View Full Version : Citing deficit, Obama freezing federal worker pay
Masochist
11-29-2010, 11:29
Citing deficit, Obama freezing federal worker pay
By JULIE PACE, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees Monday, and warned the American public that the move is the first of many difficult decisions that must be made to reduce the nation's mounting deficits.
"The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice, and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government," Obama said.
The freeze would apply to all civilian federal employees, including those working at the Department of Defense, but would not affect military personnel. The freeze is expected to save more than $5 billion in savings over two years, $28 billion over five years and more than $60 billion over 10 years, White House officials said.
Congress is not covered by Obama's executive branch order. But lawmakers voted last April to freeze their pay, with the House and Senate opting to forgo an automatic $1,600 annual cost-of-living increase.
While Obama said the federal employee salary freeze was necessary to put the nation on sound fiscal footing, he also said that he didn't reach the decision lightly.
"This is not just a line item on a federal ledger," he said. "These are people's lives."
The savings from the pay freeze make only a small dent in the nation's $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. But with voters voicing their anger over Washington's spending during the midterm elections, even a symbolic gesture would show the White House got the message.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101129/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_pay_freeze
Well, I don't really have a problem with that....so long as they freeze welfare and unemployment. Now those that deserve unemployment, ok, but for those pushing the "system", get ri of'em.
Providing they have the means/desire to do it that is.
Oh, I am a federal worker, so yeah it sucks, but other than being taxed to death, I'm willing to do my part....agin.....:confused:
Masochist
11-29-2010, 12:21
Well, I don't really have a problem with that....so long as they freeze welfare and unemployment. Now those that deserve unemployment, ok, but for those pushing the "system", get ri of'em.
Providing they have the means/desire to do it that is.
Just read a local article saying there isn't enough Section 8 housing in the county, yet officials estimate 1 out of 20 Section 8 voucher holders (not those still waiting for it) "actually need it." What surprised me is, according to the article, Section 8 eligibility is unlimited. Which I get for the elderly, disabled, etc. But not for a 22yo who can't afford a house but chooses to have four kids. What did they think would happen when you add four mouths to the equation? :confused::mad:
The freeze is expected to save more than $5 billion in savings over two years,
$28 billion over five years
and more than $60 billion over 10 years
At 1:11pm 11/29/2010 the United States was 13,788,327,400,000 in debt
60,000,000,000 is less than .43515 of 1% IN TEN YEARS...
Berry you need to try harder...
:munchin
The Reaper
11-29-2010, 12:27
Wow, Congress can spend $6B on nothing before breakfast.:rolleyes:
How is this going to go over with the rank and file of the AFGE and how will the Administration create an exception to policy for the union members to get their pay raises?:confused:
TR
perdurabo
11-29-2010, 12:40
Wow, Congress can spend $6B on nothing before breakfast.:rolleyes:
How is this going to go over with the rank and file of the AFGE and how will the Administration create an exception to policy for the union members to get their pay raises?:confused:
TR
It might go the usual route where they "negotiate" the freeze with the union by threatening layoffs if they don't agree to a freeze. I've gone through a few years of this now. My pay stays the same while prices skyrocket, so we can save a few jobs. But, for the good of the whole, right? :confused:
What it is is fiddling while the Country burns. A diversion.
1. Maintain the Bush tax rates (as opposed to raising taxes.)
2. Eliminate the capital gains tax. This will release tons of venture money, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
3. Repeal Obamacare.
These baby steps could turn this behemoth around. Right now we're heading due south economically.
What it is is fiddling while the Country burns. A diversion.
1. Maintain the Bush tax rates (as opposed to raising taxes.)
2. Eliminate the capital gains tax. This will release tons of venture money, and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
3. Repeal Obamacare.
These baby steps could turn this behemoth around. Right now we're heading due south economically.
I think the jury is still out on the President Bush tax rates and whether they were affective or not.
