Liberals seem to only support the military when they can complain about the President in particular, and conservatives in general
I always get a chuckle out of people who have a history of opposition to the military and the role it plays, who turn around and complain about the President and his so-called lack of support for the troops - obviously in an attempt to bill themselves as “supporting the troops” while at the same time trying to take a shot at the President.
The most recent example is Bush’s last minute veto of a military funding bill. To read the liberal blogs, it’s obviously an effort to keep the troops down because it included a significant pay raise. In fact, the veto is because of a line opposed by the Iraqi government that would allow U.S. soldiers who were tortured under Saddam’s rule to sue the current Iraqi government.
You can argue the merits of that case - penalize the current Iraqi government for the sins of the past government - but the thing that the liberals like to really push is that the president was also opposed to a 3.5% military pay raise. He had originally asked for a 3% raise.
As a guy who would have benefited from that extra 0.5% raise, it’s hard for me to argue against it. But, I will anyway. Here’s why.
I’m not afraid to say that the military benefits and compensation package is very good - far better than you’d get in any civilian occupation of similar stature or position of authority. I get free medical for myself and my immediate family - my wife’s pregnancy and my son’s birth only cost me the price of gas to get her to her appointments and to the hospital. I have life insurance through the military that costs a pittance. I get $12,000 a year in tax-free living expenses. This, on top of my base salary of $85,896 a year. I don’t mind telling you all this, because it’s public record.
That’s why I’m still in the military and have no plans on getting out anytime soon. To get a comparable civilian job, I’d have to find one that pays me at least $130,000 a year. Good luck with that! Sure, my job can be very dangerous, but no more than lots of jobs out there that don’t pay nearly as well.
Now let’s go back to that pay raise for a second. I’ve been in the Army for 20 years. Over that time, the standard pay raise every year has run, to my best recollection, about 2.5% per year. Very rarely have I seen a 3% pay raise. Even more rare have been those raises over 3%. So, the fact that the president was asking for 3% was pretty darned good, when you compare it to previous years.
Of course, if the President really cared about the troops, he’d want to give them a big, fat raise - right? Yeah, if that’s all that had to get paid for in the defense budget. Even with those other expenses, pay and compensation makes up a huge chunk of the defense appropriation. From the Heritage Foundation:
Myth #4: The defense budget is skewed in favor of purchasing new weapons at the expense of compensation for military personnel.
(See Chart 3.) The military pay account surpassed the procurement account in the early 1990s. During the “peace dividend” period in the 1990s, military pay declined marginally, while the procurement account plummeted. With some justification, this period is sometimes referred to as the “procurement holiday.”Since September 11, 2001, both the military pay and procurement accounts have increased. However, the military pay account has remained far larger. This budget history suggests that service members and their support organizations are at least as effective as defense companies in lobbying Congress and that defense companies support a strong pay and benefits package for the troops as much as any other patriotic Americans do.
So please, Mr.-Liberal-Blogger-who-doesn’t-know-what-he’s-talking-about, lay off the Bush-bashing and the false support of the military. This soldier isn’t buying it.
UPDATE - Before anyone starts assuming that all soldiers make what I make, please let me dispel that thought right now. I’m a field-grade officer (fairly high) with 20 years in. Fresh-off-the-street, 18-year-old Private Snuffy makes significantly less than I do. If he’s single, he’s probably doing alright for an 18-year-old. If he’s managed to get himself a wife and kid, he’s undoubtedly hurting financially.
Category :
Tags :
Congress, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, liberal, liberals, Military, Politics, soldiers, Support for the military, The Heritage Foundation 
Similar Posts:
- Damn, another stumbling block to blogging
- Peggy Noonan expresses many conservatives’ feelings
- Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed Iraqi government and army might be winning the war
- Code Pink supports only politically correct wars
- Army staying in Iraq? No big surprise here!
- Good news out of Iraq = bad news for the anti-war crowd
- U.S. looks out for own interests- and why not?
- Rethinking "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
- Iraqi bill to allow Baathists back into the government
- This is why I got into blogging…
D.T. -
Who is responsible for the opposed line (that would allow U.S. soldiers who were tortured under Saddam’s rule to sue the current Iraqi government) being put in the Bill that caused the veto? (Sorry, I’m not too up on the details of these things … but did hear mention of this one coming down the pike a few days back during the height of the Holiday hub-bub.)
I’m just asking because (I have my suspicions) about WHO penned it in there … and (the obvious) WHY.
BTW - Exactly how many U.S. Soldiers WERE tortured under Saddam’s Rule?
Maggie
I’m not sure who inserted the bit about allowing for soldiers to sue. I’ve read that there’s a $1 billion dollar suit pending right now.
As far as how many, it’s not a lot. We’d have to include everyone from Desert Shield to the fall of Saddam’s government. I’d have to do some digging, but I’m guessing it couldn’t be much more than maybe 20.
Even an 18 year old just in is doing well compared to what else is out there for someone without any experience.
I never have a problem with any pay raises for the military though. It is well earned.