, the armed forces have met their personnel needs through voluntary enlistments, using improved pay and benefits to attract recruits and retain experienced specialists. The quality level of new recruits, based on the percentage who graduated from high school and their scores on the standard armed forces test, peaked in 1992. Slippage since then has raised concern, as has an overall decline in enlistments. Last year, with the civilian economy burgeoning, the Defense Department fell short of its numerical goal for recruits by about 3%. Even more troubling, the exodus of expensively trained pilots and other military specialists has been growing.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff say that military pay is 14% less than what comparable private-sector workers earn, and they cite that disparity for recruitment and retention problems. In his new $267.2-billion defense budget, President Clinton seeks a 4.4% across-the-board pay hike for the military next year, the biggest increase since 1982, along with generous annual raises over the next four years. Restoration of some pensions that were reduced in 1986 as well as more spending for housing would cost $35 billion over the next five years. A measure already passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee would sweeten the package a bit more, raising the first-year pay hike to 4.8%.

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen calls the improved pay package a moral obligation as well as a practical necessity. It is an obligation because it is something 270 million Americans owe the 1.4 million among them--the one-half of 1%--who provide the common defense. It is necessary because without it a decreasing number of qualified people will enlist and an increasing number already in uniform will choose to cut short their careers.

With many ground units, ships and squadrons now having to deploy away from their home bases and ports for long periods, the strains are showing. Stemming early personnel departures while trying to attract qualified and motivated young people into the military is more important than funding the latest redundant attack submarine or gold-plated tactical fighter. The Clinton administration and Congress agree that spending more to ameliorate the military’s personnel problems is a priority, and they are right.