White House opposes 3.5 percent pay raise (for troops)

Source: Army Times

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.”



Read more: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_whitehouse_opposeraise_070516w/

---

Really supporting the Troops there Bushie! You b*stard! :sarcasm:

that they should no longer be eligible for food stamps.

No more money.

They don't need ammunition when they are under attack on the front lines in Afghanistan.

So this is how we support the troops...

Bush would hang his head in shame if he had any shame.

They don't need armor either.

WOW. When the people ever realize these proxy greed wars are what's unnecessary then maybe, just maybe, Bush and his ilk will be as the Brits say, made redundant. I bet FOX news is on this like wildfire! The bitter comedy is endless today.

:rofl:

that George and Laura are struggling more than anyone else?

The compassionate conservatism is overfuckingwhelming.

Technical point, the pay raise would take effect 1 October 2007, the first day of FY08. Last year military retirees got a greater pay raise then the troops. Yes, ignorant trash lurkers, you and your kind are what is wrong with this country. Go ahead, wave your flags and blather on about your support of our troops as they come home every day in body bags while you get ready for the next barbecue. Conservatism is a fucking malignant cancer.

to VA paper pushers.

K&R

I was in a class today. We got talking about Iraq during a break.

One woman was talking about her husband in Iraq. But she showed zero concern. So I asked if he is a contractor. She said, oh yeah. He's making 6 figures.

I explained, my little brother is there, making probably $24,000. Was due to be done in January, and they extended his enlistment a year. Furthermore, he's in Iraq, so he got the extra 90 days there as well.

She said it's nice that she can talk to her husband frequently because the Department of Defense gave these contractors cell-phones for personal use. I said, my brother is Army and used a pile of phone-card time to call my mom for 10 minutes on Mother's Day, and it was at my family's expense. Before that call, it had been a month without any word.

But there's no resentment or class system over there.

unbelievable...the government gives them cell phones.....

just when you think that the disgust level has hit the top....theres something else added to the pile of shit that's this administration....

And I pray for your brothers safe return home.

We need more like 5 percent. They have done way more than they should have ever been asked to do.

food stamps at the military families. "Throw another yellow ribbon magnet on the Escalade." (To the tune of "Tie a Yellow Ribbon") DU needs sound affects as well as smilies - AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

Asylum Street Spankers-Magnetic Yellow Ribbon

Enjoy!

that's what this "war" is for anyway.

-every democrat in washington should issue a statement monday condemning bush`s refusal to fund and support the troops.
i`m not going to hold my breath that they will

Just thought I'd at least ask. Support our troops, eh?

One of the very few that will.

What the hell are you smoking, anyway? Ditchweed?

the main page:

http://www.armytimes.com/

It is the tenth article in tiny print below "Officers sacked..."

The Commander as Chimp has spoken and he hates the troops.

That's right around the current annual rate of inflation.

So the troops would basically be getting less pay while being asked to do SO much more.

http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

We never missed a scheduled pay increase.

I wonder how idiot freepers reconcile this latest screw-the-troops move by the Bush cabal.

Oh - I'm sure Rush will tell them what to think.

:grr:

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=391

Here is the relevant excerpt “strongly” opposing the pay raise:

Military Pay: The Administration strongly opposes sections 601 and 606. The additional 0.5 percent increase above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase is unnecessary. When combined with the overall military benefit package, the President’s proposal provides a good quality of life for servicemembers and their families. While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the three percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that. The cost of increasing the FY 2008 military pay raise by an additional 0.5 percent is $265 million in FY 2008 and $7.3 billion from FY 2008 to FY 2013.

Here the Administration opposes an additional $40 per month for widows of slain soldiers:

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund. The current benefit programs for survivors, DoD’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Department of Veterans Affairs’ Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC), provide sufficient benefits and avoid duplication of two complementary federal benefits programs established for the same purpose — providing a lifetime annuity for the survivor of an active, retired or former servicemember. This offset policy is consistent with private sector benefits. The provision is estimated to cost $27 million in the first year and about $160 million through FY 2013. It appears to be the first step toward eliminating the offset between SBP and DIC; full elimination of this offset would cost the Military Retirement Fund between $6 and $8 billion over 10 years.

