Lowest Military Payraise in 50 Years
Via Drudge a link to a piece by Jack Cafferty over at CNN
The Obama administration has proposed a 1.4 percent pay raise for the military in 2011 – the lowest since 1962, when they got no raise.
But this is CNN after all……who’s to blame for the meager raise?
As our government plans to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, they’re also proposing the lowest pay raise for the military in almost 50 years.
That’s right, it’s the evil rich people…
It’s estimated that an increase from 1.4 to 1.9 percent would cost taxpayers $350 million next year – compare that to the tax break deal which some say will cost $900 billion.
There’s that much change in the ashtray of the stimulus bill if the President wanted to bump up the raise but hey, don’t let that change the narative…
Category: Politics
For the life of me I can not figure out how keeping the tax rates the same is costing the government anything. That is the biggest falsehood foisted on the American public since saying healthcare reform was going to save [insert dollar figure here].
Hey here’s an idea. If the Dems, who are still in control of congress afterall, are concerned about the little payraise for the military why don’t they, you know, cut funds to the trains to nowhere, or I don’t know maybe scrap some subsidies to some green project.
Try scrapping all subsidies to *green* projects, reduce Congress and staffer pay to far more realistic wages…um, the
list is endless actually. But then again, it’d only make sense something their short on.
For the life of me I can not figure out how keeping the tax rates the same is costing the government anything.
That’s because they *assumed* they were going to get that money to spend and have already spent it…and don’t get me started on frikken’ “green” projects…
Old Tanker:
My favorite “green” project is when they plant trees down the middle of a road; later, when the traffic increases, they cut all of those trees down to put in a center turn lane.
I guess I should be glad that the trees go to the mulch pile at the landfill — I suppose that qualifies for recycling, right?
I love how there’s all these “Green” projects, which cost a ton and their effectiveness is debatable, and yet, we are actively IN A WAR and cuts in the budget came first from (you guessed it!) the DoD. If you want to see the end result of these insanities go to Cali. There are SOOOO many examples of failed policies, that are now trying to be implemented on a national scale.
I’m certainly no expert, but what I’ve observed is that those in power first try to drum up popular support for withdrawing the troops from the war and when that fails, they then attempt to strangle the funding for the war by cutting DoD.
For the life of me I can not figure out how keeping the tax rates the same is costing the government anything. That is the biggest falsehood foisted on the American public since saying healthcare reform was going to save [insert dollar figure here].
==========
Yep, the Left does the same thing with regards to budgets. If a budget proposal asks for a 10% increase, but only a 5% increase is accepted, then the Left goes out there whining “they cut the budget by 5%!!!”
Or, even just saying that a budget has been increased by 5% each year for 5 years. But now for next year, they decide to keep the budget the same. The Left goes out there whining “they cut the budget by 5%!!!”, but that is not what happened at all. Keeping the budget the same is not the same as cutting the budget.
But, this is how the Left always frames the issues. They lie. And for some reason, the majority of the American electorate believes their BS.
(Part of the reason that happens is because Republicans are absolutely incompetent at explaining the facts. Instead of defending the facts, and bitch-slapping the Left and the MF-ing media for their lies, they accept the lie and don’t correct them at all. Absolutely frustrating.)
It just amazes me…that dumb friggin arguement. “tax cuts cost the government billions.”
It’s ignorant on it’s face. It’s been proven time and time again that tax cuts in turn make a more stable economy, thus making it a good environment for business and expansion, in turn generating MORE TAX REVENUE!!!!!! You freeeekin liberals and your ‘tax cuts for the rich’ lyin sonsabitches MUST STOP BEING STUPID!!! You WILL kill us all with that ignorance.
And, the dumb asses who want to fund their “green” projects, and bullet trains to nowhere, still haven’t figured out, It.Isn’t.Their.Money…..
And, the dems refuse to pass a budget, they just keep the government going with “continuing resolutions”. Mustn’t let the taxpayers figure out how much they’re actually spending.
I talked to a statistician. you know if the government were to stop all programs tomorrow (sadly to include the DOD) it could pay off ALL debt in less than 2 1/2 years. SOOO I’m just saying that this is not undoable. but there will have to be REALLY hard choices. Sadly the republicans will be crucified for making the hard choices, which might actually be why it’ll take 6 years to be fully in effect. funny isn’t it.
Doc, don’t count on the Reps actually having the balls to cut spending. It’s unfortunate, but true, that the vast majority of politicians on both sides will watch the nation and government crash and burn before even considering spending cuts. After all, who wants to stop spending money when they’re spending it to buy votes? “Do what’s best for the country instead of what’s best for my political career? Hah! What a crazy idea.” *sigh* And so many people go right along with it. ‘Course, that’s why I hold that removing voting rights of those living on welfare is absolutely mandatory for getting the nation back on track. The Founders didn’t implement property requirements for voting just out of whim.
It’s amazing how Democrats and liberals forget that one of their great heroes, JFK. Cut taxes and was an ardent anti-communist.
YatYas
Something else of note…the last time the military got a lower pay raise than this was when they got NO PAY RAISE in 1962…and JFK was the President…
This is very sad, however, sad for me personally (looking out for my own best interests), it appears that the federal civilian employees are unfortunately about to get screwed much worse. I heard today at the office that Obama wants to freeze even normal step increases and is even looking at cutting leave time, believe it or not. Normally I would support such a thing, however, that was before I became a federal employee myself. Being of very low rank and pay (considering my skills and talents), my personal suggestion -just in case President Obama is reading this – is to leave everyone at the bottom alone, but tighten the proverbial federal belt by turning all the GS-13’s, 14’s and 15’s into 12’s. Or at least the 14’s and 15’s. Perhaps also consider that there may be too many of them… Just my 2 sense…
#14, I think its a sad truth that we have too many Federal employees. There’s so much overlap its not even funny. Why doe State have its own security unit, when Secret Service, DOD, Marshals etc ALL have the job of guarding dignitaries? Why do we have 15 different Federal Law Enforcement agencies? I can see the FAA, but FBI, ATF, ICE, DEA etc? on the forign side CIA, NSA, DIA, and none of them talk to each other. Why does the FEDERAL government have regulatory power over so many issues that are state issues. Can anyone honestly argue that the Federal government is a ponderous beast that has serious problems. there are so many laws that contradict counter act, and confuse the ever loving shit out of people. I think its time to wipe the slate clean figure out what we NEED, what we WANT, and what would be nice to have. the later two get shitcanned till we’re out of debt.
Doc, you’ve made some good points, but attempting that radical a change of the federal government too quickly would be like throwing your car into park going 50 mph down the freeway. I’ve worked both federal and private sectors, and I had the “pleasure” a few years ago of taking a $5.00/hr paycut to change careers. It was a SERIOUS case of scratch, scrape, and scramble, until I got my feet under me again, ant that was not a sudden change–it was planned for. My arguement here is that you’re not just throwing away old equipment; there are people on the other end of those belt-tightening measures, those job cuttings. It’s compounded by the fact that many of those federal jobs are highly specialized, and may not translate into the private sector that easily. I think where the problem is, is that such changes, done properly so as not to totally ruin those employees’ lives, would have to span at least one whole election cycle, take four years or more. We can’t even get the two parties to agree on WHEN to discuss a bill, much less getting them to agree on anything IN a bill. The minute the party in power attempted something like this, the other party would wreck it, no matter how much sense it made.