The pundits are upset today over a speech given by President Trump over the weekend to the U.S. Naval Academy’s graduation and commissioning ceremony. Why? The usual: perceived lies. From The Week:
He also patted himself on the back for giving troops pay raises “for the first time in over 10 years,” even though the military receives pay raises every year. “I fought for you,” said Trump of the raises. “That was the hardest one to get. But you never had a chance of losing. I represented you well. I represented you well.”
So what’s going on? FederalPay.org has some information. First, their leader:
President officially authorized a 1.4% pay raise for 2018. View 2018 GS Pay Scale and localities now!
So how about previous years? Well, according to the same site, from 2004 on to 2017, there have always been raises. It’s never been less that 1% (2014) and never more than 4.6% (2004). Furthermore, Steve Benen states without source that raises have occurred in every year of the Bush and Clinton Administrations as well.
FederalPay.org states this:
At the end of every year the federal government determines if, and by how much, the basic pay tables will increase. The increase is calculated based on the annual increase in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). Our current estimate of the upcoming 2019 military pay raise is 2.6% (see below for details).
If I were to bend over backward, it’s possible that Trump’s 1.4% pay raise is on top of the ECI adjustment mentioned above, but that requires an extremely generous reading of the quote – and is probably untrue.
It’s more interesting to wonder why President Trump is trying to gather up praise for an action that is not generous and nearly automatic. The easy read is that he simply lives for praise.
However, I think there’s more than that going on. By ingratiating himself to the military and its more fervid supporters and, more importantly, implying the Democratic Administration of President Obama did nothing for the pay of the military, he seeks to widen the divide currently savaging our society. Let’s face it: if you are not an independent (like myself), slanted information which fits our preconceptions can be easily accepted without verification – especially if you’re a working stiff with little time for verification, or are not particularly interested in politics, a position I’ve taken for many years. In cases such as this one, this then leads embitterment and a refusal to use the news media associated with the political opposition. Soon, the audience becomes isolated and distrustful of fellow Americans who may, in fact, share their values and interests – but, because of statements and claims such as President Trump’s, they have been mislead into becoming ever more hardened into a position they might not otherwise accept, if they had full facts.
The lesson here? Don’t trust a politician implicitly, whether their name is Trump, Obama, or your local. A little fact-checking, especially when a statement seems divisive, is always a wise move.
