Pelosi To Bush: Support Our Troops, Don't Oppose Troop Pay Raise
Sensing an opportunity to undermine weirdly persistent perceptions of President Bush as supportive of the troops, the House Dem leadership has just opened fire on the White House for the first time over the administration's opposition to a House Dem measure that would hike the pay of U.S. soldiers by 3.5%.
The White House has been saying that a 3% raise is sufficient.
Dem leaders have just sent a letter -- which was just sent our way -- to the White House blasting the President over the issue. It demands that the administration "support our troops" by reconsidering its opposition. Key quote from the letter:
Mr. President, you have consistently called on Congress and the American people to support our troops. Considering the sacrifices that our military families make, the Democratic proposal to provide the troops with the pay raise they deserve and an increase in benefits for the spouses they may leave behind is one small way that we can support our troops.When it comes to supporting our troops, our actions must match our words.
This is clearly an issue the Dems intend to push as aggressively as possible, linking it to the Walter Reed scandal and other ways the White House has failed the troops. Polls suggest, however, that Americans continue to view Bush as more supportive of the troops than the Dem Congress, suggesting that such stories -- as appalling as they are -- have yet to give Dems the political dividends they're looking for on this front. Full letter after the jump.
Full letter:
Dear Mr. President,We are writing to urge you to reconsider your objections to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
Your office's recent Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1585 raised several concerns regarding this bipartisan legislation that the House of Representatives passed yesterday by an overwhelming 397-27 margin.
In particular, the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1585 objected to sections 601 and 606, which raises military pay 0.5% above your proposal, and Section 644, which provides an extra $40 per month for surviving spouses of fallen members of our armed services.
Mr. President, you have consistently called on Congress and the American people to support our troops. Considering the sacrifices that our military families make, the Democratic proposal to provide the troops with the pay raise they deserve and an increase in benefits for the spouses they may leave behind is one small way that we can support our troops.
When it comes to supporting our troops, our actions must match our words. Please join us in supporting our troops by reconsidering both your veto threat to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and your objections to an increase in military pay and survivor benefits for the brave men and women serving our country in the armed forces.
Respectfully,Nancy Pelosi
SpeakerSteny Hoyer
Majority leaderJames Clyburn
Majority whipRahm Emanuel
Chair, Democratic CaucusIke Skelton
Chair, House Armed Services CommitteeEllen Tauscher
Chair, Strategic Forces SubcommitteeSteve Israel
Member of Congress















Bush just isn't interested in ANYTHING that the Dems propose, if he didn't decide it first.
If it passes with a veto-proof vote, it won't matter what the Decider Commander Guy says.
Let the lapdog Repubs who want to stick with Bush go on record as opposing a 1/2% pay raise.
PEACE
May 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is truly amazing. and "Decider Commander Guy" is a good one...
May 18, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
And a modest pay raise at that. Laughable if it weren't so disgusting.
May 18, 2007 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that's true--the Department of Homeland Security was a Democratic Party proposal, for instance. Bush, like he will on this issue, eventually came around on it, but only when it started to hurt him politically.
We're in a weird position of Bush having so little support that there is virtually nothing that will drive that support number down any further.
But I think he'll come around on this. And kudos for Congressional Republicans for doing the right thing here.
May 18, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody other than lawyers should help write these things. The first paragraph should say "We are writing to urge you to reconsider your opposition to the increases in military pay and survivor benefits which was overwhelmingly passed yesterday by the House of Representatives."
May 18, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that this issue is front of the public, the Democratic leadership has to send back a bill asking for 4%
The .5% difference that Bush is denying is already pathetic. 3.5% isn't enough and neither is 4% but it's better.
We need to make it clear who really supports the troops.
- - - -
my blog - Stranahan.com
May 18, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's good, but I'd make it even more blunt:
"We are writing to urge you to back a decent pay increase for our fighting men and women and their families which was overwhelmingly passed yesterday by the House of Representatives."
-Dave Adams-
May 18, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is somehow wrong, but How dumb can the Bush Administration be? Can there be any possible reason why skimping on the needs of the military is a solid Republican policy? Are they really a caricature of themselves?
May 18, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
They need a writer...how about "your actions must match your words"
May 18, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush used Lieberman's proposed Department of Homeland Security as a cudgel in the 2002 midterms. There was no serious negotiations on this proposed bill--all quiet. Then the midterm campaigns started up and suddenly Bush was yelling that the Democrats were "soft on security" because of this bill. It apparently had an impact since the GOP gained seats in that election cycle.
The Department of Homeland Security bill did not hurt Bush politically at any point. It was a useful cause to "prove" how tough Bush was and how wimpy the Democrats were. Of course, idiotic Joe smiled before, after, and during his castration on this bill.
May 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be much better to skip the pay raise entirely and give soldiers early-exit bonuses. Raising pay only increases the stranglehold of the military on the country.
The problem isn't insufficient retention; it's too much. If we have a huge military and all sorts of toys, they will get used. And the only way the military-industrial complex feeds itself is to use those toys. The bigger that gets the worse it is.
