White House ‘Strongly Opposes’ Extra Pay for Troops
The House of Representatives wants to boost soldier pay by 3.5 percent in order to close the gap with private sector wages, but the White House opposes an increase beyond 3 percent. The White House has also come out against new benefits for disabled veterans and survivors of military retirees.
The House of Representatives wants to boost soldier pay by 3.5 percent in order to close the gap with private sector wages, but the White House opposes an increase beyond 3 percent. The White House has also come out against new benefits for disabled veterans and survivors of military retirees.
AS CHAOS UNFOLDS, FIND SOLID GROUND…Army Times:
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.
In this time of unprecedented challenges, independent journalism is more vital than ever. At Truthdig, we expose what power wants hidden and give you the clarity to make sense of it all.
Your donation helps ensure that truth telling continues.
For this retired U.S. Army officer, the president's Thanksgiving visit with the troops has been "triggering" in all the worst ways.
The ACLU blasts the clemency action for Mathew Golsteyn and Clint Lorance as an "utterly shameful use of presidential powers."
Defense leaders express dismay and a resolve to do more to increase resilience in the force.
The CNN pundit appears to be taking his talking points from prominent military sources.
There already exists a proven protocol for the proper use of firearms. Why can’t it be implemented for civilians?
Aggressive, highly trained and hypermasculine Navy SEALs should not be used as the go-to tool for waging global imperial war.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.