Pay Cuts Aren’t Enough: Time to Lay Off Federal Workers
Recently, USA Today highlighted how the salaries of federal employees have skyrocketed in the past five years. According to the article (“More federal workers’ pay tops $150,000”), federal workers earning $150,000 or more in 2005 comprised only 0.4 percent of all federal employees. Today, that number has grown to 3.9 percent. In response to this, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is calling for not only a pay freeze, but a ten percent pay cut for federal employees.
Congressman Chaffetz’s proposal fails to truly tackle the issue of fixing the amount the government spends on the salaries of its employees. Realistically, Congress won’t vote for a ten percent cut to salaries, and there is slim chance that they will allow a pay freeze. Even if these were enacted, the annual COLA (cost of living adjustment) would still increase salaries and spending.
Were Chaffetz truly serious about reining in spending in this area, he would put forward a proposal that did not cut the wages of federal workers, but the positions themselves. Government agencies are overstaffed — every agency is riddled with redundant employees.
For example: via a source who prefers to not be named, one particular government office employs fifteen people whose sole job is to scan and upload documents to a central database. They are paid to work for eight hours, but generally need to put in only two hours of actual work. The other six hours are devoted to shopping online, gossip, and sleep.
Reduce that department from fifteen employees to five, and they would each have a full day’s work and the taxpayer would have his or her money back.
This is not unique to this one office — overstaffing is a systemic problem. Agencies create positions, often at high cost, that have the single purpose of performing the functions that existing employees could easily take on. A source tells me of a federal employee who does nothing but schedule who will use the conference room.
mr. siegfried addresses a serious problem, but his solution (essentially a hiring freeze) will not work. what’s needed are agency closures, and barring that, year on year budget reductions, say 10% per year for 4 years. congress needs to appropriate less money per department every year, that is the only way.
yes
The only problem with across-the-board percentage reductions is that they end up punishing the government organizations that are better at resource utilization. The “FAT” organizations feel no pain because they are already under-utilizing resources by 10-100 percent. What is needed is a government-wide independent audit of each organization to determine where the “FAT” is, so that it can be trimmed without causing disruption of essential government functions. Using this approach, some organization could probably be phased out all-together. The end effect would be the same, but it would achieve reductions with minimal impact on the effectiveness of government.
The problem I see with your suggestion is that we would need to prevent the establishment of a new agency responsible for doing the audits. Thus avoiding the continuation of the problem.
“punishing the government organizations that are better at resource utilization” good luck finding one. And if there are some, they will be far far worse than a private enterprise would be.
All an audit will do is give the criminal politicians more to demagogue.
Defense should be exempted. SS and Medicare PAYMENTS should be exempted. Everything else should be cut across the board.
After the unnecessary departments are completely eliminated.
And how to get a truly independent audit? My fear is that it would be stuffed with politics–well-connected people in favored agencies getting a pass, while some more essential agency would face cuts.
Maybe a lottery system. We could even sell tickets!
I’m not kidding, I’d plunk down $100 for a chance to trim the Federal Gov’t.
Nuclear Physicist is right about percentage cuts. Fuhgeddaboutit! We need to close down one agency after another, in its entirety.
Just for starters…
Put all intelligence back under the military, where it belongs. Same with the VA. Same with Homeland Security.
Close most of the cabinet agencies. There is NO justification for most of them in the US Constitution anyway. We can keep the War Department and the Treasury Department, and that’s it!
We don’t need the State Department any more; it’s nothing but a nest of pro-jihadi traitors. Diplomacy is nothing but trafficking in lies and deception. We can let our weapons do the talking, if need be.
No foreign aid AT ALL, except for military aid to non-Muslim allies ONLY.
Not another cent to the UN or, for that matter, to any NGOs. Tell the UN to move their headquarters someplace else, without delay.
Mr Cooper’s idea is laudable. Probably could set the annual hard money cut at 5% per annum for 6 years minimum, and our federal govenrment would much improve. A bit less draconian pace than 10% and would probably give congress time and incentive to cut the more harmful programs or parts of programs rather than cut from spite or for sensationalism. IE make the process endure thru several election cycles.
We are going broke. What part of that don’t the people in Washington get? Always remember, not only would you be cutting jobs, you would also be cutting the huge health benefits and pensions that those same people would be getting. Enough is enough. While people in the private sector have to endure pay cuts or pay freezes, no pay increases, and must also pay a hefty chunk of their own health benefits (which always go up, never down), Federal employees not only make more but also get huge health and pension benefits, not to mention almost guaranteed annual pay increases whether there is a rise in inflation or not. This is getting sick and, hopefully, the new conservative Congress will do something about it in January. It’s about time.
We are going broke. What part of that don’t the people in Washington get?
One of the continuing problems with the federal budget is baseline budgeting. Instead of having to make the case why their budget should continue to exist at all (Zero Based Budgeting), agencies start with the guarantee that the budget for next year will be equal to the current year’s budget plus some extra. The “use it or lose it” mentality means they’ll spend every penny of each year’s budget because there’s no incentive to economize. The guaranteed increases each year mean they get to keep expanding without regard to need.
We need to eliminate departments that aren’t justifiable by the Constitution or who have outlived the reason why they were created in the first place. For those that remain, switching from baseline budgeting to zero-based budgeting would save a tremendous amount of money. Then, and only then, should we open up the floor to discussion of tax increases. If the Deficit Commission and Congress want to show they’re serious, prove it by cutting spending first instead of raising taxes with the promise of spending cuts “someday.” History has proven that the spending cuts never happen.
This trimming of the Federal workforce absolutely has to happen, but it won’t be easy for one reason above all others: Federal positions have been created and filled for social reasons, in particular to unqualified minorities in order to compensate for presumed racism in the private sector. You can expect a hell of a blowback if this policy is changed.
I don’t think there would be blowback. The Obama Administration has already institutionalized a high Black unemployement rate through its anti-business policies. Look at the unemployment rate among Black youth, which is even worse. Furthermore, if you wiped out a handful of DC-based federal departments, the local unemployment rate for Blacks would increase, yes, but 90% of those people are Democrat voters anyway and always will be. They aren’t going to vote out any Republicans because they aren’t represented by any Republicans. And if federal spending and growth-choking regulation is reduced, local employment will rise as the economy improves, including the employment of Blacks.
True that, but enough is enough.
It fails to address the issue that the government is a bloated, dying carcass. It needs areas removed entirely. Cutting pay does not remove much, if any bureaucratic overhead nor reduced red tape. I see this as a holographic olive branch. It might be a first attempt to do some thing needed, but the problem is government out growing its food source, and over eating, and causing ecological (economic) disaster. Cut the TSA. I mean, they take nail clippers when my keys, couched in my hand (maybe with a piece of cloth or paper in the palm) are probably one of the nastier weapons one could employ. Imagine it terrors starting designing, “fighting,” keys. A bit of stretch but not only do the molesters humiliate people, they don’t seem to have a clue.
The following should be shut down entirely:
UN deligation, HUD, Education, BLM (and the land sold at auction to US citizens, use the money to repay SS debt then shut that down to), DEA (legalize it, tax it, forget it), BATF (anti 2nd amendment goon squad), all government employee unions, all foreign aide. The following should be reined in hard: FDA, EPA back to the basics folks.
Cut pay to all non-military federal employees by 15%, to all elected federal employees by 25%.
Then we can start talking about pulling back troops from overseas to guard the border.
You forgot the Commerce Dept’s 145,000 employees (except the patent office).
A VERY GOOD BEGINNING; A BEGINNING
Add the Dept of Energy to your reined-in-hard list. Useless.
The meme that there is nothing to cut because everybody has a stake is nonsense, unless you consider the bureaucracy and the businesses that are addicted to handouts as stakeholders.
Even if you think the Eduction Deparment’s handouts are beneficial (they aren’t), just disperse the money with an algorythm and fire the useless workers. (note, the people aren’t necessarilly useless, just the function).
Like everything else, the “difficulty” of curring the budget is WILDLY overstated.
Speaking of honesty; how is it that you can draw on “facts” from the USA Today as a creditable source of information?
While I wouldn’t argue against the fact that the federal government could use some cleanup, the periodic smashing and bashing free-for-all that it receives from the political right looks, smells and tastes like something Al Gore cooked up.
Why does the right do this?
Because it is easy.
Because it is popular.
Because it doesn’t leave them sick to their stomachs like it should; because they are hypocrites.
Start with a few facts like the flood of very high salary SES blacks that Obama hired right out of the gate.
Check into how Congress forced the government in the 60s and 70s into lowering the entrance standards so that the same could be hired.
Try getting around the EEO in order to punish or fire blacks and/or minorities.
Check how many of the lower paying government positions have been out-sourced in compliance with more Congressional demands. This leaves comparing an average of higher paid federal workers against the entire private sector workforce average wages. Of course the government salaries will be higher – but they damn sure are not even close to $150,000.
But that kind of honesty isn’t something that government worker bashers consider important is it, “Mither Limbaugh”. How many callers have their been to your show that explained all of these things and more; after which you go right back into snorting and growling about government workers like nothing ever happened?
Bottom Line: Bad cheese smells the same no matter what angle you hold it so you can sniff. The right gleefully doing the left’s dirty work for them is cheese that makes honest people sick.
“Check into how Congress forced the government in the 60s and 70s into lowering the entrance standards so that the same could be hired.”
And exactly who “forced” Congress to “force” the govt into lowering those standards? I’m guessing it wasn’t anyone like “Mither Limbaugh.” Bottom line: Federal workers should re-establish old ties w/Mom & Dad…they’re going to need them.
I hope you aren’t fond of having a functioning Navy then. Some parts of the government (e.g. the Naval shipyards) actually produce a product and h ave to continually produce more and more with the same budget (like a real business). The engineers here clearly aren’t overpaid, because we hemorrhage employees to the private sector at a horrendous rate. We have to hire 50-100 engineers a year just to maintain our workforce, and that ignores the fact that we’ll have a huge wave retiring in a few years because of the hiring freezes in the 90s.
Honestly, the best thing to do is just focus on the federal jobs in the DC area first. I can think of a few federal agencies with no Constitutional justification for their existence where they could start (I’m looking at you BATFE and Dept. of Education).
I work for the VA Health Care System and it is s cesspool of affirmative action hiring with tons of low and mid-level managers consisting mostly of blacks and women. They possess no creativity and only act as gate keepers. Remove them and you can cut the VA budget while making more money available to the vets and their medical needs.
I retired not too long ago after 30 years as a federal employee. While some offices are overstaffed, ours was not (I was a computer specialist), but I WAS seriously overpaid for the kind of work I was doing compared to the private sector, and currently enjoy a “golden” pension (the older CSRS).
The focus, I would argue, should be on the issue of pay parity – bringing federal salaries in line with the private sector – as well as making dismissal easier for sub-standard performance. The “low hanging fruit” would include ending “step increases” in salary. No doubt legislation will be required to begin fixing the problem. Also no doubt, the public sector unions will fight this tooth and nail.
Are you serious, you hypocrite? I think you should be forced to give back some of your pension. How dare you say the rest of the federal government should suck it up while you collect your ridiculous pension. As long as you are okay, is that it? You disgust me.
The solution you suggest does not match the problem you identified. You identified the problem as a large increase in hiring of high-end government employees in certain agencies, and your suggested fix is to cut *all* government employees. This will still leave an overabundance of high-end highly-paid employees.
What needs to happen is a rollback of positions and staffing to 2008 levels or more, plus a reduction in the highly-paid consultants and Senior Executive Service positions that grossly inflate budgets.
One obvious place to cut is in the US Forest Service and BLM workers in Oregon and Washington. Timber has no commercial value now. Very few timber sales get approved due to 9th Circuit or non-conforming EIS work. So they just screw around doing fire hazard reduction (make work projects). That takes out the young growth, which leads to a dying forests (no reproduction).
So why do we still have over 1800 employees with the Department of the Draft when we don’t have the Draft any longer? Hmmm, must be a bloated, over weight government. FIRE THEM ALL!!!! Oh, and don’t give them welfare-unemployment benefits.
Naah, instead let’s double Selective Service’s workload by requiring draft registration of females (along with imposing the same penalties for failing to register that men presently suffer).
Judy, in the U.S. the draft was never abolished after Pres. Jimmy Carter (D-Peanut Farm) reinstated it. It’s just presently inactive. Emphasis on the ‘presently’ part, there’s no end of Democrat pols who call for re-activating the draft. Pay attention the next time liberal fascists start honking about national service.
Obama should be the first to go!
You forgot Holder, Biden and Napalitano as well, of course do this after the new Speaker of the house is elected and in place!
Some facts to clear things a bit:
Federal pay schedules go from GS-1 to GS-15, then Senior Executives and some Scientists. Salaries of $150K or more, including Locality pay, are for GS-15 and above–the big positions.
Some time ago the Fed Gov decided to contract the more manual work, which is in the GS-1 to GS-5 range. This reduced employees making $18K to $35K, leaving higher GS positions in place to manage the contracted work. This is why the average salary of Federal workers is higher.
During the late 1990′s, workers were leaving the government for the much higher salaries of the private sector. The government increased compensation trying to retain workers.
Workers compensation and workload varies from agency to agency, depending on the usual budget of that agency. For example, a GS-9/11 Engineer in the Forest Service will be doing more work of the same complexity as a GS-12 in the Dept. of Defense.
Veterans are given preference in Federal work hiring. The laws of Statistics say that this makes it impossible for the govenment to always hire the best candidates.
Any new benefit negotiated by the unions will also be enjoyed by the non-union supervisors who do the negotiation.
And, in my opinion:
just reducing salaries or firing federal employees is not a smart solution to federal employment abuse. Salary cuts will hurt most the lower wage earners; and if the government is forced to fire people, please believe me that the GS-15s and SEs won’t be the ones to go.
The government does have some work to do and needs workers to do it. The solution is to make the government follow the same free market rules as the private sector when hiring, evaluating and firing employees.
You are right on the money. I work for the government, in Veterans care, and have closely observed other agencies in the gov’t too. The GS15s and above are often the most overpaid, least-necessary staff. I am a GS12, and until recently I was underpaid compared to my equivalents in the private sector, and my department had trouble hiring qualified people for my team because of the salary offered. But many of my superiors at the GS 14 and up level are seriously underqualified for the kind of pay they make, and their jobs are absolutely secure. If staffing cuts are made, those people will be the last to go, unfortunately.
“During the late 1990’s, workers were leaving the government for the much higher salaries of the private sector. The government increased compensation trying to retain workers.”
Ahhh, but therein lies the problem. Civil Service employment always was a trade-off, you gave up higher compensation on the front end for job security and gold-standard benefits and retirement on the back end of your career.
I’m from the DC area, so I’m not wont to to needlessly beat up on Fed civil servants unless they deserve it.
The Feds, like the military, suffer from a “Colonel Surplus”. You can;t realistically get rid of them, and you can’t furlough themon half-pay, so new and superfluous commands have to be created for these excess birds (and four-stripers), to command.
But there are some approaches that can be taken.
Legislation should be introduced to ban unionization of Federal civil servants. The privilege of joining a union was exyended to the Civil Service by JFK, (IIRC), and it would only take an EO to de-unionize them.
