Patterico's Pontifications

4/7/2011

Obama Deliberately Withholding Military Pay as Political Maneuver Against GOP?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:53 pm

So says Ace:

Summing up: In 1995, in a time of peace, Clinton signed a bill ensuring troops’ pay.

In 2011, fighting three wars, one of which he claimed to enthusiastically support and another he started, Obama is threatening to not pay troops in the field.

But don’t you dare defund Planned Parenthood!!

71 Responses to “Obama Deliberately Withholding Military Pay as Political Maneuver Against GOP?”

  1. I think for Team R to drag abortion into a budget debate is weird and nutty like that woman in church what always smells like urine.

    happyfeet (71628d)

  2. Or the EPA, or National Soros radio, as you have dubbed it yourself, pikachu

    narciso (cfef6a)

  3. I know you’re a big fan of abortion, happyfeet, but I submit to you that if you are not a radical pro-abortion type, it most certainly IS proper for a government that is out of money to refuse to fund abortion. It is not just a red-meat-for-religious-conservatives position. It is a statement that we will not fund everything under the sun.

    Given the relatively paltry amounts at issue, it is a symbolic statement, to be sure. But I think it is utterly consistent with a libertarianish fiscal conservatism.

    Patterico (906cfb)

  4. Arrogant, petty, insulated. And he lies whenever he speaks. Change we can believe in.

    mbabbitt (424211)

  5. I recall during the 90′s that our pay was never cut off; even Billy Jeff did the right thing!

    And keep in mind, that public assistance dollars will keep flowing, even while our warriors are doing without.

    Once again, the party that always claims to be, “Looking! out for the Little Man!”, will be sticking it to them instead. Because, make no mistake, it’s not the shit-hot aviators or other officers who’ll be hurt by this; it’ll be the enlisted personnel, E-5 and below, who’ll be bearing the brunt of the mind-f@*k wondering what their family back home is doing without…

    A hell of a way to build morale, Obama.

    In case this drags on, keep these organizations in the back of your mind:

    Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (NMCRS): http://www.nmcrs.org

    Army Emergency Relief (AER): http://www.aerhq.org

    Air Force Aid Society (AFAS): http://www.afas.org

    Coast Guard Mutual Assistance (CGMA): http://www.cgmahq.org

    Reserve Aid: http://www.reserveaid.org

    And if goes on a while, well, consider moving them to the front of your mind…

    My Regards to all.

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  6. Ya, what’s the game-anyone got that figured out?

    At Wizbang a commenter was saying that he had little sympathy for military that live pay check to pay check.

    Well let me step people trough some of the things going on with the military that not too many are aware of-or just are plain ignorant.

    First there is the divorce rate.

    Back when Clinton was President some critically manned career fields-during the orientations they would tell them that the divorce rate for certain “divisions” was at 80%.

    80%, -it actually went higher than that-if you did a graph of the “trends” the divorce rate climbed right along with the ops tempo.

    So extrapolating from that-imagine what it is now.

    I really don’t want to.

    So the guy gets divorced pays alimony, and usually child support and hell it gets lonely and he often remarries.

    So think it might get worse?

    Well yes it does.

    The military on average move every two to three years. There are all kinds of “costs” to that as well.

    One that is especially abysmal right now is if they made the mistake of buying a home in this economy.

    So your response to that might be-

    they can live on base.

    Not really, the average wait time for base housing is two years for some ranks.

    Now what are some of the hidden “costs”.

    Well try your wife.

    What kind of paycheck is she earning when your gone all the time, and she is the sole provider for your kids.

    Because you are moving every two to three years there are no relatives near by or trusted friends to help out.

    Add to that-your wife gives up seniority every move and starts off at the bottom.

    No, most companies don’t like to hire someone and give them seniority over the locals that have been with them for years.

    And, actually that makes good business sense.

    But in this economy military families are not paid enough because they are often competing with two income families for housing and the like.

    What Obama is doing or whomever is to blame is absolutely shameful and perhaps unprecedented.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  7. edit: let me step people *through* some of the things..

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  8. happyfeet

    You probably need to find a new church…

    You know if you don’t like the smell get out of da pew.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  9. The president, the vice-president, and all of Congress better not be getting paid during the shutdown. They should be at the top of the list. We’ll see.

    Lawmakers would continue to get paid during a shutdown, unless the full Congress voted otherwise. Both the House and Senate have voted to suspend their own pay during a shutdown, but as part of legislation that has not passed the other chamber.

    With that, this is such a an immense slap in the face to our troops. If they as a whole ever wondered what President Obama really thought of our military, now they (and we) know. There’s no walking this back by the president.

    Dana (9f3823)

  10. Patterico-
    I don’t think Clinton signed a bill to do it, I’m pretty sure he just followed established practice:

    During the last government shutdown, in 1995, troops continued to receive their paychecks. According to Federal Times:

    When the government was shut down in 1995, military personnel continued to report to work and were paid, but the planning guidance sent to the services and defense agencies says a shutdown this time will be different.
    “All military personnel will continue in normal duty status regardless of their affiliation with exempt or non-exempt activities,” says the draft planning guidance that was prepared for the services and defense agencies. “Military personnel will serve without pay until such time as Congress makes appropriated funds available to compensate them for this period of service.”

    During the 1995 shutdown, the Clinton Administration followed the OMB guidance issued during the Reagan Administration. The Obama Administration, it seems, is tacking a different direction.
    Let me be clear, the guidelines proposing to hold military paychecks are, according to the news reports, draft guidelines. It is possible the Obama Administration has abandoned these punitive guidelines. And, even if they implemented these guidelines, military personnel would most likely eventually receive their pay, once a budget agreement is reached. But, why even change the policy and subject our military to partisan political battles. The policy is certainly a change, but it doesn’t provide much hope.

    Foxfier (24dddb)

  11. I’m absolutely fine with this. The GOP wants to fund all of the Dept of Defense-including Pentagon pet projects and non-essential military personnel in back office positions–for the rest of the year. Screw them. Why is a supply chain soldier in east Bumfuck, Idaho more important than a cop on the beat in Los Angeles?

    And this is not funding abortion. It’s funding PP, which can’t now use taxpayer money to fund abortion (except in rape and danger to the mother’s life).

    Jim (ad29d8)

  12. Foxfier, you should follow Patterico’s link over to Ace. During the 95 debate, before the shutdown occurred, the Republicans sent Clinton a bill to fund just the military and he signed it, taking out of the fight. Much like the Republicans just did now. Obama could have sign the latest CR, which kept the government open for another week, and funded the military until September. But, Obama declared the House CR to be a distraction, and said he would veto it, even if it get through the Senate.

    Anon Y. Mous (ea80bb)

  13. For many people on the fiscal restraint side of the ledger the issue of defunding PP has absolutely nothing to do with dragging abortion into the debate. It has to do with stopping the idiocy of taxpayers funding any private non-profit organization which does not provide government services. I feel the same way about defunding NPR and PBS. I like much of their programming and know enough to wade through the liberal Pravda pieces. But there is no reason on earth for taxpayers to fund it. I wish the Republican leadership could stick to the pure fiscal responsibility narrative. Abortion is more of a fifth rail than even social security, I think. Shutting he government down over planned parenthood? The Dems and Repubs going to the mat over planned parenthood. Hideous.

    elissa (b2da86)

  14. And just to be clear, I have no problem with both sides passing a clean CR that funds active military in combat zones through the rest of the year. Boner and the GOP apparently couldn’t figure out how to write that bill.

    Jim (ad29d8)

  15. Geez, people, get real.

    How can our president take vacations to Rio, wage war on behalf of the people of a hostile foreign country, give friends of the Democrat Party huge handouts…AND also pay American military personnel (who risk their lives for a pittance, to defend this country)?

    Given the economic situation, someone has to take it in the shorts. Might as well be a group that isn’t pals with the liberal Dems.

    Dave Surls (56caa6)

  16. Reading Ace’s post on first impression The Air Force Times is published by Gannett.

    Despite the fact that they drop their papers certain places to inflate their circulation plenty of military boycott that paper.

    It is not published by the military in any way shape or form.

