Voters Prefer To Cut The Federal Payroll

[Mr. T]

By a 63% to 18% margin, voters prefer to cut the federal payroll rather than offering federal workers a raise as the president has proposed.

 

Source

 

 

The average federal government employee receives a salary of around $75,000 per year. With present and future fringe benefits equal to about 76 percent of salaries, that makes for total annual compensation of around $133,000. How does this match up to the private sector?

 

 

 

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/federal-workers/2012/01/27/outrageous-average-pay-federal-government-workers-matchestthat-microsoft#ixzz1meaiTWLT

[Chicopee John]

This is a no-brainer, T.

 

 

You really only get the full impact when you take what you provided, identify the number of people on the dole and, then, multiply together.

 

Who truly believes enough Reps or Senators would rather cut their staff than, simply, putting the bill on the taxpayers already-overburdened backs.

 

This ain't ever gonna change. The two-party system is too ingraned bother from a Party standpoint and a voter standpoint.

 

Probably only another Civil War would acheive what, I believe, needs to be achieved relative to putting representation back into the realm of reality.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Uh oh. We've lost John.

 

PS - Federal employees aren't "on the dole." They're employees who do jobs and are paid for their work. You're talking about FBI agents, National Park rangers, FEMA responders, Department of Energy scientists, etc. You can quibble about what they get paid, but most of these employees have had their pay frozen for the last few years because of the budget crisis.

 

"On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Are you really pining for another Civil War, John? That would solve what now?

[Pumpkin Eater]

I've worked for the Feds. I have relatives who've worked for state and local gov't. It's extremely wasteful. Many workers don't work but 2-3 hours a day. The process of getting anything done is the opposite of streamlined. It's bloated, an organizational mess. I'm not against privatization for any agency. It would introduce competition among potential service providers. It would increase productivity and efficiency.

[calfoxwc]

The military used to be, still is, extremely wasteful.

 

Hell, there was one commander of a military base in S. Carolina, that secretly had brand new stocks of typewriters, etc...

 

even a few jeeps and bulldozers buried, so he would look good on an IG inspection.

 

You go to the unemployment office, and there are people who work there who

 

are fat, lazy, belligerant, and incompetent. They are "on the dole". So many of fed workers

 

have their jobs locked in, and some don't care, because it doesn't matter.

 

Greece is about to explode into a civil war.

 

That is us if Obamao gets a second term.

[MLD Woody]

If Obama gets a second term we are going to have a Civil War?

 

lol

 

I think some old, crotchety white people will complain and then go back to what they were doing.

[Mr. T]

 

 

"On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.

 

 

And those benefits have been doubled since Obama's commie care became law. Government spending is going to break everyone's back. Within a couple of years we will be in the same shape as Greece.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Of course, and to no one's surprise, what you're saying isn't even close to being true.

 

It'd be nice to have a conversation with someone who has some tether to objective reality.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I've worked for the Feds. I have relatives who've worked for state and local gov't. It's extremely wasteful. Many workers don't work but 2-3 hours a day. The process of getting anything done is the opposite of streamlined. It's bloated, an organizational mess. I'm not against privatization for any agency. It would introduce competition among potential service providers. It would increase productivity and efficiency.

 

It can be extremely wasteful, yes. Parts of it are also well run and efficient. Depends on what we're talking about.

 

Privatization can work in certain situations, and there is lots of government business that's already contracted out, But this is rarely the panacea the right imagines. You're often talking about providing services that the private sector doesn't really want to provide because there's not enough money in it, or not enough room for growth.

 

If you take Amtrak, which is often talked about by privatization advocates, the likely outcome of a private sale of Amtrak's rail lines would be a reduction in rail service to spots that weren't as profitable. So, you either live with the reduced service, or you subsidize the private company to extend their service to stops/regions that may not be profitable enough. And then you're back to square one, with the government subsidizing rail service, and paying out contracts to a private contractor to do what Amtrak was already doing. You might not save a dime.

 

Depends what you think Amtrak is for.

 

The defense budget, of course, is a giant clusterfuck of private contractors. Even in war zones, private contractors now do a lot of the stuff the Army used to do for itself, like cooking food and washing clothes, etc. That's all done by outside firms now, paid for by tax dollars. And it's not exactly hard to find boondoggles in defense contracting.

 

But overall, yes, I'm with you. When you can get something out of the government's hands because you think you can save money or do things more efficiently, that should be considered.

[calfoxwc]

Yes, it IS true, Heck.

 

You can ignore the gigantic debt for now.

 

but let a Republcan pres get into the WH, you will

 

be "frightened" just like Sheply, at the evil, devastating spectre

 

of our national debt ruining the lives of Americans down the road,

 

and not all that far.

