Public safety has not been neglected

When I was a young reporter covering the police and fire operations in the 1960s, there was an effort one year to get cops a pay raise.

I had to write stories about it and asked some cops to show me their paychecks.

Now, newspaper reporters never have been among the highest paid people around. The glamorous newsreaders on TV earn considerably more, so I was rather amazed to find that a police captain earned about the same I did.

A starting cop in the mid-1960s earned $430 a month. They had valuable benefits in the form of health insurance and pensions, but I only focused on salary at the time.

Fast forward to today and the police and fire folks are opposing a tax relief measure because they fear it will negatively affect their pay and benefits.

That isn’t likely but the question to ask is how has pay improved in six decades?

A patrolman starting on the force today is paid $5,434 a month.

Even after accounting for inflation, as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, that is 20 percent more than it was in the ‘60s.

A firefighter starts at $4,736 a month. I’m not sure what they were paid in 1966 but I’m reasonably certain it was comparable to the police.

It worked in tandem. When one department got a raise or new benefit, the other began lobbying, arguing that parity was fairness.

Here’s another perspective. In just the past five years, both the number of police and fire personnel and the cost of their operations have grown considerably, as shown by this table:

Some say population growth is the reason for at least part of that increase, and that’s a valid point.

Everyone loves police and firefighters, (except arsonists and other criminals), so no one is naysaying the improvements in their pay and benefits.

Taxpayers, however, clearly have shown their appreciation and deserve a break once in a while also.

Maybe politicians can do the right thing and accommodate tax relief without slashing the pay and benefits of first responders. Is that too much to ask?