From CafePolitico

Social Security benefits went up about 4%.

Just a comparison................ for my little bit, I'd rather have it go to the families. Wouldn't help much, but might buy a baby's formula for a couple of weeks; subsidize food stamps.

The whole Bush administration is so clueless.

Methinks I'd best go ahead and comment, lest some here get the idea I'm for this paltry raise and/or a Bush supporter. Wouldn't want anyone thinkin' I'm one of them conservatives y'all love to hate here, eh?

The cited article sounds much like what's bein' said in this one, and shows how Senator John Kerry is ever on the alert to put a rhetorical shot across the administration's bow. Strangely 'twould seem he doesn't address the reason for this small pay increase or express any desire to change the law that led to its proposal, eh? I wonder why?

Dig into the subject and methinks y'all might find very little out there 'bout what really happened. If you read "Same 2.2% Raise Proposed for Civilians and Military" from the Washington Post and "Pentagon Seeks 2.2 Percent Pay Increase" from Military.com they seem to provide some explanation of what's goin' on. Unlike past years 'twould seem the administration's followin' the law, for a change. Seems they went to 2.2 because that's the ECI increase as defined by the Department of Labor, which they claim to follow by law, since the ECI-plus-a-half which ran through 2006 to narrow a vaguely defined “gap” between military pay and private sector wages has elapsed, eh?

Methinks if Senator Kerry and the rest of those in the "10-Senator effort to increase the pay for servicemembers" were really interested they'd be expendin' energy tryin' to change the law rather than spoutin' political hyperbole. You may feel differently, but methinks I'm pretty disappointed not bein' able to find where they've done or are doin' that.

At this point methinks I'm not satisfied that I've got a good grip on what's really goin' on, but what I've seen don't leave me feelin' warm and fuzzy 'bout it. All I'm sure of at this point is that I've seen the spin from both sides, and methinks the truth lies somewhere in between, eh?

Might be best I stop with what I've already said, wouldn't wanna confuse anyone. 'Tain't easy when you're included in statements like "I find them both 'for the troops' but get the feeling that they have a hard time separating the reality of their Commander in Chief to the mission of the armed forces itself. Criticizing proposed cuts in Veterans benefits and measly 2.2% pay increases, body armor, up-armored humvees seems to be the same as criticizing the soldiers themselves. I can't figure it out..."

I remember the first pay raise they gave out back in 1972 I think. I was a Lance Corporal making about $114 a month. The new pay scale put me at $324 a month, I felt like I was rolling in dough.

Just for the record, I wrote a response to this post last night but, when I went to post it, the server went down and I could never get this back. So this is the abbreviated version...

It's not conservatives I love to hate, it's this current crop of Republicans who try to pass themselves off as conservatives that I love to hate. I don't consider either you or Marine in that crop.

Kerry is not the issue; he has no power except to put shots across the bow. I wish he could have put one through the bridge in '04...

As the article from Military.com notes, the 'law' expires in '06, and the budget is for '07. This administration could have proposed more but chose not to. Just like they refuse to increase the minimum wage- methinks this Administration doesn't think much of people with a net worth less than 7 or 8 digits. I stand by my statements: this Comander in Chief is not concerned with his command. To him, everyone in the military below the rank of a general officer is a chump, and he treats them as such.

Like I said above, the law expired this year.

Spin on both sides, yes. Truth somewhere in between, methinks not. The Shrub does not have credibility on his side of the argument.

My question to both you and Marine is: why do you support this coward? You are both so strong in your support for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. What has he done to improve their lot?

You pulled the quotation somewhat out of context- I also said your point of view is quite complex and that I had a great deal of respect for both of you. My quandry still stands: I don't get it.

I also sense that you respect me, but that you feel my entire focus is to simply bash Bush. Have no doubt, Bush is not hard to bash as nearly 2/3rds of Americans have found, but that is not the issue. He has misused our military to the point of criminality; that's the subject of this conversation. Why do you guys feel you have to defend him?

Methinks into everyone's day a little good news must show up. This was mine for today, eh?If I ain't mistaken he's a member of the United States Senate and able to write & submit bills for consideration. If he's so damn concerned 'bout this why ain't he doin' more'n just issuin' forth with buccal flatulance, eh? That'd be why I've often been so disappointed in him, seems he'd rather use an issue for political rhetoric than submit legislation to fix the problem.Actually methinks the law expired after the pertinent appropriations bill for budget year 2006 was signed into law. Consequently 'tis no longer in effect, at least to the best of my recollection. and I can only speak for myself, the Master Guns'll have to do his own answerin' on this.

