Posted on 11/29/2010 3:14:24 PM PST by FromLori
In 10 minutes the teleprompter in chief will announce that he is about to freeze government salaries for two years. Of course, government workers thank him, as this means federal salaries which have exploded in the past 5 years will be stuck at all time highs for at least two years, even as nominal salaries for everyone else (except FIRE workers of course) continue to decline. As we suggested a few days ago, in order to promote some vaguely credible idea of austerity, instead of freezing salaries, Obama needs to be cutting. Why? One look at the chart below explains it all.
And here is what we said a few days back on the topic of record government worker salaries:
For all those wondering how to cut down on government expenditures, here's a thought: cut the skyrocketing salaries! A study by USA Today, using US Office of Personnel Management data, confirms what has been widely known: that the biggest beneficiaries of government largesse over the past 5 years as a worker cohort, are none other than Federal workers themselves. The numbers are stunning: those earning over $150,000 in the past five years have grown from 7,420 to 82,034, a 1,006% increase. More shockingly, those earning over $180,000 has surged from just 805 in 2005, to 16,912 in 2010: a 2,001% increase. And it is on the background of this that Congress is planning on giving 2.1 million federal workers another 1.4% across the board pay raise! Additionally, it appears that the bulk of the gains have taken place since Obama took office. Can someone please stop the lunacy: this country is beyond bankrupt and it turns out that in addition to Wall Street (which everyone knows does nothing but transfer wealth from the middle class to a few choice CEOs and groupthinking Bloomberg terminal operators), the biggest thief is the very government itself, which has perfected the art of giving with one hand, and taking with 10, almost as well as those enclosed in glass corner offices on Park, Lexington and Broad (and now West).
The stunning comparison of what Federal workers were making in 2005 and 2010, spread by income bucket:
More from USA Today:
Federal salaries have grown robustly in recent years, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Office of Personnel Management data. Key findings: Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June. Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate. Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005. Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.
Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs. Still, she says, managers are willing to give up next year's raise: "If it will help the country bounce back, they're willing to make the sacrifice." And just to make sure you get really angry, here is how one Federal Union views the fact that government workers as a whole are now the second best paid group after Wall Street:
National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley counters that the proposed raise "is a modest amount and should be implemented" to help make salaries more comparable with those in the private sector. Once again, we get confirmation that Americans always get nothing more or less than the thieves in control they deserve, and elect.
It is only a freeze on the COL increases nothing more. Republicans suggested this months ago.
What that meant was an employee at GS5 paid $100. An employee at GS15 also paid $100.
That balanced the budget ~ certainly you can all see that.
END OF STORY.
The “One” should freeze his own expensive vacations and trips paid by the taxpayers.
If you really try to understand this hoopala about “Federal jobs pay”..even Glenn Beck doesn’t get it.
Most of the in-the -trenches workers, for example in the VA or working in the military make nowhere near this money!
And many former veterans work for various Federal agencies, again never making these exhobitant salaries!
The ISSUE is NOT cutting or cutting back on Fed jobs..It should be to cut and cut back on the LAYERS OF BEAUROCRATIC MANAGEMENT AND POINTLESS DEPTS HEAVY ON BEAUROCRATS....( Ie EPA,Dept of Educ.)
This year, for the first time in its history, the Veterans Affairs Dept has CUT BACK MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING!
Uh, yeah, while that jerk Shinseki ( who gave the Army their lovely Berets!) goes on and on about suicides, PTSD, substance abuse of our veterans and how we are there for them.
If conservatives want to make a difference, get it right.
Obama is right about one thing, the government does need to set the example.
For some reason though, I don’t think their going to tar and feather themselves!
What example is Bama setting? His example is to keep spending taxpayer’s money.
Isn’t he special!
Never thought being a servant could feel so good!
That was just a co-pay ~ not the whole price. Of course it wasn’t free.
Wouldn't this be a good idea for(non-military) federal government employees? I believe so.
I call it a socialist spending cut. Everyone is treated the same regardless of function or performance.
That’s why I can’t stand ‘talking points’ conservatives. They only know how to make the easy cuts but they are clueless when it comes to reforming the entire system.
No.
In the private sector useless management, triple beaurocratic layers would not last a year!
the private sector is NOT governement sector so the competion you talk about does not exist in the government, so waste or incompetence is even more rampant.
you make excellant points.....a very expert and thorough analysis.
My main problem is the CREATION OF FED AGENCIES we don’t need in the first place and the Layers of Beaurocrats.
Your no 5 is accurate for difficulty rooting out waste and incompetence...Your no 4 is right on the money...THE greatest saving would be to eliminate the higher up positions that are what I would call a “Meeting sitter” job..all day they sit in meetings. The layers are where we could cut the most.
President Nixon Imposes Wage and Price Controls
August 15, 1971. In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls. The 90 day freeze was unprecedented in peacetime, but such drastic measures were thought necessary. Inflation had been raging, exceeding 6% briefly in 1970 and persisting above 4% in 1971. By the prevailing historical standards, such inflation rates were thought to be completely intolerable.
The 90 day freeze turned into nearly 1,000 days of measures known as Phases One, Two, Three, and Four. The initial attempt to dampen inflation by calming inflationary expectations was a monumental failure.
In 1971, the U.S. was also in the process of leaving the gold standard, which was intended to allow the value of the U.S. dollar to fall. Compounding the situation were such events as Fed Chairman Arthur Burns and the Committee on Interest and Dividends (part of the controls apparatus) strenuously opposing banks attempting to raise the U.S. prime rate from 6% to 6.25% in February 1973. Inflation rates were below 4% at the start of 1973, but reached 9% by the start of 1974, which would have made the real prime rate a negative 3%. At the same time, interest rates were going up in foreign countries, putting enormous pressure on the dollar.
The wage and price controls were mostly dismantled by April, 1974. By that time, the U.S. inflation rate had reached double digits.
While there were skeptics in August, 1971, there were a great many who thought “temporary” wage and price controls could cure inflation. By 1974, this notion was thoroughly discredited, and attention gradually turned toward a monetary approach to inflation. In a complete reversal, the policy to curb inflation in now thought to be an increase in interest rates rather than an attempt to hold them down.
http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm
What could be more fair? And given the disparity in salaries by all accounts, it'd be a great way to save taxpayer money.
Given the current situation I can understand why this idea might run into resistance from most government employees, though.
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.