‘Our resources must match our rhetoric’

May 17, 2007

The Bush administration and congressional Democrats are at odds over a pay hike for U.S. troops. Take a wild guess who “supports our troops” more.

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

The administration’s position is outlined in a Statement of Administration Policy (.pdf), which “strongly opposes” an additional 0.5% increase in troops’ pay, an additional $40 per month for widows of slain soldiers, additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees, and price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE (the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents).

And then there’s the Democrats’ approach.

“We ask our troops to risk their lives for our nation,” said Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel. “We ask their spouses to raise families and make ends meet without them as they serve. The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families. It’s easy to say you support our troops, but actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric.”

Now, the administration has said, in writing, that it “strongly opposes” these additional benefits, but Dems would be crazy to back down in the face of complaints.

Show of hands: who thinks the president would veto the 2008 defense authorization bill because it was too generous to troops and their families in a time of war?

May 17, 2007 at 12:41 pm

The Dems should put together a bill that contained only these two things. 1) A 10% pay raise for the troops, and 2) A tax increase on the top 10% of income earners to pay for it.

Keep it simple.

Let’s see Bush veto that.

When I read this story this morning, my head about exploded.

I work with military families on a regular basis, and I can assure you they need more money. They get paid jack when you consider what we ask of them.

Yes, they get health care and housing (to a point) and other “benefits,” and some of the officers make damn good money. But cash-on-hand is what matters and an overwhelming majority of them just don’t have it.

Just another example of how Bush Co. fails to walk the talk when it comes to supporting the troops.

How about the Dems bring up they story about the military families in the San Diego area who have to rely on food banks because they can’t make ends meet? Read this a while back. Shameful. Shame on the Republicans.

Geez guys. Who cares about families on food stamps and pay increases for the troops? There’s some poor starving executive at Lockheed Martin or Northrup Grumman or Boeing who needs that money more to pay for the Mercedes, hookers and blow. End SARCASM/SNARK/Take your pick

Bush doesn’t just want to screw the troops out of a meager payraise, he wants to screw them in several other ways too…

…A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations, and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints [from the whitehouse].

…

[the administration complained about] Refusal by lawmakers to approve Tricare fees for beneficiaries, something administration officials view as an important step in holding down health care cost, also drew opposition, along with a provision imposing price controls on prescription drugs dispensed to Tricare users…

Got that? Bush wants the troops to pay more for their crappy medical care, and more for drugs. If they die, their surviving relatives get screwed too.

Compassionate Conservatism. Screw the troops, because the drug giants aren’t making enough money.

Bush is a lame duck, so this BS needs to be hung around the neck of every Republican who’s running in 2008. Shove this in their face and ask them if they approve of what Bush is proposing. If they say yes, use the tape in campaign ads. If they say no, just tie them to Bush and let Bush’s position drag them down.

Like some Republican said recently, it’s time to put the GOP out of its misery.

But, but, Clinton did it…..and, uh, and Democrats blame America first and, and,………Defeatocrats, and, like that…….

‘Support the troops’ has always been a propaganda weapon and nothing more. The Iraq ‘war’ is really about support the ‘base’ who are plundering the national treasury thru the ‘war’. If $1 billion more goes to the troops that is $1 billion less to Bush/Cheney’s buddies. Why do you think they are so hell bent on keeping us there? Every day we are there means more money for them, pure and simple. There are no ‘national interest’ reasons for us to be in Iraq. The ‘war’ is an elaborate gangster scam that makes the mafia look like amatures.

the Congressional Democrats’ seething hatred for the troops is just nauseating, isn’t it?

I get it now. I now see why Bush wants to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely: because if those troops get back to these shores after the way they’ve been treated by the Bushies, they are going to kick his ass! He’s not afraid of alQaeda, Bush is afraid of his own troops. And he should be.

If the troops want more money they will have to join the Republican army, Blackwater.

“President” Bush should get the money to the troops “without further delay.”

I’m guessing the mainstream media will jump all over this. And, yes, I am interested in that swampland for sale in Florida.

So let me get this straight. All of these alleged military geniuses on the Right are saying we need to increase our military by 90,000 or so.

But the same alleged free-market econ geniuses on the Right can’t fathom that an increase in military pay relative to civilian pay just might be one way to accomplish increasing the size of the military?

Maybe the Dems should run a bill that says: “WHEREAS the Administration, including Defense Secretary Gates, have requested an increase in the size of the active miltary of 90,000 persons and WHEREAS vountary enlistment or re-enlistment at the current pay level is not adequate to meet those growth goals which the Congress also supports, IT IS THEREFORE ENACTED that the President is authorized and must elect to reach that number by either increasing the rate of military raises to 3.5 in the first year and .5 percent above the civilian levels thereafter OR the President must reinstutute a general draft within 90 days.”

The Bush Administration’s approach here is just plain good economic sense. First of all, we all know that you can’t give money to poor people – they’ll only spend it. As for giving $40 a month to surviving spouses of dead soldiers – come on! How long to taxpayers like me have to support these nonproductive welfare queens? And don ‘t get me started about the horrors of socialized medicine. Do you really want our brave troops treated no better than a Frenchman when they need medical attention? Jeez.

mr. speaker, i rise to submit an amendment to #12. right after the line “…OR the President must reinstitute a general draft within 90 days” i suggest adding “…and jenna and not-jenna shall be given draft numbers 1 and 2.”

When Bush was elected in 2000, I did see some rather nice pay increases for the first 4 years of his tenure, however they have tapered off of late.

As an E-5 in the Air Force the difference between 3.0% and 3.5% is about 140 dollars extra per year, or 12 dollars a month roughly. Doesn’t sound like much, but when your bills are tight any help is great help.

Comments are closed.