Kerry Asks Bush NOT TO CUT Military Pay Raise

[whometense]

WHAAAAAAT????????????????

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=274782

Kerry Asks Bush Not To Cut Military Pay Raise

Says White House Should Reward Troops, Not Short-Change Soldiers on Memorial Day

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Kerry today asked President Bush to back off his plan to cut a proposed military pay raise. Kerry also asked Bush not to cut a proposed benefit for surviving spouses, which Congress and veterans groups say would help grieving families with a $40 month benefit to help cover expenses when a loved one is killed in action. Last week, the White House opposed both of those provisions in the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill.

"It's unacceptable that this White House continues to choose more tax breaks for the richest Americans and less pay and fewer benefits for our military families," Senator Kerry said. "Our Democratic Congress has put forth a plan to give our troops a raise at a time of war, and no White House opposition will stand in the way of our commitment to our military. Our troops make incredible sacrifices for our country and we owe them a pay raise and benefits that make it clear we honor their sacrifice. We will fight for this pay raise for our troops until it becomes a reality."

The Office of Management and Budget said that the House bill's moves to increase military pay by .5 percent (from 3.0 to 3.5 percent) and give a $40 monthly benefit for surviving spouses and military families were unnecessary. On the same day, the White House expressed opposition to the FY 2008 Budget Resolution Conference Report because it failed to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Last year's pay increase for members of the uniformed services was just 2.2 percent, the lowest since 1993. Congress has made a commitment to keep pay raises for the military ahead of private sector pay raises.

Kerry is the author of the Military Family Bill of Rights, which has become law. Kerry's Bill increased the death benefit for surviving spouses and families of troops who die in action to $250,000 and extended the amount of time they can remain in military housing to one full year, along with increasing TRICARE benefits and promoting better care for those suffering from PTSD and other mental illness.

Below is text of the letter Kerry sent Friday:

May 18, 2007

The President The White House Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Mr. President:

We are all proud of our men and women in the American military who continue to perform magnificently in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. They represent the best that this country has to offer, and America owes them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude. In light of their sacrifice, I ask you to change your position and support a 3.5 percent increase in military pay and an increase in the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance to help American military families.

On May 16, the Office of Management and Budget's Statement of Administration Policy for the House FY 2008 National Defense Authorization bill opposes Section 644 of the bill, which would pay a monthly Special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, calling the existing benefits "sufficient". The Statement of Administration Policy also "strongly opposes" Sections 601 and 606 of the House bill, which provide a 0.5 percent increase in military pay above the President's proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase, calling it "unnecessary".

I am extremely disappointed in these decisions. This position fails to honor our military families who have made the ultimate sacrifice. It also stands in direct contrast to the will of the American people who support all efforts to support our troops. Most disappointing, on the same day your position on a military pay increase was announced, the Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman expressed opposition to the FY 2008 Budget Resolution Conference Report because it failed to extend tax cuts to provide billions for the wealthiest in our country.

Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. These provisions can do something to ease their burden--but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

###

[MH1]

1. Okay, all you talk radio monitors: please post when ANYONE brings this up on their show.

Anyone.

(Hey if anyone has the gumption to call in and ask about it, that would be cool to hear about too...and more likely to happen!)

[karynnj]

7. Yeah, memorial Day is coming

I believe their traditional way to show support for the troops is to insist that the Democrats don't support them. Excellent idea about calling in.

[rox63]

2. This should be getting a ton of publicity

But with our corporate-owned MSM, it's not getting any. :(

[tinymontgomery]

3. exactly how to frame the issue

"he's cutting the pay of the military" Why does * hate the troops?

[3waygeek]

13. Another good frame...

Bush accepted a 100% pay raise when he took office -- Clinton & previous presidents only made $200,000 per year, but Bush gets $400,000.

[ProSense]

4. Excellent! More support for troops, Vets:

JK Calls for Increased Accountability in Defense Contracting

As a decorated combat veteran himself, JK has always stood firm when it comes to supporting the troops. As an influential Senator, he authored the Military Family Bill of Rights legislation and has continued to fight for proper treatment of active-duty troops, returning veterans, and their families on a wide range of issues from proper medical treatment for wounded service members to fair military pay raises. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, he's also standing up for the economic welfare of military personnel at home as well as in the field.