(No, I don;t think that that’s likely to pass or to happen either, but I thought I’d throw that out there)
Then there is the option of divorcing Civil Service from Unionized workers.
You can work under the Union CBA for whatever the union can get for you,(and this goes for health-care and pension also), or you can formally join Civil Service, and be immune from downsizing, furloughs and such-like.
Make the worker choose who he’s going to pair up with and stick with his or her choice.
Let them make a choice; A 15% pay cut, or no pay at all. And freeze all benefits.
Let’s make it 50% and include all cops and firefighters and military.
Nice reply… kinda. The straw man wont stand even though your snarky little remark will make those that dont understand the issue happy.
The first thing that people (who dont want cuts) will bring up is Fireman and Cops, oh and the military….
They ignore:
1- Cops and Firemen are NOT federal employees. Its a local thing. And in lots of local shops there have been hiring freezes and layoffs for the last two years. But seeing how they are not Feds it is not even part of this conversation.
2- Military. The Average military pay is NOTHING compared to a GS5 or GS6. A GS5 in arizona is going to make about 35K a year. not high, but this is a lower position. Compared to an E5 (SGT) with 3 or 4 years in the service is makine like 27K a year… so get over it. If you want to cut the military budget pull us out of all the overseas engagements and bases and stuff them all down on the southern border.
3- You call out ONE part of the federeal government (the military) but ignore all the others that can go! why is the USDA giving out home loans? did you know they did that? THE USDA? How about NASA? time to go! let the private market do it. NASA can be cut to managing space launch windows and regulate space if you will. The US Census? Constitutionaly it should happen every 10 years. Did you know they are HUGE? HUGE! their buildings house thousands of perm employees. THOUSANDS. they have huge buildings outside of DC with gorgeous GYMs and coffee bars etc. I’ve been there and couldnt believe it.
So get a real argument and come back.
Cybergeezer called for a unilateral pay cut, so it was perfectly reasonable to point out subsets of that group that would be affected. Also, there are firefighters and police that are federal employees. Who do you think pays the firefighters and cops that work on the bases genius.
The firefighters and cops that work on the bases are military members. Or at least they were, back when my hubby was in the Air Force and was part of the volunteer firefighters at his base. The MPs have the gate covered.
Ron,
An E-5 with over four but less than six years service is paid $2414/month or $28968 annually. To that add a clothing allowance of $1426 annually, free medical care, and, if single and living on base, free food and housing. If married and living off-base he gets a housing allowance of between $804 and $1038 a month. Medical care for the family is free. He also gets 30 calendar days paid vacation per year. If he/she is in a hazardous duty add another $215 a month. If under fire, another $225 a month. Retirement may come as early as 20 years of service, or about 38 years old, and is half base pay plus some of the medical benefits forever. While the value of the fact that this man or woman may be risking his/her life in defense of this nation is priceless, the cost of maintaining the individual is not cheap.
1. The ‘them’ in the original statement refers to ‘Federal Employees’, which happens to be the target of this article.
2. Federal police and firefighters are given WG or GS grades and ARE FEDERAL PAY SCALES.
3. In the present employment climate, if you receive a letter from HQ that says ALL EMPLOYEES will be given a 15% pay cut, my money says nobody will walk away from it.
4. We really do need more idiots to make rash statements about subjects they have no knowledge of, and do not intend to do any research on.
5. Carry on, fools.
“The best way to go about this would be to take advantage of the large wave of federal worker retirements that is about to hit.”
This is how we absorbed the “Peace Dividend” DOD cuts after the Berlin Wall fell. If they died, retired or quit, the position didn’t get filled again. There were also a significant number who, seeing the writing on the wall, left voluntarily to work in another field. It was such a relatively painless way to achieve the atrition goals that very few people were actually laid off.
Here’s something else the Congress-critter can do. Propose a law/amendment or whatever that forbids Congress from voting itself raises. They have screwed the poorest amongst us (the disabled) for the last 2 years now by failing to give them their COLA increase, while at the same time making sure that their fat padded asses have received a raise.
I have plenty of ideas that would save America money. Here’s a few:
Any public official who receives pay from another source (i.e.: they own a company or have personal wealth etc) shall not receive a salary. Why are the American people making those SOB’s MORE wealthy? Why should such people be paid and then get money from us as well while we struggle? That was not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.
Unless Congress is actually in session, all Congressmen and Representatives of the several states should go home and work at their personal job. No sitting around DC on their asses gobbling up Federal pay. This was the original intent of the Fathers. Congress would be in session a couple of times a year and then Congress would GO HOME.
We bring home all American troops currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, I support the war and the troops as well, but it’s obvious that the scum we’re helping don’t give a rodent’s rectum whether they are ruled by the good people or the evil people, so screw ‘em. Why should we die for them at the tune of millions a day? You want freedom like America has? WORK FOR IT AND IF NECESSARY, DIE FOR IT.
Go back on the gold standard.
Abolish future Social Security payments and GIVE THE PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE FOR SS BENEFITS THEIR MONEY BACK. Those who are disabled would continue to receive payment until they die off, then, no more.
Sell off excess government vehicles to private companies at a premium. Why should these vehicles sit around and rot when they could be put to good use working for private firms?
Any public official found guilty of a crime/ethics violation while in office FORFEITS THE OFFICE AND IS INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE AGAIN. Do ya hear me Mr. Rangel? YER OUTTA HERE.
Former Presidents must henceforth provide their own security. No more SS protection. You no longer serve the people, why should WE serve YOU?
How many billions have I saved the country already?
No more foreign aid to ungrateful nations. They perform a quid pro quo back to the people of the USA, or they don’t get sh*t.
“Abolish future Social Security payments and GIVE THE PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE FOR SS BENEFITS THEIR MONEY BACK. Those who are disabled would continue to receive payment until they die off, then, no more.”
100 million people working under age 55 X $50,000 annual salary * 0.062 pct ss tax * 30 (years of paying) = $9.3 TRILLION
And if you include the amount paid on the employees behalf it would $18.6 TRILLION
If you include a reasonable return on amount invested — good luck with that.
Getting your money back is not likely. But a nice thought.
We can do it, we just have to sell off Federal assets (mostly land) in order to do so, and stretch it out over a few years to allow the market time to absorb the transactions.
The “union stewards” are paid for doing union work by the taxpayers, yet their members contribute dues to the union. Why aren’t they being paid from those dues when they are conducting union affairs? Better solution, break-up the unions. Start by banning political contributions from the union to any party. Collective bargining if retained must be limited to working conditions, any salary increases will be based upon individual performance. Termination for cause will be emmidiate. Review of termination will be by an outside arbitrator with no affiliation to any government agency, termination or other actions will be based upon facts and law only.
Some savings can be achieved through direct programmatic cuts – e.g. PBS, farm subsidies. Other savings cannot be dealt with effectively that way. If you don’t repeal the legislation that created the “need” for the agency and its workers, then all you do is open the government up to corruption. Fewer workers covering the same regulations means slow response times. This implies that there is value in cutting to the head of the line – hence opportunity for corruption. CATO has done some excellent work along the lines of which agencies to de-fund , Ag, Education, Energy, and others. The regulatory state must be as much our target, as the sheer size of the fedgov (24% of GDP and rising).
“Buy-outs” have been useful; Offer a one time cash payment to take retirement early. It’s cost effective.
Well eat my hat and tip it too, I’m seeing lots of folks step up to the plate and intelligently defend the government against slop like this article.
I still see a few blinking light bulbs (comments) trying to cut the government workers up for fish bait, but not near as many as there have been.
