Bush Cuts Pay Raises for Federal Workers, Citing National Emergency

Written to make the president look bad?!? Well, duh! It does look bad. You act as if this is something be proud of. If so, the administration would have released this news on a Monday morning so it could be chewed up in the news cycle all week. Instead they sneak it out in the middle of a long-holiday weekend when fewer people are paying attention to the news. They wanted to bury this story.

Are we still paying the excise tax on telephone calls to finance the Spanish-American War?

Have to disagree, but only in part. I've been in this house for 17 yrs, and we've had outstanding carriers, 2 of the 3 being retired military. I've heard from 2, however, of the many problems they have with their branch management--minority female who has absolutely no managerial ability, who spends most of her time on personal phone calls/visits, excessive time out of the office, much of what has been documented--but the same supervisor remains.

The carriers, tho', are outstanding, heat, cold, rain, snow, never miss a day--these guys earn their money, and my respect. And I know they are likely the exception.

But did he mention the entire Congress got a nice pay raise? You know, they have drivers and cars furnished, and many other perks the ordinary federtal worker does not have.

Ill informed, aren't you? I'm not a parasite, and have to say you haven't a clue as to what many dedicated federal employees do. If you want to discuss the 10,000 busy-work employees hired by Clinton (who've generally wrecked our healthcare plans), then you may have a point.

I'll even give you a good example of an outstanding, highly educated civil service employee. When Armco Steel moved about 200 miles away, an PhD engineer who didn't move because of a wife afflicted with MS, came to work for our office, as a GS-12 engineer. No one could have been more dedicated, saved the Govt millions of dollars, and with each task, did over and above what was expected of him and anyone else in his field, and took a large pay cut by not moving. Shame on him for not considering his wife's serious illness, huh?????????

You need to learn more about what you say, before you say it.

but working conditions were not always the best.

Valid point, IMO. Especially years ago. Also agree with you that being a supervisor in the government (then and now) is a real challenge. Difficult to manage/motivate people who are stuck in their positions and grade levels.

I worked in the government but couldn't take the suffocating and self-protective bureucracy. Had to get out.

Blatant "coloradan" bias! You used to complain when Bubba-1 did this,but now that Bubba-2 is doing it,it's a admirable thing to do that shouldn't be criticised.

I didn't say it was admirable at all. You are putting words into my mouth. I was merely pointing out the media's coverage of it, which is blatantly different from one president to the next.

Oops! I think you missed my point! It wasn't that the Forest Service, or Weather Service or any Service shouldn't exist -- it's just that some of the POSITIONS WITHIN the agencies seem to have little or nothing to do with those particular agencies' proper functions. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that ...

Just what I thought. The article is titled Bush Cuts Pay Raises for Federal Workers, Citing National Emergency and the truth is that they are getting a 3.1% pay raise. Here's the article by FOX News from their website:

Citing National Emergency, Bush
Cuts Pay Raises for Fed Workers

Saturday, November 30, 2002

WASHINGTON — Federal workers will get a smaller pay raise next month because President Bush is freezing part of the increase, citing a national emergency because of the fight against terrorism.

Bush's decision is yet another blow to the civilian federal work force, which has been the target of sweeping changes in the government bureaucracy.

In a letter sent Friday to congressional leaders, Bush announced he was using his authority to change workers' pay structure in times of "national emergency or serious economic conditions" to limit raises to 3.1 percent.

Most federal employees also were to receive a second pay hike based on private-sector wages earned in metropolitan areas. But Bush said that increase would be too expensive and "inappropriate" at this time.

"A national emergency has existed since Sept. 11, 2001," Bush wrote. "Such cost increases would threaten our efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or federal employment to stay within budget. Neither outcome is acceptable."

The White House quietly divulged the cut in an e-mail to reporters late Friday, the middle of a long holiday weekend in which government and politics weren't likely to be on most Americans' minds.

Military personnel still will receive a 4.1 percent increase and aren't affected.

"This is just another slap at federal employees," said Bobby L. Harnage Sr., president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 federal workers. The Bush administration says "they want to recruit the best and the brightest, but they can't even keep the best and the brightest in those jobs now."

