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.
I mean, it's not enough to say this is a salary freeze, which it is. Instead this whacky liberal journalist has to invent the notion of "slashing" a raise.
On top of a fat 3.1% raise in a depressed economy, federal employees would have gotten a bonus based on the increase in the corresponding private-sector wage. And the fact that they won't get this extra increase is cause for hysteria among the big-government liberal crowd.
Hoping to teach our mean ol' president a lesson, Jennifer blasts Bush throughout the article. It's "[a] blow to federal workers" -- Oh no, don't touch the fat federal bureaucracy!
Since the White House "quietly released the letter...[during] a long holiday weekend", Jennifer must have stumbled on Watergate 2002. Perhaps Jennifer wants the White House to kick back, relax and stop working during Thanksgiving -- ample fodder for a scathing AP expose on the lethargy of turkey-stuffed White House staffers, no doubt.
And the best part is buried deep in the article, where Jennifer embarrassingly includes the fact that these "slashed" increases almost never go into effect anyway.
In light of these facts, let me suggest a more accurate headline:
And I'll take the 4.1% military pay raise!
"We have decreased the rate of increase."
Right?
Run that salary schedule down to zero and the work will still get done as folks like you will volunteer your time no doubt.
Maybe we could make government jobs like being on a jury - they just call you in, give you $15 per day, and you get to make the big decision
I really don't think that's what anniegetyourgun was advocating. She's simply pointing out, correctly, that there's a lot of waste in government, particularly in some of the more rogue and sometimes unnecessary departments. I work there and I see at least a moderate amount of waste every day. Granted, there's waste in virtually every bureaucracy (I spent 20+ years in private industry), but it seems to be prevalent in those areas that have no fear of competition. That would include many areas of dot-gov.
Stay Safe !
Depends on what you mean by "inflation".
I'm not civil service so its hard to make a relationship between these pay grades and other jobs outside of the civil service protection. Do you know of a web site or somewhere where the general qualifications are listed for specific grades?
Some folks have a faint hope they hold onto dearly that if they can just make government employment undesirable (by, for example, not paying the help), then the government will just go away.
I'd stop delivery on her welfare, retirement and merchandise rebate checks if that were possible.
Stick it to the Democrat-machine AFSCME stooges.
Well, quite frankly, there's some parts of government that ought to go away. But, there are some things that even I, reluctantly, think that government does a good job of taking care of. I don't think that a private enterprise would have built the interstate highway system, for example. Yes, private roads would have been built, but not as a system unless the government stepped in and utilized eminent domain to acquire properties for the private industry (though investor-owned utilities did enjoy a weak version of emenent domain for the purpose of serving the public and did fairly well).
I left private industry after 21 years to work for the government a couple of years ago. I'll stay for at least 3 more years (until my pension is vested) and probably longer. The part of government I'm in is run almost like a private company. It pays "en-leu-of" taxes to localities, it is self-supporting, and it is operated like its competitors with a board of directors, president, and the like. We get merit pay as opposed to civil service raises, we put money into social security, and we pay the same money for our product that everyone else does. Plus, occasionally, a congresscritter pops in and says "hello".
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.