‘Supporting the Troops:’ The President’s Latest Example
Robert Fantina
June 03, 2007
Whenever Congress, or anyone else for that matter, suggests ending the war in Iraq, President Bush puts on his ‘enraged’ mask and accuses them of not supporting the troops. How he and his cohorts have been able to successfully convince the American public, and cow the Democratic Congress, into believing that one supports the troops by having a war for them will never be explained; it is absolutely inexplicable.
Mr. Bush’s record of ‘supporting the troops’ can best be described as dismal. From starting an unnecessary war, to sending them into battle without the equipment necessary to protect themselves, to smiling over the roaches, rodents, filth and neglect that are so much a part of veterans' medical treatment, Mr. Bush has continually treated them as expendable military supplies. And now, in addition to signing legislation to continue the war, he is also keeping his perfect record of abuse intact by opposing a 3.5% pay raise for soldiers; the president feels that 3% is sufficient.
Opposition to the increase was voiced in the following statement issued by the White House: “When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families.”
Like his overused and much-abused mantra of ‘supporting the troops,’ Mr. Bush appears to have an odd interpretation of what constitutes ‘a good quality of life.’ In 2002, author Loretta Schwartz-Nobel published 'Growing up Empty,' a book about hunger in America. Among the people she interviewed for her book were military families. She described what she heard from families at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in San Diego: “For several days at the end of each paycheck period, they often have almost nothing to eat — sometimes absolutely nothing. That’s when they turn up desperate at food pantries, soup kitchens, bread lines, because they’ve literally run out.”
More recent evidence is not encouraging. An October 2004, news story related the following: “It has been reported that families of American soldiers working abroad, mostly in Iraq, have been left in poverty. According to American news channel CBS News, the majority of families are living below the poverty line, living off welfare benefits and charity.”
Ms. Schwartz-Nobel further stated that it is her observation that hunger among military families is a well-guarded secret. The myth, she suggests, that the military ‘takes care of its own’ is so deeply engrained within the American psyche that it is difficult for Americans to recognize the truth. Said she: “It’s even hard for me to believe and I see it every day.”
Todd Bowers, the director of government affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and himself an Iraq war veteran, clarified what the additional .5% pay raise would mean to service members. The 3% increase as approved by the generous Mr. Bush averages to approximately $29.00 a month. The additional .5% would bring that amount to a grand total of $35.00 a month.
The gap between military and civilian pay is approximately 3.9%; Congress has requested, and Mr. Bush has promised to veto, a bill that would reduce that gap to 1.4% within five years. As Mr. Bowers pointed out, service members have many of the same expenses as civilians: their families must be housed and fed, cars must be maintained, telephone bills must be paid, children must have the opportunity to attend college, etc. One could reasonably argue that they should also be compensated for the risk they undertake by serving in a war zone. The extra .5%, equating to an average of $6.00 a month, does not appear to be an extraordinary amount. As Mr. Bowers stated: “We’re talking about $6 for someone that is serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan that is away from their families. It’s not too much to ask.” One finds it difficult to disagree with his assessment.
It is important to compare Mr. Bush’s penny-pinching attitude toward U.S. soldiers, whom he has unnecessarily placed in constant, mortal danger, to his actions impacting the financial health of U.S civilians. During his first term, the president issued a broad new tax package which provided refund checks to many Americans. The fact that many of those happy beneficaries of Mr. Bush’s benevolence – what he described as simply the return of overpayments by the citizens from the government –opened their federal refund checks only to forward them to their state’s coffers, significantly depleted by the federal tax cut, was not noted among all the fanfare of the tax ‘cut.’
At the time Mr. Bush first proposed these tax ‘cuts,’ then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle summed up their results. Said he: “If you make over $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus. If you make $50,000 a year, you get to buy a muffler on your used car.”
While Mr. Bush opposes adding $6.00 a month to a military pay raise so soldiers can provide their families with food, he appears anxious to assure that the richest Americans can continue to afford that new Lexus.
