Army Times article critical of Kerry on military pay raise.

Kerry fails to deliver on pay raise promise

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer


After promising in February to lead a fight against the smallest military pay raise since 1994, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., failed to offer an amendment to give a larger raise during Senate debate on the 2007 defense budget.

After the Senate passed its defense authorization bill June 22 and left intact the 2.2 percent raise sought by the Bush administration, Kerry said he had been working with Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., on an amendment calling for a 2.7 percent raise for all service members effective Jan. 1, but was waved off by the Senate Armed Services Committee.


“It is our understanding that the committee has made the determination, in consultation with people in the services, the needs of the services, that there is a particular problem with respect to retention of noncommissioned officers,” Kerry said, appearing to indicate that he didn’t think it was possible to carry through with a Bush administration plan to provide targeted pay raises for warrant officers and mid-career enlisted members on April 1 if the Jan. 1 pay increase for all ranks was slightly higher.

However, the House Armed Services Committee approved a two-part pay plan, urged by Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., that would do exactly what Kerry said is impossible. At a cost of about an extra $300 million, the House version of the defense bill includes a 2.7 percent basic pay raise and also includes a targeted pay increase of up to 8.3 percent for E-5s, E-6s, E-7s and warrant officers.

More at: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1913145.php
****************

I saw the Sen. withdraw his amendment on the pay raise. I understand that the Senate wasn't going to pass it anyway. I grok a little bit about how that place works. Still, this is exactly the type of press you don't want. A stronger statement about what happened would be nice.

If he said he would do it, he should have at least told them the problem. It's unfair as it's Bush who really controls it and Kerry gets very little praise when he works to add something - whether he succeeds or not.

And lends itself to the dreaded 'he switched' thing that so bedeviled him last time. The truth is, of course, in the details, along with the devil, no doubt.

I thought Sen. Kerry withdrew the Kerry/Hagel proposal on the pay raise issue just after the Kerry/Feingold amendment last week. It was for the reasons stated in the Army Times article: the money went to targeted efforts to aid recruitment and retainment of soliders. I understand this and I understand that Sen. Kerry pointedly announced this while Sen. Warner was still on the floor. I believe there was probably some sort of deal for something else in the legislation. I get that. But it still looks like the good Senator from Mass skipped out on what he said he would do. I would like to see a fuller explanation of this.

Why is the sole focus of the piece Kerry, when it is BUSH'S BUDGET - It is Bush who proposed the low pay increase. Not Kerry.

Sorry if I am dumb.

and said he would work to increase the amount of the pay raise. Sen. KErry, in effect, brought it up as an issue.

Kerry said he would propose an amendment and he did not. I imagine there were reasons why he did not, but the problem is that he should not have publicized he would do it if he was not able to. These are silly things like that that have allowed the GOP to characterize him as somebody who does not have strong positions and it looks bad.

would not pass when reconciled with the Senate bill and was pushed through to allow the Repub to look good.
I am sure Senator Kerry wasn't lying when he made his statements.I question the accusations in this article appearing in what I believe to be a fairly right leaning publication. I want to see if this is picked up and reported by RW media types. In other words, I think this is meant as an attack against Senator Kerry and there is a lot more to this story than what is being reported.

criticism. Note they are not stupid enough to claim it would have passed.

I agree with Tay-Tay. He needs to explain what happened.

rather than waste time and appear to be pandering. Perhaps, this is just a retreat and not a surrender. As Sen.Warner noted, this may well be brought up again. The issue is important and has not been forgotten. It will be taken up again, I am sure. I don't think Kerry would go back on a promise.

that people will give a free pass on Kerry (particularly on Kerry) and he knows that, so he should be careful not opening himself to these accusations.

that he may not be able to keep or make good right away.

although I don't consider it real criticism. I think Sen. Kerry should put something out on this. I bet that there were damn good reasons on why this money, in his opinion, was better allocated to other things. But, dammit, I am tired of the silly 'flip-flop' things that come up and would like to see this pre-emptively dealt with so it doesn't come back and bite people in the ass.

The smear merchants only read stuff like this. They don't care who wanted to fund PTSD research and care for vets. They don't care about all the times that Kerry has 'been there' for vets. They only care about stuff like this and only narrowly. (They could care less about the substance of this. Policy and substance don't mean anything to the haters.) I just want Sen. Kerry to get his side of this out, so that if it comes up, it can be defended against. That's all.

That said, I fear that this might not be something that can be reasonably discussed at large. Eyes start glazing over when you discuss what actually happens in the Senate and how things get done and how compromise is how the place is supposed to work. But still, I would like the explanation and to know what the thing the pay raise was traded for was and why it is important. That's all.

to the notion of flip flopping. Somewhere in between, there has got to be a short reasonable response that stops the accusation in its tracks. Maybe in the future when he is taking on these types of issues that are subject to Republican control, he should recognize his limitations and present the issue as such. For example, I will do everything within my power to.....

is the damned if you do, damned if you don't crowd. What is maddening is the criticisms he gets for sticking up for something he believes in when it's clear no one else will, but now when he puts aside something that appears to be in serious negotiation, with a real effort behind it, the same thing happens.

"Everything in my power..." would open up another can of worms. Kerry said "until it becomes a reality"...it appears to have become one. I will not call the article a hit piece, but its sole purpose is to state: Kerry said he would offer an amendment for a pay increase, but he didn't, but the pay increase happened, but not because Kerry did it. And the key hit between Kerry not offering the amendment and the pay increase happening without it is the implication that he thought it impossible. Kerry said nothing of the sort. He didn't even say the money could be better spent elsewhere, he said there was an issue, and judging from the reports posted below, the committees took up the issue.

I would understand the article if the other circumstances didn't exist.

Still, for the reasons you and Tay stated, the only way to stop this silliness is for the explanation to come from Kerry.

the time. I suppose you are correct, there is no good way to approach these things.
I also, don't disagree that Kerry should say something on this matter. I wonder if he is even aware of the article?

subjectivity there:




Seems much wrangling went on and is going on in the committees:

I agree it sounds like a bit of a dirty trick played in the house committee. Meant to dent Kerry's credibility with military on this issue. They are already fighting him for 2008.