In my case I don't support him! Also don't necessarily think I defend him. Not sure why you'd say I do, eh? Maybe you can point out a couple posts that'd give you that idea, with links'd be nice. Of course I respect you, don't think you'd ever given me reason not to, eh? Methinks at times you try to oversimplify stuff and/or engage in excessive hyperbole, but you've apparently convinced you've got reason for it. If you've got opinions based on what you consider well founded data who'm I to do anything but respect the fact, even if I disagree with you?

I just have a tendency to discourage emotions like hate in politics and at times try to inject information into discussions for everyone's consideration, even if it is in opposition to my own viewpoint, eh? IMHO IOT have a meaningful discussion on a subject methinks you really need to have all the information available. Anything less and methinks you end up with meaningless discussions like you see on DU where one person states a popular opinion and the rest of the folks chime in with notes in agreement.

Well Winston, I voted for him in 2004 and I had exactly the same feelings when I voted for Richard Nixon. Had Al Gore run again Mr. Bush surely would not have received my vote.

I felt like the democratic party was trying to make me vote for somebody I could not support. Didn't like it in 1972, didn't like it now. I felt like by the time the primaries get around to me I just don't get a say, I voted for Al Sharpton in my primary because of all the democrats running he says it like it is.

I was very apprehensive about us invading Iraq but once the decision is made the only thing to do to get it over with as fast as possible is to unleash the dogs of war in all their fury to make your enemy sick of fighting you as fast as possible. If I was the head of the democratic party where I would be raising cain with George Bush is we should have overwhelmed the Iraqis with so much force they would be sick of war pronto.

That's how you get the troops home, no mollycodling your enemy, let them know if they fool with you , then you will kill them.

While I agree with you about wanting to give people an "A" for effort, only to be left holding the bag, I think results Feingold has had (ok, lack thereof) throughout the past year attempting to put amendments or bills in for consideration goes to show just how little the "Powers that Be" are willing to listen to the minority party.

Marine,

I really appreciate what you've said in this post; it's probably one of the most enlightening personally. I feel like I've just had a snapshot inside your head. Thank you.

Most people, I would say, feel much the same way. I live in CA- the most populous state in the Union, but by the time our primaries, the fix is already in. I probably would have voted for Kerry even if ours was the first primary of the year, but I too would like to have had a real say in the process.

I met Kerry when I was at Fresno State and he was big in the VVAW- not that we were best friends or whatever- but I respected his honesty and candor. Seein' as how I was real active in VVAW too- at least until the Socialists took'em over- I felt we were more or less kindred spirits.


Agreed about unleashing the dogs of war; my question from the beginning was: should they have been unleashed?

I was only marginally- maybe 1%- for the war, and only because I was a little tiny bit convinced that there might be some sort of delivery system for Saddam's weapons. But I was 99% against it because we hadn't finished in Afghanistan. I was 100% for turning that place into a glass-lined crater that glowed in the dark, and still believe we should pull our soldiers out of Iraq and finish the mission: kill Osama, his friends and followers, and every Taliban that took part in the Afghani government from the time the Commies left.

Once we went to war, I really, honestly, prayed that we'd find the WMD's. When we didn't, my anger knew no bounds.

Shenseki said we shoulda put more boots on the ground, but Bush didn't wanna hear that; and I don't think the guys did a hell of a lot of mollycoddling once the bombs started fallin'. But remember, we had half a million guys in Vietnam and still couldn't gain that final, decisive victory. IMHO, history over the last 10,000 years has proven that winning hearts and minds is next to impossible for an invader; you can't win in a place you're not welcomed unless you kill everyone. Then, what can you say you won?

Our armed forces have done their job; warriors by definition are not diplomats and it's time to put diplomatic boots into this war.

Thank you, my friend, for sharing your thoughts. Thanks also for your thoughts about Michael Probst; my wife is going to share them with Michael's mother tomorrow.

WS

Methinks you'll find that Russ's been more effective than most give him credit for. He ain't one to rush to an open mike and spout silly stuff all the time like Kerry and others of his ilk do. Instead he only speaks publicly when he's got somethin' to important say, and then almost always 'bout somethin' concernin' legislative action he's involved in rather than just make rhetorical statements or do political theater. Consequently he don't get ignored or made sport of and folks on both sides of the aisle listen to and respect him. MSM will also have him on their news shows as a serious participant at appropriate times.If I might interject my own personal opinion here, no we shouldn't have!

If the diplomats and politicians had done their damn jobs, and in this 'tis not just American diplomats and politicians I'm speakin' of, methinks Saddam wouldn't been convinced the UN was a toothless tiger and/or that the USA would back off. The Bush administration shouldn't have been so gung ho 'bout invadin' and probably shoulda exerted lots more diplomatic pressure on the Eur-Asian powers that were encouragin' Saddam to remain intransigent. Methinks we tried to discuss exactly that in this and this as well as a couple other threads, but without a whole lot of success, eh?

BTW, I'm still curious why you claim I support and defend the President, eh? Would really appreciate an answer on this.

I've been thru your posts for the last several months and I gotta say, your sense of humor is about as twisted as my own... Loved the old couple sharing a hamburger... and those cartoons for Pie, KT, and noonan were classic. Gotta say, your ability to research stuff is awesome and the depth of your knowledge of military protocols is mind-numbing.

But here's what I see: never bashing but never really supporting a loyal opposition- other than for Feingold, for whom both of us are justifiably impressed- usually questioning motives of liberals- Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy. Haven't seen as much questioning motives of conservatives- Roberts, Hatch, Stevens. But then, most of us here offer tons of criticism for these buffoons so there's no real need to question.

Here's what I think: Socratic Method. You enjoy probing and questioning, and most of the people here are on the left, so you're going to question from the right. It's a powerful thinking tool and one that we should all 'do.' Sure has made me think...

I'm clear on it now that I see what's goin' on.

I look forward to trying to keep up with you- and I'll probably start hangin' out at RA a little more; looks to be a fun place.

Methinks Feingold's the real deal and Boxer's inconsistent, while Kennedy and Kerry ain't real liberals, they just play 'em on TV. IMHO real liberals take real actions to solve what they see as problems, but phonies just talk 'bout 'em. Kennedy and Kerry talk a lot, but do almost nothin' of note, eh? Them I consider phony, no matter which side of the aisle they're on, don't deserve much respect and methinks on that you'll see me as bein' pretty consistent. I might've voted for Kerry, but wasn't happy choosin' him as the lesser of two evils and had to hold my nose whilst doin' it.

On this pay raise issue methinks another big problem's that cost of livin' adjustments for federal military and civilian pay, as well as Social Security were detached from the rate of inflation and tied instead to the rate of wage increases as figured out by the Labor Department 'bout 1992 or 1993. If memory serves me right Democrats controlled both the House and Senate at that time, so they get a heavy hit on this too!

See? Methinks 'tis a more complicated issue than we've been treatin' it. Somehow I doubt MSM'll do the research and analysis needed to adequately cover and report on it.

Inflation Indexing is problematic for adjusting entitlement and federal employee income programs. Inflation includes milk, gasoline, and the cost of baby food, but it also includes things like new aircraft, Caterpillars, cars, and new houses. Since there are very few people who buy new 757's or road paving equipment, the increased costs of these items have little immediate effect on their purchasing power. Yet, if the government increases, say, Social Security benefits above that necessary to maintain purchasing power, the increase itself becomes inflationary: too much money chasing too few goods. IMHO, however, for a lot of people on a government income- PFC's, 2nd lieutenants, and 70-year-old Enron retirees- 2.2% just means they can afford to buy a slightly better brand of cat food for their dinner that night.

From the Military.com article linked above:

A 1999 law set pay adjustments a half percentage point above annual wage growth in the private sector as measured by the ECI. ECI-plus-a-half ran through 2006 to narrow a vaguely defined “gap” between military pay and private sector wages, but has elapsed.

It seems that the Republican's took over the budget in '94, didn't they? Considering the 2.2% pay raise is for the 2007 budget, and it is no longer tied to the ECI, seems a bit paltry to me, doesn't it?

Teddy, to me, has always been a windbag; things haven't changed much since the 70's, huh? His name is appropriate... Maybe I'm a little rosey in the glasses for Kerry because I met the man- go figure; we can agree to disagree on him. And like I told Marine, I would like to have a little more say in who I vote for on the Presidential ballot; by the time the primaries come to CA, the fix is usually in, huh? But with no Gore on the '04 ballot, I still would have probably voted Kerry; would like to have had a little more say in the matter.