Posted on Jul 7, 2015
Obama: Political fights won't stop military paychecks
3.66K
5
6
1
1
0
President Obama promised that political fights over the annual defense budget won't hit troops' wallets, flatly stating that they're "going to get paid."
"You'll note I've now been president for six and a half years, and we've had some wrangling with Congress in the past. Our service members haven't missed a paycheck," he said.
The comments came after a question on whether the president would follow through on veto threats to the annual defense authorization bill, currently being finalized by House and Senate negotiators.
The White House has threatened to dump the measure over a series of concerns, most notably Republicans' use of temporary war funds to get around mandatory spending caps for all federal agencies.
Obama and Pentagon leaders have argued that even if the move fully funds the military, it hurts national security by short-changing the State Department and other vital agencies.
"What we're not going to do is accept a budget which shortchanges our long-term requirements for new technologies, for readiness," Obama said. "If we shortchange those other priorities, we will be less secure."
Republicans have accused the president of choosing money for bloated government programs over paychecks for service members. Obama's comments cut to that criticism.
The authorization bill, which includes language for a military pay raise of up to 2.3 percent in 2016, is expected to be finalized later this month. That sets up the possibility of a presidential veto in August, just two months before the start of the new fiscal year
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/06/obama-military-pay-fights/29788535/
"You'll note I've now been president for six and a half years, and we've had some wrangling with Congress in the past. Our service members haven't missed a paycheck," he said.
The comments came after a question on whether the president would follow through on veto threats to the annual defense authorization bill, currently being finalized by House and Senate negotiators.
The White House has threatened to dump the measure over a series of concerns, most notably Republicans' use of temporary war funds to get around mandatory spending caps for all federal agencies.
Obama and Pentagon leaders have argued that even if the move fully funds the military, it hurts national security by short-changing the State Department and other vital agencies.
"What we're not going to do is accept a budget which shortchanges our long-term requirements for new technologies, for readiness," Obama said. "If we shortchange those other priorities, we will be less secure."
Republicans have accused the president of choosing money for bloated government programs over paychecks for service members. Obama's comments cut to that criticism.
The authorization bill, which includes language for a military pay raise of up to 2.3 percent in 2016, is expected to be finalized later this month. That sets up the possibility of a presidential veto in August, just two months before the start of the new fiscal year
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/07/06/obama-military-pay-fights/29788535/
Military Pay
Politics
Congress
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
CPT Ahmed Faried - People can say what they want about Obama, but "stupid" is not one of them. He knows that failure to pay the military would never fly.
It is interesting that, in times past, he has threatened to cut off Social Security and Medicare payments , because of a lack of funds, but has never threatened to cut off welfare checks.
It is interesting that, in times past, he has threatened to cut off Social Security and Medicare payments , because of a lack of funds, but has never threatened to cut off welfare checks.
(2)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
Sir I'm not sure what kind of pull the President would have on welfare allocation seeing as most states if not all control their own SRS programs. You might be referring to the TANF allowance but that is money from the government's general revenue which they give to states facing huge unemployment and even that the President has no direct control over who gets what. It'd lead to a very skewed allocation otherwise, with politics playing a role in who gets what. As it currently stands however, most recipients are Southern states and most contributors to the fund are western and eastern.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CPT Ahmed Faried - I understand your comments and the TANF. There are recipients in every state and I have no basis to doubt your comment about who gets the most and who the contributors are. I do know that the Southern states' allocations cover a higher percentage of need than those of Northern states, because of the relative cost of living in those regions. The buying power of a dollar in Alabama is different than that of a dollar in New Jersey, for example.
(0)
(0)
MSgt John McGowan
COL, i have also noticed the threat to cut SS and Mrdicare. Welfare is never talked about, the free phones, or all the other goodies. Now I read that high speed internet is being worked on for the welfare folks. Hell I pay a arm and leg for a piss poor connection. My question with all that is promised by the left how are we going to pay for everything. And no Obama isn't stupid, he is following his script.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
That's what I like to hear. No how about steadier and bigger raises to help Armed Service members keep up with the civilian sector and the ever increasing cost of living and changing economy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google