It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:14 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Bush Threatens Veto over Military Pay Hike
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:58 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
Bush fights harder against our own troops than he does against al Qaeda. Here is Bush's latest kick in the balls for those he sends to die in his immoral war.

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 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.”

In addition to the pay raise, there are other personnel initiatives in the bill that the White House opposes.

A death gratuity for federal civilian employees who die in support of military operations, and new benefits for disabled retirees and the survivors of military retirees also drew complaints.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/m ... se_070516/

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:18 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm
Posts: 2533
This piece of shit has no shame at all does he. Here they are doing the bidding and "Pleasure" of their president and he continues to slap them in the face and dare them to do something. Perhaps if he continues to do this they will wake up and finally turn their guns against their leaders and not the wishes of the people. They will see which side really supports them

If you support the troops- BRING THEM HOME- there's a more important battle raging here at home we need them for. They can't help but be on the peoples side now!!!

_________________
Completely sane world
madness the only freedom

An ability to see both sides of a question
one of the marks of a mature mind

People don't choose to be dishonest
the choice chooses them

Now I know how Kusinich feels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:54 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
DO.g's wrote:
If you support the troops- BRING THEM HOME- there's a more important battle raging here at home we need them for. They can't help but be on the peoples side now!!!


Looks like a lot of the troops now agree with you.

Link: Military.com Poll: War Support Waning

Military.com | By Christian Lowe | July 18, 2007

Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because "we're wasting lives and resources there."

The results stand in sharp contrast to a similar Military.com poll posted June 26 that asked "Should Congress give the Bush plan more time?"

After more than 500 votes, nearly 60 percent of participants agreed the surge should be given more time. In March, about one month after the extra forces began deploying to Iraq as part of the surge, nearly 70 percent of 1,150 respondents believed the increase would "help the overall war effort."

By a 60 percent margin Military.com readers said in a March 8 poll that Congress should stay out of the withdrawal deadline setting business.

The previous poll results expressing support for the surge - and the president's prerogative - stand in sharp contrast to the mid-July Military.com poll, which comes at a time of increasingly sharp nationwide debate over a withdrawal from Iraq.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:28 pm 
Offline
SuperMember!
SuperMember!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:53 am
Posts: 2541
Location: Illinois
My gawd! I didn't think Bush could get even more dishonest and hypocritical. I underestimated him.

Bush Threatened To Veto Same Military Pay Raise That He Now Uses To Attack Anti-War Critics

In his Rose Garden address this morning, President Bush criticized the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to pull the Defense Authorization bill from consideration, saying the move would deny a pay raise to soldiers serving in Iraq. “Congress has failed to act on” a bill that would “provide funds to upgrade our equipment, for our troops in Iraq and provides a pay raise for our military,” said Bush. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl made a similar argument on Wednesday.

“Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our fighting there,” Bush added.

Bush’s use of the the military pay raise as a cudgel to bash his political opponents is dishonest and hypocritical. In May, he threatened to veto a House defense spending bill over the exact same 3.5 percent pay increase that he is now touting:

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.”

Democratic leaders in the House wrote to Bush at the time urging him to reconsider his veto threat.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/20/bus ... tary-veto/

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 11:46 pm
Posts: 14444
Location: NC
What a complete......sorry, I can't think of a strong enough word to describe Bush's sneakiness. :evil:

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.

-- 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.

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. 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. 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. The administration opposes this move, arguing it fuels growth in military deferred compensation and overall entitlement spending and will “only marginally” improve career retention among for Reserve and Guard members.

CRSC FOR ‘CHAPTER 61’ RETIREES -- The Senate bill would expand eligibility for Combat-Related Special Compensation to certain retirees forced by their disabilities to leave service short of 20 years. Only those disabled by combat injuries would be eligible. CRSC payments would be set by plugging into the usual retired pay formula the smaller number of years that disabled retirees have served.

The House voted to expand CRSC only to Chapter 61 retirees who served at least 15 years and have combat-related disabilities rated 60 percent or higher. House-Senate conferees will have to reconcile the differences. The administration opposes such “piecemeal changes to disability compensation,” said OMB, noting that several commissions are studying disability pay. Congress should await a comprehensive reform package.

Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel offered an amendment July 11 that would have assured active duty service members as much time back home as they spend deployed. Reserve component members would have been guaranteed a three-to-one, home-to-mobilization ratio. Republicans blocked the amendment from coming to a full Senate vote.

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.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,142117,00.html

MAKE THAT 45 REPUBLICANS!

Image

_________________
Image

"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."
Honore de Balzac

"Democrats work to help people who need help.
That other party, they work for people who don't need help.
That's all there is to it."

~Harry S. Truman


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group