As PRNewswire reported, earlier this week JK sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates demanding details on the agency's continual shortfalls in meeting federally-mandated procurement goals for service-disabled veteran-owned businesses.

<…>

Following are excerpts from the letter JK sent to Secretary Gates last week:

Dear Secretary Gates:

I am writing concerning the Department of Defense's policy with respect to contracting with service-disabled veteran owned businesses (SDVOBs). Although Congress enacted a government-wide procurement goal of three percent for service-disabled veteran owned businesses, every year since that law has been in place the Department of Defense has failed to meet that contracting goal. In light of the honorable sacrifices that service-disabled veterans have made for our country, I urge you to do everything in your power to meet and exceed the three percent goal required by law.

As you know, in 1999, Congress enacted Public Law 106-50 which set the government-wide procurement goal of three percent with SDVOBs. The law also called on each agency to determine the "maximum practicable opportunity" for these firms (Title 15 Chapter 14A section 644 (g) (1)).

The Department of Defense accounts for nearly 70 percent of all federal procurement spending, totaling an estimated $219 billion in FY2005. Given that reality, it is virtually impossible for the entire federal government to meet the law's three percent goal for SDVOBs without the Department of Defense. However, in 2005, the Department of Defense awarded a mere .499 percent of contracts to service-disabled owned firms. It is hard to believe that less than one half of one percent of all defense contracts is the "maximum practicable opportunity" for the Defense Department to do business with SDVOBs.

I am especially disturbed by reports that Department of Defense personnel are telling veterans that the agency is not bound by the three percent goal for contracting with SDVOBs. Given these reports and the lack of progress in meeting the SDVOB goal, I would like an immediate explanation of the Department's policy for contracting with SDVOBs. Please provide a clear statement as to whether the agency intends to meet the three percent contracting goal. If the Department of Defense is not attempting to meet the three percent contracting goal, has the agency formally established its own contracting goal for service-disabled veterans? And if so, what is that goal? Specifically, what is the Department of Defense doing to improve its record on contracting with service-disabled veteran owned businesses?

In another matter, on January 31, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing entitled, "Assessing Federal Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans and Reservists." One of the witnesses at that hearing was Ms. Linda Oliver, Interim Acting Director of the Office of Small Business. A number of Senators submitted questions to Ms. Oliver to answer in writing for the record, but it has been over three months, and we still have not received her responses. Enclosed, please find a copy of those questions. I respectfully request responses to them within one week of the receipt of this letter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter of critical importance to me as a veteran, and to the millions of service-disabled veterans who continue to honorably serve their country by contributing to the economy as successful entrepreneurs.

Sincerely,
John F. Kerry

link

[politicasista]

5. K&R

:kick:

[pacalo]

6. Lift that curtain of Bushco's "support" for the troops, John.

[blm]

9. It's the corporate media that puts the damn curtains UP for BushInc on these issues.

Let's see how many in the media will even HEAR Kerry's wake up alarm on this.

[pacalo]

14. So true. Their defen$e contract$ require them to do $o. I won't hold my breath.

[babylonsister]

8. * is a shithead. Kick and rec'd. nt

[whometense]

10. Amen to that!!!!

No better way to put it. :-)

[dwahzon]

11. K & R

[globalvillage]

12. Damn bush.

Year after year, bush cuts military benefits as he sends our young men and women off to fight in his immoral war with no policy, no exit strategy, under paid and under equipped. No surprise he begrudges them a decent pay raise. And yet, the perception that he somehow "supports the troops" is promoted by the RW media.

Senator Kerry's support of the active military and vets has been unwavering. He's always been there for our men and women in uniform, and his reward has been to have his service questioned and his support of the military attacked. Again, hyped by the RW media.

It's completely bizarre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdhkJS3UFaU

[beachmom]

15. Even my wingnut congresswoman is for this. It's common sense.

I mean, how dumb is Bush?

[opihimoimoi]

16. How Dumb is Bush?.....Very DUMB....The Dems should pass it and make him use the VETO

He would lolo if he did

[blm]

17. Exactly - make him veto it and hang that veto around his neck.

.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

18. He would just say that the democrats aren't giving him the money

he wants so the poor soldiers have to suffer due to the mean liberals.

K&R BTW :)

[19jet54]

19. Politics

I support the Kerry view being a vet myself - but I also understand the need to reduce costs? I am just amazed, strike that, Bush has done nothing but SCREW people since day one!