Comment

Comment by greg delany on September 18, 2012 at 10:19am

Military Pay 


This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Post about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America . 


Ms. Cindy William 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.

Comment by JDad on September 18, 2012 at 12:11am

Again, from my Air Force Assocation daily update through email: 

Sep 14 2012

McKeon Statement on Sequestration Transparency Act Report to Congress 

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. "Buck" McKeon released the following statement in response to the Obama administration's report to Congress under the Sequestration Transparency Act:
“Bottom line – the Administration failed to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Not only was it late, but the report OMB submitted to Congress today pays lip service to the dire national security implications of these cuts After a year to consider this crisis, I can’t understand why they needed an extra week to produce such an inadequate report.”
"The report does reveal a shocking lack of planning on the part of a White House that brought sequester to the table in the first place. America’s military leaders needed eight months to adjust our military posture in response to the President’s direction to cut over $400 billion from defense. With just over 3 months until a second half-trillion dollars in cuts are imposed, no proposal from the President to avert them, and no predictability on how OMB will apply the cuts – the Commander in Chief appears to be willing to leave the military without either resources or strategy."
“More than anything, this report indicates how vital Presidential leadership will be in averting these cuts. House Republicans have passed a plan to resolve sequestration. Indeed we have voted five times in support of finding a solution. I understand that President Obama and Senator Reid don’t like our plan, but that is not an excue for them not to offer one of their own."

Permalink: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/2012/9/mckeon-statement-on...

 

JDad

Comment by STEVE B on September 16, 2012 at 2:40pm

Pretty darn quiet here lately...

Speaking of quiet, where have the Cindy Sheehan Code Pink No-Blood-For-Oil types been for the last 3 years 8 months? HMMMM...

Seriously, though. Someone tell me why we bother being in the Middle-East when our Marines can't even have loaded mags to protect US properties on 9/11? Anyone?

Those people have been fighting each other in the desert since the beginning of recorded history and their greatest display of offensive power is to show the bottoms of their dirty sandals.

Maybe we're doing it all wrong. Maybe we get a huge used shoe drive together and carpet-bomb the place with old Nikes and sweaty Crocs.

Comment by STEVE B on September 11, 2012 at 4:14pm

On a lighter note:

I gave a good smack-down to some dufus liberal the other day.

I was in line at the grocery store. I was wearing my NAVY hat which reads "EST. 1775" on the back.

Some John Lennon look-alike was a couple folks behind me in line. He said, in the usual America-hater military-bashing tone, "Established 1775!? Doesn't the navy know we weren't even a country yet? You'd think they'd know that."

I shot him a look and gave him a quick history lesson: "Well, the colonists had to form a militia, INCLUDING A NAVY, to fight the British in the Revolutionary War so we could declare our independence in 1776, RIGHT?

Crickets... Crickets....

Nothing hurts a lib more than the facts.

Comment by JDad on September 11, 2012 at 8:47am

Raptor's Republican Rising: Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said he would "add F-22s" to the Air Force's inventory if he moves into the Oval Office. That was one of the defense-related moves he discussed during an interview with WAVY TV 10 of Virginia Beach, Va., posted at the station's website on Sept. 8. The Air Force's last F-22 rolled off Lockheed Martin's assembly line in Marietta, Ga., in December. Defense officials have said restarting the already shuttered production line would be a costly endeavor—perhaps prohibitively expensive. Beyond the F-22, Romney said he'd have the Navy build 15 ships per year—versus current plans for nine—and would retain some 100,000 Active Duty personnel that the Obama Administration intends to shed. Romney also blasted budget sequestration and the Obama Administration's proposed defense cuts. "I think the idea of shrinking our military to try and get closer to balancing our budget is the wrong place to look," he said. "I want to get our economy growing and get people back to work as the way to build the revenues of the government and get to a balanced budget. But shrinking our military is unacceptable to me."

(emphasis added by JDad).

