Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plan gives troops tiniest raise since 1994 (Way to Support the Troops!)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
maxrandb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 09:05 AM
Original message
Plan gives troops tiniest raise since 1994 (Way to Support the Troops!)
I'm posting this story from the Virginia Pilot here. It's from the 7 February edition, and is only available in archive form. Can't link to it. Sorry.

It seems that pResident Bush and the Republicans have an interesting way of supporting the troops. It comes down to this. You talk about "supporting the troops" on one hand, while the other hand is picking their pockets.

I'm in the Navy, and in Recruiting Duty we had this thing called the "Career Recruiting Force Hand-shake". You smile and shake someone's hand, while your other arm swings an imaginary knife into their back.

From the article: (highlights and bold from me)

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration outlined plans Monday to spend more than $500 billion on the military next year but proposed only a 2.2 percent pay increase for troops, the smallest raise since 1994 and called on military retirees to pay a larger share of their health care costs.

Overall, the administration’s plan calls for a 7 percent increase in defense spending and begins what officials said will be a series of new investments in fighting “irregular wars,” such as the Iraq insurgency. The administration wants to add 14,000 special operations troops, including a new force within the Marine Corps, and proposed a five-year, $760 million program to give cultural and foreign language instruction to more troops. The budget also proposes a five-year, $11.6 billion investment in additional unstaffed aircraft, which U.S. forces in Iraq have found useful in tracking insurgent movements, and calls on the Navy to develop three squadrons – 36 boats – of river-going attack craft similar to the swift boats of the Vietnam War era. (you know, like Kerry served on)

Officials confirmed Monday that the administration will try to stem the growth in the military’s health care costs by asking thousands of military retirees to pay more for health insurance.
Retiree groups, which have secured a variety of enhanced benefits on Capitol Hill in recent years, already are organizing to fight the higher fees, including a more than 200 percent increase in what retired officers younger than 65 pay for coverage under Tricare Prime, the military’s premium health plan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, we support the troops, now get out of that VA Hospital and do what every other red-blooded 'murikan' is expected to do...get a job as a greeter at Walmart...although they don't have health care either.

Maybe I've uncovered a dastardly plan by the Repukes. You see, the more troops that get killed in Iraq, the less long-term health care you have to provide.

War: For the neo-cons it's a "win-win" situation.

Have I mentioned lately that I loathe these people??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-08-06 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Do the raises extend to the National Guard?
I'm fairly certain they have a separate payscale that would require separate legislation to increase.

I would not at all be surprised to find out that the National Guard -- men and women who signed up to defend the United States in times of need and not invade foreign and occupy foreign countries at grossly lower pay and benefits than they get from their civilian jobs, to which they may never be allowed return, thanks to the "stop-loss" order -- are not included in the increases.

Could someone please try to explain how this is not a violation of the 13th Amendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC