Posted on 11/29/2002 4:51:57 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Bush Cuts Pay Raises for Federal Workers, Citing National Emergency By Jennifer Loven Associated Press Writer
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - Citing a state of national emergency brought on by last year's terrorist attacks, President Bush on Friday slashed the pay raises most civilian federal workers were to receive starting in January. Under a law passed in 1990, federal employees covered by the government's general schedule pay system would receive a two-part pay increase with the new year, a 3.1 percent across-the-board increase plus a pay hike based on private-sector wage changes in the areas where they work.
This law outlining federal pay kicks in because Congress has not yet passed the appropriations legislation directing a specific increase, said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
The White House couldn't say exactly how many federal employees the change would impact, but said it would be almost all.
Bush's pay decision is yet another blow to federal workers, many of whom are facing big changes in job descriptions under the Bush administration.
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, in the new Homeland Security Department, Bush won the broad powers he sought to hire, fire and move workers in the 22 agencies that will be merged.
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" and limiting raises to the 3.1 percent across-the-board boost. Military personnel will receive a 4.1 percent increase.
That means that the additional so-called locality-based payments would remain at current levels because "our national situation precludes granting larger pay increases ... at this time," Bush said.
The White House quietly released the letter to journalists via e-mail late on Friday, the middle of a long holiday weekend when most Americans were apt to be paying little attention.
Officials of unions representing federal workers could not immediately be reached Friday night for comment.
Call said the locality-based payments have rarely gone into effect since their creation in 1990, either because former President Clinton limited them or Congress prescribed other salary increases.
"The whole locality-based adjustment ... for the most part doesn't go into effect," Call said.
The White House estimated that the overall average locality-based pay increase would amount to about 18.6 percent. Bush said granting the full raises would cost about $13.6 billion in 2003, or $11.2 billion more than he proposed for the year - a cost the nation can't bear as it continues to battle the war against terror.
"A national emergency has existed since September 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 president noted that the raises still amount to 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 workforce," he said.
Good question? Isn't the cost of living up only about 2% this year?
If you have evidence that people are given less than 3.1% wage increases (other than those who voluntarily took pay cut to save their jobs, or layoffs), I'd like to see it.
Well then go answer it yourself or ask somebody who claims to have that statistic. I never said that I did.
What I did claim is that spending was down in all government departments except Education and DOD and this is based on the Presidents first discretionary budget -- 2002.
Why do you avoid and misrepresent what I said?
I told you what my evidence was. What is your evidence?
Site your evidence?
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.
That came out wrong. I actually completely with the action. I was just pointing out that this is not something the administration is crowing about. Releasing news late on a friday, expecially on a long weekend, is only done when they want to absolutely bury the story.
I haven't received a raise in over 5 years and I feel fortunate at this point to just keep a job so I'm not gonna cry too loudly. I think using some bogus "state of national emergency" to justify the denial of these local raises is silly, though. What justification was used by previous administrations? Even Clinton shot down the localized pay raises. Surely Clinton didn't use 9/11 as an excuse - he just said "can't afford it."
Private industry wages are up about 3.6% total for the last four quarters according to this link
For high growth private industries the figure is probably a little higher. For low growth private industries, the figure is probably a little lower.
IMO government at this point in time should be a low growth industry. You don't think so?
3.1% does not sound to low to me for these government jobs.
You cite the evidence you claim to have that most people are getting less than 3.1%. You're the one who brought it up.
Hey, I'd love to get the 3.1%; we retirees get even less, be lucky to get 2.3% like last year.
My point is that there are good and dedicated Govt employees, and I do not appreciate being called a "parasite" like one halfwit did. I paid my dues, believe me, more than once.
But think about this, while the president's secretary is a GS-11, there are many clerical workers in DC, not the busy-work kind Clinton gave jobs to, but good workers, who start at the entry level. My guess is they have a hard time making a decent living without any locality pay, so why not give a reasonable increase? I happen to know that Colonels assigned to the Pentagon have wives who work, because of the high cost of living.
Here's something else to think about. Perhaps some less than ambitious people try for Govt jobs, because they think they won't have to do much--that wasn't my motive. I have had very interesting experiences during my career, to include learning about aircraft, ships, all sorts of electronics, and I even reveiwed proposals for MREs during the beginning of the Gulf War, also for tents that would cover half a fooball field, doing work for these things on site, first time seeing the tiny Tobasco bottles that were included in MREs. My job was rewarding, but I also had to work long hours, usually without add'l compensation, get out in -19 weather to visit a plant, on and on.
No, I do not, at least those who work for the DoD agencies, specifically those who work with Contracting. Since you obviously do not know what these people do to get the supplies and services to the military, then you need to learn more before you decide. It may surprise you, but some agencies require accountability for what they and their employees do.
You ask me to show evidence to support my statements so I posted post #229 and I do it without complaining. I then ask you to support your statements with evidence and you then call me demanding. That's hypocritical -- that's what YOU did.
It may suprise you but most employees of DOD government contractors have been getting less than a Freeping 3.1% guaranteed increase for the past 8 years. many of these people are just grateful to still have their jobs.
It sounds like YOU are not familiar with life in the private sector as a DOD contractor.
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.