Among other things that support the troops http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070716/NEWS08/707160308/1018/NEWS08 3.5% raise too much for Bush By Tom Philpott Talk about lousy timing. With President Bush's popularity scraping bottom in opinion polls, with U.S. casualties rising in Iraq in a force surge that has stretched tours to 15 months, the Bush administration has said it "strongly opposes" key military pay and benefit gains tossed into the fiscal 2008 defense bill. Initiatives the administration opposes include: # A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House. # Lowering the age-60 start of reserve retirement annuities for reserve component members by the length of their future mobilizations. # Expanding eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to service members forced by combat disabilities to retire short of 20 years. # Directing pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the Department of Defense with same-price discounts for Tricare retail pharmacy network that are provided on medicines dispensed from base pharmacies. The administration also grumbled that the Senate intends to block for another year Tricare fee increases for under-65 retirees and dependents. The objections appear in a "Statement of Administration Policy" from the White House's Office of Management and Budget delivered to Senate leaders as they opened floor debate on the defense authorization bill. A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House urging, blocked amendments that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed the frequency of war deployments. Here is more on provisions the White House opposes: Pay raise: Like the House, senators favor a 3.5 percent military pay raise for 2008 versus the administration's proposed 3 percent to match private sector wage growth as measured by the government's Employment Cost Index or ECI. The White House calls the extra half percentage point unnecessary and notes that basic pay has jumped by 33 percent since 2001. The added cost of the bigger raise, $2.2 billion through 2013, is money "that would otherwise be available to support our troops," said the OMB letter. Congress intends to approve the ninth consecutive military raise to be set at least .5 percent above private sector wage gains, continuing to close a perceived "pay gap" with civilians. Tricare increases: Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the assistant secretary of defense for health, has said he intends to work with Congress and service associations on more modest Tricare fee increases for under-65 retirees and their dependents than has been pushed so far by the administration. The OMB letter doesn't reflect that. Reserve retirement: The Senate bill would lower the start of reserve retirement at age 60 by three months for every 90 days a reservist or Guard member is recalled after the change is enacted. The administration says this will "only marginally" improve career retention.
basso, your guy doesn't support the men and women who serve this country. He's a complete hypocrite. D&D. Disgusting.
I think military pay should be increased significantly. What we really need is an independent auditor to go through the whole budget, prioritize our spending, and then just start slashing the least important stuff (eg bridge to nowhere) until the military can get a 10% pay increase. After that maybe work toward expanding Medicare to include all citizens, and then just keep slashing all of the useless crap until you find something worthwhile. At that point, stop, calculate how much money is surplus, and cut taxes across the board to wipe out that amount. Of course, something like this will never ever happen.
We can't afford to give the soldiers more money. That's the reality. Don't we already have other massive unfunded programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Leave No Child Left Behind? The soldiers deserve a raise. But we should have thought about that before sending them to war. Who pushed that agenda?
I'm fairly sympathetic to the Administration's argument that the funds need to be spent elsewhere for the well-being of the troops in the field. But I found that statement amusing. Can anyone think of events that have occurred since 2001 that might make drastic increases in pay for soliders appropriate? I'm sure, if you think very, very hard, you'll come up with a few.
I think DEFENSE covers a significant portion of our Budget It is more than those programs that you mentioned. the simple question for me is .. . WHERE DID THE MONEY GO? Rocket River
I need your help in finding a few people missing from this thread. Donkey Magic, Basso, Trader Jorge, Roxran and giddyup. Your help is greatly appreciated.
For the record, the thread title is an outright lie. Bush supports a 3% increase in pay for the troops, from the article. Nice try.
Not only does Jorge not believe they are worth more, he also believes that vets suffering from PTSD are leeches on society and that troops or vets that oppose Bush's policies are traitors. He doesn't care about the troops except as props to be used for partisan gain. He's proven that over and over.
Why 3.5%? Why not 4%? Or 4.5%? If some random Senator proposes a 12% increase and it's shot down by Democrats, do Democrats oppose a military pay raise? This is all just silly.
I suggest that we make up the difference in benefits. Like increased vacation days away from Iraq for the whole military instituted simultaniously.
Sure we do. You're making the claim that supporting a 3% raise but not 3.5% is some kind of horrible thing. My question is why is 3.5% the magic number and 3.0% completely unacceptable? If someone were to propose 4%, do you think it should be paid? Or are you anti-military? This is exactly the kind of crap that makes budgets go out of control.
In a time of war I think our boys should get $10,000 for every confirmed kill they have. That'll show em'