 

Greece is plummeting into violence and desparation. We are doing the same thing with our spending.

 

Go figure. We have no hideous debt because you like Obamao.

 

We're still waiting for you to admit our debt is COMPLETELY out of control now, Heck.

 

It's just ignorant to pretend it is just fine, now that your dem marxist UNAmerican pres got elected.

 

I call (hypocrisy)2

[Chicopee John]

Uh oh. We've lost John.

 

PS - Federal employees aren't "on the dole." They're employees who do jobs and are paid for their work. You're talking about FBI agents, National Park rangers, FEMA responders, Department of Energy scientists, etc. You can quibble about what they get paid, but most of these employees have had their pay frozen for the last few years because of the budget crisis. "On the dole" refers to government benefits, not wages.

 

Here is what I believe, Heck, some times as a proscription for action and others as guidelines for action.

 

For many decades, the Federal Government has grown in size and control - far beyond what, I believe, the founding fathers had in mind. I believe it continues to be out of control and promises to be only more intrusive and 'hands on' going forward.

 

Brushing aside semantics - you like to divert discussions on detail minutae (sp) - for the sake of this post, I define 'Public Dole' as any worker 'sucking off the federal teat' in both salary and benefits.

 

As a starting guideline - and I know this isn't fair do the variety of ways 'bottom up' budgets are developed - I'd say give an ultimatum for each 'manager' to cut staffing, salaries and benefits by 10%. It should probably be closer to 20% but lets start here.

 

Throw out any semblance of collective bargaining - call it what you want; you know what I mean - as collective bargaining is a device to help workers share in the profit created by their collective efforts. There is no profit in government work so, IMHO, there is no need for this type of union-driven activity.

 

I would cut agencies across the board - defense, social services, science and technology, etc. Why employ scientists - for example - when federal grants are provided to private entities to conduct research, etc. Why pay double for the same proposed output?

 

In terms of Executive, Legislative and Judicial staff, I'd cut even more. Let's use a guideline of 33% of staff and benefits and 20% of salary.

 

The 2 party system and the blind allegiance of most party members helps fuel this voracious appetite of the federal government. Voters need to get more involved and vote for radical change, not 'change' created by those dole-livers inside the beltway.

 

I don't have much hope for our future and can easily extrapolate from the craziness in Greece to what will occur in the country 20 years from now.

 

We have the 'low hanging fruit' of the 1% and the dirty little secret that close to 50% of households pay absolutely no income tax. In round numbers, this means that 50% of the population is encumbered with supporting the growth to support the other half. We know which half is growing fastest so this 50/50 number will skew even more to those not paying any income tax.

 

When this well water is to the point that the minority of people supporting the majority refuse to continue and demand change. When the flow has to be turned off due to the lack of supporting funds, those who do not pay taxes - in one shape or form - those sucking off the government teat, will react out their sense of entitlement.

 

I do believe there is a likelihood of another Civil War. Don't necessarily believe any good will come of it - rarely does good come out of such activities - but I do believe it will happen.

 

I hope I'm not around to witness.

[MLD Woody]

Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, this is just all sorts of wrong. The taxes stuff especially. The problem with this country isn't that people are either too poor or lower middle class that they either don't pay any income tax, or qualify for enough credits to reduce their income tax liability to zero. But everyone in America pays taxes. Every one. They pay payroll taxes. They pay taxes every time they buy something. They pay gas taxes, meal taxes, excise taxes, property taxes. They pay taxes when they fly on an airplane. When they pay their cell phone bill. I could go on. This (common) complaint that focuses only on the income tax, and that lots of people in America don't make enough money to have to pay it, and that this is somehow a really big problem with America because it creates all sorts of negative incentives, and moochers, really needs to die.

 

What would you prefer? Really. That people making $23,000 a year pay more in income taxes? You imagine that this tax, as opposed to all the other taxes they pay, is going to suddenly make them more industrious? They're going to have "skin in the game" now? No. You know what it's going to change? They're going to have even less money. That's all that's going to change. You just took someone who works at Wal-Mart and scrapes by, and took more out of their paycheck. Sweet! Now maybe she'll be an engineer instead!

 

As for your budget proposals, people try to do that kind of thing all the time. It turns out it's really hard to do. You can't just make up a number in your head and then cut the government according to the number in your head. It doesn't really work that way. But just about every four years a new administration comes in and asks each agency to come forward with a list of places they could trim. And guess what happens after that?

 

Besides, there's a not -so-complicated reality that explains why spending on government benefits has increased in recent years: one, our population is getting older, and lots of automatic benefits are kicking in for those retirees. We knew this demographic problem was coming for years. Two, we just had a really big recession, and lots of automatic spending kicks in when that happens.

 

So instead of trying to separate the productive people from the moochers, the big government lovers versus the industrious self-starters, and imagine that soon we're going to take up arms and kill each other, maybe you should realize that the America you imagine isn't the one that actually exists.

 

Also, aren't you one of the ones who has been out of work and accepting unemployment? I can't remember if that was you or someone else. But I do know there are a few guys in here who haven't been working for months and have accepted government benefits. Which side do those guys go on when the revolution comes?

[Chicopee John]

Let's get back to the topic of the thread.

 

In your opinion, do you believe the Federal Government could operate with 33% less staff (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and remaining staff making 20% less in salary.

 

I already said such approaches simply do not work because the bottom-up budget process always results in some managers doing their budget as it should be done and, others, padding their budgets. If you cut a certain percentage across the board, the first Manager pays the price, while the second manager yells and screams but knows he still have enough buffer to run things without much of an 'inconvenience'.

 

Do you believe there is waste in the Federal Government?

 

Where does most of this waste - assuming you believe there is any - reside?

 

How can it/should it be addressed?

 

Will the working minority be able to support the non-working majority 20-50 years from now?

 

 

PS I have been out of work several times and I have collected unemployment. I never tried to hide this. I didn't like it but it helped pay the bills until I received a job offer. truth be told, I never turned a job offer down in my entire life.

 

Others I know, milked the unemployment because their spouses were employed and - negating the need for day care - they actually found it economically suitable for them to ride the unemployment to the bitter end - up to over a year in CT. Of course, they never wanted to run out and the job picture isn't that good so they couldn't stay right to the bitter end but they did ride the wave for as long as they were willing to take a chance.

 

One time I was out of work and my wife was still home with our - then - young kids. We had them on a State of Ct health insurance program until I get back in the ranks of the employed.

 

I used both as a crutch until I could get back on my feet, not as a means to ride the wave until i had to get off.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Since your generation F'd it up Cal how about you just sit back and let mine fix it? Along with a shit load of other stuff...

 

LMAO, oh yea kid, your generation. The fatass, video game, stay in the house and live with Momma and Daddy generation, LMFAO! Dream on junior.

[MLD Woody]

LMAO, oh yea kid, your generation. The fatass, video game, stay in the house and live with Momma and Daddy generation, LMFAO! Dream on junior.

 

As opposed to your generation that tried to fuck the environment up the best they could?

 

It's ok though, we'll fix it. Really, I got it. That's assuming all your old asses retiring all at once doesn't break our govt...

 

 

You say video game as if it is a bad thing, why? Are you telling me if you have this technology when you were young you wouldn't use it?

Too many of us are definitely overweight, but then again most of America is. Really a shame. Plus, overweight children have only their parents to blame.

 

Considering "my" generation is still young, yeah, we do live with our parents still....

 

 

All of people my age piss me off though, no doubt.

[MLD Woody]

You damn kids!

 

 

Right? lol

[Mr. T]

With projections of huge federal deficits for years to come, policymakers should scour the budget looking for places to cut spending. One area to find savings is the generous compensation paid to the federal government's 2.1 million civilian workers.1 Total wages and benefits paid to executive branch civilians amounted to $236 billion in 2011, indicating that compensation is a major federal expense that can be trimmed.2

 

During the last decade, compensation of federal employees rose much faster than compensation of private-sector employees. As a consequence, the average federal civilian worker now earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the U.S. private sector.3 A recent job-to-job comparison found that federal workers earned higher wages than did private-sector workers in four-fifths of the occupations examined.4

 

The federal workforce has become an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of average American workers competing in the global economy. It is time for some restraint. Federal wages should be frozen or cut, overly generous federal benefits should be overhauled, and the federal workforce downsized through program terminations and privatization. It is unfair to ask taxpayers to foot an ever-increasing bill for federal workers, especially when private-sector compensation has not kept pace.

 

 

 

When benefits such as health care and pensions are included, the federal compensation advantage over private workers is even larger, according to the BEA data. In 2010, federal worker compensation averaged $126,141, or double the private-sector average of $62,757. Figure 2 shows that average federal compensation has grown rapidly over the last decade.

 

Source

[MLD Woody]

Not to take one side or another, but what is the average education of a private sector worker vs a federal worker?

[Mr. T]

Here in NC 1 out of 4 people have a bachelor degree or higher. Most people who have the initiative to finish school don't want to work for the government with a bunch of underachievers. *Unless they have a low self asteem.

 

But I will say we sure do have a lot of letter carriers bringing home over 80k a year plus ss after 30 years and retiring.

[MLD Woody]

When I thought I wanted to be a nuclear engineer the Navy was basically willing to through money at me to work on a giant ship all the time

 

 

... f that

[heckofajobbrownie]

1. In your opinion, do you believe the Federal Government could operate with 33% less staff (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) and remaining staff making 20% less in salary.

