Bush Strongly Opposes Troop Pay/ Benefits. What Are Your Thoughts on This?

Question

Here he is showing his REAL "TROOP" SUPPORT. Happy to Extend them and Use the Heck out of them, but not Willing to Approve A Little extra for those Troops? The truth about him is slowly showing.. but How much Longer till Something gets done about HIM and Saving Our Troops that apperantly aren't Worth the extra .5% Pay Raise.
Bigger Military Raise, Better Benefits Hit
Tom Philpott | July 13, 2007

Bush 'Strongly Opposes' Troop Pay, Benefit Initiatives
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 soldier tours to 15 months, the Bush administration July 10 said it “strongly opposes” key military pay and benefit gains tossed into their fiscal 2008 defense bill. Initiatives the administration “strongly opposes” include:-- A military pay raise for next January of 3.5 percent versus 3 percent endorsed by the White House.
MORE ON NEXT SECTION ABOUT THIS..KEEP READING.

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 already 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.
KEEP READING.. EVEN MORE ON THIS.. BELOW.

A day later, Senate Republicans, at White House’s urging, blocked amendments to the bill that would have shortened Iraq tours for U.S. ground forces and slowed frequency of wartime deployments. Republicans said the amendments really were aimed at changing administration policy in Iraq. Here is more on Senate provisions that 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 (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 troop,” said OMB letter. The White House will lose this one.
READ EVEN MORE.. BELOW.

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. However, a Congressional Budget Office report released in late June suggests no such gap exists. When housing allowances growth and associated tax advantages are weighed, the pay gap for the enlisted force, which advocates say started in 1982, actually was closed by 2002. Since then, the military pay gap has become a “pay surplus,” even excluding improvements in special pays and bonuses, CBO says. Military associations dispute the CBO findings and support congressional efforts to continue to special military pay adjustments. The House in May voted to sustain the string of ECI-plus-a-half-percent military raises through 2012. The Senate bill deals only with the 2008 raise.
MORE IN THE NEXT SECTION BELOW.. CONTINUED...

When House-Senate conferees work a final compromise bill later this summer, the CBO findings could persuade conferees to adopt the Senate pay raise plan. TRICARE INCREASES – Dr. S. Ward Casscells, the new assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, 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 Bush administration. The OMB letter doesn’t reflect that air of compromise. By not allowing the TRICARE fees and deductibles to rise as the administration planned, OMB chided, the Senate is adding $1.86 billion, again “funds that would otherwise be available to support our troops.” 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 members is recalled after the change is enacted.
CONTINUED BELOW...

Hagel offered a second amendment to limit soldier deployments to Iraq to no more than 12 months and Marine deployments to no more than seven months. With 60 votes needed, the measure was defeated 52 to 45. Forty four Republicans and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) voted against it.
AND ANYONE WHO STILL "EXCUSES" BUSH AND HIS ACTIONS... EITHER IS NOT EFFECTED DIRECTLY BY THIS, OR IS PROFITTING OFF THE WAR! THAT CAN ONLY BE THE REASON'S ANYONE STILL SUPPORTS THIS HEARTLESS ADMINISTRATION! READ.. READ .. READ!! THIS ISN'T SOME 9-5 JOB.. SO HONESTLY.. THEY DO DESERVE A RAISE.. THEY DON'T GET PAID ENOUGH TO PROTECT "YOUR" FREEDOM'S AND RISK THEIR LIVES!
IF THEY SAY.. THE MONEY IS GETTING APPROVED FOR THE "WAR" ALOT IS UNACCOUNTED FOR.. SO HOW DO WE KNOW ITS GOING TO THE TROOPS COMPLETELY? SO PAY THE TROOPS.. DAMN! ANY HEARTLESS BASTARDS.. THAT EXCUSE THIS..SHUT THE HELL UP!!

