I noticed the same thing going on with the immigration debate. They used increased funding for the border protection and a pawn to pass their "comprehensive" immigration plan. Border states desperately need increased funding, but they won't get unless they grant amnesty. Now using the war in Iraq to haggle about pay raises and medical benefits.

All or nothing is not good policy for anything.


By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jul 19, 2007 10:49:48 EDT

The 2008 military pay raise has become a pawn in the political battle over the U.S. war strategy in Iraq — but much of what lawmakers are saying about the raise is wrong.

With or without the 2008 defense authorization bill, there will be a 3 percent increase in basic pay and drill pay on Jan. 1 because of a separate permanent pay law.

Completion of the Senate version of the $648 billion bill — now in limbo because of the Iraq war dispute — will determine only whether the raise will be greater than the 3 percent hike proposed by President Bush. The House passed and the Senate Armed Services Committee proposed a 3.5 percent military raise, designed to slightly reduce the 4 percent gap between military and private-sector pay that some military advocacy groups believe exists.

When a deadlock over Iraq-related amendments led Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada to pull the 2008 defense authorization bill from consideration on the Senate floor, Republicans accused him of denying troops a pay raise. Reid fired back, saying the reason troops wouldn’t get a raise is that Republicans refused to allow votes on Iraq.

The Senate Democratic Campaign Committee issued a statement accusing Republicans of shedding “crocodile tears over the delay.”

“The only things standing between our troops and their pay raise is the White House and Senate Republicans, intent on blocking any effort to change the course in Iraq,” the committee statement said. “The good news is Senate Republicans still have time to end their filibuster and work with Democrats to pass the defense authorization bill, ensuring that our troops receive the pay raise they deserve.”

At a news conference defending his decision, Reid was asked about the raise.

“We didn’t put off the pay raise,” he said. “Anything in that bill does not become effective until October, the end of the fiscal year, so we didn’t put off anything.”

However, while the bill covers the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the pay raise would not take effect until Jan. 1.

Congress rarely passes the annual defense bill by the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service does not typically need to know the amount of the pay increase until mid-December to have the proper amount included in mid-January paychecks, when the annual raise first appears.

Under federal law governing military and federal civilian pay increases, military members will receive a 3 percent pay increase in January unless Congress passes and the president signs a law authorizing a different amount, according to Pentagon and congressional aides who have been through this same debate on the fate of the raise in the past.

Because 3 percent is the amount requested by the Bush administration, and the White House has made clear it opposes a bigger raise, administration officials are not expected to protest very much over how pay is hurt by the Senate delay on the defense bill.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is among the GOP members complaining that Democrats are holding up the pay raise.

“We are not allowing a 3.5 percent pay raise to the men and women in the military,” he said.

Also complaining was Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., who said amendments were left hanging, including some involving the pay raise, when Reid pulled the bill.

“This is important legislation,” Lott said. “There is no excuse for pulling this down.”

One amendment still pending, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., would provide annual military pay increases through 2012 that are 0.5 percentage point greater than average private-sector pay increases, an effort to continue whittling the so-called pay gap. The House included a similar provision in its version of the defense bill, which the White House also opposes.

Complicating the finger-pointing over the raise is the fact that Hagel is among the few Republicans who has voted with Democrats on forcing the White House to change course in Iraq.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/0...y_pay_070719w/