I think that it's going to take a lot more drastic action to fix our economy. Without getting into specifics: flat tax, Congressional term limits, near fanatical micromanagement of unemployment and welfare benefits so only the worst cases are eligible, removing tax breaks completely. Is the majority of America (staunch conservatives included) ready to see 20-30% of our population go through that hardship? To see the crime rate skyrocket until people figure out that the free rides are all gone. I think we can all agree that the answer is no.
When tens of thousands of people were losing their houses because they shouldn't have had them in the first place the popular chant (staunch conservatives included) was "government do something!"
For me, the bottom line is something is better than nothing. Small steps are better than no steps at all. Kudos to the current regime for making a IMO good decision although it will ruffle some feathers.
Congressional term limitsT--
What types of term limits do you envision and how might they lead to deficit reduction?
I think the jury is still out on the President Bush tax rates and whether they were affective or not. ...........
Maybe for you but the effect of tax rates and money flowing into the government's hands is fact. It's also a fact that every time it was done corgress (D & R) did it's level best to still spend it faster than it came in.
It's also a fact that Bush's tax "cuts" placed money into the hands of people who didn't earn it - IE the EITC.
Maybe we should say "If you didn't pay in you don't get anything back"?
But that would hurt a lot of D voters.
I think the jury is still out on the President Bush tax rates and whether they were affective or not.
I think that it's going to take a lot more drastic action to fix our economy. Without getting into specifics: flat tax, Congressional term limits, near fanatical micromanagement of unemployment and welfare benefits so only the worst cases are eligible, removing tax breaks completely. Is the majority of America (staunch conservatives included) ready to see 20-30% of our population go through that hardship? To see the crime rate skyrocket until people figure out that the free rides are all gone. I think we can all agree that the answer is no.
When tens of thousands of people were losing their houses because they shouldn't have had them in the first place the popular chant (staunch conservatives included) was "government do something!"
For me, the bottom line is something is better than nothing. Small steps are better than no steps at all. Kudos to the current regime for making a IMO good decision although it will ruffle some feathers.
Lower taxes = good, in my mind. Of course, I'm not a socialist.
In many cases, idiots lost their homes because they bought them knowing they could never afford them in transactions made by organizations facilitated by Raines, Frank, Dodd and others; for which they've yet to be prosecuted.
Isn't maintaining the current tax rate a "small step", after all? No action is required.
I forgot to add that, as Reagan did, the POTUS should give the Military a 10% raise as opposed to recommending the lowest (1.4%) since 1973.:cool:
Wow, Congress can spend $6B on nothing before breakfast.:rolleyes:
How is this going to go over with the rank and file of the AFGE and how will the Administration create an exception to policy for the union members to get their pay raises?:confused:
TR
This reminds me of a DUI Traffic Stop by an LEO:
"Sir, just count to Ten Sir........"
Our current leadership is full of holes, missed promises, and un-accounted for problems!!! Oh good gracious, could someone please call a spade a spade???:munchin
Holly
No problem. So the next time the economy is booming like during the .com era. Freeze civilian pay and make them give the extra money to the Govt. We all know where the waste is and it's not wasted on wages for Federal employees.
The majority of Federal employees have a skills. A skill the requires hire pay to keep them around. Federal employees don't work assembly lines, flip burgers or Mop floors.
Maybe for you but the effect of tax rates and money flowing into the government's hands is fact. It's also a fact that every time it was done corgress (D & R) did it's level best to still spend it faster than it came in.
It's also a fact that Bush's tax "cuts" placed money into the hands of people who didn't earn it - IE the EITC.
Maybe we should say "If you didn't pay in you don't get anything back"?
But that would hurt a lot of D voters.
I think you're on the right track Pete, I think the Gov't should allow the folks to invest in their own 401K/roth, or whatever. Let us make the decision, not the Gov't giving it all away to those who have not contributed..
Which somehow brings me to another point. We vote for those mostly in our district (local elections), but those giving away my money are from other districts/states.....why don't I have a say in their re-election bid????
Hell, they're giving away my money, why don't I have a say???:mad:
Buffalobob
11-29-2010, 16:55
There was this thread which asked about a problem that has come to exist.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31114
So when Wall Street banks and financial institutions drag the economy into the sewer we bail them out and the very people who created the problem get bonuses. People who cannot remember what happened yesterday decide that it is right and good to blame gov't employees for the problem which was created by greed stupidity and oftentimes just dishonesty in the private sector. One should also remember when the congress decided to have no COLA increase for retired military and CSR people that they also gave themselves a pay raise.
None of the above withstanding, it is always popular to blame the federal worker for every and all problems irregardless of what groups of morons created the problem.
Next thread will be how to screw the people who paid into social security and you can bet your paycheck that the people who raided the money will not be the ones who suffer.
Maybe we should say "If you didn't pay in you don't get anything back"?
But that would hurt a lot of D voters.
Agreed. But D voters aren't the only ones benefiting off of that flawed system.
What types of term limits do you envision and how might they lead to deficit reduction?
Something like 24 years max. 4 terms for senators and 12 for Representatives.
First and foremost I think it would stop these people from focusing on being the next Representative Dingell or Senator Byrd and get their minds on doing the best that they can in their position. They would be more apt to tackle unpopular financial issues like healthcare, unemployment, social security, medicaid/medicare because they're on the clock.
More importantly, it would in theory force voters to pay attention to new candidates. Instead of hoping their old standby will go to work for them 30 years later, they are forced to elect new blood that might be more proactive. It might not change big business's great relationship with our Representatives but at least it's an attempt.
Lower taxes = good, in my mind. Of course, I'm not a socialist.
Isn't maintaining the current tax rate a "small step", after all? No action is required.
I forgot to add that, as Reagan did, the POTUS should give the Military a 10% raise as opposed to recommending the lowest (1.4%) since 1973.:cool:
I would love to get more money but if its a choice between me having more money or us taking serious hacks at the "we owe China" tree, I'll take the axe. Emphasis on serious.
I wouldn't worry. If the Bill includes pay freezes for the House and Senate. It will never pass. Sad but so true.
Green Light
11-29-2010, 19:04
Something like 24 years max. 4 terms for senators and 12 for Representatives.
We already have term limits. It's called elections. But the employers don't show up. Why? Because they've been bought off with my money and your money - not their money.
It's funny - the folks who get the shaft are the ones whose jobs are specified in the constitution - in my case to defend the nation. The money going to the freeloaders isn't even hinted at in that document. Yet that's where most of the money goes. Criminals getting bailed out? You bet they do - $ trillions have been thrown into corrupt banks that should have failed. But honest, hard working people like us are just their piggy bank. They take our money using the police power of the state and use it to pay off their districts so they'll reelect them. It is a fascist, self perpetuating oligarchy.
Like everyone else here, I'm a fed up loyal American. I just saw a reasonable pay raise go down the tubes. I haven't had one (except for annual raises) in years. Looked like I was going to get one. Not now. But the vermin on capitol hill will get theirs. What's the difference? I work hard and have a four hour round trip commute every day. They get their trailer hitch polished by unpaid interns.
Something's gotta give. I'll still work hard because it's the right thing to do. I'll be a loyal American to my last breath. But something has to change.
I feel like I just got a subscription to the "Jelly-of-the-Month" as a Christmas present. This is probably just payback for the majority of federal workers who voted Republican in the last election.
I would have preferred another hard choice: no cash for clunkers, no cash for appliances, GM bail out, etc. Heck man, I have fricken bills I gotta pay! My neighbors' mortgage, their car payment, their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits...
Perhaps "we" could cut down on "our" OCONUS travel?
But honest, hard working people like us are just their piggy bank. They take our money using the police power of the state and use it to pay off their districts so they'll reelect them. It is a fascist, self perpetuating oligarchy.
Yep, we pay them (now days it is more like they take it by threat) to do the Peoples bidding.......they have in turn used our money to enrich and enshrine themselves, and build chains to enslave us.
Freeze/cut salaries, institute lay offs, or go broke - it's all about choices.
Richard :munchin
Peregrino
11-29-2010, 20:48
It's very simple.
1) Disenfranchise EVERYBODY who doesn't pay taxes. (I really like the "Starship Troopers" model but that's probably a reach right now.)
2) A Constitutional Amendment limiting elected officials to 12 years. They can combine it any way they want to but after 12 years, they're out. Without a retirement. I'm tired of seeing the rest of the country suffer because of Nancy Pelosi's constituents - and others like them who keep re-electing trash because they are effective at robbing the rest of us to support their power base. Everybody likes their "Robin Hood" and despises everybody else's. Solve the problem by limiting their ability to do damage.
3) Eliminate all entitlements. That'll be fairly easy if 1) and 2) are enacted first.
4) All spending must be voted on its own merits - no riders. That'll immediately kill almost all of the pork.
5) Abolish the IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax. 10% for everybody; if it's "good enough for God", it's "good enough for the government". That'll make it easier for the disenfranchized in step one to get back on the voter rolls. Eliminate the Corporate Tax at the same time.
6) Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment - with teeth. Require a unanimous vote to operate with a deficit.
A six point plan. I did say it was simple. I didn't say anything about easy. Heinlein's "Bread and Circus" aptly describes our current predicament; reversing the trend without the proverbial SEE of most 12 Step programs will be nigh unto impossible. My .02
Freeze/cut salaries, institute lay offs, or go broke - it's all about choices.
Richard :munchin
I am of the mind of don't ask me to do, what you yourself won't do...
I believe flying coach, paying for haircuts, paying for insurance, canceling the remainder of the 2010 and the entire 2011-12 Obama World Tour, the Presidential Limo should be a SMART Car, the Security Details for the Administration should be cut in size and letting Corporate America fail should all be on the menu as well.....just to name a few. AND I want all those back taxes owed by Government Employees to be paid in FULL just like I have to do.
The Reaper
11-29-2010, 21:07
It's very simple.
1) Disenfranchise EVERYBODY who doesn't pay taxes. (I really like the "Starship Troopers" model but that's probably a reach right now.)
2) A Constitutional Amendment limiting elected officials to 12 years. They can combine it any way they want to but after 12 years, they're out. Without a retirement. I'm tired of seeing the rest of the country suffer because of Nancy Pelosi's constituents - and others like them who keep re-electing trash because they are effective at robbing the rest of us to support their power base. Everybody likes their "Robin Hood" and despises everybody else's. Solve the problem by limiting their ability to do damage.
3) Eliminate all entitlements. That'll be fairly easy if 1) and 2) are enacted first.
4) All spending must be voted on its own merits - no riders. That'll immediately kill almost all of the pork.
5) Abolish the IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax. 10% for everybody; if it's "good enough for God", it's "good enough for the government". That'll make it easier for the disenfranchized in step one to get back on the voter rolls. Eliminate the Corporate Tax at the same time.
6) Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment - with teeth. Require a unanimous vote to operate with a deficit.
A six point plan. I did say it was simple. I didn't say anything about easy. Heinlein's "Bread and Circus" aptly describes our current predicament; reversing the trend without the proverbial SEE of most 12 Step programs will be nigh unto impossible. My .02
You have my vote, hermano.
TR
TrapLine
11-29-2010, 21:26
You have my vote, hermano.
TR
I was thinking the same thing. Peregrino's post reminded me of the last scene of Gladiator with Maximus giving directions for the good of Rome. Except for the part where he goes off to Elysium, Peregrino has to stay here to moderate.
It's not so much the individual government worker.......
It's that they come in such numbers.
Other than the Military - just how many government workers do we need?
The government created the Tax code that requires the IRS to employ how many folks? Institute the Fair Tax and look how much we can save by firing the dead weight.
The Dept of Education? How many employed there? Just what do they do that requires so many workers?
Etc, etc, etc - just work your way through all the Federal Departments.