Here the Administration opposes additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees:

Death Gratuity for Federal Civilian Employees: The Administration strongly opposes section 1105, which would amend the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) to provide an additional $100,000 death benefit for surviving family members of civilian employees who died supporting U.S. forces in a contingency operation. This provision would raise equity concerns by eroding the uniformity of benefits provided by FECA.

Here the Administration opposes price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents:

The Administration strongly opposes section 703, which would impose price controls on prescription drugs when they are dispensed to enrollees in TRICARE through community pharmacies. The Administration believes market competition is the most effective way to promote discounts in the community setting. Government price-setting at community pharmacies will eliminate retail competition; it could also have an adverse impact on other markets, which could limit access to life-saving drugs, reduce convenience for beneficiaries, and ultimately increase costs. Drugs dispensed directly by DoD in its hospitals, clinics, and mail order facilities are already purchased at government purchasing schedules and DOD is working to encourage beneficiaries to take advantage of the lowest prescription drug prices available whenever possible.

'...The Administration believes market competition is the most effective way to promote discounts in the community setting. Government price-setting at community pharmacies will eliminate retail competition; it could also have an adverse impact on other markets, which could limit access to life-saving drugs, reduce convenience for beneficiaries, and ultimately increase costs...'

When has this EVER worked when it involves health care? It was the reason Medicare doesn't get to negotiate drug prices - has it worked?

In the veto threat against the National Defense Authorization Act, the White House says they're opposed to two things: Increased survivor benefits of $40 a month to spouses of those who lost someone in military service, and a pay increase to all personnel, across the board, just half a percent higher than what the president endorsed.

Excuse me?

The president just vetoed legislation so he would be able to send more troops into the middle of the Iraqi religious civil war - without end, mind you - but is against increasing benefits to the spouses of those lost, or a pay increase to those who are serving? If there's a more fitting definition of 'outrage,' I'd love to see it.

I doubt I even need to go into this further to get the point across about how shameless this is, but for the hell of it, I will.

Forty dollars a month might seem like chump change to millionaires like the president and vice president, but for a mom of a young kid who just lost her husband in Iraq, that $480 a year means some school clothes and supplies, a few trips to the grocery store, and some health insurance copays. Believe me, even with the current benefits that get paid out by the Department of Defense and insurance that many troops buy into, those who lose spouses in Iraq aren't sleeping in mounds of cash. The increase proposed by Democrats will mean a hell of a lot. At VoteVets.org, we've heard absolute horror stories on the type of cutbacks that widows and widowers have had to make because the government doesn't provide enough to those who lose a loved one in war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/bush-opposes-more-money-f_b_48735.html

Oh would this make a good commercial!

As an active duty E-4, I manage my finances very well having come from a fairly severe economic situation, so I'm doing fine and wouldn't really notice a 3% or 3.5% raise, because I don't need it. But there are a lot of people I work with who have been screwed over by the military on pay issues recently, and some of them are hurting pretty bad to the point that they're thinking of re-enlisting just to get their head back above water.

those outsourced military jobs cost so much we can't afford to pay a cent more to soldiers. :sarcasm:

:mad:

for himself -- Clinton was paid $200,000 per year, while Dumbya gets $400,000.

Now they will increase their salary by 20%.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." -- Henry A. Kissinger

:grr:

3.5 percent (bipartisan) - 3.0 percent (Bush) = 0.5 percent

My new theory, Politicians are IDIOTS.

It opens to the website but then it says "article not found". Did they remove it?

Giving troops more supplies (weapons, food, clothing, gasoline, cars, airplanes...) increases money in the hands of businesses making supplies.

Sending more troops increases supplies, increases support. Businesses doing support get more money, businesses sending supplies make more money.

HOWEVER increasing troop pay doesn't put any more money into the hands of Bush's cronies. So of course he would oppose it.

Not even rocket science.