    So ya, Ace it sucks.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  17. You people are friggin’ insane. You see conspiracies everywhere, apparently, except under your own damn noses. Boehner makes a demand, the democrats say ok, then Boehner makes further demands, then the democrats say ok to that to, then Boehner further moves the goalposts in an obvious attempt to shut down the government, in order to appease the know-nothing, unable to govern tea party morons.

    Farty L.I. McBreitbart (77a31a)

  18. I am having tasty thai then some friends are gonna help me wif moving chores.

    But no I am not pro-abortion I am pro-freedom there’s a difference but none of that’s implicated here.

    The defunding of pp isn’t architected to save any monies at all… It still gets appropriated – and there is yet a statement made consequently – an assertion – that the inept and corrupt and spendy spendy US government has a legitimate role in family planning. It just defunds a political enemy is all without saving a dime.

    This is not the time and place for such silliness… My foozle is here

    hf (a12946)

  19. Boehner makes a demand, the democrats say ok, then Boehner makes further demands, then the democrats say ok to that to,

    Link, please.

    So far, apparently the democrats have repeatedly lied that there is an agreement, on twitter, and in reality they just wanted to add more pressure.

    Kinda like Obama trying to add pressure to the Republicans by using the finances of our military families as a bargaining chip.

    It sucked explaining to my wife this issue, since she’s got a lot of army wives as friends (having formerly been an Army wife herself). She doesn’t get pissed off, but she’s furious. Obama has crossed the line this time, whether his threat against the troops is carried out or not.

    This is a lot of stress for our soldiers to have to deal with as they should be focused on their missions.

    Happyfeet, I hope you enjoy your meal, but reconsider the idea that we should be giving a penny to Planned Parenthood. It is not a statement that the government has a role in family planning if we defund it, and they have been exposed with corruption recently, so it’s a prime opportunity to make a cut.

    Every little tiny cut makes a difference, since it’s a crisis. I’ve got no problem defunding a political enemy of either party. The government shouldn’t be funding entities that are political enemies of anybody, unless it absolutely has no choice.

    you have a point that there is a bigger picture, if this money is going to be spent anyway. But that’s just an additional problem, rather than a reason we should fund planned parenthood.

    Let’s accept, as a default premise, that everything must have a positive reason in order to avoid being defunded.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  20. Well possibly Obama is bluffing-how does anything get on his desk without going through the Senate?

    I swear the whole gin up is to get people to forget that the Democrats maintain the more powerful chamber-the Senate.

    There are a lot of idiots out there and Obama, you have to give him credit-knows his base.

    But it’s gross for a Commander in Chief who just engaged in a new theatre to go there.

    And The Obama Administration put it in writing. Ed Morrissey has it.

    …the White House stated categorically that it would veto the one-week CR if it passes the Senate in an e-mail blast, underscoring in original:

    The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1363, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes. As the President stated on April 5, 2011, if negotiations are making significant progress, the Administration would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution to allow for enactment of a final bill.

    For the past several weeks, the Administration has worked diligently and in good faith to find common ground on the shared goal of cutting spending. After giving the Congress more time by signing short-term extensions into law, the President believes that we need to put politics aside and work out our differences for a bill that covers the rest of the fiscal year. This bill is a distraction from the real work that would bring us closer to a reasonable compromise for funding the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 and avert a disruptive Federal Government shutdown that would put the Nation’s economic recovery in jeopardy. The Administration will continue to work with the Congress to arrive at a compromise that will fund the Government for the remainder of the fiscal year in a way that does not undermine future growth and job creation and that averts a costly Government shutdown. It is critical that the Congress send a final bill to the President’s desk that provides certainty to our men and women in military uniform, their families, small businesses, homeowners, taxpayers, and all Americans. H.R. 1363 simply delays that critical final outcome.

    If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  21. There is no cutting here Mr. D just a redirection of funding and so even though I don’t think the sad broke US government should be funding pp, I don’t see the sense in conflating that issue with the budget… Unless Team R is trying to dishonestly intimate that the pp measure saves monies. And that would be dishonest.

    hf (928ad9)

  22. just a redirection of funding and so even though I don’t think the sad broke US government should be funding pp,

    Yes, that’s an additional problem. The money will go to fund something else.

    I have to admit, my take is that whatever they spend it on, highways or post offices or paying down the debt, it’s probably more legitimate than planning my family for me. That’s an unsafe assumption.

    Ideally, you get your way on this, and they don’t fund PP and the money isn’t spent on something else. But the videos lately give us a reason to defund them in addition to just plain saving money.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  23. It sucked explaining to my wife this issue, since she’s got a lot of army wives as friends (having formerly been an Army wife herself). She doesn’t get pissed off, but she’s furious. Obama has crossed the line this time, whether his threat against the troops is carried out or not.

    This is a lot of stress for our soldiers to have to deal with as they should be focused on their missions.

    Exactly.

    There is no way the guys and gals serving overseas aren’t getting “contacted” on this issue by stressed out family members….

    Like they need that.

    It’s been an established pattern by the Democrats of being completely-”divorced” from the military community.

    Maybe one of the smartest things short term that Republicans did was BRAC but with that stream lining came costs-such as not too many Representatives give a flip about the military because not as many of them have bases in their districts-and ironically the bases are concentrated in-

    The South.

    So long term I think it’s created a weird division, that isn’t good.

    Democrats and a lot of civilians have little exposure to the military.

    And hell since Bush v. Gore 2000 the Democrats have used the military as pawns.

    It’s actually dangerous- the seeming pathological relationship the Democrats have with the military.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  24. There may have been a lot of weird conspiracies, both left and right, but one thing stands without question:

    The government is in this situation because the government, controlled by Dems in the House, Senate and Presidency chose not to draft or create a budget for 2011.

    Trying to lay blame on the right at this point is stupid and simply politics.

    Time and time again I argued that the Dems continued to scheme their will on the people on an ill-conceived health-care bill instead of doing their job.

    And now we’re supposed to believe they are serious?

    Ag80 (98fa24)

  25. And hell since Bush v. Gore 2000 the Democrats have used the military as pawns.

    I keep thinking specifically back to this too, if what you’re referring to is how they shamelessly deleted so many military votes, while blaming the military, even though the intent of the voter was crystal clear, and what was missing was a postmark that the law allowed to be replaced by a signature.

    That same amazing capacity to screw the troops for political gain exists here, only this time the benefit to Obama is very difficult to see.

    I think this is just a raw effort to put pressure on patriotic people to cave to Obama’s demands. Either way, I’m pretty sure my wife is going to actually be volunteering for whoever is nominated against Obama. This issue will resonate with millions of people who generally don’t expect much from Washington, but don’t let it ruin their day most of the time.

    If someone out there can explain some theory where Obama’s choices on this matter aren’t insane, please do so.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  26. Actually the issue was Florida had a specific rule requiring a stamp so even though they were marked as received by either the local mail service or the county clerks the problem was the absentee ballots which originate with the military mail system did not use stamps.

    So even though the ballots had “date” stamps they went after the “technicality” of them not having “postage” stamps.

    They even sent the still bitter from Vietnam, Bob Kerrey to fulminate about:

    These damn military they should know the rules and they should follow the damn rules–yeeeaaargh.

    Thing is-

    the military postal system doesn’t use stamps.

    (And never mind how that had been accepted for decades…Gore stooped to new lows.)

    I’ve got to put in a-that’s how I remember it. It was over a decade ago-but I was in Okaloosa County-Panhandle of Florida at the time.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  27. Dustin

    Your wife-she’s been through the grinder-no.

    Tell her someone out here appreciates her sacrifice.

    Army….ya that one’s a bitch.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  28. There’s leadership for you, as supreme commander of the military you tell the troops you’re going to hold their pay. Something tells me Eisenhower would not have done that.

    Isn’t there something in the book of military conduct that says a superior can’t harass a lower ranking soldier by withholding their pay?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. Crappyfeet is a jerk.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  30. MD in Philly I haven’t heard of that one.

    Are the words-

    Unprecedented and Un-presidential coming to mind?

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  31. Yikes I’m on the phone with someone right now-and here is his comment on the matter:

    Obama’s constituents don’t care. He could piss on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and they would still vote for him.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  32. Isn’t there something in the book of military conduct that says a superior can’t harass a lower ranking soldier by withholding their pay?