Not everybody can work for the government. Somebody has to work in the private sector to create the money the government likes to burn.
Masochist
11-29-2010, 21:44
It's very simple.
1) Disenfranchise EVERYBODY who doesn't pay taxes. (I really like the "Starship Troopers" model but that's probably a reach right now.)
2) A Constitutional Amendment limiting elected officials to 12 years. They can combine it any way they want to but after 12 years, they're out. Without a retirement. I'm tired of seeing the rest of the country suffer because of Nancy Pelosi's constituents - and others like them who keep re-electing trash because they are effective at robbing the rest of us to support their power base. Everybody likes their "Robin Hood" and despises everybody else's. Solve the problem by limiting their ability to do damage.
3) Eliminate all entitlements. That'll be fairly easy if 1) and 2) are enacted first.
4) All spending must be voted on its own merits - no riders. That'll immediately kill almost all of the pork.
5) Abolish the IRS and replace it with a Fair Tax. 10% for everybody; if it's "good enough for God", it's "good enough for the government". That'll make it easier for the disenfranchized in step one to get back on the voter rolls. Eliminate the Corporate Tax at the same time.
6) Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment - with teeth. Require a unanimous vote to operate with a deficit.
A six point plan. I did say it was simple. I didn't say anything about easy. Heinlein's "Bread and Circus" aptly describes our current predicament; reversing the trend without the proverbial SEE of most 12 Step programs will be nigh unto impossible. My .02
How far has this nation fallen when a simple six-point plan seems about as likely to happen as pinning stars on your collar right out of BCT. And that is just to get us back to status quo. :mad:
BTW, Peregrino has my vote as well. Interested to see who your running mate might be. :D
The Reaper
11-29-2010, 22:04
I see a lot of DoD civilians and contractors doing jobs that uniformed service members used to do.
Even if you had the extra manpower, I would bet that it is still less expensive to do that than using volunteer soldiers to do the same jobs.
Just a few years ago, GS was having a hard time filling positions and retaining quality employees.
These ignoramuses are getting ready to create a big recruiting and retention program.
At the same time, I am willing to take a haircut if everyone else does. I do not think that some slacker should be able to skate by on Social Security with a fake injury, a welfare queen should be sitting on her ass, living in government provided housing, with a government cell phone and government paid credit card, pumping out kids to draw a bigger welfare check, or some REMF should be faking PTSD to draw a medical retirement while he drinks and drugs himself into oblivion.
I want a plan that addresses everyone, puts an end to the entitlements and bread and circuses payouts, and returns to a sense of personal responsibility, integrity and honor.
You don't work, you don't eat. You don't pay taxes, you don't get a vote. You come here illegally, you need to go home or go to prison. No benefits. You can come back when you follow the rules and we need you here. Simple. Actions have consequences.
If I can't have that, I want those who will stand their watch to be cleared hot to start chlorinating this gene pool.
And politics is a way to temporarily serve your country. Not a career, or a way to get rich.
You want to fix the system, start at the top, with the leadership.
You can't spend money that you do not have. And it is the taxpayers money you are taking and misusing/redistributing.
TR
GratefulCitizen
11-29-2010, 22:23
It's the Gordian Knot.
There is no way to undo it by tying, loosening, or pulling at stray ends.
It takes a simpler action.
Let the States get together, bypass the feds, and pass one simple amendment:
All federal laws enacted, all federal court decisions rendered, and all treaties made since 1912 (or thereabouts...) are now null and void.
Time to wipe the slate clean.
Trust in the States and the people to deal with the aftermath, not the federal government.
CoLawman
11-29-2010, 23:06
$5 Billion dollar savings in the first two years. Obama is kidding right? Let's do a bit of side by side comparison:
2011 savings by Federal Employee pay freeze: $2.5 Billion dollars.
2011 savings if we seal our southern border and require proof of citizenship to obtain entrance to public education, medical care, entitlements such as food stamps, housing, and SSI: $113 Billion dollars!
