But the government needs that money...

'CEO pay at Lockheed Martin went up from $5.8 million in 2000 to $25.3 million in 2002. It went up at General Dynamics (tanks and submarines) from $5.7 million in 2001 to $15.2 million in 2002. It went up at Honeywell (aircraft systems) from $12.9 million in 2000 to $45 million in 2002. It went up at Northrop Grumman from $7.3 million in 2000 to $9.2 million in 2002.

Pay went up at Alliant (bullets and bombs) from $1.4 million in 2000 to $10.5 million in 2002. It went up at Cardinal Health (medical supplies) from $2.9 million in 2001 to $17.7 million in 2002. It went up at United Defense Industries (guns and cannons) from $794,000 in 2000 to $2.7 million in 2002. At Raytheon (missiles and bombs), it went from $8 million in 2000 down to $2.6 million in 2001 and back up to $8.9 million in 2002.' Defense CEOs Are Big Winners of Iraq War

They have already resolved this issue. It was a mistake made at the Pentagon, and the troops will keep the money given to them. It is no surprise that some are blaming Bush though.

'KDKA contacted the Pentagon. Investigators there took a look. A military spokesman told KDKA's Marty Griffin the bill sent to Fox was a mistake.

Griffin asked Army Spokesperson Major Nathan Banks if the government was taking on Fox's case.

Banks said via phone, "We are. We are ... definitely working it out. We have seen where the problems have been made, the system, and we're just making - you know, give us the opportunity to make a wrong a right."

Major Banks says Fox will not have to pay back his bonus. Fox says "fine," but he wants more.

"Hopefully this will turn into change for not only me but many other soldiers that have lost limbs, you know, become permanently deaf," he said. "I hope to see a change for everybody."

The Pentagon will not comment on allegations that thousands of other soldiers just sent home from Iraq and other invasions, including Afghanistan, will not receive these sorts of bills. They cannot comment on those cases.' kdka.com

quote:

November 21, 2007
Injured troops to keep their bonuses
Posted November 21st, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Following up on an item from yesterday, news that injured U.S. troops were being asked to return bonus money from the military spread very quickly, putting the Pentagon in a very awkward position. The good news, the practice apparently won’t happen any more.



Reference

www.tpmmuckraker.com points out that, although the army won't be recouping money, it won't be paying out any bonus still owed to wounded soldiers, either.

The government needs to save every penny it can, to give to the important people:

'Overall, US government contracts for work in Iraq and Afghanistan have grown from 11 billion dollars in 2004 to almost 17 billion in 2005 and more than 25 billion last year, the study said.

The center quoted US Comptroller General David Walker as saying, in an interview for the study, that there were particular problems with lack of oversight for military contracting.

“We have identified about 15 systemic, longstanding acquisition and contracting problems that exist within the Defense Department — which is the single biggest contractor within the US government — that we are still not making enough progress on,” he said.

One official inquiry by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that the State Department was unable to say what it was receiving for much of the money given to DynCorp.' www.commondreams.org

(DynCorp got $1.8 billion)



This is not a new practice, apparently - 'Bill Prestis, a Navy veteran, broke his knee on duty. The injury was so bad that he was medically discharged.

"The first present was they gave me a re-enlistment bonus. Second present I broke my knee and they took it back," he explained.

That was 20 years ago. Since then, including disability and severance pay, he's had to pay back the Navy nearly $20,000.' kdka.com

The President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors (Word Document - June 2007)

'MS. ESTES... ...I have to mention there’s only been one incident that truly has outraged us: the military’s failure to pay Jason the second half of his enlistment bonus. They’re citing that because Jason was retired, even though it was a 100 percent service connected, he’s not entitled to the remainder of his enlistment bonus.

SEN. DOLE: He’s not entitled to what?

MS. ESTES: The remainder of his enlistment bonus. He got half when he finished basic training and so they owe him the other half right now. At no time did the recruiter mention that if a soldier is injured in the line of duty, he or she is not entitled to that promise. That’s just wrong.

SEN. DOLE: Yeah, that’s really incorrect. That’s happened to a lot of them.

MS. ESTES: Jason did meet his end of the bargain and has forfeited a lot...'

I guess Bush didn't bother to read this, or he did and thought, "Whatever...".

Apparently, this has been going on for quite a few years. Every president should be ashamed that he did nothing to change it.
--------
Scotty, why does your buddy bush get a pass when something bad happens on his watch, but Clinton gets blamed for everything bad that happened when he was president? Didn't each one take the same oath of office? (You know, the oath that states that he will support the US Constitution) Isn't the job description for the job the same in both cases? What's the difference?

quote:

"why does your buddy bush get a pass when something bad happens on his watch,?"

Did something "good" happen, at any time on Dubya's watch? Something not so bad that there could not be something worse, done by someone else, sometime in our lifetime? It boggles the mind!

I've said it before: I understand conservatism, and I'd even consider myself more conservative economically than the typical liberal. What I don't get is how anyone at all -- and especially conservatives -- can look at what bush has done to this country, economically, constitutionally, and be happy with it. And it seems obvious that the centerpiece of his war on terror, namely Iraq, has in every way done exactly what al Queda would have hoped and could not in its wildest dreams accomplished itself. And the damage to our military, the extent to which he makes promises in front of cameras (New Orleans, paying for veterans, etc), and breaks them in fact; deliberately suppressing facts, whether they relate to the military or to science in order to promote an agenda --- how can a conservative, whose central belief is in limiting and decentralizing the power of the executive, not look at bush and take to the streets with pitchforks and torches?