English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_whitehouse_opposeraise_070516w/
White House opposes 3.5 percent pay raise

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:47:40 EDT

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.

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.”

2007-08-12 16:49:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

Must be time for another tax cut. GOP party donations are down and someone needs to bear the burden for The Party. Might as well be the troops.

2007-08-12 16:56:54 · answer #1 · answered by barringtonbreathesagain 2 · 1 2

First off, I strongly support the 3.5% raise. However, before I listen to all the President Bush bashers, I think a short history lesson regarding military pay is in order.

You're obviously too young to remember it so I'll enlighten you. In 1944, a private was making $50.00 a month or $600 a year. In 1970, the pay had risen to $124.50 a month. Under President Nixon, the pay of a private was raised to $288.00 by 1972. Then, we had Jimmy Carter. While inflation was running at 15% or more, President Carter and the Democratic party dominated Congress thought that 4.5% - 5% pay raises were sufficient for the military. By the time Ronald Reagan became President, the gap between military and civilian pay was between 18% and 21%, depending on which figures were used. Pay went up in 1982 by 14% and President Reagan was largely responsible for that raise. Over the next 17 years, raises for the military were capped 12 of those years and by 1998, had grown to 13.5%. Beginning in 2000, Congress finally took action to raise military pay, giving the military an additional .5% raise over annual cost of living. The gap is now considered to be about 3.7%. What President Bush is doing I don't agree with. However, President Clinton and his cronies actually capped military pay below inflation levels. At least the 3% proposed by President Bush is based on the CPI rate, not the CPI rate minus .5% as had been done under the previous President.

2007-08-12 18:15:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

you're able to be kidding me, I served for twenty years interior the protection tension and Democrats might continuously provide us the backside pay will strengthen. If we've been given 3.5% we've been fortunate. It grew to become into under no circumstances set on the fee of inflation and that i bear in mind Democrats telling us we've been putting a "good occasion" for the deepest sector by utilising taking a below popular strengthen.( of direction they might provide themselves a a procedures greater pay enhance) If Gore or Kerry grew to become into in place of work the protection tension could be getting a similar or decrease strengthen and the libs could be happy to spend lots extra handing out advantages to Illegals.

2016-10-15 03:22:55 · answer #3 · answered by carvajal 4 · 0 0

“When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families,” the policy statement says. “While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the 3 percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that.”

---

my original statement was referring to a different bill.

I had to look, but it seems most of the liberal websites omit the part I quoted above. I wonder why that is. Do they not want the entire story told?

2007-08-12 17:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Hmm no, honey, the article merely points out that the 3% raise is more reasonable. You have to remember that story was writen in a way to promote critisim of the administration rather than at the democrats, who once again use our troops for their agenda. Democrats are are not for the military , never have been.

2007-08-12 17:07:58 · answer #5 · answered by LoneStar 4 · 3 1

I thought the left were screaming about how expensive the war is!
Bush tried to give a pay raise not long ago and had this to say on July 20th,2007...why are you exagerating?

President Bush on Pay Raises for Our Troops
July 20th, 2007 by Jesse Lee
President Bush, moments ago:

I’m joined by veterans and military families here to express support to our troops and their mission in Iraq. I want to thank you all for being here today. We’ve just finished a really good meeting. In our discussions, these folks had a message that all of us in Washington need to hear. It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed. In February I submitted to Congress a Defense Department spending bill for the upcoming fiscal year that will provide funds to upgrade our equipment for our troops in Iraq and provides a pay raise for our military - a comprehensive spending request - that Congress has failed to act on.

2007-08-12 17:03:08 · answer #6 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 2 2

Personally, if I were still in the military I would take the first chance to end my service and take a security job with one of the private security outfits there.... you can make a LOT more money as a "mercenary."

And anyone who mentions that the soldiers are there voluntarily because "they just love protecting our freedoms here and suck up repeated tours because that's the right thing to do for America... God bless them!"... well, you don't know any real soldiers. Soldiers are not idealistic warriors, for most of us it was just a job and we should be paid fairly.

2007-08-12 17:09:27 · answer #7 · answered by cattledog 7 · 2 1

Well, genius, do you also realize that they did get the standard 3% raise and that the .5 % would equal $8.00 a month for an officer O-2 ? 8 bucks less...wow, what a cut.

2007-08-12 18:38:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

How many more ways can this neocon administration insult the intelligence of the American people. This has gone way beyond rational. It is downright disgusting. Bushco in "unnecessary".

"Support our troops"

2007-08-12 17:01:17 · answer #9 · answered by GJ 5 · 1 3

What happened to support our troops?

Yet another example of avarice by our troops!

Just because they risk their lives and sacrifice above and beyond doesn't mean they should be paid appropriately for it!

Those greedy troops!


This so called Republican White House SUCKS!!

2007-08-12 17:00:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

fedest.com, questions and answers