I'm starting a movement.

[Troll]

I'm no longer in the military. I did 12 years in the Marines from 1982, the year we had the largest pay raise thanks to Reagan, unto 1994, thanks to Bill and his military cutbacks on monies and personel. But this ain't about party politics. This is about those that send and those that do.

During my time of service I sat back and waited to see if congress would, after debating heavily for up to 6 months, decide to give those that do, the ones that risk their lives, a 3.4% or a 4.3% pay raise, while watching them almost automatically giving themselves a 10% or more pay raise.

Something about that has always seemed wrong to me. At the time I was in the average warrior made about $16,000 a year, I'm talking junior enlisted ranks, the average politician at that time was making 140,000 a year.

I keep hearing about how we should support our troops and their families during war. Why not do the same while they are not at war?

Mail your senators and congressmen/women and tell them that you will not vote for them again if they continue down this path of sending people to risk their lives for low pay while they get fat off our tax dollars. Why should they receive a higher cost of living increase than the men and women they rely on to risk their lives for their own safety?

Anyhow I plan on mailing my representatives about this and if I see enough interest spread throughout the places I post this at I may just start a site to better spread the information and escalate the movement.

Admittedly, right now I'm the only one in the movement.:eek:

[subgenius]

I for one am grateful for your service.
Just wondering what you think:

Alarmed by the cost of expanding military entitlement programs, President Bush has threatened to veto the $355 billion defense authorization bill for the new fiscal year if House and Senate conferees do not eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost from $18.5 billion to $58 billion over the next decade.

"We simply cannot continue to add ever-expansive obligations to the defense budget," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in a letter to the conferees, who could decide the issue this week. "This would divert critical resources away from the war on terrorism, the transformation of our military capabilities and important personnel programs such as pay raises and facilities improvements."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09B.bush.veto.htm
__________________________

WASHINGTON -- Veterans groups are angry at President George W. Bush for supporting a 1995 government decision to rescind an old promise of free lifetime health benefits for military retirees.

This is the man who told veterans and active-duty military personnel after the 2000 campaign that he would make sure "promises made to our veterans will be promises kept." So why does he persist in short-changing the retirees, especially when he is preparing for another war and hoping to lure more volunteers for the military?
http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/helenthomas/1873884/detail.html