Since 07-31-05
Letter to Editor: GAO (Garbage Agency Office): Military is well paid but doesn't know it
Since 07-31-05
From: Waspscpo@aol.com [mailto:Waspscpo@aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:27 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Fw: Letter to Editor: GAO (Garbage Agency Office): Military is
well paid.......
Subj: Fw: Letter to Editor: GAO (Garbage Agency Office): Military is well paid
but doesn't know it ...
Date: 7/31/2005 10:58:05 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: hmriley@cox.net
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; CC: milupdate@aol.com, JackHollinsworth@yahoo.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)
Jack Hollinsworth posed a question to Tom Philpott. Tom answered Jack and has
given me liberty to respond. I have added my comments to Tom Philpott's
response, which is in black and mine in blue/underlined
below.
Harry Riley
"The bedrock of our very "freedom and liberty" rests on the love of Christ and
sacrifice of our warriors and spouses."
----- Original Message -----
From: Milupdate@aol.com
To: jackhollinsworth@yahoo.com
Cc: hmriley@cox.net Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Letter to Editor: GAO (Garbage Agency Office): Military is well
paid by ...
Tom, I know you have an answer to this.
Sure. I'm reporting this week on a prominent government report. It represents a
strengthening signal from auditors and budget analysts, to Congress and the
Defense Department, to slow spending on military personnel, and particularly
retirees and their survivors.
I'm not endorsing the GAO report. But if I don't write about such reports, if I
ignore their analyses, how do military people know what Congress is being told
and why takes this action but not that one?
There are those who hate the message and thus strike out at the messenger.
That's been true always, or at least in my 28 years of reporting on military pay
and benefits. Don't report the views of others if they tick me off! And in this
graceless age of Fox News, etc., they are liars or nitwits and so are you, for
sharing those views with us! There is nothing in the rules that prohibit
media from making observations or adding qualifiers that question resources
being used.
Colonel Riley suggests the military can never be properly paid and should always
be seeking more because no job is as dangerous or as arduous or involves as much
sacrifice. Don't
believe I said this....what I said was, if one is going to make comparisions,
use valid data, include work environment, hazards, and all the other variables
that differentiate between civilian employment and military service He's
right about the profession's noble characteristics.
But the danger and sacrifice of military service has never been a reason to say
to taxpayers, `Give us more and don't stop.' I
don't know of anyone that says this or believes it...what is expected is
government to follow through on what it says it will do If
so, how do leaders ever decide at what level to set military pay and benefits? Set
them and keep faith, don't mix apples and oranges to justify Is
it realistic to argue ``Keep giving us more and don't worry what share of
defense spending goes to modernize weapons, or improve training. I,
nor most do not argue for "more", we argue for a government that can be trusted
to provide what they owe.
Don't worry about other national priorities because, gosh, you can never pay
military people enough.'' Those are very real choices.
There was a time when we had a "draft"...military pay was low, low, but those
that were drafted, worked 12-18 hours per day, months on end and chose to remain
as "lifers" rested on the promise of certain benefits being there if we made it
through to retirement...low pay was not a deal breaker. Trust and faith has now
become the issue.
No, defense budgets are finite and priorities have to be set. That's why GAO
writes its reports and why lawmakers and members of Congress (or their staffs)
read them. It's true the government can't pay the individual combatant enough
to properly reward
(compensation is earned, not a reward, just like medical care, disability
compensation, etc is earned, not a reward) his
or her service. But it can find another soldier
(who?...sons/daughters of Congress, top level bureaucrats, CEOs?...we know that
answer) who
will decide some level of pay is enough, and because that soldier will serve,
the nation can field an all-volunteer force.
The issue is not about pay, it's about government bureaucrats using faulty,
incomplete analysis to support their preconceived solution/conclusion. Since
bureaucrats, for the most part had no part of military service, they lack
emperical knowledge of military life, using figures to justify results...and we
know what is said about figures.
Money has never been the driving force behind why soldiers serve anyway, as you
know. That fact must never be an excuse to abuse the soldier by paying pay him
or her too little. But I suggest recruits coming in today are the same as
recruits of a decade ago or half century ago. They want to serve, they want to
take care of their families, they want to be properly compensated. They also
want leaders, by the way, who send them into wars that, hopefully, the nation
supports and that they can win and then get the hell out.
Case made, couldn't agree more...
Surveys show Army recruiting isn't down, as Colonel Riley implies, because
soldiers feel they aren't paid enough. Army recruiting is down because parents,
teachers, ministers and school counselors don't want their kids in Iraq, to be
blown up by a suicide bomber or shot by an extremist they can't see. Case
made....military service is different from civilian employement....why does GAO,
and Tom Philpott as well, continue comparing military service to civilian
occupations when studying pay scales and benefits...do you suppose these same
parents, teaches, ministers, and others are questioning governments treatment of
past warriors? But
some recruits come in any way, God love 'em.
Even new recruits know there are limits to the compensation the nation can
provide to 1.4 million active duty members and 1.2 reserves. We might not be
there. That's what's being debated now by GAO, a defense advisory committee and
others in government.
The one solution bureaucrats and military leaders are not debating and will not
discuss..."DRAFT" If GAO wants to be fair in their analysis, why not include a
"DRAFT" as a solution to their "pay" mindset? They don't have the courage to
recommend a "DRAFT".
I thought military readers would want to know.
We want to know...it would be nice if columns such as Tom Philpotts would add
some qualifiers so readers (Congress/Administration) might deduce there is
another side to any argument.
Colonel Riley, a great patriot and advocate for military retirees, is welcome to
share these thoughts with his lengthy distribution list.
Warm regards,
Tom Philpott Military Update
www.militaryupdate.com
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm