Bigger Military Raise, Better Benefits Hit

[Odie 0]

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.

 

-- 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.

[Angela 1]

You guys need a vchange of administration. Has history not taught them that is you piss off your military you tend to end up with really bad consequences

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I think it is unfortunate to say the least that we don't better provide for our men and women in uniform.

 

I don't know much about the military service requirements in other countries - other than Israel where everyone has to serve (of a certain age).

 

Since the elimination of the draft (and even before with Johnson's college deferments) military service in the US has fallen disproportionately on the lower income families. I continue to see recruiting adds where they use scholarships as a tool. I don't have a problem with the scholarship - they deserve every penny - it just strikes me as wrong that the wealthy reap the benefits of the military's labors but don't shoulder much of the cost. I just suspect that our men and women in uniform don't have the clout they would have if their parents all belonged to the country club.

[Odie 0]

By Rush Limbaugh:

 

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

 

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

 

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 milli on are complaining that it's not enough Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

 

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation a s well.

 

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing Make sense?

 

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

 

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.