Tulsa World: Pay raise part of Pentagon measure

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Tuesday, February 09, 2010 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Pay raise part of Pentagon measure
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe calls the bill "the beginning of a downward spiral in defense spending."

By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press
Published: 10/23/2009 2:27 AM
Last Modified: 10/23/2009 4:50 AM

WASHINGTON — Military personnel will get an above-inflation pay raise of 3.4 percent under a Pentagon policy bill the Senate passed Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The pay increase was a half-percentage point more than Obama sought earlier this year and beats the average pay boost in the private sector.

The popular legislation also gives Obama a few victories in his bid to kill some especially costly weapons systems, though it contains an effort by lawmakers to continue development — over the president's strong objections — of a costly alternative engine for the Pentagon's next-generation fighter jet.

The Senate cleared the House-Senate compromise measure by a 68-29 vote. Oklahoma's Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn, both Republicans, voted against the measure.

The far-reaching legislation also prohibits the Obama administration from transferring any detainee being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba to the U.S. for trial until 45 days after it has given notice to Congress. Guantanamo prisoners could not be released into the U.S.

The bill also contains unrelated legislation strengthening federal hate crimes laws to include violence against homosexuals, angering Republicans who objected to the military measure carrying social legislation.

The bill also contains significant changes to voting procedures for U.S. troops and other American voters overseas.

Some Pentagon reform advocates had hoped Obama would take a more aggressive stance against costly and poorly performing weapons systems. But Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates focused most of their attention on a handful of items, especially trying to kill the jobs-rich but well-over-budget F-22 fighter program, which has its origins in the Cold War era and, its critics maintain, is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure would terminate production of the F-22.

Lawmakers, however, are taking on the White House — and a vaguely-worded veto threat — over a program to develop an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's multimission fighter of the future.

The administration promised in June to veto the legislation if it would "seriously disrupt" the F-35 program, an iffy threat at best. It says that spending on a second engine is unnecessary and impedes the progress of the Joint Strike Fighter program.

The legislation recommends $560 million for the program in 2010, and the administration has since backpedaled from the veto threat.

"I would be stunned if they vetoed," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said.

The $680 billion measure doesn't fund the Pentagon's budget but provides policy guidance that is typically followed closely by the appropriations committees. It also approves Obama's $130 billion request to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Inhofe, however, blasted the measure for calling for just a 4 percent boost in Pentagon funding.

"The bill is the beginning of a downward spiral in defense spending," Inhofe said. "We have reached a crossroads and have chosen not to invest in the long-term modernization and readiness of our military." By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

5 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment Centrist, the burbs (10/23/2009 2:38:46 AM) Why are they giving the Military an above inflation increase when the seniors and disabled are told no increase this year?
	Report Comment RMS, (10/23/2009 6:53:24 AM) Nearly not enough! As to the person complaining about the increase; these young men and women are being asked (commanded) to perform above what is normally expected. As for Inhofe and Coburn;get into the real world.Support our troops and their families. I am a senior and understand the reasons for no increases this coming year.
	Report Comment my view, Sand Springs (10/23/2009 8:12:29 AM) RMS, Both our state Senators voting no on this bill had more to do with log rolling than military pay raises. As for no increase for seniors this year, it was based on the cost of living which is starting to go up. If you haven't notice the price of gas has gone 30 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.
	Report Comment Skeptic, Tulsa (10/23/2009 9:26:46 AM) Let me get this right. Coburn and Inhofe voted: AGAINST a military pay raise, AGAINST continued development of a "next-generation" jet engine, AGAINST a 45 advance notice of Gitmo detainees being moved to the US, AGAINST funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I thought these guys were PRO military. Liars! Okies, you got some 'splainin' to do.
	Report Comment RMS, (10/23/2009 11:55:41 AM) MyView, I respect your opinion,however my point is they voted down a pay raise for our fighting men and women. Yes, gasoline has gone up in price,but it has been fairly low all year.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.