Mandate that payscales MUST be immediately reconciled with private sector pay. (Easily determined. Private sector salary surveys are immediately available.)
Eliminate Federal pensions for all new hires. Give them access to 401Ks like the rest of us.
Institute an immediate 15% cut in Federal manpower (non-military) and a 10% headcount cut each year for the next 3 years.
Legislate that unions are permissible only where they negotiate directly with the wealth-creators who provide the money they consume.
Screw your private sector and your 401Ks. Were you not paying attention the past couple of years? You will be lucky to end up with anything after Wall Street gets done with your nest egg, but I guess you bit the bait. Those of you in private sector (and I was for decades) are just jealous because you probably can’t pass the background check to get into government. Keep my retirement out of the greedy, corrupt stock market.
NO,
Sorry…I could have (and did) pass the exams…but have a better job in private industry.
Your attitude amongst the “CIVIL” (Hah) Servants is a LARGE part of the problem. I deal with several .gov agencies whose denizens are TOO IMPORTANT to answer their own phone, will let it go to voicemail and then decide if they want to talk with the caller and call them back. I’ve called them from my cell phone, in view of their desks and WATCHED them play cards on the computer instead of taking the calls.
Ptui. GET TO WORK.
Sadly the reduction of employment in each department of the federal government would be based on seniority. The worker bees would be terminated leaving only the middle management and upper management. The upper management is appointed and thereby virtually untouchable. The middle management has been there so long they have forgotten how to be worker bees. And besides, they are too IMPORTANT to perform the lowly duties for which the department was established anyway.
Then fire them all and bring in veterans. You’ll never hear a department head or a company commander complain he’s too important for manual labor- if there aren’t enough men to do the job, he gets in there and does the job himself.
“Were Chaffetz truly serious about reining in spending in this area, he would put forward a proposal that did not cut the wages of federal workers, but the positions themselves.” Oh GMAFB! This it the first proposal AT ALL in this area, and the author is going to ding Chaffetz for not being serious?
There are two issues: the federal budget is out of control, and there is no longer pay equity between the federal workforce and the taxpeyers who support them. A hiring freeze or reduction of teh workforce will address one but not the other. ther must also be meaningful reform of teh salary schedules, and that will take time and courage that Congress usually lacks for this sort of thing. Otherwise we will live with this irritant for a long time.
No, the way to reform federal spending is to approach it from 2 paths, First, you eliminate programs that have outlived their usefulness. Things like PBS were valuable at the time, but are now, not so useful. These programs should end and their budgets should be used for debt reduction. Second, we have welfare programs that are based on erroneous premises and thus are designed to fail. We need to look at these sort of programs and set them up to promote work and independence and that they be temporary. We may have to hire more social workers, but in the end,we will save money.
Freeze new federal hiring, even following natural attrition. Freeze all pay hikes for federal employees until the median matches that of the private sector. In a few years, everything will be in balance. obama’s desire for pay hikes for federal workers is as economically sound as the rest of his policies – lunacy.
They are federal employees, not federal workers – there is a big difference.
The politicans will not make drastic changes until they are FORCED to. Everyone wants to get elected. Its so much easier to talk a good game, rather play the good game. Every program has its constituency and they fight tooth and nail to keep the largess flowing, no matter how stupid or illadvised the program is.
The 2007/2008 meltdown of the housing and financial industries put a glaring spotlight on the worthiness of government regulation itself. We had plenty of regulators, but it didn’t stop any bad practices. In fact, the government was the primary CAUSE of the problems. What was the result? Barack Obama proposed even MORE regulations.
Lastly, Barack Obama is building both his patronage army and his union dues contributions for 2012, all at our expense. The money blizzard will be hard to defeat. Look how he overwhelmed the hapless John McCain with money in 2008.
Oh yes, by all means, let’s accept the anecdotal evidence of Evan Siegfried, communications consultant, and former “communiations aide” for the UN, Sentator Bill Nelson, and Rudy Guilani, as a basis for determining that the federal work force is overstaffed. He certainly appears to be someone who knows about unneeded work positions.
One big caution though on making the number of fed workers reduced the primary success criteria. In the past, this has merely led those agencies to replace fed workers with fed contractors, with no net savings to the gov. A far better measure of success is actual reductions in budgets. Cut spending, and the cuts in fed workers will follow. But if you just concentrate on cutting fed staff, without reducing the overall budget, you merely replace permanent fed workers with permanent gov contractors.
Its about spending stupid. Reducing spending should be the only goal. Worrying how many gov workers there are or how much they are aid is a side issue. The bloated gov worker staffs and salaries are a symptom, the disease is spending. Once you have the spending under control, the gov workers will follow.
Federal personnel rules allow people to be fired for incompetence and insubordination; however, the Merit System Protection Board will reverse almost any action in that direction. The Merit System Protection Board will have to be de-fanged to change this. Supervisors of federal employees have almost no authority over the people they supervise. I know, I used to be one.
Did you notice that under headline of your column were several google ads for federal employees?
As a retired Soldier, I had absolutely no problem with the the freeze in my COLA this year due to the poor economy, it only makes sense, but my retired federal employee neighbor (who retired with 80% pay plus benefits from the FAA) sure got her COLA raise, thanks to the public employee union/democrats. I guess that by being a raving NPR liberal hypocrite she’s just protecting her interests. She certainly falls into the new socialist aristocracy class though.
The problem is race – you cant fire anyone unless they really screw up (dead girl/live boy).
Thousands of workers are just keeping a desk warm. Their co-workers pick up the slack. Usually there will be just 2 or 3 workhorses in one group.
How does this happen? The race card. Managers will not manage blacks. The slightest criticism will get you an EEO complaint. Get three such complaints on your record, even if they are all ruled frivolous, and your career is over.
Pay cuts, good idea; hiring freeze, good idea. But we also need program cuts. The Department of Education would be a good start. I would guess Head Start is in that department. A recent broad study showed that whatever feeble positive good effects which come out of Head Start, those are gone at the end of the first year out of the program. Total waste of money.
Why are we subsidizing unmarried women to live at home with their illegitimate children?
Oh, and lest I forget, not only did I understandably not get a COLA raise on my military retirement due to the poor economy, but my property taxes went up 24% this year for no apparent reason. I went to the county assessor’s office in search of an answer and got a load of BS instead. I suppose that this is the price you pay for living in a blue state like Washington, I guess that somebody’s got to pay for the public employee’s largess and I figure that its going to be us private sector and military folks.
One of my favorite jokes…
How many people work at the federal government?
About 20%.
I’m telling you this Obama economy is terrible. Simply terrible. In fact, it’s so bad that this Christmas I’m actually hoping for a lump of coal in my stocking.
I’ll be here all week folks. Remember to tip the waitresses. It’s a depression out there.
Any restructuring of the civil service workforce is not likely to happen unless it can somehow be linked to the equivalent of the private sectors proverbial bottom line. Revenue shortfalls have little impact on government when it’s taxpayer dollars and government officials control the purse strings. There is no incentive for fiscal responsibility and efficiency, and no consequence can be imposed on unwritten or unspecified standards of fiscal performance. Annual budget allocations are based on the previous years expenditures which are, as a matter of course, artificially inflated to keep the system from running on empty and with the growth of Union participation, their stringent work rules, exorbitant benefits and their tendency to reduce all employees within a service level to the lowest performing standard, this problem can only get worse.
Any politicians with the guts to take this on had better be prepared for very short careers. There will be bleating, howling, whining and gnashing of teeth on an unprecedented level when confronting the Union political machine, their pit bull Socialist/Communist/Democrat supporters and a sycophantic media that will make their campaign against George Bush appear downright amateurish. It’s unlikely the current crop of Conservative/Republican representatives are up to the task given the remaining, well entrenched old guard. Excessive pessimism or realistic assessment; time will tell but optimism is nowhere to be seen on the horizon.
My plan reduce the federal payroll by 5 percent per year for 10 years.
I’m as unhappy about federal salary and employment figures as anyone…but I propose we attack the disease rather than the symptom.
Congress is not legally bound by its budgets. Nor is it limited by its tax revenues. It’s permitted “to borrow money on the credit of the United States” — sadly, one of the seventeen enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Nor is that power limited to times of war or national emergency.
Only a Constitutional amendment that forbids Congress to borrow, unless the United States is at war or facing a comparable emergency, can get Washington to refrain from overspending, whether on federal employees or anything else. Of course, we’d also have to insist that the power “to coin money” actually means to make gold and silver coin, not to print irredeemable paper. But that’s a battle for a separate tirade.
Republicans are incapable of shrinking government, because they are actually leftists in disguise. Read why here.
Why are we subsidizing unmarried women to live at home with their illegitimate children?
Because Republicans will support any and all leftism as long as it is packaged as chivalry. Steve Forbes is actually proud of this.
Read this for more :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/11/why-republicans-will-not-shrink-government.html
Mr. siegfried, how many of these government workers a unionized? Does a unionized government worker have a conflict of interest? Unions are confrontational with employers, or they would be of no use to their members. Unions almost never protect the top performers, they protect mostly dead wood. This means that the workers are at some level and point are also confrontational. This in turn puts self over country, and there is the conflict.
I’m a Federal Employee. There is waste. Too many people. BUT there are too many managers and supervisors. IF a push to par the roles comes, guess who they’ll get rid of? The workers doing the jobs. Then they’ll cut back on services and say it’s the public’s fault.
The true waste is in programs and management, but that trimming never takes place. It’s just like the local government that fails to get it’s tax increase through.. the first thing they cut is the library followed by the police department. They always play the pain game with the public.
Like others have said, the way to cut is for congress to get rid of a bunch of these agencies pell-mell and cut them entirely. That’s when we’ll start seeing some cuts.
But…but…we have a CONTRACT!
So did the Bond Holders of GM and look at what happened to them!
This problem is too big for surgery and requires a meat-ax approach. The entire federal budget has become a gangrenous appendage to our body politic. When gangrene has set in, microsurgery is not used; surgeons in the field in the old days took a saw or meat ax to remove the offending limb to save the patient. Similarly, we must remove the gangrenous portions of our society, it, bloated government, in order to save the country.
As a former veteran federal employee with three agencies/departments, I know firsthand the problems inherent in the federal workforce. The solutions must be multifaceted and address all components of the problem — unconstitutional agencies/departments, programs, subsidies/tax credits, AND personnel.
With regard to the latter, this is the low-hanging fruit that gets the biggest bang because labor is the costliest component of most operations. Again, the meat-ax approach is the only one that will work.
First, the Republican House should use the debt ceiling to enforce short-term cuts and spending reform. This should include an immediate 10% reduction in the federal workforce AND a 10% reduction in salaries and benefits across the board. The argument that the government “can’t recruit good people without private-sector-like salaries” is hogwash. People are lining up out the door for these jobs, and once in they rarely leave. For what most of them do, the pay is very good, and the benefits are unbeatable.
Second, Repubs should begin planning for a 50% total reduction over 5-10 years. Third, we need civil service reform to make it easier to hire and fire federal workers. And it is true that agencies are top-heavy with too many GS-15s and SES employees. The FCC, for example, has 8-10 deputy, associate, and assistant bureau chiefs for each bureau when 2-3 would more than suffice. This is one small agency. There should be very few federal employees after these reforms, but those that remain should be paid well.
Fourth, expanding the low-hanging fruit argument to other federal spending, the easy targets should be hit first as a morale booster. If we can’t defund NPR/Public Broadcasting ($400 million), Planned Parenthood ($200 million), Legal Services ($400 million), the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities ($200-300 million), and Clinton’s Americorp ($200-300 million) then we can’t cut anything. Those items that lend themselves to privatization should be privatized, eg, Amtrak and the TVA and Bonneville Power Administration.
Fifth, we should go after those departments that clearly have no legitimate purpose under the Constitution. Here, the easy targets are Education (5,000 worthless bureaucrats who have done nothing to improve test scores in 33 years), HUD (and federal housing – $50 billion), Energy (what they do there that is legitimate could be returned to DoD where it used to be), Labor (I’ve worked there and there is more dead wood there than in Yellowstone Nat’l Park), and Interior.
With regard to Interior and federal lands, all federal lands outside of constitutional purposes, eg, military and post offices, should be auctioned, including federal Wilderness Areas and National Forests. We have 13 national parks that comprise 1/10 of the land in this country; we don’t need any more and the other federal land is superfluous. If sold, this land, timber, oil, gas, coal, copper, etc., would fetch $10-20 trillion over a ten-year period given the huge spike in commodity prices in the past 15 years. This could pay off most or all of our federal debt. Moreover, eliminating the federal debt would evaporate the $200 billion per year we’re spending on interest costs (it was $300 billion when rates were higher).
This would be a quadruple win for the taxpayers. First, as noted it would enable us to pay off the federal debt. Second, it would save billions of dollars that it cost to maintain and oversee this property. Third, it would subject the land to local/state taxation, bolstering their revenue base. Fourth, it would create millions of jobs that would expand the economy and contribute eventually billions to the federal tax base.
Sixth, foreign aid ($100 billion including funding of third-world lending institutions [World Bank and IMF]), agriculture subsidies/conservation easements ($12-15 billion), and all corporate subsidies ($200 billion), including ethanol, should be eliminated.
Seventh, the nation-building component of DoD should be eliminated. It is not the job of the American taxpayer to police, mother, play Dr. Welby, or bankroll the world. This represents 15% or $100 billion in “defense” spending. Eighth, we don’t need an army as large as we have. Why do we have 75,000 troops in Europe and 75,000 in Asia 65 years after WWII? Cut these by 75% and curtail the size of the army while expanding the navy, air force, and special forces. The rest of the western world needs to grow up and begin taking care of itself and providing for its own defense.
Ninth, at a minimum we must tighten Medicaid eligibility standards back to 1995 levels. This program was intended for only the most impoverished of society, ie, 5%. It now comprises 65 million people or 20% of the country ($200-300 billion in savings). Longer term, we should do what Gov. Perry of Texas has called for and abolish it. The states could self-insure and create a more efficient program, which along with private healthcare reforms such as interstate competition (now prohibited) would drive down the cost of private healthcare making it more likely working class folks could afford insurance.
Finally, a massive reduction in regulations would reduce any “need,” real or perceived, in the legions of federal attorneys. Domestic policy should be run by the states, which are much more competent in dealing with these matters. The departments and agencies that remain should have substantially-reduced workforces and many programs eliminated.
Contrary to what the lamestream media claims, we could pare close to $1 TRILLION off the budget before we even address Social Security and Medicare, the two huge components of non-defense spending. What we have lacked is the political will. As for government unions, they are impotent as federal law prohibits them from striking. Most federal employees don’t belong as they know what a waste they are.
Excellent. If you run, you’ll have my vote; but first you’d need to reconsider the federal lands auctioning thing…I would really not like to see the chinese buying Yellowstone cheap in a Going-Out-of-Business sale.
A nice start…
… but then, can we finally discuss the phased shut-down of the dual ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare? Until these two behemoths standing astride all budgets are cut down and eliminated for good, no “budget cuts” will have any significant effect.
Focus on eliminating what consumes 2/3 of the Federal budget FIRST, then filter out the nonsense in the rest later.
- A guy who grew up believing he’d never have either “entitlement” available when he finally got too old and sick to work, and is dismayed and horrified to think they may still be in existence… WTF are you idiots THINKING?????!!!???? Kill this stupid shit as fast as possible!!! I understand that people in the 20′s and 30′s were primitive cave-men; complete morons even, but why do we have to follow these morons down the Primrose Path to financial Hell??? END THE IDIOCY OF “ENTITLEMENTS” NOW!!!!
Fire workers? Forget that pittance. How about …
Eliminating whole departments? Education is an easy one to start with.
Privatizing Fanny, Freddie, Postie? Failed agencies that have long outlived their usefulness as government entities.
Merging Environment and Interior, and cutting the former way back?
Testify! As a current Federal employee, and having worked for Navy, Air Force and NASA I agree with 90% of what you wrote. Federal pay and retirement is a red herring. I’ve seen this three times now. In the late 80s when the economy was picking up, as and engineering manager, responsible for hiring young engineers, nobody wanted to work for the Federal Government. Lockheed and Boeing engineers looked down their noses at civil service engineers. Navy would higher engineers in at $20K to $30k less that than the big aerospace companies. We would get the dregs-of-the-dregs. Boeing personnel, non-degreed use to laugh when I described my pay and benefits. My retirement is and IRA with 5% fed matching up to $15K. Check that against Lockheed or Boeing. Then the worm turns in the early 90s. The economy falters, and everyone wants to be an “over paid” Federal Employee. Same thing in 2000 and gain in 2007. Rinse and repeat. The same stories always come out about how great civil service jobs are. However, just try to cut a military base or major weapons system and you will see the same papers howl about the unfairness. I’m I wrong or did Obama shove a bunch of $200M C-17s down the Air Force’s throat that they did not want, as a bone to the aerospace unions.
Also, the people who write these stories need to at least compare apples to apples, not apples to turkey legs. The $150K job include social security paid by the Fed, medical, and the Fed 5% IRA matching in the compensation calculation. Most government positions require a high amount of education. What exactly would you pay a VA doctor in the middle of two wars – -Walmart wages? What should the FBI agent make — $60K? How about the nuclear reactor inspector? Maybe we can get some out of work real estate agents that where making six figures in 2005 on the cheep.
By the way, everyone, whom do you trust stare down the bureaucrats and their unions?
President RomneyGingrichPawlentyHuckaDaniels?
or
President Palin?
Rebel Yell for President 2012! Finally, a coherent and well-rounded plan to reduce federal spending, but it will never see the light of day because the career criminals in Washington will refuse to give up so much money and therefore power. Both parties have spent the last few decades building power by increasing federal spending, so to actually reduce or cut programs/departments is completely against their nature. These is very little likelihood of any of these wonderful ideas even being debate on merit and never mind them actually ever happening.
This goes back to the fact that everyone talks a good game to get into office, but very few carry through. No one of the possible contenders for 2012 has the stones to carry this or any other cost cutting plan, except Christie and he won’t run unless the economy is completely in the toilet because otherwise the independents will return Obama with a Republican Congress.
Feds are overpaid and underworked, overpaid and underworked, blah blah blah blah blah! When I joined the federal govt about 20 years ago, the non fed employers had an expression for folks like me; they called us “the best of the desperate.” No qualified professional wanted anything to do with us. Our equipment was outdated. When we finally got laptops, they were models 7-8 years out of date. The FBI could not fully staff their NYC office because no one could support a family in NY on federal wages. Things have gotten better since then pay wise, but this is because feds have a much higher than average level of college and post college grads. And above all, we are old. If you work in a professional field (VA doctor, RN, lawyer, engineer, computer specialist, accountant) and you stayed with the same employer for 25 years, how much money would you expect to make? A hell of a lot more than the typical Joe on the street, that’s for sure! If things were so great for us, the fed haters would have signed up years ago. But they didn’t, did they? So what happens now when the economy nosedives? Read the comments on this post and you’ll see. There has never been any secret that federal jobs are more secure than private ones, but you still never wanted to work for Uncle Sam. I think you’re just jealous- stop being such a bunch of sore losers.
Uh, Jon… your wages come from federal taxpayers… that means you work for the taxpayers… that is, us.
Perhaps you should be nicer to your bosses.
JK’s five steps to limit gov’t:
Step 1. Abolish government unions.
Step 2. Impose federal gov’t pay freeze.
Step 3. Impose federal gov’t hiring freeze.
Step 4. Cut federal work force by ten per cent.
Step 5. Ensure federal compensation does not exceed civilian pay equivalent.
Case closed.
Well, from my perspective in the criminal justice system, crime rates are down substantially, and litigation is also down as people simply cannot afford to fight it out in court. So our courthouses are really slow.
So there is down time. But as I always point out, five years ago, the Wall Streeters we were seeing in court were making 3 to 5 times in a year what government employees were. And no one was writing editorials then about getting rid of bonuses given for trading worthless paper back and forth. No, it was assumed, that if you went into finance, you dealt with the hours and the stress and got paid ridiculously well. It was assumed that if you were educated, and went into government, you were paid comfortably, so you did not need a second job but would never be rich.
Now that the fat cats in finance and real estate are dying, they are erupting at government workers. Why? Jealously. I know, because I had my own business for 19 years before I started with the govt. And it sucked. I had to pay all these different taxes and deal with accounting and licensing and collections and cash flow and so on. So I know what it is like.
But let’s be real. Would all of the critics of the government be so vocal if they had successful businesses making more than government workers? I think not. I will bet many of the people criticizing my salary never took a civil service exam or applied for work with the government. No, they wanted to flip houses and day trade and merge and acquire. Well, maybe back in ’03 or ’04 they should have applied for a job with the government. But no, they laughed at us. They laughed at me at my high school reunion, all the VPs of Citibank who are now laid off.
As a taxpayer and a govt worker I also give back more than 40 percent of my check. And no, I do not think our taxes are fair or equitable. I am no different than any other worker, except that my boss does not make 10 or 20 times what I do. He makes about twice what I do.
So you can cut my job. I will go bankrupt. Not be able to pay my mortgage. And if you think things are bad now, just wait and see what kind of government you get with no employees at all or $7 an hour geniuses. You will get exactly what you pay for.
What need to happen, is the laws need to be changed so that there are less departments and services. And to minimize turmoil, the employees need to be taken care of, not just dumped. For example, do we need a department of agriculture? Do we need a federal reserve? No to both, but we do need a justice department and a defense department.
Let’s be real about our feelings. I was quite jealous of all the people I knew making a fortune in the past in real estate and finance. Now I am feeling justified with my government job that actually exists.
If you do not like my job, ask yourself why.
See my comment to “jon” above.
It applies to you too.
How about putting in a flat tax and abolishing the entire Internal Revenue Service and all the departments that support it. It would increase income because illegals would be paying taxes when they purchase something and would end the most oppressive Federal agency we have. A win/win for everyone….well except the people who work in the IRS office. Also any Federal employee who hasn’t paid their taxes in the past should be fired, immediately. Bye bye Geitner.
Many comments from current government workers. There is a fallacy to your statements defending your pay. You actually think your job is legitimate. In most cases, it is not.
Another common part of your responses was that the jobs are paid less than the private sector, but more secure. That used to be the case. No longer. Government employees make TWICE as much as the SAME private sector employee, considering pay and benefits. Your union has been very effective in that. Yay them! Except for the part where you are ALL about to get the axe. You got too greedy.
Then there were the tropes about qualifications. Bull! Most government jobs have low qualifications. What level of education is required to work for our broke Postal Service, huh? TSA employee? Well, they are not highly-paid; just useless. Civil service exam? Piece of cake, but I couldn’t get hired, because I am not a grievance group member.
