GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush calls for 2.2 percent pay raise in 2007

• 26971
  

  Here we go again. I served 20 plus years in the Army. During that period the congress kept our pay low,pay caps in many years. Now the retirement is low and SSN is low. Go ahead and give yourself that pay raise. You don't care one bit about the average american. Keep our pay low so you can get yours.

  michael crouse Posted June 28, 2007 10:45 AM
• 14810
  

  Ted, maybe you're right. I guess I lost my mind for awhile. I really wish nobody was in Iraq and having served on both sides (military and civilian) I know that neither get rich from dedicating their lives to the job they do. Guess maybe I really should apologize for my prior input so you all have it.

  Charlie Posted February 12, 2006 4:31 PM
• 14771
  

  Charlie,

  We have people in Iraq, running the same risks as the military. Not all of our people are there; neither are all soldiers.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 9, 2006 4:57 PM
• 14751
  

  Skeptical -- the raises are to "keep pace" with something. I do not know how long you have been around, but someone has given you a poor education. "Guaranteed employment?" What turnip truck did you fall off? Explain to the 1,500 of us here that are losing our jobs how we can jump on that guarantee. Maybe you are a used car salesman. That would explain your comments.

  Dave Posted February 9, 2006 11:08 AM
• 14735
  

  Careful Charlie, you are in danger of becoming an Independent. Come on over to the dark side and vote the issues instead of the labels.

  Ted Posted February 9, 2006 7:42 AM
• 14724
  

  Charlie - So much for generalizations! Some civilians do indeed deploy for months, sometimes for more than a year at a time. When we are there, we are in harm's way and we know it. We do it because it needs to be done. So your statement that "more of them (civilians) would be in Iraq wearing a military uniform instead of "hiding out" in fat government jobs throughout the country" really got to me. "His statement is not only a joke, but rather an insult to every man or woman who serves and died for this country." Just because you don't hear it when a government civilian dies, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I've been there when the office was told that one of our own had been killed by missile attack. I take nothing away from the soldier "on the ground," and they have my absolute and total support for the wonderful job they do for this country. But let's quit slamming government civilians as though we were all a bunch of fat cat, lazy, no account, good for nothing slugs. That's mean spirited and unfair and simply not the truth.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 9, 2006 12:15 AM
• 14719
  

  To borrow a quote from a beloved Republican union buster, "There you (Bush) go again." The President is apparently trying a gadget play so as to fool the Congress and the public into believing he's a fiscal conservative. Either he thinks starving everyone is the answer or he is just trying to fool us.

  Well sir, which is it? Are you stupid, or a liar?

  Cracked & Wired Posted February 8, 2006 2:26 PM
• 14714
  

  Taxpayer,

  The purpose of the pay raise is not to allow you, I or anyone else to maintain their standard of living. It is to maintain a workforce. If the "brainiacs" in Congress think they can keep us with 2.2 percent raise, that's all they'll authorize. If they disagree with the President, they'll authorize either more or less as they think works. If they are wrong, it'll be a correspondingly larger one next year. Just be glad you have guaranteed employment as a government worker. In bad years, many of my private industry friends are given none, some cuts in pay and others laid off. Wanna swap jobs with Ford employees? How about the airline workers?

  As to the press: No matter what Bush suggests, he'll get lambasted, but your point on boosting it over 100 percent in the House and Senate is on target.

  Skeptical Posted February 8, 2006 8:55 AM
• 14709
  

  We are all captives to an employer that despises us. I'm just glad it wasn't a 2.2 percent give back!

  With all the other cuts in the domestic side of this budget an increase of anything will just mean more cuts and downsizing and telling employees there will be no awards, no training, and no promotions.

  I've never seen the federal civil service in such a beaten mode.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 8, 2006 8:06 AM
• 14687
  

  I think the good senator Akaka is incorrect when he states the civilian workforce "stands shoulder to shoulder" with the military. If this were true, more of them would be in Iraq wearing a military uniform instead of "hiding out" in fat government jobs throughout the country. His statement is not only a joke, but rather an insult to every man or woman who serves and died for this country. I am ashamed of him and I am a Democrat (Now, maybe I better think that over.)

  Charlie Posted February 7, 2006 2:47 PM
• 14686
  

  I have read, at more than one news site, how the new pay raise will be channeled (by the President) to ensure higher pay raises for selected government occupations. The unions have stopped NSPS and DHS in court. The President can't have what he wants -- the ability to control who gets more pay.

  This is what NSPS would have done -- allowing managers to reward those selected few at the expense of everyone else. The President's only option was to make changes to his pay directives (which are beyond the scope of union pressure and outside the control of workers).

  Simply put...all the articles I have read in the last few days explain how the President wants to divide the 2007 2.2 percent pay raise into two piles: One pile for certain occupations and the leftovers for everybody else. Government officials admit that they plan to funnel money to a select few, they also admit that it will decrease the pay raises of everyone else. So the 2.2 percent pay raise is a farce and someone needs to tell the public. It is not a 2.2 percent pay raise as in past years. It is a 2.2 percent pay increase but not across the board. While the unions entangle the government in court the President simply sidesteps the problem by changing the pay directives.

  If you are one of the select few it's great! But remember the NSPS pay system was supposed to be based on pay-for-performance. If you work hard and do a good job your pay is almost unlimited. Not true -- if you work really hard and are innovative and decisive, it will be for nothing if you don't hold an important job. Oh sure, you'll get a small pay raise but it will be after the more important job holders have taken their cut from the pie. We get to fight for the leftovers. So Karen, don't let them fool you -- no matter how hard I work I can never make as much as someone in an important job because they have had more money set aside for them. The ruse about pay-for-performance is a false dream made in the hopes of getting the non-important slugs to work as hard as possible. The brass ring will be retained for the important jobs and the "pay raise leftovers" will be divided amongst the slugs.

  GovExec.com reader Posted February 7, 2006 1:49 PM
• 14685
  

  It is wonderful to see the President propose the same percentage raise for civilian and military now that the military has jumped so far ahead with the huge pay and allowance increases Congress granted the military over the last five years. However, I'm sure the military will get a large increase in tax-free housing allowances that will exceed 2.2 percent and so again reap a much larger actual spendable raise than federal civilians get in 2007.

  Steve Brennan Posted February 7, 2006 1:48 PM
• 14670
  

  The excessive government deficit will lead to higher interest rates and a slower economy with higher inflation rates. A 2.2 percent raise is ridiculous if the raise is to maintain purchasing power for government workers. The actual raise should be more in the area of 4.5 percent for workers just to stay even.

  However, the Bush strategy is to ask for the lowest level of increase that might appear reasonable and then force Congress to go higher. Congress will never go to 4.5 percent from the 2.2 percent proposed because that is more than 100 percent of the proposal. No one ever will discuss the fact that the 2.2 percent is so ridiculous it verges on total incompetence. Congress never would go above 4.4 percent because that is a 100 percent increase and the press would play that up in their ridiculous manner.

  Taxpayer Posted February 7, 2006 6:36 AM