BRING THEM HOME NOW!!!
http://www.myspace.com/msabandmore

SOURCE FOR THIS INFO:

http://www.military.com/NL_MR/1,14852,4726,00.html

WWW.MILITARY.COM


To comment, e-mail [e-mail], write Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120-1111 or visit: www.militaryupdate.com

Answer 1

The military is already well paid.

Answer 2

The military members and thier families (an I am a proud military spouse for the past 14 years) are used to being on the recieving end of the political wars over military budgets. While battles are waged over weather or not to purchase the next 20 million dollar war plane, the Congress and Executive branch come to near blows over an .5% raise for the troops. I disagree with the idea that a pay gap between enlisted and civilain empolyees doing the same job no longer exsists. I see that gap every day, as more military jobs are outsourced to civilian contractors and military members leave the service and come back in the next day, doing the same jog but as a civilian because the pay and benefits are so much better. The job my husband does is in the throws of being outsourced. Several of the airman under him have opted to leave military careers, often within 5 years of collecting full retirement benefits and going to the civilian contractors because the civilian company offers salaries that, even when taking into consideration the housing, medical and commisary benefits active duty is entitled to, that are a good $15-20,000 a year higher. This extra money means families can move into better school districts (many bases send kids to public schools that are poorly funded and often some of the worse in the area), have lower stress levels and a chance to move beyond living check to check.

The truth is, .5% is not going to make a huge difference in the budget of most military families. For many of us, the money is not the issue, but the lack of gratitude from the same people who sing the praises of those who fight and sacrifice when the cameras are rolling is. You want a larger, better military force...up the pay and improve the benefits (especially dental and parts of the health plans). And instead of bickering over a raise that really isn't one, find a way to work together, get our husbands and wives back home and look at the internal challanges facing the modern military.

Answer 3

I'm a Canadian and believe that if Bush had not been elected once, let alone twice, you wouldn't be in this predicament.

All the 'bluster' in the world isn't going to change what a president can do once he's given the legal go-ahead by congress. Yes, it happened during a repubnut house & senate. They are to blame.

These 'lackie' neo-cons, with no idea what they unleashed are now 'running for cover'.

W. has the power to do exactly what he wants when it comes to 'waging' this so-called war on a helpless country. NO congress should have EVER given such a man such absolute power !! It cannot be undone. Only when he and his 'henchman', Cheney, and former and present non-elected members of his cabinet are out of office, charged with crimes, and punished accordingly, will the USA be able to start to 'breathe' again.

A complete rejection of the republican party and all it stands for will be all that will give the present 'enemies' and 'haters' of the USA reason to even consider backing off and considering at least some sort of 'peace' with the USA.

It's the republican party and W. that got the USA into this and, as I've said to many, many people, this would NEVER have happened if Al Gore had been elected - 9/11 would not have happened.

The republicans have to pay for this for all time, and the voters of America will not get that chance until Nov/08.

Be sure that you do, because the future of the world as we would like it is on the line.

Again, only a complete and utter 'gutting' of the repubs and their places in Congress will suffice to your 'enemies' so that they will know that you realise that you made a terrible mistake !!

Electing 'the Clintons', as it were, to the White House again would do marvellous things toward this goal.

At this time, I pity you all for having to suffer this' fool' and all he and his stand for.

'Nuff said.

Answer 4

It's pretty consistent with the way Bush and the other Chickenhawks have been "Supporting the Troops" all along.

Early on, they decided to disallow combat pay.

A soldier who dies in combat still gets his pay docked from the monent he fell instead of being paid for the whole month. That's not a lot of money, even times 4000. But it would make a big difference to families who are having to struggle until the insurance pays off.

5 years into the war, some units are still waiting on body armor and the special design mine resistant truck are still years away for most units.

At one point, Rumsfeld decided to make guardsmen and reservists pay for their own hospital meals once they were transferred to Stateside hospitals. That wasn't overruled until 3 days before it was to go into effect.

But the most reprehensible thing is Bush's opposition to free postage for families sending packages to the troops. Again not a lot of money for the govt, but a big chunk of change for military families to spend on something that is crucial to morale.