    Comment by MD in Philly

    Heh.

    Well, I do know there’s something in the constitution, I think it’s marked with a 13, that kinda says you can’t force a man to work for free.

    The simple truth is that a soldier deployed in Afghanistan or a sailor on the USS Enterprise really doesn’t have a choice if they stop paying him. It’s not like if they stop paying the postman or a congressional staffer.

    My sincere hope is that Obama is bluffing, and this doesn’t come to pass at all, but even if it doesn’t, he’s put this idea in the minds of a lot of military families and forward soldiers, and that alone is just plain crossing the line.

    Madawaskan, regardless of the details, it was horrible to see democrats fight tooth and nail to deprive soldiers of their votes, while fighting tooth and nail to give hanging chads a vote. I’ll never forget it because it’s basically what made me politically motivated in the first place.

    I’m still waiting for someone to explain how this isn’t an insane political maneuver for the democrats. If Hillary resigned right now and demanded the military be paid, she’d probably be our next president.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  33. this will backfire.

    and yes.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  34. Unprecedented and Un-presidential coming to mind?
    Comment by madawaskan

    That came to mind a long, long, long time ago….
    Now I’m just waiting how long it takes for a clear majority to come to the same conclusion.

    Heck, that came to mind listening to what he said about the Constitution before he was elected…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. I’m hearing that Navy Federal Credit Union is stepping up and insuring that military members will get their paychecks regardless of what Congress/the WH does or says.

    Now just need USAA to do the same.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  36. Once again, hf reminds us of the limitations of certain ‘libertarian’ viewpoints (i.e. that ‘freedom of choice’ for the parent OBLITERATES liberty for the unborn innocent).

    Icy Texan (cfdea6)

  37. Scott, that is absolutely awesome news!

    Here’s a link.

    Now there’s something you can’t expect from Bank of America.

    BTW, they serve all branches. I know they had a branch at Ft Sill (Army). I hope the other military credit unions and banks can manage a similar program. This is a huge financial proposition.

    What a failure for Sen Reid in particular, to not just get this issue out of the way ASAP.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  38. Why does the money of the taxpayers need to go fund the abortion of black people?

    And what if a women aborted her child because of the gay gene that they claim to exist?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  39. Dustin

    it was horrible to see democrats fight tooth and nail to deprive soldiers of their votes, while fighting tooth and nail to give hanging chads a vote. I’ll never forget it because it’s basically what made me politically motivated in the first place.

    Same here.

    ***********

    MD in Philly

    That came to mind a long, long, long time ago…

    Ya I think his critics have given up on that specific criticism-does this look Presidential?

    It’s that bad. I wish I was as optimistic as you about the majority coming to their senses.

    I don’t think the same things like gas prices, and unemployment that would stop another President from getting re-elected will effect Obama.

    We’ll see. I am starting to get more hopeful than before for some reason-I don’t quite now what it is.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  40. I don’t quite *know* what it is.

    madawaskan (fd190b)

  41. This is just insanity. Lets compromise. Lets put Planned Parenthood back in the funding and in exchange, lets fund the troops too.

    It boggles my mind to see this stuff happen. I cannot believe that people are blaming republicans for something that the democrats should have done last year.

    G (ce0c1b)

  42. I wish I was as optimistic as you about the majority coming to their senses….
    Comment by madawaskan

    I misled you. I’m waiting to see if and when the majority come to their senses.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  43. I want to wait and see what happens before getting too excited about all this business cause the whole dealio is just kinda silly cause of the math being what it is

    happyfeet (71628d)

  44. Lets put Planned Parenthood back in the funding and in exchange, lets fund the troops too.

    How about this: let’s terminate all discussion of the budget or anything else, whatsoever, until the democrats agree to pay the troops their salaries.

    Let’s just focus on that one thing. Up or down vote, Reid, and veto pen or signature, Obama. Let’s not allow the troops to be a bargaining chip, because if we do, it will be a bargaining chip when it’s time to do anything else.

    I think a hearing on whether impeachment is constitutional for violating the 13th amendment would be informative. I realize there’s no realistic chance that would work, but I would like to know more about the idea.

    The line has been crossed, and we can’t play ball if basic lines like this are crossed. It’s just too cynical, and it sets the stage for chaos every time we run into a disagreement.

    If Obama is testing the waters, to see if he can use his position as commander in chief to threaten the troops in exchange for deals with the GOP House, let’s go ahead and make sure he knows those waters are very cold.

    No, this can’t pay off for the left.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  45. ________________________________________

    If presented with this bill, the President will veto it.

    And if that bill allowed not only the current high level of spending to continue, but would increase it by 5000%, he’d smile, wave, give thumbs up and happily sign it.

    I don’t use the following acronym lightly, but Obama really is a “POS.”

    Mark (411533)

  46. ___________________________________________

    I’m waiting to see if and when the majority come to their senses.

    I’ve seen the following observation posted on various pages of the Internet, and it regrettably correctly diagnoses the increasingly effete, lazy, indulgent, inanely left-leaning nature of modern society (“liberalism means we’re beautiful, kind, sophisticated and generous!!!”).

    The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.

    It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

    The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

    Mark (411533)

  47. Leave it to the stupid party to shut the government down over social issues. Because that’s the spin you’ll hear tomorrow….

    Kevin M (298030)

  48. Really, Obama has GOT to go.

    It seems like his re-election strategy is to get 30% of the country unemployed, and carry the black vote and nothing but net on the union side…

    G (ce0c1b)

  49. Mark-

    I’ve seen that before as well and agree. One hope is that a significant number of people didn’t really know who they were electing because of the main stream propaganda machine and they will open their eyes, but we’ll see.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  50. Gee, a post Truman Democrat President who lies through his teeth, plays cheap political tricks with core government functions, and by and large goes for momentary expediency every time.

    Never seen THAT before.

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  51. the silver lining to this debacle is that Ear Leader is evidently considering qualifying even more troops for combat pay.

    you gotta love a giver!

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  52. It would be great if Obama did this to the military.

    What the GOP House needs to do is to start passing spending bills to segments of the government and then keep a “revenue minus spent”. When that hits zero it becomes “borrowed to spend”.

    The House just needs to say “We’re doing our job -go talk to the Democrat running the Senate and the Democrat running the Executive. We’ll keep passing continuing resolutions until they get their mouths out of their campaigns.”

    When the last spending bill is passed, add a House resolution each week pleading for the Democrats to get on with their jobs.

    cedarhill (903f1c)

  53. I’m fine with not paying the troops. Let the GOP put together a resolution that funds only the troops in active duty in places we’re currently fighting and I’d support that. I don’t want to fund Dept of Defense for the rest of the year, because that includes pet projects and soldiers providing support services. If you’re a soldier providing support services, you should be treated like any other non-essential government employee.

    One way to save cost: Eliminate all PXs except in war zones or where there is otherwise a serious risk of personal harm for the soldiers. Why, for instance, do we now need PXs in the US or Germany? We’ve got Wal-Mart and Aldi.

    Jim (ad29d8)

  54. And by the way, this has nothing to do with abortion. PP already can’t spend taxpayers’ money on abortion by law (with the possible exception of rape and medical emergencies).

    Jim (ad29d8)

  55. Marcus Arialius[sic] was quoted as telling his successor to allways pay the troops. His successor, being “smarter’ than that old fart, did not pay the troops. Guess what? One of the shortest reigns as Emperor. A “active duty” general marched his legions to Rome and became the new Emperor and ALWAYS PAID THE TROOOPS FIRST.
    Caesar had his Brutus, Charles his Cromwell, George his Washington and President Obama is not a historical scholar.

    Michael M. Keohane (996c34)

  56. I was right to bracket. Marcus Aurelius is the correct spelling. Read his “Meditations” but had a mental blank on spelling.

    Michael M. Keohane (996c34)

  57. My understanding is that during the Clinton shutdown, there was a bill in force authorizing military spending. There is no such bill now, which is why the Republicans are trying to include it.

    That said, I don’t see Obama requesting and promising to sign a bill to fund the military.

