USAF chief of staff says troops will pay for war bill

[SPfloppy]

An associate of mine tried in vain to locate an article he had read last week about Gen Michael mosely the CSUSAF talking about the $1bil combat bill the air force is currently short to pay. My buddy said that in this article Mosely said that if the funds to pay were not found by august than every uniformed airman would pay out of thier checks to cover it. If this has any legs at all there will be such a mass exodus of active duty airmen they would have to stop loss the whole service for two years to catch up.

Has anyone here read anything about this? Furthermore if it is true and they take dime one from my check I swear by all that is holy I will never lend my vote or name to another conservative again.

[SPfloppy]

I just read something that says we are getting a raise and new facilities? So I guess this was an eronious report

[SPfloppy]

The Air Force’s top officer said Wednesday that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay.

Due to a congressional delay in approving a wartime supplemental funding bill this year, the Pentagon pulled about $880 million from the Air Force’s personnel accounts to make up for a shortfall it warned lawmakers would come in mid-April.
Poll: Should Air Force personnel be used to man Army billets in Iraq?
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley said at a breakfast meeting with reporters today that the money is coming out of the military personnel account earmarked for the last four months of the year.
“Somebody’s going to have to pay us back,” Moseley said. “You have to pay people every day when they come to work.”
“A: it’s the right thing to do, and B: it’s kind of the law,” he added.
Alert: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.
The shortfall could delay permanent change of station moves, temporary duty expenses and other pays that “take care of people,” he said.
On April 15, the Army announced it would have to cut training, depot repair, and maintenance of non war-related gear because funding for the surge in Iraq, combat operations in Afghanistan and other Global War on Terrorism costs was running dry.
The Army also requested that about $1.6 billion be diverted from the Air Force and Navy personnel accounts to help put the wartime funding tab in the black.
With Congress locked in a political battle with the Bush administration over withdrawal deadlines and troop rotation schedules, the $100 billion wartime spending bill to pay for operations through the end of the fiscal year has yet to be signed into law.
Though both the Senate and House have submitted the supplemental bill to the floor for a vote this week, President Bush has vowed a veto over withdrawal deadlines inserted into the law.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace has said if the wartime funds aren’t in place by mid-May, even more drastic cuts will have to be made, including reductions in training for forces on their way to Iraq, which will force the Pentagon to extend the deployments of units already there.
“The comptroller now has a check that they’re going to have to give us back to pay for [personnel] as we get closer to the end of the summer,” Moseley explained, putting the screws to Pentagon and administration budgeteers to recoup the loss.
“I don’t want to have any concerns about getting that money back,” he said. “It would be a breach of faith to take mil-pers money out of a service and then fast forward a couple of quarters and then just say ‘eat it.’”
Moseley said he’ll resist providing Airmen to man jobs the Army and Marine Corps can’t fill due to high operational tempo and increased demand, insisting his service is “drawing some red lines” to deny ground commanders’ requests.
About 20,000 Air Force personnel have filled shortfalls in the ground services’ manning – dubbed “in lieu of taskings” – including convoy and base security operations and even detainee handling jobs. As early as 2005, Air Force security personnel began augmenting Army detainee-handling troops at Camp Bucca prison near Baghdad and have continued to man prison jobs in Iraq.
“We don’t guard prisoners, we don’t even have a prison,” Moseley said. “To take out people and train them to be a detainee-guarding entity requires time away from their normal job.”
Some U.S.-based Air Force commands have as many as 25 percent of their personnel deployed to Iraq and are still executing their home station duties. For example, the San Angelo, Texas-based 17th Training Wing has its crash, fire, and rescue teams and security force units deployed “and we’re still operating the wing,” Moseley said.
Moseley said he’s happy to provide personnel with job skills the Air Force has in abundance, including drivers and information technology specialists. But “I am less supportive of things outside of our competencies,” he said.
“We’ve drawn some red lines on some of the ‘in lieu of’ taskings to get away from the tasking of our folks that is incredibly outside the competencies.”

[Spider]

you know me , I am a democrat , but I seriously doubt any one in any party will allow this to happen ........Both sides dont want to leave the military hanging ......

[Cito Pelon]

GWB & Co. don't want rich people to have to pay taxes to fund the war.

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by Cito Pelon

GWB & Co. don't want rich people to have to pay taxes to fund the war.

oh yes, those untaxed rich. they are evil, the workers should revolt.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by SPfloppy

The Air Force’s top officer said Wednesday that if nearly $1 billion in personnel funds taken from the service to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t restored by the end of the summer, Airmen and civilian employees might not get their pay.

Yeah I heard at work this past week that the funding to pay for new hires, promotions, etc was simply gone and that the pay fund was about to dry up within 1-2 months tops. There were speculating that within a month we wouldn't be getting paid.

[yavoon]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Yeah I heard at work this past week that the funding to pay for new hires, promotions, etc was simply gone and that the pay fund was about to dry up within 1-2 months tops. There were speculating that within a month we wouldn't be getting paid.

that sux mad balls.

[heydensmom]

Won't happen. Something similar happened like this (not to this scale) back in 1995-1996 due to the defense bill not being signed. It was threatened but it never happened.

[SPfloppy]

When Bill Clinton shut down the gov for a couple of days a goodly number of active duty army didn't get paid (or at least so say a couple of old sgts I worked with). With this however I am inclined to believe we will get paid. They have been cutting money from the PCS fund (perminant change of station) for some time but we are still over by a few hundred mil. The fix for this is easy but I dunno if they will do it. Freeze all overseas returnees (not deployed folks, I am saying troops in Germany, Spain, Korea, Turkey ect.) for one fiscal quarter. That would save millions upon millions. If you did it for one year we'd actually end up with a surplus and be able to buy the new planes Mosely wants.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by SPfloppy

An associate of mine tried in vain to locate an article he had read last week about Gen Michael mosely the CSUSAF talking about the $1bil combat bill the air force is currently short to pay. My buddy said that in this article Mosely said that if the funds to pay were not found by august than every uniformed airman would pay out of thier checks to cover it. If this has any legs at all there will be such a mass exodus of active duty airmen they would have to stop loss the whole service for two years to catch up.

Has anyone here read anything about this? Furthermore if it is true and they take dime one from my check I swear by all that is holy I will never lend my vote or name to another conservative again.

When president Carter was in office, the armed forces paycheck was delayed for a similar type reason. Back then there was no direct deposit and when I came home on payday, without a paycheck, talked about a pissed off wife. I'm thinking though, they won't let this happen again hopefully..dman

[clarkster]

Originally Posted by heydensmom

Won't happen. Something similar happened like this (not to this scale) back in 1995-1996 due to the defense bill not being signed. It was threatened but it never happened.

yeah i remember that, i think it was the budget didnt get approved in time, and there was a small amount of folks that had delayed pay. it did kind of screw up some of the automatic bill paying folks though

[Bronco Bob]

It was interesting too that up until that point in time the Republicans in Congress
were in the catbird seat and Clinton wasn't very popular. But when Clinton
made his stand on the budget, his popularity grew and the Republicans
began to be viewed less favorably. Where-as now Bush has dropped even
more in the polls, down to 28%, after vetoeing this budget, and Democrats
have gotten even more popular in the polls.

[Rascal]

That's true bob, but I can tell you that if the military doesn't get paid they will overwhelmingly blame the dems in congress and not Bush (based on the people I've talked too).

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Rascal

That's true bob, but I can tell you that if the military doesn't get paid they will overwhelmingly blame the dems in congress and not Bush (based on the people I've talked too).

That is, an absolute FOR SURE.......talking about losing the military vote...they'll lose it quick, that would be any dem who runs for anything...dman

[bendog]

I love this. And they b****ed about WJC. roflmao

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by defenseman

That is, an absolute FOR SURE.......talking about losing the military vote...they'll lose it quick, that would be any dem who runs for anything...dman

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

That was way to much truth for Dman to respond to. It'll take a while for a talking point to be invented.

HEADLINE "BUSH VETOES MILITARY FUNDING BILL" because of reasonable timetables attached to bill!

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

Surrender date aside right? You are guilty of telling only half the truth, try putting out all the info. then again, you publish that which meets your agenda. Pretty familiar tactic. Hide it better next time there lefty..dman

[Hotrod]

Hey, why dont we just print up some more $ if were running low?

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Odd, considering the Dems gave the military all the money it needed and it
was Bush who vetoed the bill and is denying the military the funding it needs.
So you are saying the majority of the military is hard core Bushies and
will never blame Bush for anything, even them not getting paid the money
the Dems allocated for them?

seriously talk about half a story wow

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

Hey, why dont we just print up some more $ if were running low?

That's a running joke in my office.

"Were are we going to get money for that?" "Eh..we'll just print some more up."

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by defenseman

Surrender date aside right? You are guilty of telling only half the truth, try putting out all the info. then again, you publish that which meets your agenda. Pretty familiar tactic. Hide it better next time there lefty..dman

...which "surrender" date are you referring to we surrendered when this hor**** went from being an "attack" to being a police/ security/ training action.

...so IMO we already either won or surrendered, GWB just can't say the words because they are against his gung-ho cowboy mentality!

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

That was way to much truth for Dman to respond to. It'll take a while for a talking point to be invented.

HEADLINE "BUSH VETOES MILITARY FUNDING BILL" because of timetables attached to bill!

I think you added a word there which was well debateable at the very least.

Line Item Veto for me please.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Hotrod

seriously talk about half a story wow

Considering the large majority of American troops in Iraq think we shouldn't be there, it makes sense to start winding this Bush clusterf88k up and get em back home.