Furthermore, increasing funding for the most blatantly authoritarian portion of our society makes us every day into a more militarized and more authoritarian society.
Support the troops? Get them another job. Put their energy and skills to work rebuilding water systems, laying rail, overhauling our building stock; there is no end of work needs to be done. Not so good for Raytheon, Halliburton and the Congress Critters of both parties that depend on military teat.
May 18, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That bothered me, too -- the Dems as usual trying to be non confrontational as possible in their language. I'd go further then you, tho: "It's long past time to match your words with action to support the troops."
May 18, 2007 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in complete agreement.
May 18, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supporting the troops would be giving them a 100% raise and a permanent stop on the boy-kings’ continuing stop-loss programs for troops.
Better yet, supporting the troops would be increasing the minimum wage to a level that would feed their families (and insure that it would continue to by pegging it to the Congressional pay scale thus insuring COLA’s and such) and providing free college education nation-wide for them and their families.
Supporting the troops would be repealing the PATRIOTS Acts and the Military Commissions Act.
Supporting the troops would insure that the ballots are counted in elections . . . Yes, even the non-white voters’ ballots.
Supporting the troops would be removing the two most heinous words from the Medicare Act – UNDER SIXTY-FIVE – and insuring that every member of their families and our families had adequate healthcare.
Beating up George for being the fascist plutocrat that he is is truly for entertainment purposes only. The Dems NEED to show real backbone and force George to be the single most progressive President in the last two hundred and thirty odd years by passing the single most progressive body of legislation ever crafted by humankind.
May 18, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would go for the throat. Not five percent - FIFTY percent.
Georgey NEEDS to bleed from the eyes and the Congress NEEDs to show him for the jackhole he is. Anything else compounds the criminality.
May 18, 2007 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
397 to diddly squat is veto proof.
George is all bluster.
May 18, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of these arguments miss the point.
When Dubya and his administration says "we must support the troops", they are not talking about better post-tour medical care, or better housing, or better pay. They are talking about providing them with the proper equiment (armor, Humvees, weapons, and ammunition). That is what they mean by support. And we know how well they have performed these tasks (with full funding).
Sometimes they push the morale angle. That is why they are extending their tours, shortening their R&R between tours, and censoring their web access.
The best way to counter Dubya on this one is for some WH reporters to simply start asking Tony Snow daily, and Shrub when he makes himself available, "When you say 'we must support our troops' what exactly do you mean by 'support'?"
This question should be asked daily! And whatever answer they give (even evasion) should be thrown right back at them! Because there is nothing that they can say that will be acceptable to the American people (forget about the Dems on this one).
May 18, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly don't know how much difference 1/2% is going to make in a soldier's qualty of life, but from a strictly political standpoint, any democrat who does not use the administration's love affair with cronyism, no-bid contracts, war profiteering, and highly-paid private armies, as a contrast to their penury for the ones they claim to support, needs to be euthanized.
May 18, 2007 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This follows with the erosion of wages for working class Americans that has been in place for quite some time. Bush is no friend of the working class with this being one more manifestation of Republican lies. Without exception, Bush has tried to do everything on the cheap except for assuring to fill his supporters pockets with our tax dollars.
The one-half percent doesn't seem like much, but cumulativly over time this is the exact thing that underlies why the rich are getting richer and everyone else is getting poorer. Everywhere you look working class persons are being nickel and dimed. In spite of the Bush tax cuts you can hear economic pundits pushing for still further cuts. That translates to growing the debt even more than has already occurred.
It is total crap to listen to arguments from some about how much tax corporations and the rich are paying. It is bogus because as a percentage of income, the norm is they pay a smaller percentage of gross than the average wage earner. Sure the number is higher but that is nothing more than simple math.
The immigration bill is more of the same. It is predominantly about driving down wages.
The republican argument about making America safe is also completely false. If the argument was true 9/11 would not have occurred in the first place.
This is simply part of the overall scheme to defraud Americans. Make no mistake about it. This is about taking from working class persons and giving to the rich. End of conversation.
And Bush could give a shit even if working class Americans are paying in blood rather than dollars. You won't find many persons in the top earnings category taking a bullett in Iraq to assure we remain free. Ask any Harvard or Yale MBA graduate. Serving their country is absolutely the very last thing they might consider. And why should they when governemnt and business have colluded to leave the risks associated with keeping us free to less affluent persons. This is just another part of the social and economic inequity that has overtaken this nation. And forget about equality of representation at the seat of government. That is a long forgotten dream. Working class Americans are half percenters all the way to the grave.
May 19, 2007 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be even blunter still:
"Dear Commander Guy:
Congratulations on further emasculating the republican party for years to come with your petulant attitude and quivering lip over a measly 0.5% raise for the kids you sent to Iraq. Keep up the good work, fuckstain."
I suspect this is why I'd make a poor politician.
May 19, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you'd make an excellent "Lawmaker".
---WORLD CITIZEN---
May 19, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of a raise did congress critters get?
---WORLD CITIZEN---
May 19, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink