FReep the Washington Post:"Do uniformed personnel need another LARGE [!] across-the-board pay hike?"

www.HughHewitt.com ^ | 03/05/2002 | Hugh Hewitt, in response to today's lead editorial in the Washington Post

[RonDog]

February 5, 2002

Afternoon Posting:

Three outrages have come to your editor's attention:  First, the Washington Post in its lead editorial today asks

"Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike, the second broad increase in two years, or could the services meet their needs with more targeted pay raises?"

Let the Washington Post know what you think by e-mailing them at letters@washpost.com

[RonDog]

Nationally syndicated CONSERVATIVE talk radio host (and very good FRiend of the forum, Hugh Hewitt) has posted THREE (3) outrages on his website, www.HughHewitt.com, and requested that we send a PASSIONATE (but polite) "letter to the Editor" to the (obviously IGNORANT) folks at the Washington Post to EDUCATE them about the WOEFULLY underpaid men and women of the United States armed services:

letters@washpost.com

"Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike?"

(HINT: The answer is YES!!!)

[RonDog]

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his WND commentaries,
this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know.)

[Husker24]

Its funny the Democrates are always whineing that teachers dont make enough, but they make more than soldiers and a hell of a lot less than FEDERAL postal workers yet you never hear them bitching about raising the price of a stamp to give more money to these overpaid people.

[Rain-maker]

Question is how much is your freedom worth?

Supporter of armed forces pay raise. Fighters of freedom deserve more than pay below the poverty level and inflation!

[Nitro]

Sent the following letter but couldn't find the poll:

To whom it may concern, While the vast majority of our Armed Services personnal would still have served at any price, I think we do owe them a living wage! It is not fair to take advantage of their patriotism by short-changing them. Especially the married service members, even more especially when they are sent on long deployments and have to leave a young family behind. Not only will it ease the burden of the stay behinds but it will enable the deployed parent to focus more on the job at hand and quite possible save their life!!

[rivercat]

Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike?

No, they need a graduated pay hike with the greatest increases in the enlisted ranks.
See here for current rates... 2002 Miltary Pay Chart (pdf)
The perfumed princes already get paid well.

Just one former Staff Sergeant's opinion

[RonDog]

Thanks, Nitro!

Sorry for the confusion. It is NOT a poll.
Just a bone-headed lead editorial, which includes the quote posted above, here in a litle more context:

"...No doubt Congress is eager, as it should be, to pay generously for the fight against terrorists. War is expensive, and so is the kind of global presence that the United States should maintain both to deter conflict and to participate in peacekeeping. The events of the past year have definitively laid to rest the notion, popular among some reformers, that the Pentagon could safely skip a generation of weapons and devote itself mostly to research.

But Congress should ask whether the Defense Department, under the heading of fighting terrorism, has decided that it doesn't have to make any tough choices. Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike, the second broad increase in two years, or could the services meet their needs with more targeted pay raises? What's happened to promises of more businesslike practices and elimination of duplication among services? To ask such questions reflects no lack of zeal for the war. Nor should the administration let Congress off the hook for its support of unnecessary bases and weapons programs, simply because now it's easier to pork up than to fight back..." (click here for MORE)

(This editorial is from the Washington Post, so we are under a court order NOT to post the FULL TEXT.)

Please send them an E-MAIL to express your concern:

letters@washpost.com

"Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike?"

(HINT: The answer is YES!!!)

[El Gato]

Perhaps they need a raise targeted to the junior levels of both office and enlisted ranks. The Nixon raise of '71 was something like that. The problem with that one was that it came to late to help those of us who had gone to AFROTC "summer camp" as part of the two year program. It was originally to take effect July 1, which would have almost doubled our pay, which was that of an E-1, (4 yr program cadets got 1/2 of 0-1 pay, IIRC) Junior officers make a bit less than starting teachers (in Texas that is, much less than teachers in some other places) , who are not especially well paid in comparison to other college graduates. Only thing is the pay is the same weather you are PE major, slated to be the junior Commissar officer, or a Chemical Engineer, or even a physicist or engineer with an MS or PhD.

[terilyn]

The same congress that just voted yes on their own pay raise better not balk on a pay raise for the military. What next? Are they going to try to disqualify the military votes? Oh, never mind....they already tried that once.

[Nitro]

All I saw was FReep and the Washington Post and I dove right in!!

So having sent a letter, consider them FReeped!!

[OldFriend]

LOLOL sent them an email asking if TWO newspapers were really needed in Washington D.C. Suggested they should consider the environment and shut down their newspaper and know with confidence that we would get our information and the TRUTH from the Washington Times.

[Snow Bunny]

Thank you RonDog.

[terilyn]

My letter to the Washington Compost:

To the Editor:

The question, "Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike, ..."? begs a response.

If the same congress that just voted themselves a pay raise at taxpayer expense, while refusing to allow an economic stimulus package to come to a vote, even tries to stop this pay raise for our military it will be political suicide for the democrats in congress. Oh yes, these are the same democrats that tried to disqualify the military votes for their own Commander in Chief...

Yes, our uniformed personnel not only needs another pay raise, they deserve it. Unlike our elected officials. Maybe the military should vote on whether congress should get a pay raise the next time

[RonDog]

"...Yes, our uniformed personnel not only needs another pay raise, they deserve it.
Unlike our elected officials.
Maybe the military should vote on whether congress should get a pay raise the next time."

GREAT e-mail, terilyn! Thank you!!!

[RonDog]

Hi, Snow Bunny!

Can you blast off a quick e-mail to the Washington Post?

Thanks! (I will post a link to this thread on today's "USO Canteen" - soon.)

[ElkGroveDan]

Three outrages have come to your editor's attention:

Actually I can think of a FOURTH outrage....that a guy like Hugh Hewitt who claims to be a conservative is running around promoting a far-left commie-lib, pinko, traitor, RINO by the name of Richard Riordan in the primary for California Governor.

Hewitt wants to nominate a guy who is MORE liberal than Gray Davis to run against him. Sick. Sick. Sick.

Simon For Governor!

[e_engineer]

dcam,

Thanks for the link to the pdf file. For those of us who were never in the military, does the "Monthly Career Sea Pay" add to the "Basic Pay" while you are at sea? How about the "Submarine Pay"? How much would your typical marine serving in Afghanistan, with about 3 years of service be taking home for for placing his life on the line for us?

What pay grades do most of the enlisted folks fall into?

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...My Letter has been sent castigating the Boys & Girls at the Washington Post for their attacking our Protectors in -Time of War-...

Signed: Vet/Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LzXray.com

[RonDog]

Actually I can think of a FOURTH outrage....that a guy like Hugh Hewitt who claims to be a conservative is running around promoting a far-left commie-lib, pinko, traitor, RINO by the name of Richard Riordan in the primary for California Governor.

Hewitt wants to nominate a guy who is MORE liberal than Gray Davis to run against him.
Sick. Sick. Sick.

LOL!! You missed the FIFTH outrage: Hugh wants to let Mexico take over America. (Aren't you paying attention?)

Seriously, NO ONE on talk radio is perfect, and I will support Hugh whenever he is on the side of the angels, as he is with THIS campaign against the WP's bone-headed editorial bashing the military.

I cannot listen to Hugh's radio show all three hours every day, but I have not heard him promote RINO Riordan in quite a while. My guess is that Hugh will support ANYONE who can get rid of "Lights Out" Gray Davis - even if it is Simon.
Let us agree to postpone THIS discussion until after the Republican Gubanatorial primary in California - March 5 - and see what Hugh says THEN...

If Bill Simon wins big there, as you and I hope he will, I think that Hugh will support him.

[RonDog]

...My Letter has been sent castigating the Boys & Girls at the Washington Post for their attacking our Protectors in -Time of War-...

Signed: Vet/Battle of IA DRANG-1965 www.LzXray.com

Thank you, ALOHA RONNIE!!!

See also Doug from Upland's thread on this same topic:

THE LID IS OFF (regarding the military)
Posted on 2/5/02 3:38 PM Pacific by doug from upland

This e-mail FReep needs all the exposure that we can give it, IMHO.