2011 savings if we end earmarks: $16.5 Billion dollars!
Obama and his cronies are shrewd. They understand certain people will be applauding their efforts or at least giving him credit "for doing something." With control of Congress now resting with the Republicans lets pray they got the message during this last election.
Obama's federal employee pay raise is nothing more than--Penny wise, pound foolish. For those who praise him for penny wise I would only ask how that affords him a pass for being pound foolish?
I suspect that no plan - not the fine plans mentioned here, not anything out of this administration, nor the next - can be implemented.
Take a look at the numbers HERE (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a). Oh, granted, the government projects future savings. And I could project that I was going to run 10 miles. Not going to happen.
Fundamentally, any plan requires that large numbers of people break their own rice bowl. It has been my observation that few are willing to deprive themselves in such a way, although I freely acknowledge that some (including many on this forum) have done so.
What does this imply? In my opinion, the present patterns will continue until some crisis forces a resolution. It seems likely this will be remarkably uncomfortable. When the crisis might occur, or what might trigger it is unknowable.
All MOO, YMMV.
Since I retired from federal service at about $135K per year, the CPI has gone down. Federal pay in the Detroit area, however has increased over 4.5%.
There are regular step increases and those little $1500-$4000 performance bonuses aren't that bad, either.
Basically, federal employees (and retirees) are ahead of the game, by my calculations, until we have a CPI that's 4.5% higher than it was in 2008. Is my math wrong?
Ain't no sacrifice folks. This years raise was "received" in both of the last two years.
Smoke and mirrors.
1stindoor
11-30-2010, 08:15
Smoke and mirrors.
I agree whole-heartedly. This is nothing but a simple mis direct in order to give the illusion of cutting the deficit. Until I see some serious slashing in the entitlements area I doubt there'll be any "real" savings.
Buffalobob
11-30-2010, 09:35
The below thought has been expressed a number of times but perhaps TR made it the clearest when he said this:
At the same time, I am willing to take a haircut if everyone else does. I do not think that some slacker should be able to skate by on Social Security with a fake injury, a welfare queen should be sitting on her ass, living in government provided housing, with a government cell phone and government paid credit card, pumping out kids to draw a bigger welfare check, or some REMF should be faking PTSD to draw a medical retirement while he drinks and drugs himself into oblivion.
I want a plan that addresses everyone, puts an end to the entitlements and bread and circuses payouts, and returns to a sense of personal responsibility, integrity and honor.
Many different forms of "welfare" and my all time favorite is the farm subsidy program, where people get paid to do nothing. They get paid to not grow crops and they get price supports for certain items. Sugar prices are artificially managed to stay high and milk the same. Some day ask a farmer if he receives welfare and listen to him deny it. I grew up on a farm and we were poor.
Ask a rancher who grazes his cows and sheep on BLM land and nat'l forest land if he receives welfare and listen to him deny it. If you have ever had any training in range management or wildlife habitat go and look where these guys graze their animals and see how the public land is treated. Look at how little they pay to destroy the public land.
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2010, 15:17
Suppose the local noble were to come riding down from his castle with a few thugs in tow, take a share of the harvest and whatever other goods were produced and conscript some labor out of some people.
That would be "tax".
Now suppose the local noble did the exact same thing, but he also left some tokens with the peasants from whom he took goods and labor.
The taking of goods and labor would still be the "tax".
Now suppose the peasants started trading these tokens back and forth to facilitate commerce.
Eventually "prices" would develop for those goods and services.
Now the local noble comes down to take some more goods and conscript some more labor.
But instead of taking with the threat of force, and giving some tokens, he pretends to "buy" those goods and labor with some tokens.
The local noble can make as many tokens as he wants.
He severely punishes anyone who has the audacity to make their own versions of his tokens.
Eventually, there are just too many tokens floating around and "prices" are too high.
The noble could still make as many tokens as he would like, but it's easier to take, with the threat of force, tokens from the peasants.
The point of this little story:
We are actually "taxed" when the government "buys" goods and services.
