OT: ANOTHER Show Business Attitude!
01-29-2003, 01:12 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
OT: ANOTHER Show Business Attitude!
On 12 Nov, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a
piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year -- citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds:
"Ms Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs 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.
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
with 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 have 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 (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 nearly be
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 op-ed 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
rights 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 nose 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?
Rubbish!
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC"
piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year -- citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds:
"Ms Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs 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.
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
with 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 have 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 (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 nearly be
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 op-ed 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
rights 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 nose 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?
Rubbish!
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC"
01-29-2003, 02:19 PM
#2
Gold Member
Gold Member
Wrong Cindy Williams.
Our GIs Earn Enough
> > 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 collegeAt
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ** If anyone chooses to e-mail a response to this
> > woman about her article
> > you can at [email protected] or
> > [email protected] Perhaps we should
> > tell her how military life truly is and not how she
> > perceives it to be.
> >
> >
copied from Urban Legends and Folklore
Comments: We wouldn't be discussing this particular forwarded email if it weren't for two blatant factual errors in the introductory paragraph:
The claim that actress Cindy Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" wrote an editorial against military pay increases (False — the piece was written by a different Cindy Williams, an expert in national security issues)
The claim that said editorial was published in the Washington Times (False — it was published in the Washington Post)
The original Washington Post article ran in January 2000 and was copied and pasted soon thereafter in a number of newsgroup discussions. The above-quoted response by Michael Bragg (one of many such authored and circulated by outraged military personnel at the time) first appeared on the Internet about a month later, at which time it did not contain the erroneous attribution to actress Cindy Williams. As far as we can tell, that mistake crept into the text around July 2001. The message has continued to circulate in that form ever since.
Comments: We wouldn't be discussing this particular forwarded email if it weren't for two blatant factual errors in the introductory paragraph:
The claim that actress Cindy Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" wrote an editorial against military pay increases (False — the piece was written by a different Cindy Williams, an expert in national security issues)
The claim that said editorial was published in the Washington Times (False — it was published in the Washington Post)
The original Washington Post article ran in January 2000 and was copied and pasted soon thereafter in a number of newsgroup discussions. The above-quoted response by Michael Bragg (one of many such authored and circulated by outraged military personnel at the time) first appeared on the Internet about a month later, at which time it did not contain the erroneous attribution to actress Cindy Williams. As far as we can tell, that mistake crept into the text around July 2001. The message has continued to circulate in that form ever since.
Our GIs Earn Enough
> > 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 collegeAt
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > ** If anyone chooses to e-mail a response to this
> > woman about her article
> > you can at [email protected] or
> > [email protected] Perhaps we should
> > tell her how military life truly is and not how she
> > perceives it to be.
> >
> >
01-29-2003, 05:46 PM
#3
Charter Member #71
Charter Member
Lets see
Private E1.........$21,000
Ensign...............$34000
Top Sgt..............$50000
Colonel..............$108000
The HONOR of being willing to fight and die for our great country...............PRICELESS!!!!!!!
Dan
USMC 65-68
Private E1.........$21,000
Ensign...............$34000
Top Sgt..............$50000
Colonel..............$108000
The HONOR of being willing to fight and die for our great country...............PRICELESS!!!!!!!
Dan
USMC 65-68
