U.S. may stop paying soldiers after June 15

It sounds scary, doesn’t it? If the U.S. Congress fails to pass the administration’s latest request for supplemental war funding by Memorial Day, the Defense Department may not be able to pay its soldiers after June 15. That’s what Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, charged Tuesday during a briefing to reporters.

“if Congress does not act soon, the Army will not be able to pay its soldiers after June the 15th," Morrell told us earlier today, adding: "Unless Congress appropriates the 108 billion dollars in the next few weeks, most of our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan could go without pay, and the critical progress they have achieved will be in jeopardy."

Technically, Morrell is right. Without that bill, the money will run out, and the Pentagon will be forced to turn to its other branches for funds. And yet, in the briefing room, as Morrell portended of potential financial chaos, no one seemed fazed.

In Washington, such warnings have become the common line every time the administration presents a massive supplemental war bill to a Congress.  Legislators use the bill as a launching pad to question the war. And the Pentagon warns that some facet of national security could be in danger without that money. It happened last year and the year before that. In fact, it’s not even exclusive to the Bush administration.  Under the Clinton administration, the military took some planes out of service and cut non-essential base costs when Congress wouldn’t pass the Defense Department’s budget.

And every time, after a lot of politicking and posturing, a bill passes and the looming crisis is averted.

That’s not to say the military doesn’t need the money or that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not dug deep into the military coffers. Or that Congress will automatically base the bill. Who knows?

But Morrell acknowledged that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent a letter Monday to Capitol Hill that said he was encouraged to hear they plan to pass the bill on time.

That is, it appears very unlikely soldiers in the field will discover empty bank accounts at home. So don’t panic, unless you think soldiers’ livelihood or key military programs should not be used as political leverage. There is no sign that will stop anytime soon.

Comments

[Andy]

This kind of thing has a long history - one that predates the Bush administration actually. Congress is not stupid enough to let such a thing happen.

[Marnie]

If their paychecks are so important, why does their Commander not include the costs of the war in the annual budget. If he had, the allocation would already have been made.

After all it is the President's Budget that the country runs on. He's the military leader. He is the one who controls military use and expendatures. Its his Command and his Watch.
This is yet another example of Bush's leadership style. He fails and blames anyone and everyone else.

[Charles]

I only wish the Democrats had the guts to call Bush's bluff on this one. Of course, given Bush's record on treatment of the military and veterans, he would probably allow them to miss a paycheck just to spite his opposition.

Those who want to end this war have only two options: End all funding for the war or impeach the President. But we wouldn't want to hurt the Democrat's chances in November just to save a few hundred lives or a few hundred billion dollars, so we'll just complain a bit and then pass the funding bill anyway.

[condfusedponderer]

The spectre of the soldiers, 'the best of the nation', being not paid in a time of war looming certainly is a way to pressure congress to increase defense spending. What's looming is the right's standard, tiresome attack line on this: Those bastardly D's stabbed the troops in the back - again!

Iirc the D's oppose further budged increases in face of the deficit. The Bushies probably simply spent what they got, and now are broke and rightly count on congress re-funding their adventures because if they don't they are weak on defense and hate America, want America to lose and hate the troops and will inevitably be attacked by their next political opponent on their 'voting record'. That is predictable.

So another defense spending bill will be rubber stamped, perhaps contain a condition, and will be signed by Bush with a signing statement that sais that he retains the right to ignore the bill if he deems it interferes with his powers as commander in chief.

Now I wonder, with so many sympathetic conservative judges on SCOTUS, why doesn't Bush just put his legal theories to the test over this one? After all, there is an apparent constitutional conflict. One would presume an interest to see it solved.

[Persona non grata]

Peace through superior deficit spending.

The only sure way to end Pax Americana is to bankrupt the empire.

The sycophants and thieves in
DC have pushed the US down the path to fiscal insolvency, the only question that remains is can what is left of the republic survive until then.

[Jon Koppenhoefer]

I'm reminded of the National Lampoon cover showing a cute dog with a gun to its head.

The caption was blunt: 'buy this magazine or we shoot this dog.'

The Pentagon knows how to hold hostages, too.

[Neil Cramer]

How fitting an administration that has raised policy madness to new levels that there should even be a suggestion of "not paying the troops" coincidental with Memorial Day. Perhaps we should hang the "Support the Troops" banners next to the "Mission Accomplished" one.

[Renate]

It is June7th here in NY. My son is in Iraq and on June 15th, he will NOT BE PAID for fighting the bad guys and defending America. This is disgusting, as are some of the posts above. EVERYONE IN THE CONGRESS, except for a few marxists, like Obama, voted to send our military into Iraq and Afghanistan-and now, when we are 95% done fighting the enemy, the Dem controlled congress will not pass a war supplemental. This is outrageous and it IS putting our troops in extreme danger! Yeah, tell me again how supportive all you are of the troops!