an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about military pay

MILITARY PAY: Our G.I.'s make enough ?! CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office. This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about military pay, and it should be printed in all newspapers across America . Ms. Cindy Williams wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year, citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this. "Ms. Williams: I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's Earn Enough," and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington , D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously, they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece. But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN. If you get this more than once, feel honored that you know more than one person who supports our military and appreciate what they do.

Long but it was my cusin's status on FB who's stationed in South Korea I thought some of you would appreciate it

Is he online right now? There is a guest in Korea on the big map

I doubt it, but I'll find out.

Hate to burst the bubble here but Cindy Williams worked for the Clinton administration from 1994-1997, and wrote the letter three years after she left the government, in January 2000. In an August 2009 version of this letter the responding airman was changed from Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah to Kabul, Afghanistan.



Here is the real/original article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33607-2000Jan11.html

By Cindy Williams
Wednesday, January 12, 2000; Page A19

This month every member of the U.S. military is getting a 4.8 percent pay raise, the biggest inflation boost the military has seen in 18 years. The ink on the paychecks is not yet dry, but already some politicians and lobbyists are clamoring for bigger raises in future years. Just this week the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) reported that most military people feel they are not paid fairly.

Proponents of additional hefty raises argue that even after this month's raise, the military suffers a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector. But in fact there is no pay gap worthy of the name; our armed forces are already paid very well compared with the rest of America. It makes no sense to pour money into outsized pay raises. The 25 percent pay hike that some proponents are backing would cost taxpayers more than $12 billion a year.

The "gap" of 13 percent does not measure the relative levels of military and civilian pay. Rather, it is supposed to reflect the differences between military and private sector raises since 1982. The calculation is set up to make the differences seem as large as possible. For example, it includes the growth in what the military calls "basic pay" but not the growth in allowances for food and housing. And it compares the military and civilian raises over separate time periods. Just correcting for those two problems cuts the result in half.

Comparing raises and calling it a pay gap makes no sense anyway. If you get a 5 percent raise this year and your neighbor gets 10 percent, it hardly means your pay has fallen behind your neighbor's: If you earned twice as much as your neighbor to start with, you still earn more than he does. Wage data show that our troops typically earn more money than 75 percent of civilians with similar levels of education and experience.

For example, after four months in the Army, an 18-year-old private earns about $21,000 a year in pay and allowances. In addition, he or she gets a tax advantage worth about $800, because some of the allowances are not taxed. That's not bad for a person entering the work force with a high school diploma. By way of comparison, an automotive mechanic starting out with a diploma from a strong vocational high school might earn $14,000 a year. A broadcast technician or communications equipment mechanic might earn $20,000 to start but typically needs a year or two of technical college.

At the higher end of enlisted service, a master sergeant with 20 years in the Marine Corps typically earns more than $50,000 a year--better than a senior municipal firefighter or a police officer in a supervisory position, and comparable to a chief engineer in a medium-sized broadcast market. Among the officers, a 22-year-old fresh out of college earns about $34,000 a year as an ensign in the Navy--about the same as the average starting pay of an accountant, mathematician or a geologist with a bachelor's degree. A colonel with 26 years makes more than $108,000.

In addition to these basic salaries, there are cash bonuses for officers and enlisted personnel with special skills. There are also fringe benefits: four weeks of paid vacation, comprehensive health care, discount groceries, tuition assistance during military service and as much as $50,000 for college afterward. Enlistment and reenlistment bonuses can run to $20,000 and more.

Advocates of additional big raises maintain that military people should be paid more because they are more highly qualified--they exceed national averages in verbal and math skills and percentage of high school graduations. But while these facts may help explain why the majority of our soldiers already earn more money than 75 percent of Americans, they don't explain why their future raises should exceed civilian wage growth by a large amount.

Some advocates contend that we need a large boost in military pay because the services are finding it difficult to attract and keep the people they need. But recruiting can be improved much less expensively by pumping up advertising, adding recruiters and better focusing their efforts and expanding enlistment bonuses and college programs. Pay is not necessarily the most important factor in a person's decision to stay in or leave the military. We might get better results by reducing the frequency of deployments, relaxing antiquated rules and improving working conditions.

Proponents of higher pay also note that military people put up with hardships such as long hours and family separations. Yet many civilian occupations make similar demands, and firefighters, police and emergency medical personnel, like many in the military, risk their lives on the job.

The report that CSIS released this week points to problems of morale and dissatisfaction across the military. But those problems are not all about pay. According to CSIS, they reflect concerns about training and leadership, the demands of frequent overseas deployments and unmet expectations for a challenging and satisfying military lifestyle. Higher pay will not fix these problems.

The writer, a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was assistant director for national security in the Congressional Budget Office from 1994 to 1997.

Not bursting my bubble lol I didn't know like I said I was just reposting what my cusin status was and didn't really look into it. Funny how stuff like that happens.

MMAEYES wrote:

Not bursting my bubble lol I didn't know like I said I was just reposting what my cusin status was and didn't really look into it. Funny how stuff like that happens.

This type of thing happens all the time.

I was gonna say it had to be old because I look at what guys in the Army make every day and the lowest paid LES I have seen was around 1600.00 and that was just the base pay for an E-2. I don't think they are over or underpaid. If I sign up to serve my country it doesn't matter because I signed up to do it. I wish I would have done it when I was younger.
Not too mention that hazard pay that they get would come in handy right now. You get about 10 grand extra now for a tour of duty. If you come home safe then its worth it. Some men and women don't get to celebrate spending that though and some spend it on things around the house to make it more accessable for their wheelchair. Think about that!

Teachers are underpaid too, school administrators, overpaid.