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.
We have be a state of emergency vis a vis this law since the first year it was implemented. The Fedgov has never granted the locality increases supposedly mandated by this law, in good years or in bad. It seems like we have been in a constant state of emergency, every time it comes time to settle on locality pay.
To lay this on Bush is very disingenous. The current situation is about the only time the conditions for skipping the locality raises has been present.
BTW, I wonder if the author of this piece really filed from Crawford Texas, or if she is just using the dateline as a cheap shot, "Bush cuts your pay while he's on vacation, blah, blah, blah."
(My Bold)
You can make the point by quantifying the, "expansion of government he's pushed".
Until you've done that, you've not made the point.
1. A "locality based" pay increase of nearly 19% "kicks in because Congress has not yet passed the appropriations legislation directing a specific increase"
2. These "locality based" pay increases have "rarely gone into effect since their creation in 1990, either because former President Clinton limited them or Congress prescribed other salary increases".
3. Regardless of any of this, "raises still amount to more than the current inflation rate of 2.1 percent."
In other words, this story is basically about nothing. Arcane, really. So the following passages:
1. 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.
2. Officials of unions representing federal workers could not immediately be reached Friday night for comment.
3. 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.
....betray the writer of this article, Jennifer Loven, as a real scumbag.
That's the Associated Press for you.
Its a step in the right direction. WRT his past reputation, keep in mind that Daschole owned the Senate until recently (actually until year end). So, Dubya tried to extend a branch or two to the dems to see just who would be with him and who wouldn't. He's in for the long haul, not the short term, feel good, rating raising, clintonesque quick impression ratings kind of thing.
I think he's doing fine. He gave out a reasonable raise. He's promoting privatization of some agencies. Give him time. He is showing gravitas. IMHO, of course.
Ahhh, the USPS union vs. the UPS Teamsters. Are you ready to rrrrrrrrrumble? (I'd bet that the UPS folks are definately in better shape than 1/2 of the postal service workers, excluding walking carriers.
There may be a real upside to this because our new bureaucrats would work for lesser salaries and face deportation if they demand equal pay and hours worked in comparison to their American counterparts.
Go Globalism...
So why then is the federal locality pay for Houston higher than that for Washington, DC?
I don't have the number of federal employees at the beginning of Bush's term versus the number currently on the payroll handy. Maybe you do. Are you telling me it's gone down? If so, how about pointing out where the reductions are and the net change in overall federal government employment?
Reluctantly, I have to agree. That was an olive tree. One must wonder what he got for that, other than political legitimization as the "education President". Probably would not have been that effective but for 9/11. That reduced the necessary level of political hanky-panky needed by the White House significantly.
Actually, Bush's first discretionary budget was the contraction of all twenty five + departments except the DOD and DOE.
That is the full context of Bush's discretionary spending. Why do you not know that?
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.