I found this interesting
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): I found this interesting
My dh's grandmother sent this to us, and I just thought it was interesting.. I usually don't get overboard with politics, but this years election coming up has me a little ancy (sp) for some reason..
This article appeared in the Jackson Sun on 3/16/03.
DONT BLAME BUSH FOR LOSS OF AMERICAN JOBS
Sen. John Kerry keeps talking about U.S. corporations leaving this country and
setting up shop in foreign countires, taking thousands of jobs with them.
He is right, because that has happened, however he is trying to blame it on
George W. Bush.
As far a I know, Bush has not moved one factory out of this country because
he is not the owner of a single factory.
That cannot be said about Kerry and his wife.Teresa Heinz-Kerry.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Kerrys own 32 factories in Europe,
and 18 in Asia and the Pacific. In addition, their company, The Heinz Co.,
leases 4 factories in North America , some of which are in Mexico and
the Carribean.
I wonder how many hundreds of American workers lost their jobs when these
plants relocated in foreign countries. I also wonder if the workers in Mexico
and Asia are paid the same wages and benefits as workers in the U.S.
Of course they are not. However, Kerry demands that other countries that
relocate should pay the same benefits they did in the U.S. Why does he
not demand this of the Heinz Co, since he is married to its owner?
If Kerry is elected, will he and his wife close all those foreign factories
and bring all those jobs back toAmerica? Of course they won't. They are
making millions off that cheap labor. John B. Wood
Wow, I never thought of that. I realized that Kerry was married to the Ketchup Queen, but Heinz always seemed to me to be so all American, that I didn't even think of it as a corporation that is part of the move to cheaper labor and American job loss.
I wish more national news would highlight this.
Thanks for posting this.
Ame
I also say thanks!! I think that Kerry is pointing his finger at Bush for alot of things that are incorrect. I am so tired of him being blamed for 9-11 as well. I am not saying he did not get threats but he probably gets daily threats. Not to mention when he felt that Suddam had become a threat we were angry that he did something first. Now we are mad that he didn't do something to bin laden first. It seems to me that we are expecting a psychic president. Welli am behind him and i trust him to do what he feels is best! I know there are so many people who think they know what should or should not have been done BUT they don't have access to 1/4 of the info that the president does. We only know what they want us to know! So we have to trust in someone to make the right decisions even though most of the time it is the lesser of 2 evils. Well bush is the lesser in my book!! I think Kerry is a show off and pompous. So full of himself he doesn't have time for this country! My husband is in the military and right now whether we like it or not we are in the middle of a war. We don't need someone stepping in and taking away all kinds of money and benifits from our men. They need someone that will give them better than that! Kerry won't.
Let's start by asking if all of those factories were originally in the United States and relocated overseas, or if they were built in the countries where they are presently located. Given the nature of food production, I would guess they were built there originally, which is different from relocation. As for Teresa Heinz-Kerry's role in the location of the plants, remember, she married into the Heinz family and did not have any control over its activities until after the death of her first husband, John Heinz, about ten years ago. And while she may be a large stock-holder, does she own a controlling share? Can she really make the decisions about factory location?
As for Kerry allegedly voting to take benefits away from the military - not true. He voted against a bill that had many pork-barrel add-ons for not proven programs for high-tech stuff, programs that basically would provide lots of profit for some corporations but nothing for the guys wearing the uniform.
Whether Bush has deliberately deceived the public or not, it is obvious that many people on his staff do deceive by withholding information from Congress and the public (which they may also withhold from Bush - I don't know), and this is information that should not be withheld. Like the current flap about the withheld information that the Medicare/Prescription Benefit program will cost about a billion and a half more than the Bush administration's predictions to Congress. Many in Congress are very clear that they would not have voted for this bill if they had known the true figures, and were clear about their intentions when the bill was being debated and the figures were provided by the Bush administration. They now say if they had known the true figures they would have voted differently.
Bush may not be the owner of any factories, but when he was a Director of Harken, he did exactly the kind of thing that Enron executives are now indicted for and Martha Stewart was convicted for - used advance, inside information about the prospects of the company to time the sale of his stock holdings so that he would get out with a big profit, while the stockholders who didn't have that information took a bath. When he sold over $800,000 Harken stock he sold it at about $4 a share; when the truth about Harken's losses came out a couple of months later the stock dropped immediately to $2.37 a share and was worth only $1 a share a year later.
I really get tired of the bashing that politicians do!
President's can not control everyone at everything. It is like parents controlling children!
And one more thing, everyone trying to blame Bush or even Clinton on the terrorist attacks and how they could have been stopped. Let me tell you, for years, anyone and I mean anyone could enter or exit this county! Even those who hated the U.S. It has been a long time coming and the people feel they need a scapegoat!
I often feel like the U.S. uses the president as a scapegoat when anything goes wrong. We should look at the good in them....
I feel most of our U.S. presidents probably deceived or hidden info from the public.
It will be Kerry's turn sooner or later, there or skeletons in everyone's closest just waiting to be found!
We could go back to Clinton's (democratics) public record and laugh couldn't we! Maybe he should be taught a lesson in what is considered sexual acts and now what young people consider sexual acts! He created a whole new definition for a younger generation! And who do we have to thank for that, our top leader:0
Oh, my, did I just blame something on a president, oh I am so embarrassed!
LOL, it will go on for generations, how childish everyone acts!
I don't think anyone is ever 100% politically correct, aren't we all sinners, or are some people above that!
A little sarcasm to lighten your thoughts!
BTW Ginny, I worked in Accounting for 15 years. You wouldn't believe what companies and accountants do!
These large firms and accounting firms are not the only ones. I saw so much deceit go on paper it MAKES ME SICK!
I will never go back to public accounting, there are more dishonest companies and accountants than honest!
As you can see don't get me started! There are so many companies like ENRON that have not been caught yet! ggggrrrrrrr.....
Well Kerry may have voted against that bill but there is also a bill to take away 7% of enlisted military's pay to use for the rasies of those guys. The politicians don't need anymore money and certainly if it comes from us! I know this becuase my husband is in the seargents association. So Kerry will get a nice chunk of money if he passes this but it will be out of our pockets! Bush does not want this to pass and has asked to write our congressman to fight it!
Kenna, what bill is this? Who sponsored it? If you know there is such a bill it must have a name and a number, and I'd like to know more about it.
Frankly, I can't imagine any politician voting to reduce military pay right now. It would be political suicide. Or, again, it may be a bill with huge amounts of pork barrel in it.
I did some quick research and I believe this is what you are talking about:
"Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and California Congresswoman Susan Davis introduced legislation (S. 945 and H.R. 1885, respectively) that will base annual military pay adjustments at one-half percent above the annual Employment Cost Index (ECI) beyond 2006. Current law authorizes pay increases for members of the uniformed services pegged to that formula only through 2006.
Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed tying future pay raises to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which would substantially reduce military pay hikes in the future. FRA believes that adopting OMB’s proposal could prompt a return to lower recruiting and retention levels similar to those of the 1990s, when the gap between military pay and civilian wages widened significantly.
(From a site called "Military Update"
Here's more information (lengthy) from an organization called MOAA (could not find out what the acronym stands for) which seems fairly authoritative:
"Background: Military pay tables were overhauled in 1971, with the advent of the all-volunteer force, with basic pay set to provide reasonable pay comparability with private sector pay for civilian workers with similar skills, education and experience. But military raises were capped for budgetary reasons during the 1970’s, and serious retention and readiness shortfalls followed. These problems were addressed with double-digit raises in 1981 and 1982, after which it was generally acknowledged that military pay was reasonably comparable with private sector pay.
Despite this hard-learned lesson, the extended retention rebound of the 1980’s, coupled with rising budget deficits, led multiple Administrations and Congress to continue capping military raises below private sector pay growth in 12 of the next 16 years. During this period, Congress also amended the permanent law to require capping military pay raises one-half percentage point below private sector pay growth (as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Cost Index, or ECI) every year. As of 1999, the cumulative military pay raise shortfall since 1982 had reached 13.5%–predictably accompanied by a new retention and readiness crisis.
Congress responded by enacting provisions in the FY 2000 Defense Authorization Act specifying that, for years 2000 through 2006, each year's military pay raise is to exceed the ECI by 0.5% per year. The Executive Branch and Congress then approved cumulative military raises totaling 29% for the five years from 2000 to 2004, reducing the pay gap to 5.4% for 2004. The FY 2004 Defense Authorization Act also repealed the permanent military pay cap, tying military raises directly to the ECI for 2007 and subsequent years."
What this looks like to me is that in 2000 Congress approved legislation to give the military pay raises 1/2% higher than the ECI (Employment Cost Index, which is not the same thing as the Consumer Price Index by which most raises are calculated, including Social Security payment raises) through 2006, to try to get military pay rates more comparable with civilian pay rates. The OMB has now proposed tying military pay raises to the CPI rather than the ECI, which would indeed result in lower pay increases for the military.
But, balancing the budget in the face of huge tax cuts (hence, lower income) has to be done on someone's back. Maybe OMB figures the military won't notice. This will be part of a huge budget bill, buried in it somewhere. And I agree, it is shameful. I have always felt that the lower ranking members of our military are shamefully treated.
I don't think that is it, the letter my husband recieved clearly stated that each year certain government officials recieve a 7% pay increase. Well becuase of the money situation and so much debt the have to find something to cut back on to afford this raise so they had decided to CUT the enlisted pay to fulfill the annual raise. Not only would we lose our raise yearly which is only 1% but they were going to take more away. I don't think this has made it voting stages yet it was just being discussed but there are people in congress i guess that are there to look out especially for military and once they sent us the letter and asked to write emails and have family and friend email they got such an overwhelming response that was negative. Bush is a president that cares for the military and I don't believe that Kerry is at all. My husbands life is in the hands of the man that takes this place and he doesn't want that to be kerry!
Kenna most democrats aren't military minded, a lot of our country's problems! All the cuts Clinton made, Bush had to really work at it!
And go ahead, anyone, bash me for wanting our military, that is what is protecting our country!
OK, here's what I found:
San Francisco Chronicle's Edward Epstein reports:
The Pentagon wants to cut the pay of its 148,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, who are already contending with guerrilla-style attacks, homesickness and 120- degree-plus heat.
Unless Congress and President Bush take quick action when Congress returns after Labor Day, the uniformed Americans in Iraq and the 9,000 in Afghanistan will lose a pay increase approved last April of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."
The Defense Department supports the cuts, saying its budget can't sustain the higher payments amid a host of other priorities. But the proposed cuts have stirred anger among military families and veterans' groups and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.
I also found that members of Congress will receive a 2.2% COLA, raising a senator's salary form $154,700 to $158,000.
Kenna, I'd appreciate it if your husband could find a copy of the letter you mentioned. I'd like very much to know just what piece if legislation the letter is talking about. I spent about a half hour search on the internet and don't find any mention of proposed legislation cutting military pay, other than the OMB proposal to tie COLAs to the CPI rather than the ECI (which would, I agree, produce a reduction in the percentage and amount of the COLA, and which is a disgraceful idea).
As for having to find something to cut back on because of the huge deficit, we wouldn't have this huge deficit if Bush hadn't pushed for tax cuts that give the greatest benefit to the wealthiest 2% of U.S. taxpayers. You may recall that when Bush took office there was a significant surplus, not a deficit.
Marq - if anyone at Momsview has bashed you, I'd like to know. Disagreeing doesn't count, unless the disagreement was rude or made a personal attack on you.
But, what cuts did the Clinton administration make in the Defense budget? And, more specifically, what cuts did the Clinton Administration make that affected military pay?
What I am seeking here is specific information rather than general allegations.