Those goods and services are not available to someone else.
The taxing, borrowing, and debasement of fiat currency is just a shell game to hide what has already been taken.
The whole tax/debt/redistribution debate is just a big game to keep the people set against each other and in the dark.
The problem is spending, as a percentage of the economy.
Period.
Peregrino
12-01-2010, 16:15
The problem is spending, as a percentage of the economy.
Period.
Precisely!
The problem is spending, as a percentage of the economy.
Period.
Ahh, but our esteemed noble is more clever than that.
Oh, he still produces tokens, thus reducing the value of existing tokens. And he still takes tokens away from the peasants - and has a proper thumping administered if they don't pay up chop-chop.
But he also rewards those peasants. He gives one peasant some tokens to support her retirement. Another gets help with medical bills, still another with rent, and yet another with some tuition assistance.
Then, when certain none-too-grateful peasants ( ;) ) start to make trouble, the noble can assume an air of injured innocence and offer to cut those payments to the peasants - so the peasants police their own, and give the ingrate that thumping alluded to earlier.
The problem, methinks, is not the stars, nor even the politicians, but rather within ourselves - we want a free lunch, and we don't care who gets the bill, so long as it is someone else.
The politicians use our own avarice against us, carefully keeping their own ample compensation outside the debate. We expect rules, or the Constitution to protect us - but, in truth, only an informed and active electorate has a chance of enforcing those rules. IMO, we have a dearth of such informed and active voters. MOO, YMMV.
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2010, 19:34
Ahh, but our esteemed noble is more clever than that.
I beg to differ.
The esteemed noble isn't very clever.
However, many purveyors of tokens are clever.
ZonieDiver
12-01-2010, 19:38
Why do I feel like I want to go to "Peter Piper Pizza" with my report card full of A's and B's??? :D *
*local phoenix joke
GratefulCitizen
12-01-2010, 19:41
Why do I feel like I want to go to "Peter Piper Pizza" with my report card full of A's and B's??? :D *
*local phoenix joke
That is where the indoctrination begins.
My kids love it when they go to Chuck E Cheese's with their grandpa.
He supplies ample tokens.
:D
Capping pay at the highest levels ever - that'll do the trick. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Peregrino
12-01-2010, 21:33
The MSM has been vilifying GS employees since "the one" made his pronouncement and quoting $123,000 vs. $63,000 for the average private sector employee. I just want to know who/where this "average gov't employee" earning that salary is. He/she certainly doesn't work for USASFC(A).
The Reaper
12-02-2010, 06:23
They got that number the same way they figure that an E-5 gets paid $100,000 per year, if he uses the benefits 24/7.
I suspect that there are several thousand GS employees on Bragg. I doubt if more than a dozen make $123,000 or more, as it would take a stepped out GS-14 or higher.
No idea where the blame the DAC movement started. You would think that with the majority of them being union members, the Administration would love them.
TR
This is total BS and really frustrates the heck out of me. The idea of keeping WDC locality pay for foreign service personnel is so they will not lose pay in order to take an overseas assignment. Who's up for a PCS to Ouagadougou?
How much could we save if Congress took a pay freeze or God forbid they take a pay cut? Lead from the front.
House spending bill cuts pay for overseas diplomats
By Ed O'Keefe
Eye Opener (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2011/02/house_spending_bill_cuts_pay_f.html)
Among the dozens of amendments included in the House's historic spending bill is a provision that cuts the paychecks of America's overseas diplomats.
At issue is overseas comparability pay, a compensation system designed to provide the 13,000 Foreign Service officers and other government officials stationed abroad with the 24 percent locality pay rate earned by federal employees working in the Washington area.
Locality pay differs from city to city, and is meant to put government salaries on par with salaries earned by private-sector workers in comparable positions. For years, only the most senior Foreign Service officers earned locality pay.
An amendment successfully added to the spending measure passed over the weekend, sponsored by Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), would strip overseas comparability payments out of the federal budget, saving about $140 million annually, according to his office.