Under Mr. Bush’s disastrous years as president, the rich have improved their financial situation as the middle class and the poor have suffered. That Mr. Bush acts to keep soldiers in the ‘poor’ cateogry only demonstrates once again his arrogance and hypocrisy.
Mr. Bush’s record of ‘supporting the troops’ can best be described as dismal. From starting an unnecessary war, to sending them into battle without the equipment necessary to protect themselves, to smiling over the roaches, rodents, filth and neglect that are so much a part of veterans' medical treatment, Mr. Bush has continually treated them as expendable military supplies. And now, in addition to signing legislation to continue the war, he is also keeping his perfect record of abuse intact by opposing a 3.5% pay raise for soldiers; the president feels that 3% is sufficient.
Opposition to the increase was voiced in the following statement issued by the White House: “When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president’s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families.”
Like his overused and much-abused mantra of ‘supporting the troops,’ Mr. Bush appears to have an odd interpretation of what constitutes ‘a good quality of life.’ In 2002, author Loretta Schwartz-Nobel published 'Growing up Empty,' a book about hunger in America. Among the people she interviewed for her book were military families. She described what she heard from families at the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base in San Diego: “For several days at the end of each paycheck period, they often have almost nothing to eat — sometimes absolutely nothing. That’s when they turn up desperate at food pantries, soup kitchens, bread lines, because they’ve literally run out.”
More recent evidence is not encouraging. An October 2004, news story related the following: “It has been reported that families of American soldiers working abroad, mostly in Iraq, have been left in poverty. According to American news channel CBS News, the majority of families are living below the poverty line, living off welfare benefits and charity.”
Ms. Schwartz-Nobel further stated that it is her observation that hunger among military families is a well-guarded secret. The myth, she suggests, that the military ‘takes care of its own’ is so deeply engrained within the American psyche that it is difficult for Americans to recognize the truth. Said she: “It’s even hard for me to believe and I see it every day.”
Todd Bowers, the director of government affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and himself an Iraq war veteran, clarified what the additional .5% pay raise would mean to service members. The 3% increase as approved by the generous Mr. Bush averages to approximately $29.00 a month. The additional .5% would bring that amount to a grand total of $35.00 a month.
The gap between military and civilian pay is approximately 3.9%; Congress has requested, and Mr. Bush has promised to veto, a bill that would reduce that gap to 1.4% within five years. As Mr. Bowers pointed out, service members have many of the same expenses as civilians: their families must be housed and fed, cars must be maintained, telephone bills must be paid, children must have the opportunity to attend college, etc. One could reasonably argue that they should also be compensated for the risk they undertake by serving in a war zone. The extra .5%, equating to an average of $6.00 a month, does not appear to be an extraordinary amount. As Mr. Bowers stated: “We’re talking about $6 for someone that is serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan that is away from their families. It’s not too much to ask.” One finds it difficult to disagree with his assessment.
It is important to compare Mr. Bush’s penny-pinching attitude toward U.S. soldiers, whom he has unnecessarily placed in constant, mortal danger, to his actions impacting the financial health of U.S civilians. During his first term, the president issued a broad new tax package which provided refund checks to many Americans. The fact that many of those happy beneficaries of Mr. Bush’s benevolence – what he described as simply the return of overpayments by the citizens from the government –opened their federal refund checks only to forward them to their state’s coffers, significantly depleted by the federal tax cut, was not noted among all the fanfare of the tax ‘cut.’
At the time Mr. Bush first proposed these tax ‘cuts,’ then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle summed up their results. Said he: “If you make over $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus. If you make $50,000 a year, you get to buy a muffler on your used car.”
While Mr. Bush opposes adding $6.00 a month to a military pay raise so soldiers can provide their families with food, he appears anxious to assure that the richest Americans can continue to afford that new Lexus.
Under Mr. Bush’s disastrous years as president, the rich have improved their financial situation as the middle class and the poor have suffered. That Mr. Bush acts to keep soldiers in the ‘poor’ cateogry only demonstrates once again his arrogance and hypocrisy.
Print
Email
