House wants a 2.1% pay raise, White House threatens veto
According to the Military Times, the House voted almost along party lines to fully fund the Pentagon by a margin of 277-147 to fund a 2.1 percent pay raise to the troops, overhaul the military medical system, and to protect the A-10 close air support aircraft from the Air Force. The Democrats in the House were more focused on the really important issues, they say;
They objected when language was dropped from the bill that would have required women to register for the Selective Service System, a provision that has support in the Senate, and to wording that states federal contractors cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion. That provision, critics say, legitimizes discrimination against gay and bisexual employees.
House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith, D-Wash., said those points of conflict forced him to vote against the measure.
“They have misused the rules process to avoid votes on women’s equality, labor laws, and taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT individuals, while adding further restrictions on transfers from the Guantanamo detention facility, cutting funds for nuclear nonproliferation, and adopting a range of other highly problematic provisions,” he said in a statement.
The White House has threatened to veto the bill, mostly because the bill gives the troops a larger pay raise than the president thinks they earned. Never mind that their pay checks haven’t kept pace with inflation for the last six years.
Category: Politics
Congress and Bodapreezy of the 57 steezy going at it again… fuck the Donks! Hell, fuck all politicians with the Barbed Cock of Satan!
Is it me or is this country is going to Hell and there’s nobody who can seem to stop it?
It’s not you …
We’re well on our way to hell …
Thx for the sanity check…
Senior…we’re in the HOV lane screaming down a 6% grade with no safety turn-off in sight.
https://youtu.be/Gv61zBZacpo
Am I the only one who said, “WTF???” and did a head-scratch when I read that?
You’re not alone, Hondo.
Have you ever seen a better example of Orwellian Doublethink or Newspeak, Ex-PH2?
“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”
Tomorrow’s storyline will be different but, hey, it’s all just a matter of semantics, right?
The adults need to be back in charge. (Making a giant leap there in assuming January’s turnover will actually results in the adults being back in charge, regardless of who wins the election.)
My favorite line from above: “They have misused the rules process to avoid votes on women’s equality, labor laws, and taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT individuals …”
Yeah, screw the military so you can promote your silly talking points to endear you to your voter base. If you’re concerned about women’s equality, pay the ladies in the military what they are worth. I’m thinking they deserve an increase of 2.1%.
BTW, I don’t believe most politicians actually believe the foolishness they spout. They seem to say whatever is necessary, based on demographics, to get elected.
Probably makes perfect sense to the likes of Lars.
(sshhhhhh. . .. )
Hondo, even trying to think in doublethink gives me a headache. The birds chirping outside my window make a lot more sense.
If I understand this, the tantrum this time is over simply giving a raise to employees that the Overlord doesn’t like, anyway. Is that close?
And the contractor clause is something along the lines of one of Janet Yellen’s incomprehensibly intentional efforts to befuddle her audience. Find a video of her when she’s asked a direct question. She NEVER answers it.
I will be SO glad when this administration has been sacked for good!
Yeah I read that too and kinda figured that they think everybody that follows religious doctrine of any sort is going to discriminate based on religious doctrine.
They just need to pass a law that says something like …don’t be a dick
Or in other words . . . a law that explicitly bans discrimination is itself discriminatory. By implication, it also logically endorses discrimination based on religion under the “correct” circumstances – which I’m sure those on the left will be quite willing to define for us.
1984 appears to have arrived nearly 32 1/2 years late.
ayup
Lemme guess… no COLA for retirees either.
Cheeseburger, cheeseburger…
Of course not. You know that we didn’t earn that (paraphrasing the words of the head doofus).
OH, those poooor politicians, having to eke by on six digit salaries along with the perks and luxuries they treat themselves to, AND all of those gifts and perks from lobbyists as well as their lavish vacations and junkets… Gee whiz, can we give up more so those poor things can stay in the lap of taxpayer-funded luxury? Bless their ratshit hearts…
The issue was spotlighted in an oBaMa executive order that included gender identity among the classifications protected from employment discrimination in the federal workplace, including contractors. Well, when that first arose, a number of religious groups got together and asked for an exemption, inasmuch as they do work for the federal gov’t under contract. In the budget bill, as near as I can tell, the House included wording that would have made women register for the draft and included wording that would have exempted religious organizations doing work for the fed gov’t from certain discrimination. The Ds are upset that the selective service provision has been dropped and that the discrimination provision (essentially permitting a religious-based exemption to certain discrimination in hiring) was included. The way the Mil Times wrote it up, combining the two in a single sentence, made it sound as if the Ds are upset b/c discrimination will not be allowed. That’s my take, anyway.
You may be correct regarding the background of the legislation, 2/17 Air Cav. However, if the language is indeed essentially “thou shall not discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring for Federal contracts”, then complaining about that language IS in fact complaining because religious discrimination is not allowed.
I would love to read the exact text in question. Anyone got a link?
I don’t. Try this. X is a religious-based company that makes widgets. In accordance with its religious tenets and practices, it does not hire transgenders. It would therefore be barred from a federal contract. However, if a religious-based exemption existed in law, it would be eligible and could could continue to keep transgenders off its widget assembly line. Again, I think it was the Mil Times wording.
Well, actually I prefer this:
The language should sound familiar. It’s a direct quote from 42 USC 2000e-2 (a).
Employers are bound by that law. I fail to see why the Federal government, in contracting out jobs to private industry, should be above following the same laws it demands all employers in the US follow.
It’s not. The issue is religious-based discrimination regarding a person’s gender identity. That’s different in kind from discrimination based upon one’s religion. I thought my example above was clear, but I guess not.
It was clear. It was simply a non sequitur to the discussion at hand and thus was invalid. Using that logic, one can make an argument along those lines that ANY non-discrimination law should be invalid – because it could be used as an excuse to discriminate against others. E.g., “We (insert variant of an ethnic, gender, or other protected class defined by law to be used in the example) do not associate with members of other groups. Forcing a business owned by one of us to hire someone outside our group therefore is discrimination against (protected class of choice) on the basis of (protected class membership) grounds.” Yeah, the argument is BS. But it’s the same argument you use above to show how a law banning discrimination against others on religious grounds can be claimed actually to be discriminatory. Either both arguments are valid or neither are. Here’s a different rationale that I hold is more accurate and more apropos. While protected groups do have the right to freedom of association, that right sometimes conflicts with the rights of others. In 42 USC 2000e, Congress has by law explicitly defined which of those rights takes precedence in employment situations – and it’s the right to equal consideration for employment that trumps the right of free association in such circumstances. The Federal courts have endorsed that position. That principle should thus apply equally to the Federal government in situations where the Federal government is contracting for goods or services. Specifically: that means the Federal government should also be forbidden to discriminate against prospective contractors on the basis of their religion, ethnic, racial, or other characteristics defined in 42 USC 2000e. Anyway, that’s the way I see it. In order to change my opinion, I’d have to see the precise text of the proposed law, and it would have to be structured to explicitly permit employers to discriminate on religious grounds – not merely prohibit the government as employer (e.g., the party contracting for goods or services) from discriminating against prospective contractors on the grounds of religions beliefs. The latter is… Read more »
Thanks for your pronouncement, your honor; however, now that clearer accounts are in on what prompted you to scratch your head yesterday, it turns out that my example was was on point. “During debate on a military spending bill, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment to nullify a provision in a separate bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, that the House passed late Wednesday. The provision opens the door to government contractors citing religious liberty as grounds for firing or harassing employees who are LGBT.” Of course, that “firing or harassing” business is the HuffPo playing Chicken Little but the description of the Maloney amendment is consistent with other accounts.
Not a judge or lawyer. But I do have a fair capacity for logical reasoning, some knowledge of the law acquired through personal interest and study, and some ability to read and comprehend English – even that bizarre variant commonly called “legalese” (as do you).
Again: I’d like to see the actual text of the proposed legislation. The HuffPo isn’t exactly an unbiased source on this subject. Their description of the bill may be on point, or it may be grossly inaccurate (due to either ignorance or intent).
I would also like to know where LGBT and/or gender dysphoria have been declared legal “protected classes”. I don’t seem to remember seeing either covered in 42 USC 2000e. And I believe that generally forms the basis for the definition of protected classes re: employment discrimination. Otherwise, I believe that the 10th Amendment reserves the power to govern labor discrimination under other situations to either Congress (under the interstate commerce clause, indisputably applicable to Federal contracts) or to the individual states (under the 10th Amendment).
If the proposed amendment had language such as the HuffPo describes (and you have apparently accepted as being accurate), then in fact the matter would almost certainly end up in Federal court as an case of alleged unlawful employment discrimination anyway. Given the political climate today, I’d be pessimistic of such a law surviving judicial review. But when it comes to the Federal courts, you never know.
Just like without reviewing the actual text in question, we don’t really know what it says.
Okay, I’ll do the legwork sometime today to nail this down. I used the HuffPo but also consulted other sources. They seem to be echoing one another so, in my view, one was as good as another. As for the LGBT being members of a protected class, they most certainly are not. We are in accord on that. The oBaMa executive order cannot create a new such class but he can, and did, effectively do so when it comes to his purview, head of the executive branch. The fact is, there is no way he would have signed any piece of legislation that might (emphasis on might) nullify that which he did by executive order.
Appreciate that. If I run across it first, I’ll post a link here.
You’re probably right about the text, but I’ve seen the mainsream media echo chamber “get it wrong” or slant things intentionally so damn many times that in cases like this I want to read the text in question and decide for myself if they’re dissembling.
All those of you affected by this legislation who are so dead set against voting for Trump might want to give this situation some additional thought before you stay home on Election Day or vote for a third party candidate. If you want the Democrats to continue their control of the White House and the Pentagon, then fine, pursue your folly; but elections DO have consequences and sometimes those consequences affect you very directly, right in your pocket.
Yes, stay home on election day. Then you can return in January and bitch and moan about the continued destruction of the country.
Seems legit. Or not …
A simple three word question should suffice to shut up those that stayed home: “Did.You.Vote?”
If you did (for either party), then you get to bitch and moan, and we get to listen to you.
If you didn’t vote, then STFU and STFD.
Is it time to submit my next essay to our Glorious Leader? I have a photo of a nuthatch to go with it.
Plenty of money for social experimentation promoted by the SJWs, but not enough for those who are in harm’s way or could be at a moment’s notice. Always money for those who produce little but carbon dioxide. Yeah, let’s give away the house to the undeserving and the hell with those whose efforts are worthy. Yeah, that’s it.
Overhaul the medical system? Fort Jackson Hospital is being downgraded to a health clinic, however you can travel to Eisenhower Hospital at Fort Gordon for treatment. 84 miles via I-20.
Count your blessings. There are Army installations where the nearest full Army hospital is over 300 miles away.
For example, I understand that’s been the case at Huachuca for close to 2 decades now. Pretty sure the hospital there was downgraded to a clinic or health center in either the late 1990s or early 2000s.
It’s a fact, Hondo. Huachuca has a health center, no hospital.
And once again Obama bullshits us again when he says he won’t balance the budget on the backs of veterans.
Nah, he won’t balance the budget, but he’ll fuck over veterans and AD until joes need food stamps like back in the day.
Hollow force, my ass. Try no force.
Here’s what I don’t understand.
The budget is divided as follows.
Health care gets 28% of the budgeted monies.
Defense gets 21% of that.
The rest is as shown on this pie chart.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php
Now, unless there is something hidden in those percentages, based on a $544 billion budget for Defense, there should be room for small raises, yet as we’re told, no raises have been offered in 6 years.
If someone can explain this to me in a logical way, and no doublespeak, please do so.
This group of adults who are allegedly able to handle money at any level, but show quite clearly that they have no sense of real responsibility to the very people who pay their salaries, just blows my mind.
It’s kind of like Dan Madigan butting heads with the Illinois governor over feeding his fucking ego. It’s not because there is no budget proposed. Several have been proposed, but Madigan, being the control freak asshole that he is, refuses to budge over the budget. The state’s response was to cut off legislator’s paychecks because there is no money to pay them.
Perhaps it’s time someone cut off paychecks at the federal level until this mess is resolved.
It’s actually worse than that, Ex-PH2. So-called defense spending is now the 3rd largest category of Federal spending – and it’s not even close. Two social welfare spending categories now constitute over 53.43% of Federal outlays.
For 2016, total Total Federal Outlays are estimated to be $3951.3 billion (B). Here are the top two categories of Federal spending for 2016.
Health Care: $1121.2B
Pensions: $990.2B
These two categories alone constitute 53.4355+% of projected 2016 Federal spending.
So-called “Defense” spending, in contrast, is $829.1B. (I’ll explain the “so-called” shortly.) That accounts for 20.9829+% of projected 2016 Federal outlays.
However, that is not an accurate categorization. The so-called “Defense” spending total above includes both VA spending and “foreign economic aid”. Neither properly belongs there; the former (VA spending) is a form of earned entitlement (or, arguably, forms of injury or deferred compensation), and the latter is at best tangentially related to national defense. For accuracy, both should be included elsewhere vice under “defense” – and in the case of VA spending, likely spread among several different categories.
Omit those, bona fide Defense spending (e.g., Military Defense plus Foreign Military Assistance) totals $617.7B – or less than 15.633% of Federal outlays. That means that less than 1 dollar in six of this year’s Federal spending will go towards defending the nation.
JFK must be spinning 3600RPM in his freaking grave.
FWIW: the “Military Defense” category included a bit over $28B in nuclear- and other defense-related spending that isn’t in DoD’s budget. It seems closely enough related that it seems reasonable to consider it “Military Defense” spending. The actual DoD outlays this year look to be estimated at $576.3B.
always nice to see that Welfare is full funded.
Might note that Congressional pay raises are automatic unless specifically voted against.. God bless ’em, must be nerve-wracking only getting by on a coupla hundred thou with all the kickbacks and payola and realizing some do-gooder might propose a pay freeze.
See below, Hondo. I included the current CPI chart.
Okay, I’m just going to drop this in here, to put things in proper perspective. Per Kiplinger, the projected core inflation rate will be 2.4% for 2017.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S010-inflation-rate-forecast.html#
From the article: ‘Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, will also rise about 2.4% in 2016, slightly above the 2.1% pace posted in 2015. Look for price increases for medical care to bump up to 3.6% in 2016 from 3% in 2015, and for shelter to go to 3.3% from 3.2%. The Federal Reserve considers the core rate a more reliable indicator of future inflation than the overall index, since food and energy prices tend to be heavily influenced by factors other than just the strength of the economy. And within the core, the Fed also emphasizes increases in prices of nonenergy services, currently running at 3%, since it views price declines in goods as temporary, according to John Canally, chief economic strategist for LPL Financial. A steady upward trend in the core inflation rate will likely spur the Fed to raise interest rates at least once this year, in spite of ultralow rates in Europe and Japan.’
Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S010-inflation-rate-forecast.html#SjC060LdPqVhvP3K.99
To deny a raise in pay rates to working people for any reason doesn’t make any sense, but it is a way of that jackass’s thumbing his nose at the people who need it the most.
Here’s the CPI chart to date.
http://www.kiplinger.com/web_docs/cpi/cpichart.pdf
The threat to veto has absolutely nothing to do with the pay raise.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/18/ndaa-house-passage-democratic-objections/84573238/
queue a bunch of trollish pullshit from Ex-PH2, Jarhead, Infidel, and a few others that flood to my posts like pavlov’s dogs. Can’t remember most of their names. Just that they are a yappy nuisance.
The article you cited doesn’t say that, Taylor. It only addresses objections by unspecified members of the President’s party to other aspects of the act. It does not specify any particular reason the President might veto the bill. Further, Jonn also cited another article from Military Times that says essentially the same thing as the redundant link you provided above.
It appears you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Have you considered attending classes that might improve that shortcoming?
So the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t address these issues? It has a very specific antidiscrimination section.
Why it has to be redefined is beyond me, but I guess those useless twits in Foggy Bottom don’t have time to read legislation that was passed before they were born.
Dude, c’mon. That comment was IMO way out of line.
I don’t much care for Taylor. But that was IMO uncalled for.
I knew he’d show up. If only he had a different hobby, something besides making a pest of himself.
Ich denke, dass er Arbeit als ein Rausschmeißer in einem Puffhaus finden konnte. Der Klugscheisser würde Kunden zu Tode ärgern.
Commissar, you are one self-centered attention-craving aggravating smelly-assed poodle dick of a festering dingleberry! I wonder how many times someone rubbed their gear parts on your coffee mug when you left it unguarded? I also see you and your ilk as living examples of what the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Mao referred to as “useful idiots”.
Yap! Yap! Yap! Shit alarm warning still gets me up in the middle of the night. Nuisance! Is that all we rate?
After much thought and deliberation I have reached the only conclusion your constant blabbering merits. The absolute truth IMHO that you continue to f__k with all of us is because you really want to get into Ex-PH2’s pants! Go ahead and admit it you deviate. Bet you are hoping to personally find out whether she wears Depends or not. You just use the rest of us to remain in contact with her so it won’t look so conspicuous.
You aren’t bi are you Lars? Just would like to know so the others of us can prepare to protect ourselves from your reach.
The other names you mentioned, I’ll wear a badge of pride being lumped in with such fine company! Meanwhile, Think, Think,Think of all the names you overlooked. They too deserve their due.
You wrote trollish pullshit. Any chance you meant Polish Trollshit?
Yep, just like Pavlov’s dogs, We hear and see your posts….making our mouths water and want to bite you on the ass.
You’re slipping, Jarhead. You didn’t mention that Communist regimes – which Taylor the Infallible says we are foolish to fear – only murdered well over 140 million of their own citizens/nationals. And they did that outside of war and for political reasons in the period 1917-1987 alone.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
“Don’t fear the Commies?” Yeah, right. Sounds like the title for a bad parody of a BOC classic song vice a reasonable recommendation.
A sane man or woman fears ANY form of authoritarian dictatorship. Wherever it attained power, Communism historically has ALWAYS implemented that type of government.
Hey Hondo, communism ONLY killed @ 100-150,000 during the 20th Century and mouse turd-brained imbeciles like Commissar ? merely want to give it just one more chance to work!
