GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Passing Through

• 53530
  

  Dan, I thought that our debate was about whether the 3.9% pay raise should consider the cost of living, or the cost of labor. You have now expanded this discussion to address whether I live in a Democratic State or County (actually I live in a Republican district) and that you think that I should move to Cuba or Venezuela. As an American, who loves his country, I like living in the US. You now imply that military annual pay raises should be 20%, presumably because we are at war. This seems to indicate that you believe that the only motivation for military is money (not patriotism or sense of duty). This type of mindset implies that military personnel are the same money grubbing people that you accuse civil service personnel of being. This type of thinking explains why Blackwater will probably become a future Military service. I think that it is time to end this discussion as it has degraded to the level of an AM radio talk show.

  Paul Saunders Posted July 3, 2008 7:23 AM
• 53513
  

  1. "No Paul the military deserves more than the 3.9%..." 2. "If the taxes haven't gone down on your house you must like in a Democratic state or county because republican counties are cutting taxes on homes".

  3."What your preaching is everyone needs to contribute more of their income to make sure your happy, communism is dead so if you like that life style you can only move to Cuba or Venezuela"

  Response to 1. I don't think the military deserves more, this is YOUR value system not mine. If military raises are not adequate, then get out, we don't have a draft so no one is compelled to serve.

  Response to 2. I live in Cook County Illinois and heck will freeze over before real estate taxes are cut here. Only if the assessed valuation goes down will that happen, and we just has a re-assessment, so that't won't happen soon. If real estate taxes have been cut where you live, I want to move there.

  3. ? This rant is totally off point, but what else is new?

  Why Do I Try to Reason with the Unreasonable? Posted July 2, 2008 4:52 PM
• 53481
  

  No Paul the military deserves more than the 3.9%. Every employment model says you pay more when you are short talent so a 20% raise would be in order for them. On the other hand their is no shortage of applicants for Fed Employment so the taxpayer need not be generous. If the taxes haven't gone down on your house you must like in a Democratic state or county because republican counties are cutting taxes on homes. What your preaching is everyone needs to contribute more of their income to make sure your happy, communism is dead so if you like that life style you can only move to Cuba or Venezuela

  Dan ketter Posted July 2, 2008 11:08 AM
• 53433
  

  "The raise is supposed to be computed on what raises people are receiving in the private sector, it has nothing to do with prices, if it did the reduction in home prices should have you receiving a PAY CUT... Look at the auto industry, airlines, steel etc all have had their wages CUT over the past 5 years and that included benefits."

  And what do the auto, airline, and steel industries have in common? Heavily unionized workforces that NEGOTIATE pay and benefits (except for the USPS, Federal unions do NEITHER), and difficult competitive environments. What are the commonalities with Goverment service again? And why is it that in your beloved private sector model, CEO's and other such high-level management who run companies into the ground still get multi-million dollar compensation. Using your logic, should the military get a pay cut too?

  I believe in the mission of my agency, and I feel good about providing a service to my fellow citizens. However, I'm sick and tired of all Federal employees being deemed worthless and undeserving. Most of us do not fall into this category.

  Can't Wait Till I'm Out Posted July 1, 2008 3:29 PM
• 53371
  

  Dan, the value of my house recently dropped by 15%. This does not mean that I can reduce my mortgage payment by this amount, nor will I get a 15% reduction in property tax. I suppose this could be good news for first time home buyers, but prior to the reduction, housing costs went up by 75% over the previous six years. First time home buyers didn't get anywhere near that kind of pay raise over the same period of time, so I guess they are stuck too. It's true that the airline industry workforce has received actual pay cuts over the past few years, it's also true that customer satisfaction with the airline industry has plummeted during this same period. Could the two be linked? If everybody's wages go down relentlessly, does this mean that you do agree with Steve Sessions' post of 29 June? PS: By your reasoning, I guess the military doesn't deserve their 3.9% pay raise either.

  Paul Saunders Posted June 30, 2008 11:33 PM
• 53323
  

  The raise is supposed to be computed on what raises people are receiving in the private sector, it has nothing to do with prices, if it did the reduction in home prices should have you receiving a PAY CUT... Look at the auto industry, airlines, steel etc all have had their wages CUT over the past 5 years and that included benefits. Have CS had their pay cut no they haven't. In the normal economy wages go up based on productivity and positions eliminated due to automation. Only in the Fed Gov go up no matter what happens. So unless you can tell me what you have done to justify a raise just say thank you to the taxpayer for their largeness

  Dan ketter Posted June 30, 2008 11:02 AM
• 53286
  

  I am trying to understand the mindset of the posters who routine press for lower pay and benefits for federal employees in particular and American workers in general. Is this because you believe that the future for American workers is to join the ranks of the third world? Do you for some reason loath your fellow Americans? Why do you believe that inflation relief (through higher prices) is only for businesses and their products, but somehow doesn't apply to employees? Finally is this because of your admiration of CEOs and CFOs who rule over the commercial world by naming your own pay (irrespective of the performance of their companies), while riding roughshod over those that actually produce the goods and services?

  Steve Sessions Posted June 29, 2008 5:45 PM
• 53239
  

  "The number 3.9% is a raise it has nothing to do with inflation or a COLA."

  Well, what does it have to do with then??? Educate the uniformed and ill-informed and provide us with the formula used to arrive at this magic number. Or, is it just pulled out of a hat?

  "In almost every industry people are having their pay cut so it makes sense that the Feds should emulate the private sector. By paying more for their benefits and reducing their retirement".

  And what sense does this make again? In what way is Government service the same as the private, for-profit sector? When the private for-profit sector situation improves and big salary increases happen, should the Feds do that too?

  Simplistic conclusions are rarely good ones.

  AARGH! Posted June 27, 2008 4:14 PM
• 53227
  

  I want to know where Dan lives. It must be the greatest place on earth. For the past year there were no price increases in food, gas, health care, child care and general living expenses. It seems that house prices and insurance costs were also not affected by any outside sources so those prices were unchanged also. We will all come live with you Dan since there must not be a NSPS pay system there that will reduce disposable income even with a pay raise.

  Dave Bethea Posted June 27, 2008 1:33 PM
• 53215
  

  The number 3.9% is a raise it has nothing to do with inflation or a COLA. If Congress had done the necessary evaluation and did a comparison of wages their would have been "NO" raise this year. In almost every industry people are having their pay cut so it makes sense that the Feds should emulate the private sector. By paying more for their benefits and reducing their retirement

  Dan ketter Posted June 27, 2008 10:16 AM
• 53204
  

  On May 1, 2008, the Bureau of the Public Debt today announced an earnings rate of 4.84% for Series I Savings Bonds. The earnings rate for Series I Savings Bonds is a combination of a fixed rate, which applies for the life of the bond, and the semiannual inflation rate. The 4.84% earnings rate for I bonds bought from May through October 2008. The earnings rate combines a 0.00% fixed rate of return with the 4.84% annualized rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). [available at Treasury Direct--a Federal government website]

  I fail to see how a 3.9% "raise"--which is almost 1% less than the 4.84% annualized rate of inflation--is a windfall for Federal employees from Santa Claus. In real dollar terms, in 2009 Federal employees will receive a PAY CUT, not a raise, when their salary is adjusted for inflation. Not to mention that the "raise" for this fiscal year (starting October 2007; first received in paychecks in late January 2008) averaged 3.5%--almost 1.4% below the annualized rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the current period.

  Federal salaries do not keep up with the rate of inflation, let alone what similar positions are paid in the private sector. Why in the world shouldn't Federal employees, who serve the public, get a increase in pay to at least limit inflation's pay erosion?

