Opinions expressed on this site are solely the responsibility of the site's authors and any guest authors whose material is posted here. This site is not authorized or operated by Governor Palin, her staff, or any other candidate or committee.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Once Again Sarah Palin Has To Tell Obama To Get Spending Priorities Straight Concerning Pay Cuts For Military

Priorities,priorities- Keep eye on PresObama's soldier pay decrease in midst of overspending elsewhere&govt union pay raises. Is he serious?

~Sarah Palin via Twitter

If there is one thing the Obama regime can do to get Mama Grizzly all fired up, it’s screw around with our brave man and women who sacrifice all to secure our Freedom and Liberty!

I am constantly in awe of our military. The fact that so many young men and women would voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way for all of us is simply inspiring.

This isn’t the first time Sarah has had to take the Obama regime on over military pay. Not long after taking office Obama cut off the pensions to the surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard, what is now called the Alaska Defense Force, a federally recognized militia, that is part of Homeland Security’s master planning.

The survivors of the Territorial Guard are WWII veterans who fought the Japanese on Alaskan soil. They were never paid for their service to the nation. With a lot of hard work though, pensions were secured for surviving members of the Guard.

With the stroke of a pen, Obama cut them off.

This was the typical passive-aggressive kind of attack Obama has made on Sarah since day one. Obama is that petty. The guy can’t face her head on, so he messes with things she cares about. He’s tried to mess with the AGIA...Sarah’s natural gas pipeline as well. That deal is ongoing.

Of course, at the time, in her role as Governor and Commander-In-Chief of the ADF, Sarah unloaded on Obama, then took strong action, signing into law provisions to pay these WWII heroes through the state until the matter could be resolved to satisfaction, which it finally has.

You can read more about this despicable act by Obama here.

Yesterday Sarah sent the tweet quoted above, and posted a short note on Facebook that simply read:

Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union

pay raises? Seriously? What are our priorities?

Sarah of course, is right. The Obama regime is growing government at an alarming rate. These government employees are making much more than market rate wages, earning quite a bit more than the rest of the population. Of course, being a Union man through and through, Obama is all for huge pay raises for this group.

The nearly $1 trillion bailout bill has been nothing but a government boondoggle, mostly wasted on pet projects, while experts agree having absolutely no positive effect on the economy.

The fact that we can waste money on nonsensical studies, and pork projects, but cannot find the money to pay those who protect us all from harm is simply unacceptable.

Along with her thoughts, Sarah linked to this from Newsmax:

Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions

President Barack Obama — who came to power with the help of government employee unions across the nation and has lavished on them hundreds of billions in stimulus funds to keep them on federal, state and local payrolls with no strings attached — is moving to cut spending on salaries for military personnel.

This weekend The Washington Post headlined story, "Pentagon Asking Congress to Hold Back on Generous Increases in Troop Pay," disclosed that the Obama administration is "pleading" with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed.

The Pentagon contends that Congress simply has been too generous with troops during the past decade.

In fact, lawmakers have lavished so much money on troops, according to the Post, that service members are now better compensated than workers in the private sector with similar experience and education levels.

For example, the military brass claims that an average sergeant in the Army with four years of service and one dependent would receive $52,589 in annual compensation, according to the paper. This figure includes basic pay, housing, and subsistence allowances, as well as tax benefits.

Meanwhile, a U.S. postal letter carrier, with no supervisory or hazardous duty, makes approximately $80,000 a year when all benefits are factored in.

Critics of the Obama administration’s efforts to cut soldier’s pay say America’s security has been strengthened by higher pay rates, as qualified veterans are re-enlisting at record rates, reversing the problem the military witnessed just a few years ago.

"Any attempt to link rising military personnel costs with shrinking military readiness is total nonsense," said Thomas J. Tradewell Sr., who leads the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the largest and oldest major combat veterans organization.

"If the Defense Department needs a larger budget for personnel programs, then let the VFW carry that message to Congress. Just don't pin the budget blame on service members and military retirees."

Tradewell's ire was targeted this past week at Clifford L. Stanley, the Defense undersecretary of personnel and readiness, who said during recent testimony before the personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Rising personnel costs could dramatically affect the readiness of the department."

"What's hurtful," said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis., "is a continuing perception that DoD is more concerned about the budget than they are about recruiting and retaining a professional volunteer force that's been at war now for more than eight years."

According to Stanley, last year was the military's most successful recruiting year since the establishment of the all-volunteer force in 1973.

Although advocates for military families argue that the decade-long spending spree reverses severe cuts that the military suffered in the 1990s, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other military brass fear that the spending will threaten security in the years to come. That will mean less money to buy weapons and maintain aging equipment.

On Saturday, Gates told reporters that massive deficits can impact how the president and policy makers confront emerging threats like Iran.

