Voters Prefer To Cut The Federal Payroll
-
By a 63% to 18% margin, voters prefer to cut the federal payroll rather than offering federal workers a raise as the president has proposed.
The average federal government employee receives a salary of around $75,000 per year. With present and future fringe benefits equal to about 76 percent of salaries, that makes for total annual compensation of around $133,000. How does this match up to the private sector?
-
This is a no-brainer, T.
You really only get the full impact when you take what you provided, identify the number of people on the dole and, then, multiply together.
Who truly believes enough Reps or Senators would rather cut their staff than, simply, putting the bill on the taxpayers already-overburdened backs.
This ain't ever gonna change. The two-party system is too ingraned bother from a Party standpoint and a voter standpoint.
Probably only another Civil War would acheive what, I believe, needs to be achieved relative to putting representation back into the realm of reality.
-
Uh oh. We've lost John.
PS - Federal employees aren't "on the dole." They're employees who do jobs and are paid for their work. You're talking about FBI agents, National Park rangers, FEMA responders, Department of Energy scientists, etc. You can quibble about what they get paid, but most of these employees have had their pay frozen for the last few years because of the budget crisis.
"On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.
-
Are you really pining for another Civil War, John? That would solve what now?
-
I've worked for the Feds. I have relatives who've worked for state and local gov't. It's extremely wasteful. Many workers don't work but 2-3 hours a day. The process of getting anything done is the opposite of streamlined. It's bloated, an organizational mess. I'm not against privatization for any agency. It would introduce competition among potential service providers. It would increase productivity and efficiency.
-
The military used to be, still is, extremely wasteful.
Hell, there was one commander of a military base in S. Carolina, that secretly had brand new stocks of typewriters, etc...
even a few jeeps and bulldozers buried, so he would look good on an IG inspection.
You go to the unemployment office, and there are people who work there who
are fat, lazy, belligerant, and incompetent. They are "on the dole". So many of fed workers
have their jobs locked in, and some don't care, because it doesn't matter.
Greece is about to explode into a civil war.
That is us if Obamao gets a second term.
-
If Obama gets a second term we are going to have a Civil War?
lol
I think some old, crotchety white people will complain and then go back to what they were doing.
-
Uh oh. We've lost John.
PS - Federal employees aren't "on the dole." They're employees who do jobs and are paid for their work. You're talking about FBI agents, National Park rangers, FEMA responders, Department of Energy scientists, etc. You can quibble about what they get paid, but most of these employees have had their pay frozen for the last few years because of the budget crisis.
"On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.
"On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.
And those benefits have been doubled since Obama's commie care became law. Government spending is going to break everyone's back. Within a couple of years we will be in the same shape as Greece.
-
Of course, and to no one's surprise, what you're saying isn't even close to being true.
It'd be nice to have a conversation with someone who has some tether to objective reality.
-
I've worked for the Feds. I have relatives who've worked for state and local gov't. It's extremely wasteful. Many workers don't work but 2-3 hours a day. The process of getting anything done is the opposite of streamlined. It's bloated, an organizational mess. I'm not against privatization for any agency. It would introduce competition among potential service providers. It would increase productivity and efficiency.
I've worked for the Feds. I have relatives who've worked for state and local gov't. It's extremely wasteful. Many workers don't work but 2-3 hours a day. The process of getting anything done is the opposite of streamlined. It's bloated, an organizational mess. I'm not against privatization for any agency. It would introduce competition among potential service providers. It would increase productivity and efficiency.
It can be extremely wasteful, yes. Parts of it are also well run and efficient. Depends on what we're talking about.
Privatization can work in certain situations, and there is lots of government business that's already contracted out, But this is rarely the panacea the right imagines. You're often talking about providing services that the private sector doesn't really want to provide because there's not enough money in it, or not enough room for growth.
If you take Amtrak, which is often talked about by privatization advocates, the likely outcome of a private sale of Amtrak's rail lines would be a reduction in rail service to spots that weren't as profitable. So, you either live with the reduced service, or you subsidize the private company to extend their service to stops/regions that may not be profitable enough. And then you're back to square one, with the government subsidizing rail service, and paying out contracts to a private contractor to do what Amtrak was already doing. You might not save a dime.
Depends what you think Amtrak is for.
The defense budget, of course, is a giant clusterfuck of private contractors. Even in war zones, private contractors now do a lot of the stuff the Army used to do for itself, like cooking food and washing clothes, etc. That's all done by outside firms now, paid for by tax dollars. And it's not exactly hard to find boondoggles in defense contracting.
But overall, yes, I'm with you. When you can get something out of the government's hands because you think you can save money or do things more efficiently, that should be considered.