Putting Muscle in Clinton's Proposed Defense Hike
by James H. Anderson, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1244
January 25, 1999 | |
The declining readiness of U.S. military forces has become so acute that even President Clinton has been forced to acknowledge it. Last September, in the waning days of the 105th Congress, the chiefs of the armed services testified during a contentious hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the steadily deteriorating state of the armed forces. During this widely reported hearing, Senators took the Pentagon and the Administration to task for starving the armed forces of the resources needed to carry out the unprecedented demands being placed on them, including the open-ended Bosnia mission that devours approximately $2 billion in scarce defense dollars each year. Under verbal fire from worried Senators, the chiefs agreed that their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines could no longer be asked "to do more with less."
The Administration responded with a request for additional defense funding for fiscal year (FY) 1999. The 105th Congress added approximately $8 billion to the defense budget account, which represents the first real increase in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1985.
Whether this requested increase represented an embattled President's one-time response to strong criticism over his defense policies or a sustainable change of course remains an open question. No one will know for certain until the President formally submits his FY 2000 budget request to Congress in early February.
In his State of the Union address on January 19, President Clinton said, "It is time to reverse the decline in defense spending that began in 1985." 1 News reports indicate that the President will ask for an estimated $110 billion in added spending over the next six years, including a $12 billion increase in FY 2000. 2
On January 2, 1999, President Clinton pledged the "start of a six-year effort that will represent the first long-term sustained increase in defense spending in a decade." 3 Although this initiative points defense spending in the right direction, it nonetheless falls far short of what is needed to reverse more than a decade of reduced expenditures. Congress needs to move with dispatch to strengthen the President's proposal with defense budget increases that are both meaningful and sustainable.
THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSALS: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?
The President's proposals to increase defense spending should be evaluated against the backdrop of recent congressional funding debates and U.S. security commitments. Five points merit special emphasis:
The President's proposed increase is significantly less than what the Joint Chiefs of Staff requested when they testified before Congress in September. President Clinton is asking for an estimated $110 billion in new spending over the next six years. But last fall, the nation's senior military officers asked for nearly $150 billion, over 30 percent more than the President's proposal. On January 5, 1999, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the service chiefs reiterated their assessment that the defense budget should be boosted by $17.5 billion in FY 2000 and approximately $150 billion over the next six years.
Only one-third of the proposed $12 billion increase for FY 2000 represents "new money" for defense. A sizeable chunk of the President's proposed $12 billion increase will flow from lower-than-expected inflation and fuel costs, savings that ordinarily are returned to the Treasury. There is no guarantee that similar savings will be realized in future "out year" budgets. Inflation and fuel costs vary over time and are unlikely to remain as low as they are today. The President's initiative also includes $2 billion to extend the open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Bosnia.
The President's proposed defense spending increase includes a pay hike. Reportedly, $2.5 billion of the President's proposed defense budget will be used for a pay raise of 4.4 percent for 1.4 million service personnel. The President also aims to provide additional pay hikes for mid-range officers and non-commissioned officers, and to restore retirement benefits from 40 percent of basic pay to 50 percent.
Certainly, service personnel should be compensated for their service to this country; in this sense, the proposed pay increases are long overdue. But a pay increase alone will not resolve the services' recruiting and retention problems. Past efforts to stem the exodus of pilots by offering them financial incentives largely failed. The frantic pace of operational deployments under this Administration has taken a severe toll on morale, and surveys reveal that far too many service personnel are leaving the military because they have lost confidence in their senior military and civilian leaders.
To fund his proposed future defense budgets, the President assumes significant savings from congressionally authorized base closings. The President is expected to propose two more rounds of base closings, in 2001 and 2003, to help fund his proposed hike in defense spending. Even if Congress authorizes another base closing commission--and this is far from certain, given the divisive struggle over the last round of base closings in 1995--the savings will be quite modest. The estimate of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Henry Shelton that base closure savings could amount to $15 billion over the next five years appears wildly optimistic. Before Congress approves additional closings, it should carefully consider the long-term implications of further reducing the nation's military infrastructure. Once lost, military infrastructure is not easily recovered.