Comment by JDad on September 10, 2012 at 10:05pm

Again, from my Air Force Association email inbox--they aren't afraid to state the obvious about sequestration, the defense budget, and the current administration: 

Sequestration Report Expected Late This Week: House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) criticized the White House for missing the Sept. 7 deadline to submit a report to Congress on the effects of budget sequestration in Fiscal 2013. The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, signed into law on Aug. 7, gave the Obama Administration 30 days from enactment of the legislation to deliver the report. "The President's continued silence on sequestration is disappointing. I can only conclude that President Obama wants to impose cuts his own Secretary of Defense has called catastrophic," said McKeon in a Sept. 7 release. "What other reason could he have for delaying a report that makes the consequences of sequestration as clear as possible?" That same day, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters en route to an Obama campaign rally in New Hampshire that the report would be submitted late this week, due to "the time needed to address the complex issues involved in preparing the report." Carney said "thus far, Congress has not done its job" in acting to prevent sequestration. (Carney transcript) (See also Boehner statement.) (emphasis added by JDad).

Comment by JDad on September 9, 2012 at 10:08am

More of the same, re sequestration, this from Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn

Comment by JDad on September 7, 2012 at 5:30pm

From my email inbox, a piece today from the Air Force Association: 

A "Singularly Stupid Way" of Budgeting: Planning for the Budget Control Act's looming sequester to take effect in January is really "kind of irrelevant" because of the inflexibility in the law, said Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive, reported Politico. "If you want to know what will happen to your program, look at how much money you expect to have in your budget next year and cut 11 percent," said Kendall at a defense industry conference in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 5. He called sequestration "a singularly stupid way to take money out of the defense budget," according to the newspaper. Kendall said he expects the White House's budget office to send the report to Congress soon that will detail the effects of sequestration on federal programs, including the US military's activities, in Fiscal 2013. The Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012, signed into law on Aug. 7, mandates this report. Although Kendall said the Pentagon still has not completed a detailed master plan for sequestration, he noted that programs with multiyear contracts are going to suffer more than others. "We're counting on Congress to avoid this," he said.

JDad

Comment by Philip Greaves on September 5, 2012 at 10:53pm

JUST ASKING

At what point does a person stop being a good person with good intentions? Are all opinions equally valid, albeit somewhat misguided? Could we not give the same consideration to anyone including Stalin or Marx or Mao? Did not those men see their actions as noble and just or at minimum necessary for the good of the whole? Were their intentions any less admirable in their own mind? Did they not have the support of a large segment of the populace that felt disenfranchised? We have the advantage of looking through the lens of history to realize the result. Do we know longer judge another by their words or deeds? When did we come to accept anything as just another opinion, giving it equal weight and validity? Are the enemies of freedom only to be found in other far off countries? Why do we acknowledge that other countries want to take over, eliminate or control the direction and future of this nation but have no argument against leaders who by their own words want to “fundamentally change this country”.

JUST SAYING

We elect our representatives including our commander in chief every four years. I think substantive arguments need to be made passionately and forcefully. This country is divided as never before. We hyphenate our nationality; divide ourselves into us vs. them, owner vs. worker .We create a victim class whose only hope is the largess of the welfare state. We need to decide whether or not we will be the country our founders intended or just another European style country. Let’s not talk about personalities and who speaks more eloquently. Let’s argue the issues. What’s important to you? Defense cuts and national security, government spending, where to cut or how much to borrow. More bureaucratic regulation and governments mandates. Federal control or states’ rights? The choice is clear. Do you want a free market or a centrally planned approach? Government only has the power you give it and that which it takes from you through regulations. The only money government has is that which it has taken from your labor. I will argue and vote FREEDOM.

America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality. ~Adlai Stevenson

Comment by Kirk Brooks on September 5, 2012 at 7:45pm

I'll agree that he isn't evil so much as woefully unprepared for the job when he won, in my opinion. I'm no fan of the GOP's candidate either. I think Ryan would've been a much better choice to head that ticket. If the GOP would try to broaden their base and realize that offering up the same thing every time isn't working for them anymore they would make some headway. Until then they're just spinning their wheels.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 113
• Next ›
• Page