Here’s a clue-bat for you government employees: Greater security in the public-sector is a bug, not a feature; it’s a hint that something is wrong with your field.
That is probably driven by the very human need to feel that one is important. The problem is that the feelings of the people directly involved usually aren’t a good barometer to use. That’s why most places keep an eye out for “conflicts of interest.”
Those receiving a paycheck from the government have a built-in conflict of interest with any attempt to reduce the size of the government. Fortunately (for those of us arguing for fiscal sanity, at least), they’ve done a great job of showing that conflict of interest here.
We are going broke. What part of that don’t the people in Washington get?
They don’t get any part of it at all and they never will. They still think that a government job is just as good as a private sector job. They even think they can fix the economy by paying more for our existing level of government by raising union employee wages and benefits. The economic ignorance is stunning.
The simple truth is that our standard of living is determined by our collective productivity. Anyone in the Private Sector ought to be mad as hell that those ten people who upload documents for two hours a day – documents that will probably never be viewed again by human eyes – get to use their taxpayer provided wages to claim a full ration of things that the rest of us produce.
It is true that spending will take place, but there is no corresponding contribution into the big pot of things that we all share. We know we need some government to enforce basic laws and property rights, maintain the military and a few other things. But the rest of government spending should create massive protests from those of us who produces things in the real world. We are being forced to provide cars, houses, food, haircuts, vacations and entertainment in exchange for a few hours of unnecessary document scanning.
Great article, many fine comments.
Almost all gov’t reduction policies are better than what we have now.
My own suggestion: all gov’t workers making 3x more than median (~$40k, so those over $120k) become half-time gov’t workers, half pay.
And then keep making the top workers work half time until there is a 20% reduction in salary costs per department.
Let’s note that, with unemployment so high, putting more gov’t workers at half-time doesn’t hurt the unemployment statistics. Probably doesn’t hurt their productivity much, either.
But Siegfried is wrong This is not a partisan issue.
There is waste. The Reps are willing to cut, the Dems are not.
All waste should be cut now, first, with no compromises on other things.
Cut waste, or not.
The Reps need to cut, step by step. Maybe a set of cuts every week, maybe a cut every day.
“Uh, Jon… your wages come from federal taxpayers… that means you work for the taxpayers… that is, us.”
Well…. we pay taxes as well, so using your line of thinking, that makes us self-employed.
Ahh, I see a third sock has chimed in.
I purchase the product my employer produces… does that make me self-employed too?
In the USSR, everyone worked for the gubment, because there was no such thing as a private company. Does that mean they were all self-employed?
Go put another sock on your hand and post again, “jon,” or is it “RICK”?
Laying off workers from the bloated gov’t is a start, but we going to have to delete some depts in whole like the IRS, EPA, education for examples.
Government employees have been made into Prima Dona’s…they are told who to vote for and follow orders so that they can keep receiving their high salaries,raises and employee benefits at the expense of the American taxpayer…enough is enough already….to learn more go to http://www.takingonissues.com. This country is broke, we all have to sacrifice…including government employees….
Exactly. Or the private sector can demand equal treatment (i.e. social security equal to government pensions, same health care exemptions as unions and government, wage parity, government jobs must stay at same percentage as private sector jobs). This would cause the entire system to unravel but what justification would they have to deny this? If you live in CA go to UCAPS.ORG
The same problem exists at the state and local level also. In Michigan bureaucrats are telling taxpayers they must pay more in taxes or the state will empty the prisons and lay off the state police.
Private corporations must downsize when times are tough because unlike the government, they cannot forcibly extract money from people.
After working in private industry for over a decade, I worked for several state governments in higher education. I was appalled when I gave performance reviews that resulted in workers leaving (because they could tell they were not meeting expectations) or the firing of a worker then my superior would criticize ME for wanting people who actually did their assigned jobs. My superiors were ALWAYS afraid that these people would try to sue or some other bogus excuse. Government will NEVER perform efficiently until people in leadership are willing an able to give fair and balanced performance evaluations and then carry out either improvement or asking the failing worker to leave.
There is much that could be done to cut waste. I totally agree with the budget change from baseline to zero. I know many National Institutes of Health and Defense workers who intentionally spend their remaining budget just so they will not have to reduce it in the next fiscal year. This has got to stop.
Furthermore, there is so much duplication of efforts (as others have mentioned) not only eliminate the Departments of Health and of Energy but also the NIH. These researchers who do not have to write any grants sit around most of the day and wonder what they can do to spend their budget. I say eliminate all research AT the NIH and allow these monies to go out to researchers who have exciting and novel targets for highly specific therapies (e.g for cancer). Right now it is crony science that dictates who receives NIH grants. This needs a total revision.
A lot of good ideas. Appoint a czar to head the committee that conducts a study to determine the reduction impacts first. Sure……….
All of you are missing the point that the reason our incomes went up is that many of us have been serving off and on in combat zones these last nine years and I’m not going to be working in Iraq and Afghanistan while getting shot at and rocketed for the same pay that I make stateside.
Plus in a combat zone federal civilians are the only ones paying al of their taxes. Contractors and uniforms folks get tax breaks,
So yes many of us are making over 150 K, but that is due to our service in combat zone where I’m sitting right now typing this reply to a bunch of unemployed schmucks.
Also the Dept of State as well as USAID has made extensive use of 3161′s and FSL’s, which are both limited appointment federal employees that start as GS-13 the first two years and spend their last 2 years as GS-14′s. I don’t support either program, but we can’t get enough regular federal civilians with the right skills to volunteer for service in a combat zone. So these positions though limited skew the numbers.
So yes, I agree the federal workforce needs to be severely trimmed back in Northern VA, but realize were these numbers truly come from.
From Somewhere in the hinderlands of Afghanistan were one walks a 100 meters outdoors to relieve themselves.
I work for a Federal agency that IS in The Constitution and we are having trouble getting approval to hire more people. Pay is already on the slide. As I look in USAjobs.com, DHS is hiring so many top-level expensive people it is hard to understand what they all will do. Will they all have staffs? What in the world is the value added by these extraneous new organizations when it is obvious the existing organizations kept us safe since 9-11? Why does a contrived operation get unlimited authority and budget, while a necessary one specifically charged with duties in The Constitution, starve?
Practical observation shows it foolhardy to build new imperious Federal organizations, then call for an across-the-board ANYTHING. This rewards the guilty and punishes The Constitution. It even sounds stupid. I agree with others here who suggest the new Republican House needs to use its subpoena power to investigate and de-fund all the over-regulating unconstitutional Federal syndicates. What I fear is that these untold and secretive new Federal organizations, begun since January 2009, are becoming entrenched just as they are being hidden from us.
On the Deficit Commission Report, SIMPSON AND BOWLES thought they were going to make a big SPLASH, until they read comments from Americans across the country saying NO to social security cuts when there’s no plan to cut RAMPANT wastefulness and obsolete departments and functions across the entire government. The fact that Simpson is complaining about spending $25K of his own money is SAD, especially when he and his comrades in the Senate got wealthy on making deals with lobbyists which are NOT in the interest of the people. Mr. Simpson, just ask Obama and Bernanke to reimburse you — they’ve forked over money to every other elite on the face of the earth….by robbing “the little people”.
Since the entire deficit is owed to the Federal Reserve, a PRIVATE bank owned by 13 elite mostly European families and the Rockefellers, and it was generated unconstitutionally by allowing the FED to print money rather than Treasury, the entire deficit should be WRITTEN OFF as a FRAUD against the people.
