GOP Treat Pay and Benefits for Troops as Distatseful Welfare

I have long noted that spending government money on defense industries, which they view as a profit center and a future source of high paying post government jobs for themselves,is always a high priority for these guys. Contrast that with military pay and benefits which they often oppose the same way they do welfare programs. In addition to their opposition to the pay and benefits noted below my retired military brother in law tells me the same
chickenhawk crowd has been trying to cut back on veteran's
health benefits.
***************
Shafting, not 'supporting,' the troops
Soldiers face death in Iraq and getting screwed by GOP pols at home


The Bush Administration is giving new meaning to the phrase "support the troops."
A few weeks back President Bush arguably placed the troops stationed in Iraq in even greater harm's way by uttering his now infamous "Bring them on!" comment when asked about the increasing attacks and mounting US casualties. Shortly after his comment, Army Times posed this question to its readers: "What do you think about the 'bring them on' challenge President Bush issued July 2 from the White House, referring to those who attack U.S. troops in Iraq?" Nearly sixty percent agreed with the statement, "It was irresponsible and unnecessarily placed the lives of U.S. troops in even greater danger." Nearly 40 percent said that "It showed U.S. resolve and confidence in troops to finish the job in Iraq." (Poll results as of July 23, 2003)

****
According to Army Times, proposals that would have added "various pay-and-benefits incentives to the 2004 defense budget" are now considered "wasteful and unnecessary" by the Republican-controlled Congress.

The June 30th Army Times editorial said the troops were getting the "nickel-and-dime treatment" from the Republican-controlled Congress. Some might call it getting the shaft.

According to Army Times, the GOP-controlled Congress has:


Canceled a "modest proposal" to increase the benefit from $6,000 to $12,000 to families of soldiers who die on active duty;

"Roll[ed] back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones";

Refused to consider "military tax relief... that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others";

Passed pay raises for "some [higher] ranks," but "cap[ped] raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent";

Accepted a $1.5 billion cut in the military construction request for 2004: A proposal by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, to restore $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut by "cover[ing] that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year... [who would receive $83,500] instead of... $88,300," was defeated.
Army Times: "Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale -- especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease."

The chickenhawks running the show at the White House should be embarrassed by their support for these measures. The media needs to ask why the troops are receiving this shabby treatment. And, with so little financial support for their families, it's not surprising that the death and destruction the soldiers experience on foreign soil frequently follow them home.

America's politicos are always at the head of the pack when it comes to waving the flag, wearing the lapel pins, putting up the yellow ribbons and mouthing empty slogans. As Army Times pointed out: "Talk is cheap -- and getting cheaper by the day."

cite