-
Yes, it IS true, Heck.
You can ignore the gigantic debt for now.
but let a Republcan pres get into the WH, you will
be "frightened" just like Sheply, at the evil, devastating spectre
of our national debt ruining the lives of Americans down the road,
and not all that far.
Greece is plummeting into violence and desparation. We are doing the same thing with our spending.
Go figure. We have no hideous debt because you like Obamao.
We're still waiting for you to admit our debt is COMPLETELY out of control now, Heck.
It's just ignorant to pretend it is just fine, now that your dem marxist UNAmerican pres got elected.
I call (hypocrisy)2
-
Uh oh. We've lost John.
PS - Federal employees aren't "on the dole." They're employees who do jobs and are paid for their work. You're talking about FBI agents, National Park rangers, FEMA responders, Department of Energy scientists, etc. You can quibble about what they get paid, but most of these employees have had their pay frozen for the last few years because of the budget crisis.
"On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.
Uh oh. We've lost John.
PS - Federal employees aren't "on the dole." They're employees who do jobs and are paid for their work. You're talking about FBI agents, National Park rangers, FEMA responders, Department of Energy scientists, etc. You can quibble about what they get paid, but most of these employees have had their pay frozen for the last few years because of the budget crisis. "On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.
Here is what I believe, Heck, some times as a proscription for action and others as guidelines for action.
For many decades, the Federal Government has grown in size and control - far beyond what, I believe, the founding fathers had in mind. I believe it continues to be out of control and promises to be only more intrusive and 'hands on' going forward.
Brushing aside semantics - you like to divert discussions on detail minutae (sp) - for the sake of this post, I define 'Public Dole' as any worker 'sucking off the federal teat' in both salary and benefits.
As a starting guideline - and I know this isn't fair do the variety of ways 'bottom up' budgets are developed - I'd say give an ultimatum for each 'manager' to cut staffing, salaries and benefits by 10%. It should probably be closer to 20% but lets start here.
Throw out any semblance of collective bargaining - call it what you want; you know what I mean - as collective bargaining is a device to help workers share in the profit created by their collective efforts. There is no profit in government work so, IMHO, there is no need for this type of union-driven activity.
I would cut agencies across the board - defense, social services, science and technology, etc. Why employ scientists - for example - when federal grants are provided to private entities to conduct research, etc. Why pay double for the same proposed output?
In terms of Executive, Legislative and Judicial staff, I'd cut even more. Let's use a guideline of 33% of staff and benefits and 20% of salary.
The 2 party system and the blind allegiance of most party members helps fuel this voracious appetite of the federal government. Voters need to get more involved and vote for radical change, not 'change' created by those dole-livers inside the beltway.
I don't have much hope for our future and can easily extrapolate from the craziness in Greece to what will occur in the country 20 years from now.
We have the 'low hanging fruit' of the 1% and the dirty little secret that close to 50% of households pay absolutely no income tax. In round numbers, this means that 50% of the population is encumbered with supporting the growth to support the other half. We know which half is growing fastest so this 50/50 number will skew even more to those not paying any income tax.
When this well water is to the point that the minority of people supporting the majority refuse to continue and demand change. When the flow has to be turned off due to the lack of supporting funds, those who do not pay taxes - in one shape or form - those sucking off the government teat, will react out their sense of entitlement.
I do believe there is a likelihood of another Civil War. Don't necessarily believe any good will come of it - rarely does good come out of such activities - but I do believe it will happen.
I hope I'm not around to witness.
-
Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
John, this is just all sorts of wrong. The taxes stuff especially. The problem with this country isn't that people are either too poor or lower middle class that they either don't pay any income tax, or qualify for enough credits to reduce their income tax liability to zero. But everyone in America pays taxes. Every one. They pay payroll taxes. They pay taxes every time they buy something. They pay gas taxes, meal taxes, excise taxes, property taxes. They pay taxes when they fly on an airplane. When they pay their cell phone bill. I could go on. This (common) complaint that focuses only on the income tax, and that lots of people in America don't make enough money to have to pay it, and that this is somehow a really big problem with America because it creates all sorts of negative incentives, and moochers, really needs to die.
What would you prefer? Really. That people making $23,000 a year pay more in income taxes? You imagine that this tax, as opposed to all the other taxes they pay, is going to suddenly make them more industrious? They're going to have "skin in the game" now? No. You know what it's going to change? They're going to have even less money. That's all that's going to change. You just took someone who works at Wal-Mart and scrapes by, and took more out of their paycheck. Sweet! Now maybe she'll be an engineer instead!
As for your budget proposals, people try to do that kind of thing all the time. It turns out it's really hard to do. You can't just make up a number in your head and then cut the government according to the number in your head. It doesn't really work that way. But just about every four years a new administration comes in and asks each agency to come forward with a list of places they could trim. And guess what happens after that?
Besides, there's a not -so-complicated reality that explains why spending on government benefits has increased in recent years: one, our population is getting older, and lots of automatic benefits are kicking in for those retirees. We knew this demographic problem was coming for years. Two, we just had a really big recession, and lots of automatic spending kicks in when that happens.
So instead of trying to separate the productive people from the moochers, the big government lovers versus the industrious self-starters, and imagine that soon we're going to take up arms and kill each other, maybe you should realize that the America you imagine isn't the one that actually exists.
Also, aren't you one of the ones who has been out of work and accepting unemployment? I can't remember if that was you or someone else. But I do know there are a few guys in here who haven't been working for months and have accepted government benefits. Which side do those guys go on when the revolution comes?
-
Let's get back to the topic of the thread.
In your opinion, do you believe the Federal Government could operate with 33% less staff (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and remaining staff making 20% less in salary.
I already said such approaches simply do not work because the bottom-up budget process always results in some managers doing their budget as it should be done and, others, padding their budgets. If you cut a certain percentage across the board, the first Manager pays the price, while the second manager yells and screams but knows he still have enough buffer to run things without much of an 'inconvenience'.
Do you believe there is waste in the Federal Government?
Where does most of this waste - assuming you believe there is any - reside?
How can it/should it be addressed?
Will the working minority be able to support the non-working majority 20-50 years from now?
PS I have been out of work several times and I have collected unemployment. I never tried to hide this. I didn't like it but it helped pay the bills until I received a job offer. truth be told, I never turned a job offer down in my entire life.
Others I know, milked the unemployment because their spouses were employed and - negating the need for day care - they actually found it economically suitable for them to ride the unemployment to the bitter end - up to over a year in CT. Of course, they never wanted to run out and the job picture isn't that good so they couldn't stay right to the bitter end but they did ride the wave for as long as they were willing to take a chance.
One time I was out of work and my wife was still home with our - then - young kids. We had them on a State of Ct health insurance program until I get back in the ranks of the employed.
I used both as a crutch until I could get back on my feet, not as a means to ride the wave until i had to get off.
-
Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...
Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...
LMAO, oh yea kid, your generation. The fatass, video game, stay in the house and live with Momma and Daddy generation, LMFAO! Dream on junior.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...
LMAO, oh yea kid, your generation. The fatass, video game, stay in the house and live with Momma and Daddy generation, LMFAO! Dream on junior.
LMAO, oh yea kid, your generation. The fatass, video game, stay in the house and live with Momma and Daddy generation, LMFAO! Dream on junior.
As opposed to your generation that tried to fuck the environment up the best they could?
It's ok though, we'll fix it. Really, I got it. That's assuming all your old asses retiring all at once doesn't break our govt...
You say video game as if it is a bad thing, why? Are you telling me if you have this technology when you were young you wouldn't use it?
Too many of us are definitely overweight, but then again most of America is. Really a shame. Plus, overweight children have only their parents to blame.
Considering "my" generation is still young, yeah, we do live with our parents still....
All of people my age piss me off though, no doubt.
-
Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...
LMAO, oh yea kid, your generation. The fatass, video game, stay in the house and live with Momma and Daddy generation, LMFAO! Dream on junior.
You damn kids!
Right? lol
-
With projections of huge federal deficits for years to come, policymakers should scour the budget looking for places to cut spending. One area to find savings is the generous compensation paid to the federal government's 2.1 million civilian workers.1 Total wages and benefits paid to executive branch civilians amounted to $236 billion in 2011, indicating that compensation is a major federal expense that can be trimmed.2
During the last decade, compensation of federal employees rose much faster than compensation of private-sector employees. As a consequence, the average federal civilian worker now earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the U.S. private sector.3 A recent job-to-job comparison found that federal workers earned higher wages than did private-sector workers in four-fifths of the occupations examined.4
The federal workforce has become an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of average American workers competing in the global economy. It is time for some restraint. Federal wages should be frozen or cut, overly generous federal benefits should be overhauled, and the federal workforce downsized through program terminations and privatization. It is unfair to ask taxpayers to foot an ever-increasing bill for federal workers, especially when private-sector compensation has not kept pace.
When benefits such as health care and pensions are included, the federal compensation advantage over private workers is even larger, according to the BEA data. In 2010, federal worker compensation averaged $126,141, or double the private-sector average of $62,757. Figure 2 shows that average federal compensation has grown rapidly over the last decade.
-
Not to take one side or another, but what is the average education of a private sector worker vs a federal worker?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login