That said, Congress NEEDS to CUT SPENDING DRASTICALLY. The tea partiers should be the people on this “commission”. Bowles and Simpson are so old and with the “in-crowd” that they are “out of touch”. If I hear one more politician say they want to cut Social Security (a small monthly stipend for the seniors who paid into it all their lives), instead of the VAST WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES that never go away regardless of being obsolete, I will scream!
Some things that could be slashed with no adverse effect on Americans:
(1) Dept of Education (worked better at the State and County level – grades continue to deteriorate)
(2) Homeland Security (REFUSES to do its job of securing the border or deporting illegals. Instead, spends taxpayers money suing AZ, harassing airline passengers, and sending notices to nationwide police departments that returning Vets, tea partiers, patriots, and those with anti-Obama stickers on their cars are TERRORISTS. Allows their agents to insist an airline put a panty-bomber on their airplane with no ID (Christmas bomber). FOSTERED BP poisoning of the Gulf and allowed the Coast Guard, now under their supervision, to cover up OIL, TOXIC OCEAN, TOXIC SEAFOOD, TOXIC AIR, CONTINUED COREXIT SPRAYING, and PEOPLE DYING. Napolitano should have been fired YEARS AGO!
(3) The FBI and DOJ REFUSE to do their jobs of prosecuting Wall Street and big banks or investigate ForeclosureGate or Fannie/Freddie. The FBI covered up the Turkish Council and Israeli lesbian blackmail of Rep Jan Schakowsky that Sibel Edmonds testified about on Aug 8, 2009, and Schakowsky is STILL Chair of the House “Intelligence” Committee. The DOJ is just plain incompetent and fails to do its job altogether, despite Judicial Watch proof of coverup on the Black Panthers crime.
DOJ spends taxpayer dollars suing AZ against Americans’ wishes.
(4) Dept of Energy, which despite an oil crisis in 1972 has FAILED MISERABLY in turning the nation into an energy-efficient one in regard to housing and transportation. 100 years of future technology and medical cures for cancer THAT TAXPAYERS PAID FOR was handed over to military-industrial corporations who REFUSE TO GIVE THAT TECHNOLOGY TO THE PUBLIC. With the super-fast advancement of electronics, we should be driving spaceships by now, rather than the same oil-based cars at 25 mpg we were driving in the 50’s. Even electric cars (Volt) are old technology! Where are the air cars from Australia?
(5) The wars should be ended and the Pentagon blasted for its use of hundreds of thousands of mercenaries like Halliburton, KBR, XE, etc. and for buying brand new trucks when a tire blows rather than stocking TIRES, and for their Israeli Pentagon comptroller losing over $4 trillion just prior to 911 (no investigation, no prosecution – definitely a coverup. The comptroller’s company manufactured remote control systems for planes), and for “losing” another $8 billion last year, and for “losing” planeloads of cash sent to Iraq, and for their ABJECT FAILURE (along with the Red Cross and Clinton/Bush fundraising — where did THAT money go?) to help Haiti in any way, shape or form. THE PENTAGON’S BUDGET SHOULD BE CUT FOR ALL THESE LOSSES IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR’S BUDGET. The Pentagon’s ever-expanding military bases, like the new one they’re planning in Columbia, should be SHUT DOWN and all those soldiers brought home to defend our own nation. Cutting over 800 bases across the globe should save PLENTY. Add all those foreign jobs, vehicles, and equipment we’re paying for at these bases.
(6) The State Dept under Hillary should STOP building billion-dollar embassies in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and London. Who will use these embassies in the desert and in war zones? Staffs of
over 2000 and security personnel of 500 for each embassy, vehicles, office supplies, gasoline, and equipment would rack up huge savings.
(7) The Czars and their staffs should be cut. Michelle’s 27 aids should be cut. There should be a BUDGET LIMIT for presidential foreign trips.
(8) Nancy Pelosi should NOT be given an airplane. All members of congress should fly commercial, and so should the presidential staff.
(9) $385 billion in social services handouts to illegals PER YEAR…food stamps, SSI (social security they DIDN’T pay into), HUD housing where Obama’s illegal aunt lived, free hospitalization, medicaid, free college education under DREAM Act, free public schools, prison for 30% illegal inmates, FREE LEGAL DEFENSE, building more schools, more prisons, hiring more teachers, more policemen, more court personnel, while they commit murders and rapes of children, form criminal gangs with impunity, drive drunk killing Americans. FORGET the Dream Act! Pass “birthright” bill.
(10) Cut Israeli foreign aid completely (this is directed to Cantor). Americans are tired of paying for the war-mongering and threats.
(11) Combine all the competing Intelligence agencies, and cut personnel.
(12) Abolish the CIA for 60 years of drug-running, money-laundering, and murders of Americans and popularly-elected foreign oficials. Americans do not approve of these ATROCITIES carried out in OUR names and with OUR funding and OUR soldiers’ protection of CIA poppy fields.
THESE ARE JUST A “FEW” SUGGESTIONS, BUT THERE ARE THOUSANDS MORE….AND THE PEOPLE WANT SOMETHING DONE ABOUT ALL THESE ATROCITIES, rather than cutting old people’s social security. WE’RE VERY ANGRY REGARDING SIMPSON’S AND BOWLES’ CAN ONLY THINK OF SOCIAL SECURITY TO CUT.
QE2 & The Great Misdiagnosis: (or “how we got here”)
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jim-willie/qe2-and-the-great-misdiagnosis
RIF—thats the answer, reduction in force. 5% a year, make them get a job like the rest of us instead of sucking off the government tit.
“The tax payers are our bosses.” That’s right bossman. And it’s all about getting it on the cheep, right? Next time you need a dentist, take a trip down to TJ. You want that Porsche transmission fixed, the 19 year old kid next door was changing his oil yesterday. Transmissions have oil, right? What’s so hard about putting five jumbojets into the pattern over LAX? Pick up a few out of work mortgage shop cool-callers — two weeks of training — and sit back and enjoy the flight (baby) while you contemplate you $1.45 your reduction in the taxes. Bada-bing, bada bang. Three tour Special Forces, Deta Operator, got a shrapnel wound? While we would like to give him a over paid $200K Civil Service brain surgeon, but hey, there’s prolly a Guatemalan med school D-student fresh out that we could hire up at GS-11 pay. What could go wrong? Really, what could go wrong?
The Congress should examine closely and fire 90% of the contractor workforce as well. I’m work for a defense contractor and can say a large number of contractors in the intelligence community simply duplicate the functions of client agency positions for 10-30K more.
800 lb Gorilla
You could 100% redline (eliminate)EVERY position and agency (a wonderful idea!) except Social Insecurity, Medicrap, defense and interest on the debt and still have a trillion dollar deficit.
The meataxe is going to have to fall on the IDEA of the Federal Government. Everyone’s ox is going to be gored.
I am retired military still living near the base.
DOD has thousands of employees that do nothing except sitting at their desk and chatting in the hallway.
I observed this daily.
The base has contract security guards who make $18 an hour to check ID’s at the gate.
The rate for guards outside is $11 an hour.
The staggering amount of waste and fraud is unbelievable.
Clinton “rifed” a lot of government workers and closed up redundant bases.
The DOD waited and hired a whole new generation of workers.
There is one Admiral for each Navy ship.
What a waste.
The reduction of wages should start with the Congress, with a 50% cut across the board, and then go after the useless jobs and stale programs!!!
You can call for these measures if it makes you feel better. I agree that all dept.s could use a trimming without too much in the loss of govt’t services. But be warned that in hard economic times, people will feel the pinch after those services are cut off. Anyway, the fact is: Federal payrolls are a drop in the bucket compared to the big picture. You won’t make a dent in deficits until you deal with the holy grails of defense (HW, SW and contractor hours), social security and medicare/medicaid spending. So, what’s the point again?