Bill Overview
Title: Military Bonus and Special Pay Increase Act of 2022
Description: This bill increases the maximum amounts of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for enlisted members, nuclear officers (naval), officers in a regular or reserve component of a uniformed service who are training for or maintaining designations related to aviation, and members of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services who serve in a critical career field or skill as designated by the applicable uniformed service.
Sponsors: Rep. Bacon, Don [R-NE-2]
Target Audience
Population: Enlisted members, naval nuclear officers, aviation officers, and those in critical military fields or skills
Estimated Size: 800000
- The individuals directly impacted are part of the armed forces, including both enlisted members and officers.
- Specific groups within the military are targeted, notably nuclear officers, aviation officers, and those in critical fields.
- Each branch of the US military will determine critical career fields or skills eligible for bonuses or special pay.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes members of the armed forces with specific roles in aviation, nuclear officer positions, and critical fields or skills. These make up less than the total active forces, estimated at around 800,000 members in the US.
- Given the budget constraint, the impact on wellbeing will vary depending on the size of the bonus or special pay and the number of eligible individuals.
- The Cantril wellbeing scale provides a way to quantitatively measure changes in self-reported wellbeing over time.
Simulated Interviews
Naval Nuclear Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy comes at a great time as the cost of living has been increasing, especially in California.
- Additional pay would allow more savings and better financial stability for my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Aviation Maintenance Officer (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extra pay would help fund my continuing education efforts.
- I believe it recognizes the hard work required in aviation fields.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Infantry Soldier (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect to see much change as I'm not in a critical field.
- Extra pay options for other fields highlight their importance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Submarine Officer (Pearl Harbor, HI)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased bonuses can help with expensive relocations common in the military.
- It might motivate more people to stay in critical roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Air Force Logistics Officer (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems beneficial, though I'm unsure if it directly impacts me.
- I support rewarding those in challenging roles with extra pay to improve retention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased bonus would help with family expenses and saving for college.
- I worry that not everyone will benefit equally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Army Combat Engineer (Fort Hood, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this could mean more operational incentives.
- I look forward to seeing specific impacts on those in critical engineering roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Navy Pilot Trainee (Pensacola, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An increase in special pay is encouraging for those of us in training.
- I think it's positive for my future career.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Military Field Medic (Anchorage, AK)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While beneficial, I am mostly focused on retirement benefits.
- I am in support of policies that support younger generations of military.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Pentagon Military Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My focus is on policy analysis rather than direct personal benefit.
- I support increased investment in critical military roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 3: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 5: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)
Year 10: $320000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $380000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Long-term retention and recruitment benefits for critical military careers.
- Comparative analysis against private sector commensurate skills' compensation rates.
- Future fiscal adjustments in military pay budgets beyond the initial 5-year period.