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.
Better yet, the Dept of Education should be looking in some serious discipline for those who don't care about learning, and tear up the schools we have to pay for; and get some decent teachers, while they're at it.
In that case, I guess I'll respond. :^)
According to the post, I reckon that inflation + population increase was still less than 3.1%. I don't think that growth ought to be considered in wage increases. My judgement, without looking at any health insurance cost changes, is that the civil service raise beat inflation and even inflation + pop. increase (which really isn't a measure of increased cost to the ordinary person). I don't know what portion of health insurance costs is beared by civil service employees, but it sounds like it is a significant portion based on the handful of posts here. They did well - above average. I don't think there'll be any real griping among civil service folks this year. I could be wrong.
Yes, 3.1% is still too high. But since department spending is "down" below the population increase plus inflation, I would reckon that there are now a fewer number of dpeartment employees but they make more money.
However at this time, I have no statistics on the number of employees in these various federal government departments.
Overall, you're right. Though some government employees actually do produce something. I'm starting to not that they seem to be quoting the top of the grade for pay though. There is a fairly wide band between the top and bottom of each grade. And, most people aren't at the top of their grade.
Then they can move. They are not serfs who are "bound to the land." Or they can get another job in the private sector which pays better -- unless they are so incompetent that they can only work for the feds and no one else wants them. Are they affirmative action hires or political appointees owing allegience to a local Congressman? If they already own a house and bought it when it was $150,000 and now it is worth $300,000 why don't they cash out and move elsewhere?
Go back-sass somebody who actually likes a Fed. Dept. of Ed.
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.