Citing deficit, Obama freezing federal worker pay
 

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/...ama_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:

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:

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

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.

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.

Out of curiosity...
 

T--

What types of term limits do you envision and how might they lead to deficit reduction?

Maybe for you
 

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.

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:

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.

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:

There was this thread which asked about a problem that has come to exist.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...ad.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.