Lawmakers consistently have overruled the Pentagon and mandated more-generous pay raises than requested by both the Bush and Obama administrations. Congress has also rejected attempts by the Pentagon to slow soaring healthcare costs, which Gates told reporters are "eating us alive," by raising co-pays or premiums.

The military admits the improving compensation for troops is helping retention.

For example, improvements in pay and benefits have made it more likely that sailors will stick around longer, Vice Adm. Mark E. Ferguson III, the chief of naval personnel, told the Post.

A Navy survey last year found that about 60 percent of spouses wanted their sailors to make a career of Navy life, meaning a stint of at least 20 years. In 2005, only about 20 percent of spouses felt the same way.

"I think pay was previously a concern, but it's started to change," Ferguson said. Congress had been "extremely generous" but rising personnel costs were already influencing what the Navy spends to operate, maintain and modernize its fleet, he added.

The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases.

Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent.

Although that extra half of a percent may not seem like much, one expert told the Post that it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade.

But congressional supporters of the men and women in the Armed Services are questioning why they are being singled out for future pay cutbacks when other government agencies and unions are not.

The U.S. Postal Service, for example, is slated to give letter carriers an increase of 1.9 percent this coming year.

And postal employees are considered to be grossly overpaid compared with their private counterparts. A postal supervisor, for example, can make $70,000 or year or more, plus significant benefits.

Last year, Congress had to help fill a $3.8 billion deficit at the federally backed agency, but there has been no discussion of salary cuts for postal employees. Instead, postal officials have focused on reducing service, including Saturday delivery.

Look, nobody wants to belittle our nation’s letter carriers. If you’ve ever seen these men and women, you know that, for the most part, they work hard and earn their pay. However, other than the occasional loose dog, the postman doesn’t face much danger!

The Obama regime has a real distaste for the military, as do most in the Marxist-democrat party. One remembers talk early on of making the military pay for their own health care, and there are still questions with the new unconstitutional ObamaCare fiasco, as to what may happen.

Meanwhile, as Obama wants to cut the pay of our bravest, Connie Hair, writing for Human Events, reports the non-ending bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are costing the American taxpayers $7 BILLION a month! Fannie and Freddie are the reasons we are such a financial mess to start with. This Marxist-democrat pet project is nothing but a sink hole for tax payer money to be thrown in. Both agencies should ether be sold off and privatized, or simply eliminated.

Fannie and  Freddie Bailouts Cost Taxpayers $7 Billion per Month

The Senate continues voting today on amendments to the Democrats’ partisan finance "reform" bill while ignoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored entities (GSEs) at the heart of the financial meltdown.

Fannie and Freddie still owe taxpayers more than twice as much as the next closest bailout debtor, AIG, and they’re both asking for more taxpayer funds.

Fannie Mae yesterday reported a $13 billion 2010 first quarter loss, begging for another $8.4 billion in bailout funding for a total of $83.6 billion. Last week, Freddie Mac asked for an additional $10.6 billion that would total $61.3 billion.

According to Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), top Republican on the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, both are bleeding bailout dollars.

"[Monday's] announcement that Fannie Mae has again asked taxpayers for more money after reporting a first-quarter loss of more than $13 billion demonstrates that Congress must act to end this taxpayer-funded bailout, which together with the bailout of Freddie Mac, has now cost taxpayers an average of $7 billion per month since it began," Hensarling said. "I urge the Senate to take-up the provisions of my bill, The GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act now included in Senator McCain’s amendment to the Dodd financial regulation bill."

Republican Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.), Judd Gregg (N.H.) and John McCain (Ariz.) filed the amendment to the Dodd bill last week. It has not yet been scheduled for a vote.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) had a hard time yesterday trying to explain why Fannie and Freddie are not included in the Democrats’ "reform" bill.

"I think it’s a fair claim to say that we haven’t done enough to address Fannie and Freddie," Warner told CNBC. "It is the big elephant in the room that hasn’t been addressed."

More like the big donkey.

Warner says Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and author of the partisan Democrat bill, promises they’ll come back next year and reform Fannie and Freddie.

"He’s put in place an effort to try to come back next year, he won’t be here, but we’ll come back next year and take on Fannie and Freddie in a more thoughtful way," Warner said.


It's too bad the sweetheart deals and tanking poll numbers forced Dodd to bow out of this year’s election -- so he won’t be around for next year’s big fix.

Perhaps Virginia voters can hold Warner responsible for the credibility of Dodd’s promise in a few years.

If you didn’t already know, Barack Obama was second only to Chris Dodd in the amount of campaign money he has received from Fannie and Freddie.

That we can continue to fund one of the most corrupt, and inept operations in the nation, but can’t pay our bravest, is disturbing, disgusting, and outrageous!

I join Sarah Palin in calling for the Obama regime to stop wasting taxpayer money buying votes and start doing right by our troops!

No comments:

Post a Comment