Oops, I meant @100-150 MILLION, I need to do a better job of proofreading.
HONDO..normally I’d thank a person for bringing to my attention my short comings, especially if they showed a propensity for early dementia. Best I can understand is this is how it took place. Several threads back, in an exchange with Lars, I turned “softee” and not only expressed my kindest remark possible to him, but also apologized for claiming he had written something he had not. BIG MISTAKE!!!!! SHOULD have told him to suck it up and live with it….as Dave Hardin would have me do. But no, in a moment of weakness I recanted and made a wussy out of myself. Holy shit, there went the memory as to what I had sworn to remind him each time he posts something.
Well, now reminded, I’m back, Comrade Lars! Yes, you ARE INDEED the ONE and ONLY who ever graced these pages with the impotent remark, “People who are afraid of Communism are foolish”. This time I’m loaded for bear.
Check this out you Commie loving fkr. Then, PLEASE tell us again how we are foolish we are to fear Communism.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/north-korea-nuclear-threat-manhattan-not-bluffing
By the way, that article is not decades old as you so often offer for an outdated excuse.
Nope, Comrade Lars, this was written in March of 2016! Bet you and Kim Jong-un communicate on a regular basis. No wonder, the day might come when he is your bunk buddy rather than the crazy cat lady. Please repeat after me Comrade Lars…”Throughout the decades, Communist from other countries have ALWAYS sought to take over this Country. They will continue, and I will attempt to protect them with rhetoric and intellectual misrepresentation…for I am Comrade Lars”.
I gasped when I saw that apology of yours.
I am pretty sure that Lars is still seeking treatment for his Histrionic Personality Disorder.
Jarhead, MUST you SQUICK ME OUT at 2:40AM?
Yeah, I wondered what that foul smell was at 4:45AM this morning. Must have been the brain farts from the goatsbeard gallery’s direction @ 12:20AM. It really WAS a bad dream. I think I understand PTSD a whole lot better now. I may have caught it.
Of course, it could have been my cat who, for some reason, belches and farts like a steam engine at night. But he’s 15YO, which makes him close to 80YO in cat years, which means at his next birthday, he’ll be nattering on towards 90YO.
How’s that for redirecting the comments?
Ex….You get an “A+” for your attempt to redirect comments. However, the fact remains that I truly believe Lars has respect, fascination, and the hots for you. Just look at his list of those he will be looking for replies….There you are, TOP of the list!!! He knows he can’t shut you up with his great wisdom, nor is he ever going to be able to kick your cat out of the bed and replace it with body and touch. Lars is hoping your 80 year old cat will one day croak and you will NEED him (Lars) worse than ever. Keep this in mind just the same. Lars’ nightly farts and belches will drive you immediately to the animal shelter, rather than give up on pets. That’s part of the problem, Lars wants to tame you and make you his pet. Funny trying to imagine you and Lars in the same household with him trying to tame you. He will never let you remain the wild one you are, if he has his way. And I don’t think that’s going to happen. Too much independent thinking going on upstairs in your noggin. What he really needs is a timid little teacup poodle. He could even call it “Poodle dick # 2”!
And now, for something entirely different.
It seems that Japan is developing selective amnesia about its own role in the War in the Pacific. They’re playing the victim car, just in case some people don’t understand plain English.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-obama-hiroshima-idUSKCN0YB0FB
No surprise there, Ex. They’ve downplayed their involvement in their atrocities ever since the war ended.
It’s a real eye opener when Japanese tourists would be laughing at the USS Arizona memorial, or how they never knew about things like thE rape of Nanking, Unit 731, etc., because they simply aren’t taught.
Let’s not ignore it’s very likely that the use of the A-bombs saved far more Japanese than allied lives. The Military Junta that was In charge at the time called for Japanese civilians to fight any and all invading Troops to the death AND they were predicting in excess of a million Allied Casualties.
Since when have the Japanese apologized for the Battaan Death March as well as the manifold atrocities they committed wherever they went?
I’ve been to the Hiroshima museum….it really plays the victim card
Ditto with the memorial in Nagasaki. Went then when we pulled into Sasebo.
Yeah, well, let them believe what they want.
Truth of the matter is after the second bomb was dropped, the little yellow monkeys gave in and surrendered. They’re lucky there wasn’t a 3d bomb dropped on them.
[…] Report: Catholic School Graduation Speaker Is Planned Parenthood Supporter This Ain’t Hell: House Wants 2.1% Raise For Military, Obama Threatens Veto Weasel Zippers: Feds Order Colleges To Stop Criminal Record/School Discipline Checks Of Prospective […]