Neither the White House nor Congress has developed a credible plan to meet the Pentagon's long-standing procurement goal of $60 billion annually. In recent years, the Pentagon has spent less than $45 billion a year on procurement. The Congressional Budget Office has referred to the slump in funding future weapons systems as the procurement "holiday." 4 Unless the defense budget is increased well beyond the President's request, this "holiday" will be extended, starving tomorrow's military forces of the weapons systems they will need in the 21st century.
In considering the defense budget for fiscal years 2000 and beyond, Congress needs to balance short-term readiness concerns and longer-term force structure requirements. Funding readiness accounts at the expense of modernization accounts guarantees that tomorrow's military will be ill-equipped to accomplish its assigned missions. 5 On the other hand, if defense spending is shifted disproportionately to modernization accounts, the readiness of today's force will suffer. At present, neither short-term readiness nor long-term modernization accounts are adequately funded. Overall, the procurement shortfall presents a greater danger to U.S. security.
Taking these five considerations into account, the President's proposed increase appears quite modest. At best, the proposed spending hike will temporarily slow, but not stop, the slide toward reduced combat capabilities. Left uncorrected, this decline will undermine the ability of the United States to honor its security commitments and treaty obligations. Therefore, Congress must develop a credible plan for sustained increases in the defense budget.
Ginny, he didn't make cuts in the defense, to my opinion he didn't give it enough growing room, which to me is just as bad. So we could say he cut the deficit (good thing) but in turn made our military weaken(bad thing). Could we blame him for terrorists entering the county? Ahhh, playing the scapegoat game again.
He closed a base within 10 miles of Site R (Site R has no military housing). Instead of people taking a bus less than 10 miles, they stayed over 35 minutes away at Ft. Deatrich. What a money saving measure!
Because of 9/11 Ft. Ritchie is starting to house military families on a closed base
BTW, notice how Clinton only did this the year of a new election 1999! Too little too late, jmho!
Thanks, Marq. I always appreciate facts.
(BTW, as a dedicated Democrat, I think Clinton was a jerk. He could have been a great President if he had just kept it zipped, but I guess was another one of those who thought - they'll never catch me and if they do I am too important for them to do anything about it. A real jerk. Every time I think about it I could just spit!)
Men sometimes don't think with their brains Ginny, if you kwim;) LOL
I do know what you mean, but I do expect someone who is smart enough to become President to be smart enough to figure out that (a) someone will tell and (b) based on fairly recent history, telling the truth is always better than lying. Clinton is really a very smart man, but obviously not smart enough.
Who knows what would have happened if Nixon and Clinton had told the truth (and apologized to the American public, even if they didn't mean it). Certainly if Clinton had told the truth there would not have been all that impeachment stuff.
I read most of these posts but honestly not all of them.
I'd be pretty worried if Kerry won this years election. I've been raised in a republican family, and though i'm only 21 and far from a dedicated politician I know enough to stay Republican.
I could only imagine what would happen to our military and the rest of the world if Bush was taken out right now. I'm pretty sure Kerry would pull the troops right out of Iraq and everywhere else. Sure I could be selfish and say "Atleast my DH wont deploy again" but i'm a firm believer in the fact of "You finish what was started"
I dont care what anyone else says but I LOVE BUSH, I think hes a great president. Hes made his mistakes as EVERY other president has.
And for those who think he or whoever else is hiding things from the public. Why do WE need to know everything? Are WE going to fix it? WE arent sitting in the chair of the Commander in Chief for no reason...... I'm sure there are things not mentioned for safety reasons, for the fact that it may be only hear say or for the mere fact that it is none of our business or its best for us not to know.
Now remember, I'm no devoted politician and never plan to be but this is just my opinion from what I do know!
Boxzgrl...I am totally in agreement with you, I also believe there are alot of things that they don't us for good reason. I don't think i would want to know everything. Not to mention there are not only foreign terrorists but the Us has their own. We don't know who these people are or else they wouldn't be around so telling everyone critical info could hurt us more than help us. I am also dedicated to Bush and hope he stays. My dh is military as well and thinks Bush should stay!
I'm assuming this article (in the first post) is a letter to the editor?
Snopes.com
The letter may be real, but the link above disputes some of the "facts".
|
Members