You're a military wife. You know this stuff better than I do.

But Americans should ask ourselves, what kind of "Patriots" short the troops who are risking their lives to defend us?

And how is clamoring to bring them home worse for morale than treating them worse than illegal immigrants?

Don't the people who are saying that cutting off funds for the war would hurt the troops get it? It only threatens the troops because Bush is threatening to take it out on the troops. He holds them hostage for the right to keep putting them in danger.

Answer 5

when i was in the army we recieved a pay raise to the grand total of 245 dollars per month .I think about it now and realize that wasn't a whole heck of a lot to put my life on the line.I think that all military personal should get :
#1 ) unlimited health care for life
#2) spouse should get health care for life as long as military personel is still living.
#3 ) dependents should get health care till they turn 21
#4 ) paid life insurance minium of 500,000

in all actuality , the military can not be paid enough.
also,these benifits that we are talking about were talked about with every president that I cAN think of and they all turned it down,or did they. remember congress has the ability to give and take on these matters,not only the pres. so if anyone gets the blame ,blame congress.

Answer 6

Troops have served as political footballs for most of my life. What the Congress needs to do is go back to the system which was in force until 1956: If you serve on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces your pay is exempt from Federal Income Tax! We seemed to have wanted an all-volunteer force since 1972. Now it's time for the citizens of the Republic to step up to the plate and make a real commitment to that force by showing it's not the right thing to do to send folks off to war and have the taxman pick their pockets in the bargain.

Answer 7

Many interesting comments and as a wife of a military member I have much to say but will limit it to this...

If Bush/congress/whoever doesn't want to pay.. then they need to be brought home. PERIOD!

(and 1/2 a percent is a joke and a slap in the face compared to what these men/women are going through and what their families go through)

Answer 8

My guess is that if you asked the american people, who are actually paying the tab, we would be more than willing to approve an additional half percent, even us evil liberals who are always accused of not supporting the troops. So exactly how do we define support for the troops? One side says lets keep them in combat but not give them anymore money, the other side says lets bring em home and give em a raise.

Answer 9

I think you need to re-read what you read. What they are "strongly opposing" is to where the funds should be coming from.

This so controversial war should not be controversial. It is necessary. We did not start it. America is doing what America needs to do to preserve our freedom. The anti-war slogan is not more than a false statement just to go with the flow and gain approval from the public. It is not up to us to end this war. The terrorists and the enemies of America are doing this war. We have to choices, fight it in their territory or fight it in our territory. I believe it is in the best interest of America to fight the war in their territory. We cannot give up. We cannot act just to please others. We have the responsibility to protect America. We have the obligation to conserve our freedom for the coming up generations. Again, it is not up to us to end this war. We have not control over it. Our position is defensive and not aggressive. We are very aggressively defending our freedom. We are not attacking any ones way of living. We are being proud and strong Americans. The enemies of America are going to keep coming after us where ever is that we are. Our soldiers in Iraq, Afghansitan and other places of the world are keeping our enemies hands busy making it very hard for them to come after us in America. If we leave all those places, they wont be busy over there and they will come here to keep attacking us. Let American Soldiers do their job, honor them and enjoy your freedom. We do not even ask you to try to find out where your freedom is coming from. Just enjoy it!

God Bless America. God Bless our Soldiers. God take away the desire of glory from our unreal leaders. God, please, bring wisdom to our leaders and take away their unjustified desire of power. God, please, do not endanger the peace and beauty of America.

Airborne ATW
FT Bragg, NC

Answer 10

i think Bush is a Jacka** this war is costing 12 billion a month and he can't spare something for the soldiers what a dirty worm he should go to bloody hell.

Answer 11

i never really liked the guy and im from tx i am totally for troops benifits they give there lives for there country they deserve all thoes benifits and work verry hard for them bush is contradicting sending troops to iraq but yet cuting there benifits