    About abortion, it is clear that the Democrats see government funding of PP, which IS government funding of abortion, as their signature, non-negotiable issue. They will go to the brink to keep the abortion tax money flowing.

    Now is the time to join this fight. It’s time for PP to get the spotlight. Make this not about Democrats or Republicans. Make this about tax money going to PP, and focus like a laser on PP and the subsidized abortion industry. This is a test to see where we will compromise. Once the public sees PP clearly, there will be no more compromise.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  58. Watching CNN this morning I got the distinct impresssion that if the government shuts down it’s going to be like another tsunami. But way worse.

    I support a shutdown simply to see CNN look stupid once again. Good times, good times.

    OT – I haven’t seen this anywhere (but I could have missed it) so I’ll drop it here – Michelle Bachman was on Daily Rundown yesterday morning and Chuck Todd (or SG, I forget now) delv’d a hit job with the following: they ran about 20-25 seconds of video snips, probably 5 so an average of 5 seconds a clip, then Todd says Politifact said every one of these clips was a lie, how do you respond to that? It was like Tim Russert on acid. Bachman just sidestepped the question. The fact that she keeps going back on MSNBC is remarkable, and clever I’m beginning to realize. It clarifies who’s the extremist in the interview.

    East Bay Jay (19f566)

  59. There is no such bill now, which is why the Republicans are trying to include it.

    The bill was recently proposed, and has over 100 cosponsors.

    It’s unfortunate that this issue has come up so suddenly. Clearly the GOP didn’t think Obama would go this far, and after all their continuing resolution also covered troop pay.

    anyway, the bill exists, and it needs a lot of support.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  60. I’m going to call my Congressman and tell him not to vote for it. Not everyone in the military is essential.

    Jim (87e69d)

  61. it most certainly IS proper for a government that is out of money to refuse to fund abortion. It is not just a red-meat-for-religious-conservatives position. It is a statement that we will not fund everything under the sun.

    Given the relatively paltry amounts at issue, it is a symbolic statement, to be sure. But I think it is utterly consistent with a libertarianish fiscal conservatism.

    Comment by Patterico — 4/7/2011 @ 7:03 pm

    Yes what is it with these “libertarians” that like abortion funding? Neal Boortz is one. You would think they would want to stop funding Planned Parenthood for the same reason they’d want to stop funding NPR, but whenever abortion comes up for discussion they blow a fuse so to speak.

    Gerald A (8e99c8)

  62. And, by the way, the government does not fund abortions at PP (except for rape and medical emergencies). This is about not funding PP for anything.

    Jim (87e69d)

  63. @51 That wasn’t Marcus Aurelius, it Septimius Severus, and IIRC pretty much that as long as the troops got paid, everyone else could go hang.

    A Balrog of Morgoth (75def3)

  64. There also were hints of Republican flexibility on the ban they were seeking to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood. Officials said that in talks at the White House that stretched on after midnight on Wednesday, Republicans had suggested giving state officials discretion in deciding how to distribute family planning funds that now go directly from the federal government to organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

    That would presumably leave a decision on funding to governors, many of whom oppose abortion, and sever the financial link between the federal government and an organization that Republicans assail as the country’s biggest provider of abortions.*

    that’s a neat idea… but this is still a wildly inappropriate venue to be bickering about fetuses I think

    happyfeet (71628d)

  65. a neat idea inasmuch as Team R hasn’t talked about cutting family planning funds I mean – so if the money’s going to be wasted anyway, why not let states decide how to waste it?

    happyfeet (71628d)

  66. states and the District of Columbia I mean

    happyfeet (71628d)

  67. madawaskan: Loved your brief synopsis of my 16 years as a military wife. You summed it up quite well. And thanks for serving.

    PatAZ (d09837)

  68. Crappyfeet do you wanna project the left’s anti-military agenda on to us again?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  69. Just FYI- it’s not an IF anymore. 50% of our mid month April pay has been withheld and is reflected in our Leave and Earning Statements already. We have received briefings that since we are Soldiers, we are still expected to report to work… hmmm… and thats EVERYONE, not just Jr. Enlisted…

    Military (8e95d0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6205 secs.