Posted on 02/23/2013 5:52:08 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion
Not only is Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) calling out the Obama administration’s “dishonest” doom-mongering on the sequester, he also put forward his own plan, released today, to replace the impending cuts with alternative savings, and to do so “without layoffs,” according to a release from the senator’s office.
Paul’s bill would reduce federal spending by more than $85 billion annually by directing the government to:
Stop Hiring New Federal Employees ($6.5 billion per year)
More than 60,000 people left the federal workforce in 2011. This provision would end the practice of hiring new employees to replace them.
Bring Federal-Employee Pay in Line with Private Jobs ($32 billion per year)
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal-employee compensation is 16 percent higher compared with the private sector. This provision would reduce federal salaries to a more commensurate level.
Reduce Federal-Employee Travel by 25 Percent ($2.25 billion per year)
The federal government spends about $9 billion on travel, according to the General Services Administration, which ironically was the center of a recent scandal for its exorbitant spending on travel and conference costs. Paul bill’s would rein in such expenses.
Focus Military Research on Military Needs ($6 billion per year)
Paul’s office cites research from Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), which found that the Defense Department spent $6 billion on research that had little or nothing to do with military needs.
Require Competitive Bidding for Government Contracts ($19 billion per year)
This provision would repeal prevailing-wage requirements under which employees are often paid higher wages to work on federal projects, and end the practice of awarding federal contracts without a competitive bidding process to ensure the government is contracting work at the lowest price possible.
Cut 50 Percent of Foreign Aid ($20 billion per year)
It is consistently one of the only portions of the budget Americans actually want to cut.
Paul’s suggestions lack a most important aspect. We need to eliminate some agencies, not reduce their staff. Across the board percentage cuts result in ineffective agencies. Eliminate unnecessary agencies and adequately staff necessary agencies.
True....but that's probably above their real skills level.
Paper-pushing is not rocket science, and a 50% cut in number of Government employees would be a start on eliminating waste........
There is already a hiring freeze in the DoD.
Bring Federal-Employee Pay in Line with Private Jobs ($32 billion per year)
The average is heavily skewed upwards because most that is cost-of-living (i.e., housing) expenses associated with the DC area. Contractor pay is obscene in the DC area--should we cut that?. Would you be in favor of adjusting those gov't salaries to match the private industry when the economy takes off again (think late 1990s). Historically, gov't salaries were always lower than industry and it was a trade-off between stability (gov't) or higher pay (industry). The economy is just in a jacked-up place right now.
Reduce Federal-Employee Travel by 25 Percent ($2.25 billion per year)
There is currently a travel freeze in the DoD. Many conferences have already been canceled and the travel/hotel/airlines industry are getting hammered. Most contractors lack the ability to discuss classified information over the telephone or VTC; how do you want to handle this?
Focus Military Research on Military Needs ($6 billion per year)
Define research. What level of development? R&D is historically the smallest portion of the acquisition budget (~10%). Most of the money is spent on the operational phase of a weapon system.
Require Competitive Bidding for Government Contracts ($19 billion per year) The vast majority of weapons systems and contracts are competitive and not sole source and can have up to hundreds of subcontractors. There are pass-through limitations and small business participation quotas on just about every contract.
You are assuming that all Federal employees make measurably more for their jobs that those in the private sector. Many do and many don't. If your company comes out and tells you that management has been screwing the pooch and in order to stop the illicit "sex", they decided to cut your wages while leaving their wages the same or higher, I have to suppose you would be all for it - even if you happened to be one of those who gave extra hours on a regular basis and worked his butt off to do his job.
For what. Understand, every job on USA jobs are budgeted for. There are over 8,000 government jobs. Let’s say the average salary for those 8,000 jobs is 50,000 dollars.
If you eliminated every job, that’s a 400 million savings. Defund the EPA, department of education and combine several agencies. Several billion more in savings.
Finally, everyone earning up to 50,000 a year, a flat 10% tax. They need skin in the game.
No, I'm not assuming that at all, but I am assuming I don't CARE becasue this discussion is in the MACRO and you are arguing in the MICRO. I do assume you will not understand what I just said, and I further assume you don't really undertstand economics, the free market, nor the appropriate role of government and government employees in a free society. I assume you have decided you will never be anything more than a worker bee and that you assume anyone who reaches a level higher than that is somehow bad and somehow screwing the worker bee.
How do you like THEM assumptions?
There is very little respect around here for the government bureaucratic mentality. I think the shoe fits you to a tee.....
Boy, your article really brought out a bunch of turf protecting government bloodsuckers didn’t it? Who knew there were that many under workd gummint bureaucratic microbes even hanging around FR? I didn’t.
Boy, your article really brought out a bunch of turf protecting government bloodsuckers didn’t it? Who knew there were that many under workd gummint bureaucratic microbes even hanging around FR? I didn’t.
That’s a good point.
There are many Freepers in uniform who work with these “bloodsuckers” and their contractor partners on a daily basis. Most DoD employees are hard working and genuinely care about the end product. Most are conservative. After all, a large percentage of them are veterans. Where in the heck do you all think the neat weapons and toys the military folks use comes from? You should go look at how many jobs something like the F-22 or F-35 provides. Massive cuts to the DoD is going to roll downhill and you will see a lot of highly trained subject matter experts on the unemployment dole like in the early 90s.
You clearly cannot separate the macro from the micro, as I was speaking totally in the macro about goverment employess, and not targeting the DoD related functions specifically - and I was certainly talking about government workers and not contractors. You are letting a tiny tail wag the entire dog. I am talking about the entire dog.
I am also talking about the fact that government must shrink, even if that means some of the good parts of government too. I know full well where the neat weapons and toys come from, but you don’t have a clue WHERE THE MONEY FOR IT COMES FROM.
You still didn't assert that you would be oh-so-willing to take your own personal hit at the MICRO level in order to set things right at the MACRO level. Just what is the "proper role of government employees in a free society? I train military folks for their careers and also conduct specialized training for deployments - without a civilian base, there would be a lack of continuity and a degradation of training or a locking up of military troops in the training business. The average military we have working with us gets every bit of the pay/benefits (more really) than the average civilian in the job. If spending a 24 year career in uniform, then leveraging my experience to help maintain a trained force makes me incapable of understanding the high-brow crapola you boast of, so be it. I'm also not the one who seems to be holding rancor over a set of people as you seem to posit, while you did seem to express a bit of antipathy during a few of your posts.
I guess the difference is that I know who and what I am and don't have to pretend not to be a pretentious and superior a$$hat in order to "make friends and influence people". How's the air up there? Does the rain cause a problem for the up-turned nose?
Your ignorance of what has already happened in the private sector is nothing short of breathtaking. Almost everyone IN the private sector has already been slammed for 5 years! How in the hell can you not know that? What planet are you on?
Second, your assumption that when people refer to “government employees” that we are talking about soldiers and related functions is very disturbing. Yes, I realize that techincally military personnel ARE government employees, but no one in their right mind lumps them in that pile. The notion that you assumed that scares the hell out of me, because apparently you are a “gummint bureaucrat” first above all else. I do know the difference. YOU DON”T
And third, where the hell do you think ANY of this money comes from?
You should walk out of your cushy government office sometime and take a look at what those of us in the private sector are going through—and we pay your salaries!
Count me amongst those whom wish to see lots of Federal “workers” cleaning out their desks for good
Here is the CBO report Rand used for the 16% number:
Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees
CBO's analysis compared federal civilian employees with private-sector employees who resembled them in the following observable characteristics:
Level of education
Years of work experience
Occupation
Employer's size
Geographic location (region of the country and urban or rural location)
Demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, immigration status, and citizenship).
Good info, thanks.
Allow contractors to work directly for FedGov and eliminate the middleman. Rates would fall 50% overnight. When I contracted for FEDGOV Accenture LLC was billing me at $200/hr and paying me a salary of $70/hr thereby pocketing $140/hr for little old me.
One more thing: limit the amount of money the WH family can spend in a year...for entertainment, travel, clothing, etc. I would venture a guess that the Obamas have spent more so far than the total all our presidents from JFK and on.
I have no problem with that. I heard no screams of pity or agony when the EPA killed 60,000 coal miners jobs. That’s 5 days a week off, no medical, no retirement. Time is long over due for the Feds to join the recession they have coddled and cuddled so long.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.