Earlier this month, the administration announced it wants to let private companies compete for up to half of the 1.8 million federal jobs. Also, Bush sought and won broad powers to hire, fire and move civil service-protected workers in 22 agencies being merged into the new Homeland Security Department.

"It's been a tough year for federal employees," said Paul Light, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an expert on the federal work force. "I don't think any one of them will be surprised. It's one of several lumps of coal in the stocking this year."

The White House couldn't say exactly how many federal employees would receive the reduced pay raise, but said it would be almost all.

Congress was pushing for a 4.1 percent increase next year for civilian workers to match what military personnel will receive. But the legislation, which passed the House, got stalled in the Senate as time ran out. Federal employees got a 4.5 percent raise this year.

Bush, who originally sought a 2.6 percent raise for 2003, authorized a 3.1 percent increase and slashed the boost in so-called locality pay, the extra money most federal workers get to bring government salaries closer in line with what private employers are paying in the same metropolitan areas.

More than 30 metro areas have been designated for locality pay. They include New York, Boston, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, Cincinnati, Orlando, Kansas City and Washington D.C.

The White House estimated that the pay gap between private and government workers averages about 18.6 percent. Because of the gulf, partial increases typically get granted since the program went into effect in 1994 to help lessen the divide.

Bush said authorizing the full raises would cost about $13.6 billion in 2003, or $11.2 billion more than he proposed for the year. It is a cost the nation can't bear as it continues to battle the war against terror, he said. The president did not address a possible partial increase, nor indicated whether he ever considered one.

The president noted that the 3.1 percent raise still is more than the current inflation rate of 2.1 percent.

"I do not believe this decision will materially affect our ability to continue to attract and retain a quality federal work force," he said.

Oh, yeah. You know the CongressCritters got their fat increase....

Only the ultra-liberal union sympathizers at the AP would ask why federal bureaucrats are "only" getting a 3.1% raise when average Americans are being thrown out of their jobs all over the country.

Exactly! We were informed at our company that we won't be getting raises at the beginning of the year because of hard times within the corporation. My thought was "At least I have my job..."

You act as if this is something be proud of

It is. These people are still getting a 3.1% as mandated by law which is more than most people are getting this year.

And one other thing. The many year I worked (as a govt empl), I worked with contractor proposals; would you believe when I worked with the "out years", there was usually a 6% hourly rate increase, per year, and Govt empl were getting about 3-4% for as long back as I can remember.

One thing the Govt *can* do, is let Govt contractors know they are entitled to a 3.1% increase for their employees, since there is a National Emergency, since these wage increases drive up the cost of any goods/services provided to the Govt--and of course, the profit is based upon the cost line, meaning the more they charge, the more profit.

And, just who is trying to make Pres Bush look bad? I'm for savings, where possible, but lets be fair about it. And, IMO, the fed Dept of Education should be the first to go, then hit HUD and all of the "services" that are geared toward everything not benefiting the taxpayers. To say nothing of the millions, perhaps billions, spent on the "homeless".

If we're really going to get serious about this, and mind you I'm not whining, since I know how to live within my income, how about if we insure there are no more than 3.1% increase in all the entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, disability programs (except in fully justified, the no-nonsense kind), and all other "programs" that we don't often hear about--and there are thousands.

How about citing a few examples? Documented ones, I mean.

How about citing a few examples? Documented ones, I mean.

Examples of what?

I think you're right. AFGE is the Govt union--never joined, never would, but they're there.

People earn Medicare to some degree, then they still pay a premium; regular Social Security is earned, Medicaid is a handout and should be stopped, because of abuse if for nno other reason.

...how about if we insure there are no more than 3.1% increase in all the entitlement programs, such as Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, disability programs

Aren't these entitlement programs mandated by law? The President alone could not change these.

This:

"These people are still getting a 3.1% as mandated by law which is more than most people are getting this year."

212 posted on 11/30/2002 10:45 AM PST by FreeReign

How do you know 3.1% is "more than most people are getting this year"?

The question remains - are there more government employees now than when Bush took over? Based on your comments you've obviously got the answer so why not share the actual numbers? No need to dance around it, just the numbers will be fine.