"At a time when other federal employees have had their salaries frozen or reduced, we cannot and should not be giving massive, automatic pay raises to any federal employees," Reed said. If the cuts are made, the government would save about $427 million by the end of fiscal 2013, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
The president's bipartisan fiscal commission also recommended canceling locality pay for overseas diplomats. Though proponents believe the payments are necessary to address recruitment and retention concerns, "the foreign service career field remains highly competitive with 25,000 applicants competing for 300 to 900 positions annually," the commission concluded.
But Susan Johnson, president of the American Foreign Service Association, said the proposal "is penalizing Foreign Service officers for doing what is at the core of our mission: to go overseas, to serve our country in increasingly complex places. It's sending a signal -- contrary to what we've been hearing from both sides of the aisle -- about the importance of diplomacy as part of our state-craft."
She acknowledged that many diplomats earn hardship payments for tough assignments -- ranging from 15 to 25 percent of a workers' pay. But any cuts in locality pay would negatively impact future retirement benefits.
Remember -- the House bill as enacted has no hope of Senate passage or earning President Obama's signature, so this proposal -- while interesting and certainly controversial -- may not survive.
Locality Pay????? 24%?????? Based on Washington????
Think of the poor saps in the ranks of the Military. The BAQ "Locality Pay" is based on where you live. Would have been nice to have it based on Washington.
This is the bottom line "........Though proponents believe the payments are necessary to address recruitment and retention concerns, "the foreign service career field remains highly competitive with 25,000 applicants competing for 300 to 900 positions annually," the commission concluded................."
Locality Pay????? 24%?????? Based on Washington????
Think of the poor saps in the ranks of the Military. The BAQ "Locality Pay" is based on where you live. Would have been nice to have it based on Washington.
This is the bottom line "........Though proponents believe the payments are necessary to address recruitment and retention concerns, "the foreign service career field remains highly competitive with 25,000 applicants competing for 300 to 900 positions annually," the commission concluded................."
SGM,
My experience has been that the 24% is a nice perk for FS employees who reside in CONUS then spend a few years OCONUS only to return CONUS: keeps the pay stable. I would argue that it is really no different than SDAP or a re-enlistment bonus.
War zones excluded.
I will also say that the military guys I worked with busted their ass 24/7 and I would not have had successful tours without them. Plus...soldiers know how to have fun! :D
Lindy
Silly me..... Here I thought FSOs hung out overseas only coming back to the sates every now and again.
I didn't know they lived in Washington at a comfortable level only going overseas for the occasional fling.
silentreader
02-23-2011, 18:05
It's very simple.
2) A Constitutional Amendment limiting elected officials to 12 years. They can combine it any way they want to but after 12 years, they're out. Without a retirement. I'm tired of seeing the rest of the country suffer because of Nancy Pelosi's constituents - and others like them who keep re-electing trash because they are effective at robbing the rest of us to support their power base. Everybody likes their "Robin Hood" and despises everybody else's. Solve the problem by limiting their ability to do damage.
I know this is an old post, but I'm curious about this sentiment as it appears to be one shared by most of the posters here. However, this (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html) implies something else; it's red states (and presumably, politicians) that consistently take more from the trough than they put in.
These numbers are old (2004) and they may not mean anything (you can find a series of similar studies going up to 2007 here (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html)). But it seems to me that conservative politicians had no problem taking with one hand and criticizing the piggy bank with the other. Maybe this has changed with the Tea Party?? Would be interesting to see more up to date numbers.
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
As for the state department, I have a feeling it will be seeing more cuts in the future months. It seems to be the one area Americans can agree that we're spending to much on (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/economistyougov_polling)------------- (even if we're not) (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/04/deficit_reduction).
• When it comes to decreasing the deficit, cutting spending is a more popular approach than raising taxes, by a margin of 62% to 5%. And here's what the public is willing to cut:
(list is in attachment and links)
• Foreign aid makes up less than 1% of America's total spending.