Posted on 08/16/2003 4:59:26 AM PDT by Archangelsk
Empire on the cheap
Pentagon's sneak attack on soldiers' combat pay
News-Journal editorial
Last update: 15 August 2003
Speaking to cadets at the Citadel in South Carolina on Sept. 23, 1999, Candidate George Bush sounded outraged. "Thousands of members of the armed forces are on food stamps," he said. "Many others in uniform get Army Emergency Relief or depend on their parents. This is not the way that a great nation should reward courage and idealism. It is ungrateful, it is unwise, and it is unacceptable." Bush liked that last line so much that he repeated it, word for word, in an interview with Armed Forces Journal International.
Talk about ungrateful, unwise and unacceptable: The Pentagon, with Bush's tacit support, was about to reward the 157,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by cutting $225 a month out of soldiers' pay. Empire is expensive. Tax cuts even more so. Somebody has to pay. It looked as if soldiers posted abroad were to be forced to volunteer for the task.
Bush made military pay increases a centerpiece of his election campaign. Last April, Congress approved an additional increase of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $150 a month extra for "family separation allowances," which helps soldiers' families back home pay for rent, utilities, child care and other expenses. But last month the Pentagon sent a report to Congress saying it couldn't afford the extra pay, which adds up to $300 million a year. The war in Iraq is costing $4 billion a month, the sideshow in Afghanistan is costing $1 billion a month, and the budget deficit at home has been growing roughly by $1 billion a day.
With Congress about to vote on a $369 billion appropriation bill for the military, the Pentagon was worried about having to slash programs to meet its budget. So it recommended reverting back to the old pay scale on Oct. 1. The Bush White House didn't take responsibility, calling it a Pentagon issue, much in the way that it hasn't been taking responsibility for the lethal chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since Bush staged his landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1 to declare Iraq a "mission accomplished," 128 American and 13 British soldiers have died there -- 63 of them since Bush, on July 2, said "bring them on" in response to continuing guerilla attacks. In Afghanistan earlier this week, renewed fighting left more than 60 people dead across the country, where the Taliban is resurgent.
Still, the Pentagon considered combat pay for troops superfluous -- and took the bullet for Bush who, unlike Ronald Reagan, never forgets to duck. The Army Times, a newspaper published independently but distributed widely in the armed forces, doesn't usually take issue with the Pentagon. A recent editorial did: "If the Bush administration felt in April that conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan warranted increases in danger pay and family separation allowances, it cannot plausibly argue that the higher rates are still not warranted today."
More to the point: If Bush had suggested that his three rounds of tax cuts over the last three years, which mostly plump up the portfolios of the rich, would have possibly had to be subsidized in the slightest degree by soldiers on dangerous duty, he would have been declared the nation's immoralist-in-chief (not just by Joe Lieberman), and his tax cuts would have been declared ungrateful, unwise and unacceptable. But his PR machine is too slick for that.
While the Pentagon was fighting a press insurgency of its own on Thursday, and finally backtracked from its proposal to cut soldiers' pay, Bush was again making one of his cherished he-man appearances on a military base, at a Marine Corps air Station in Miramar, Calif. "I'm honored to be in the presence of the men and women who wear our nation's uniform," he told them. "I'm proud of you, and I want to thank you for your service to our great country. Each of you serves in a crucial time in our nation's history. And this nation is grateful for the sacrifice and service you make."
Words have rarely sounded so cheap.
The Pentagon is aware of the expiration and intends that the pay continue. The press is, as usual, carrying the democrats' water.
When something sounds ridiculous, like this issue, it is best to check to see what the truth actually is.
The law that Congress originally wrote, years ago, allowed these two types of extra pay for soldiers in combat areas to expire, come 1 October. The Pentagon had already decided that it would use other funds to keep those pay scales right where they are, after 1 October.
The Daytona Beach Journal. like the Chronicle in the first place, should have checked its facts before shooting its mouth off.
Congressman Billybob
Bush was again making one of his cherished he-man appearances on a military base, at a Marine Corps air Station in Miramar, Calif.
Note the tone of the 'reporting'. There was a hiccup in the pay of the 101st where everybody's check was a little short which was compensated for on the following pay period. This occurred well before this breaking 'news' story came out. I don't know if this was the start of the rumor but an event like this is all the liberals need for 'proof' of any accusation they want to make against the administration.
In the very depths of the Viet Nam War, Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats levied at 10% income tax surcharge on top of the pay of troops in the field!
BTW, I still want my pay ~ you people cheated me out of a very good income for several years and you never made it up. Frankly, I am very tired of carrying the load for the rest of this very ungrateful country.
Time to pay up folks!
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Army Times a civilian run paper? And leftist civilian at that. They should be forced to put a disclaimer at the top of their page, I.E. This paper and it's employees are in no way associated with the Armed Forces Of The United States.
Why? It's the same paper I, my Daddy, and my Daddy's Daddy read. Yeah, they sometimes go over the top with their outrage, but they're generally concerned about soldiers and their welfare.
No paper stays the same- the Des Moines Register sure isn't the same paper it was in Frank Miller's day, and it was bad enough even then. My late Lt. Colonel uncle considered Army Times to be toilet paper back in his day, and I am fairly certain that he'd be even less enamored of it now. I suppose Gannett is concerned with soldiers, in some warm, happy, AFL-CIO kind of way.
But now they are stooping to political activism that destroys morale, and are apparently doing so with abandon. They get caught with their whang in the cookie jar, and remain arrogant... that makes them lower than snake s**t in my book. Anyone who wants to carry water for them for old times' sake is welcome to do so, but I can't understand why a person would want to.
Thanks for the ping, m-a. We knew, of course, that the press would act in concert - and gladly. None bothered to verify the quagmire, pause, museum looting or 'shoot to kill orders'. They're now pushing another accusation against the troops made by Al Jazeera - all anyone needs to know about our modern enemy press.
NO byline, deadline or prize can excuse inaccurate stories based on unverified facts and unnamed sources during wartime - especially when the headline undermines the mission. The press KNOWs they sow dissent when they print this c&%p. In their effort to derail the war for political purposes - they also aid the enemy and hurt morale. Bottom line - the press is endangering the troops - regularly.
Make the press corps stand in front of the families of those serving - and have them answer to the troops - weekly. They need a serious reality check.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.