White House Opposes Pay Raise For Troops and An Increase In Widow's Benefits

  Here is just a little bit more of the George Bush version of supporting our troops. I guess  that he only supports our troops when it comes to sending them to Iraq to get killed.

White House States Opposition to Pay Raise for Troops,
Increase in Widows’ Benefits

May 17th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel:

“We ask our troops to risk their lives for our nation. We ask their spouses to raise families and make ends meet without them as they serve. The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families. It’s easy to say you support our troops, but actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric.”

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
Rick Maze, Army Times - May 16, 2007

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.”

See the full Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP (pdf) >>

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.

And here the Administration urges deletion of various contract accountability provisions:

Acquisition Policy: While the Administration supports the underlying interests of section 806, 821, 822, 824, and 843, the Administration urges their deletion because each of these provisions is either duplicative of recently-enacted laws and implementing regulations or would be counterproductive and not of practical help in strengthening the acquisition process. Section 824, in particular, which imposes exhaustive reporting on contract deficiencies, will interfere with agencies’ ability to address and resolve contract performance problems in a timely manner. In addition, section 326(b) would impose on the Department’s contractors unmanageable and costly reporting requirements with questionable benefit.         The Gavel

See the provisions themselves in the full text of the legislation (pdf) >>

 

Tags: White House Department of Defense Chairman Rahm Emanuel Armed Services Committee

Report Says That Iraq Is Nearing collapse

  This is an interesting report from Chatham House where Dr Gareth Stansfield says that there isn't just " one " civil war nor is there just " one "  insurgency but there are several in each category between the communities in Iraq. hit the site and download the report, which is in PDF.

  Within this warring society, the Iraqi government is only one among many 'state-like' actors, and is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic, and political life.  It is now possible to argue that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation.  Accepting Realities in Iraq

Accepting Realities in Iraq  is the title of the new Briefing Paper which Dr. Stansfield wrote. It goes on to say:

...although Al-Qaeda is challenged by local groups, there is momentum behind its activity. Iraq's neighbors too have a greater capacity to affect the situation on the ground than either the UK or the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all have different reasons for seeing the instability in Iraq continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments.

Dr Stansfield says: ‘The coming year will be pivotal for Iraq. The internecine fighting and continual struggle for power threatens the nation’s very existence in its current form. An acceptance of the realities on the ground in Iraq and a fundamental rethinking of strategy by coalition powers are vital if there is to be any chance of future political stability in the country.’

  The report also says that Baghdad blogger's, Sunni and Shi'a, give a better understanding of the of the political identity in Baghdad, dealing with the atrocities in daily life and the affects that they are having.

   Another note about the blogger's compared to their views only just a year ago.

" Barely a year ago, young Iraqis commonly talked about their desires to see the Americans leave and for a genuinely Iraqi political process to emerge. Now, bloggers tend to fall into one of two categories: they either wish the U.S. to stay in order to prevent the final collapse into a ' total ' civil war: or they wish the U.S. to leave in order to allow the civil war to erupt fully- such is the level of sectarian-based hatred in Baghdad today."

  I will be delving into this report off and on as it has some really eye opening conclusions in it, which maybe those idiots in the White House will read through. I doubt it though, to much reality in it.

 

Tags: Iraq Chatham House Sunni Shi'a Baghdad Gareth Stansfield