The Week in Comments: Cutting pay, spending and jobs
The best in reader reaction to recent articles.
A roundup of some of the comments received this week in the GovExec.com Mailbag. All comments are presented in their original, unedited form.
On Lewis blasts Senate GOP's rumored omnibus
I agree that the federal budget must be reduced. Let me propose this formula: each line item in the budget would be reduced by a percentage equal to its part of the total budget. Thus the biggest cuts would come from the most bloated departments and agencies, which by the logic of the budget cutters is the only fair way to achieve this goal.
As my mentor said, "every day is a job interview". Apparently the Republicans forgot why the American Voters turned their backs on the Grand Old Party. 2012 is right around the corner, you want to keep you jobs, do right by the Taxpayers.
On Administration announces finalists in cost-cutting contest
Those are the 4 best ideas out of 18,000. Essentially, all they say is "go online to reduce paper." Or does the administration want to choose something that is extremely easy to implement, regardless of how little the savings will be? (The cost of this contest probably exceeds the benefit of implementing the winning suggestion.)
That's it? Why not do all four. This is a ridiculous waste to think those are the four most feasible money savers.
These 4 proposed cost-cutters are absolutely ridiculous when you look at a government that has duplicity within departments/committees, contracts that are a shame, etc. You would have done much better by reading and acting on the "Outrageous" articles in Reader's Digest.
On Research group offers federal cost-saving proposals
A Trillion? Really???
Add to the bank by taxing multi-milion dollar profit "Non-profit" companies giving advice on how to reduce the deficit. Next, start having multi-million dollar "Non-profit" religious organizations and churches report income and pay taxes. This would add significantly to reducing the deficit, and give them some grounds to speak on how tax dollars are spent that they do not have now, since they do not contribute. No taxation without representation; and no representation without taxation. It works both ways.
On Pentagon needs rationale for hiring civilian leaders, GAO says
It's true that retired military are burrowing into the civil service at an unprecedented rate. There used to be a 6 month cooling off period required, but that was waived by the SecDef after 9/11 due to a declared national state of emergency. The emergency has never been rescinded. Google "employment restrictions after leaving the military" and then look for the "Employment by DoD" paragraph to see for yourself. At least we used to be wise about the trouble this option can lead to...
Agree with BrassCeiling. The sad part is, many of these senior level (GS-14,15,SES) jobs are not created until a senior or flag officer gets ready to retire and step into them...often they retire on Friday and come back to the same office on Monday as a civilian. It MAY be legal...but it stinks. Career civilians never even see an announcement to apply to.
On Amid changes on Capitol Hill, Postal Service faces uncertain future
It continues to amaze me that the first thing these newbies to Washington (and some of the old codgers still there) want to do is to cut jobs. Has anyone taken a real hard look at where the Postal Service dollars really go? Just think... millions of letters, parcels transported across thousands of miles six days a week. Think vehicles, maintenance upkeep, rising fuel costs, aging infrastructure, facilities maintenance, uniforms and don't forget the 'contracts'. Has anyone really examined the number of 'contracts' the Postal service utilizes for transportation and done an indepth analysis of those costs? Work with us out here guys. Cutting jobs is not the answer!
The Postal Service was a Golden Egg Layer. Cronyism and Corruption has destroyed this agency to the tune of a $24 billion deficit projection for the next 10 years. The Post Office (management) was well aware of the internet and its potential 20 years ago. However the people Running the show sat on their thumbs and wasted millions in overtime to shore up cut rate autmation and contracted out accountability. Replacing it with goals driven by scores and false data.
yes ... there are unecessary employees - mostly in management. And sometimes those figureheads commission employees to little "projects" that do nothing to move the mail. In my office alone we have "label girl", "laminate boy" and "striping tape gun man". Maybe there would be less overtime if these people actually performed the work they were hired to do. And, frankly, our crew runs just fine without supervision. It seems excessive to the needs of the service to pay a person $65,000 to turn on the machine. If you want to cut the "fat" - start with management.
On Federal workers' pay soars, analysis finds
That's pretty amazing. Of course Congress will fix this problem by freezing my pay down here at the bottom.
Look at the number of "Highly Qualified Experts" hired under the authority created in the 2005 NDAA. It is a mechanism to create SES-like positions without SES qualifications, and to rehire retired GOs and FOs. This authority should be re-examined and use strictly controlled. Why cannot DOD manage with its current SES and senior GS allocation?
Put the blame where it should be - the NSPS program created and implemented by the Bush administration is the reason why so many DOD federal employees pay exceed $170K. President Obama inherited the problem! If things are going to be reported, make sure all the facts are included or shut up . . Its the same republicans that help to push NSPS through that never considered the consequences before . .they help to create this mess as well!
If you want to save money, put ALL employees of companies with Government ownership under a federal salary system. That will stop bailouts!
On Likely House majority leader calls for hiring freeze
As a DoD civilian who is libertarian, I find Chaffetz to be a typical politician trying to capitalize on the emotions of the sheeple. Reduce civilian pay by 10%, and we will just leave federal service and go work for contractors, then come back through the revolving door like the retired military do in order to work the same job for more money. If Congress wants to get serious about saving money, do the hard thing (and the right thing) and hold up the federal budget to the Constitution, trimming away those areas of the budget that are unconstitutional.
I find it wildly hypocritical that the republicans talk like $150k is a lot of money when discussing pay levels....yet when talking about taxes, $250k is too poor to raise taxes on.
Finally the Republican agenda is about to be put in place. The cuts don't go far enough because it will take years to reduce the deficit at this pace. I urge my Republican friends to get in lock step with the new kids in town....cut baby cut!!!
On Fiscal panel chairs propose three-year civilian pay freeze, hiring slowdown
Finally some real ideas that will start reducing the deficit. I think this is a good beginning, not having read the entire list of recommendations; this looks good on the surface. We shall see if the Dem and Reps are serious this time. I for one do not mind a three year pay freeze and hiring two for every three employees that leave will only make us more efficient. This gives us Federal employees the opportunity to prove our value to the American tax payers.
And the reason this plan won't get votes is because it requires that everyone give something up. It's called compromise, and it's just not on the republican agenda. What we'll get is "slash federal pay and jobs, and reduce unemployment benefits" while doing nothing about military spending, social security, or medicare.
This proposal is unfair in my opinion. I am a Federal employee with 20 plus years of service and I am struggling to make ends meet as are many americans in these difficult economic times. I most certainly am not paid an unreasonably high salary. Why is it that whenever Washington is looking to cut spending or is attempting to mend this broken economy, it is always the poor, the elederly, the low to moderate income families, the mentally ill, and children who take the biggest hits and suffer the most? It's not right. If Washington wants to save money, they should consider eliminating all of the ridiculous tax breaks that the rich people enjoy.
NEXT STORY: Honoring Veterans