  Govt Guy Posted June 26, 2008 10:32 PM
• 53200
  

  J isn't totally off the mark in his angst, but I'm having trouble understanding why pay for federal civilians who have their own retirement systems are linked to dichotomies forecasting impending Social Security shortfalls as his example of fiscal irresponsibility. There are a lot more entitlement programs eating up the US budget than federal pay touches. What about federal subsidies for various US items; dontations to the world at large; defense and oil industry running the country? Immigration? Greed and the bottom line. Worship of movie and sports stars who entertain vice paying teachers, sanitation workers, police, fire, soldiers, nurses etc who are core to civilization. Please stop blaming Federal employees for camp runamok.

  Ralph Posted June 26, 2008 6:56 PM
• 53185
  

  "in only nine years the Social Security OASDI benefit system will go negative i.e., more will be paid out than is being received in the form of worker contributions" Ah, and therein lies the rub. Yes, Jeremiah is right: but if that is what happens in nine years, then it is not happening now and hasn't happened yet; two seemingly similar but very different concepts.

  Focus on the fact that up until this very day, the OASDI system has been running at a surplus. IMHO, the surplus Jeremiah touched on can sustained us over the baby boomer hump. I was born smack dab in the middle, the peak birth year of the baby boomers; those who can draw our initial payments in 2017. My son was born 20 years later in one of the smallest year groups; still known as a labor crunch in the business cycle.

  The only problem I see is that the US government has, like the insurance system, relied on the incoming SSA funds to pay the outgoing obligations, and pocketed the difference. Now like any embezzler, it's caught; unable to repay that which it borrowed. Yes, Jeremiah, both parties are guilty but as the crisis loomed, one party saw the writing on the wall and, with compromise and consideration, came up with a budget that eliminated the deficit and stabilized the withdrawal of our retirement funds.

  Over the past 7 years, the current administration has touted the need for waging an indefinite ill thought through conflict, but encouraged no fiscal constraints. Between rolling back the taxes with the rebates, making more credit available through the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (oh, and the subsequent ease in prosecution of bankruptcies), and spewing the economic stimulus this administration set the stage for this collapse.

  Enjoy the show, folks, because whatever POTUS is elected will be hard pressed turning around this disaster that was 7 years in the making. But there is hope; it IS possible to halt the slide on the slippery slope and the plunge we all fear. Despite the pain, just balancing the budget again will be a start; and halting this conflict will return the diverted funds from the "feather merchants" to the people regardless of the minor support given to those worthy causes that have languished under this inhumane administration.

  See you in November.

  Tip off Posted June 26, 2008 3:53 PM
• 53135
  

  It's ironic that the spate of proposed legislation discussed in the article is described as "much needed attention." Oh come now. This is an election year, of course, and the Democrat-dominated Congress - even more inclined than usual to act as Santa Claus - seeks to spread around the goodies, and very expensive ones at that, in the interest of pandering to its special friends, i.e., the insatiable Federal emnployee unions. Both parties, of course, engage in such behavior, whenever they get a chance to do so. But it betrays the underlying hypocrisy of the system. GAO and other public policy analysis sources have long warned that we are on a nonsustainable course of action in terms of the ever-expanding raids on the Federal treasury; yet nothing fundamentally changes in the "business as usual" approach inside the Beltway. However, the fiscal clocks are ticking, but politicians' long term view only extends to the next election. For example, in only nine years the Social Security OASDI benefit system will go negative, i.e., more will be paid out than is being received in the form of worker contributions, with the so-called trust funds - representing the "surplus" of excess worker OASADI taxes since 1935 - being nothing more than a pile of IOUs, because the funds have been spent on general government operations as fast as it came in. Yet Congress blithely goes on its merry, earmark-generating, pork barrel rolling, spendthrift ways - and we the voters are complicit in all this by demanding an ever-expanding cornucopia of "bennies" from Uncle Sam with no thought for the future. Having labored in the Federal vineyards for over four decades, it's discouraging that despite all the inspiring talk of "change" - and Obama is only the latest in the long series of snakeoil salesmen in this regard - is anyone really so naive as to believe that substantive reform will really result from the latest turn of the political wheel? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I'm willing to sell you for an incredibly low price ....

  Jeremiah Posted June 26, 2008 7:58 AM