 

Yes, of course it could, but why would you want to do that? What's the goal? To save money? To attract less qualified government workers? This is not where the budget problem lies, so I wouldn't address it this way. If there were efficiencies to find in various agencies - and i'm sure there are - those are worth exploring. A blanket 20% cut in all government salaries simply isn't going to happen, and doesn't make sense, so there's little point in talking about it.

 

2. Do you believe there is waste in the Federal Government?

 

Of course.

 

3. Where does most of this waste - assuming you believe there is any - reside?

 

Our budget problem isn't waste, fraud and abuse. Every year we hear people talk about waste, fraud, and abuse in government. And that's fine. We should go after that stuff. But doing stuff like streamlining programs and eliminating duplication isn't going to make much of a dent. You're talking about saving millions, not billions. And this is also a dodge. It allows people to pretend they're tackling the main drivers of our debt without tackling the main drivers of our debt. Those are entitlements and military spending. That's the game.

 

4. Will the working minority be able to support the non-working majority 20-50 years from now?

 

Huh? I don't even know what this means. You imagine that in 20-50 years people who don't work will be the majority, and people who do work will be the minority? Is that after the civil war or before? This is not something I worry about. I've never heard anyone suggest this before. Why do you suddenly think we're at the end of society, and it's all about to come apart?

 

As for this: "I have been out of work several times and I have collected unemployment. I never tried to hide this. I didn't like it but it helped pay the bills until I received a job offer. truth be told, I never turned a job offer down in my entire life.

 

Others I know, milked the unemployment because their spouses were employed and - negating the need for day care - they actually found it economically suitable for them to ride the unemployment to the bitter end - up to over a year in CT. Of course, they never wanted to run out and the job picture isn't that good so they couldn't stay right to the bitter end but they did ride the wave for as long as they were willing to take a chance.

 

One time I was out of work and my wife was still home with our - then - young kids. We had them on a State of Ct health insurance program until I get back in the ranks of the employed.

 

I used both as a crutch until I could get back on my feet, not as a means to ride the wave until i had to get off."

 

This is what just everyone who accepts government help says. You hear it all the time - "When I got government help it was the right kind of government help, not like those other people who get government help."

 

And hey, I'm sure you did work hard. And I'm glad that help was there for you when you needed it. That's what it's designed to do. Are there a minority of Americans who don't hard enough to find work when they're on unemployment? I'm sure. But they can't stay on it forever. So push for a work/community service requirement that would kick in after 30 weeks or so.

 

I'm just not sure I see where you're coming from here. You think there are too many government workers earning too much money and there are lots of moochers who live off the government benefit teat. Well, okay. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that. It's what lots of people say, and it doesn't get you very far.

 

And if you're asking me where I'd look for the more obvious sources of waste and duplication, I'd look to the defense budget. But even a lot of that is by design. To take an example from Connecticut, the Navy can say, "We don't need or want that sub built" but if certain Senators and Congressmen push it anyway, and it becomes part of the Defense bill, and Congress then appropriates the money, guess what? They're building it.

[calfoxwc]

No. The bigger problem is with entitlements. The defense budget can be trmmed, adjusted, etc.

 

But the entitlements are increasing all the time. But the leftists/Dems/progressives/liberals want to keep

 

buying the votes in that huge voting base.

 

It's their ticket to winning elections, it worked a few times. It won't work other times.

 

GREECE.

 

Stop ignoring it. It's what we are doing entitlement wise - following Greece's example.

 

And Greece is hopelessly exploding into insurmountable debt crisis.

[MLD Woody]

GREECE!

 

SOCIALISM!

 

OBAMAO!

 

WAR ON CHURCH!

 

LEFTISTS!

 

CIVIL WAR!

 

GUNS!

 

GOD AND JESUS!

 

REAL AMERICA!

 

DERP DERP DERP!

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, here's a story from a guy who took a job as a cook at Applebee's:

 

"But even if I move up the ladder, from expo to line, it doesn’t guarantee much improvement when it comes to wages. When Freddie hired me, he told me I’d make $8 an hour for training and $9 an hour after that, putting me on the lower end of kitchen workers, whose median wages range from $8.69 for prep and $10.09 for cooks. Geoff, who cooks the burgers on mid, and Calixto, who does steaks and sides on broil, tell me they earn around $12 an hour, which sounds like a lot until I calculate what it means in annual salary: $24,000."

 

Now, here's what happens:

 

Geoff and Calixto both make $24,000 a year if they work a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks of the year.

 

Out of that paycheck will come:

 

- $2496 in Social Security taxes

- $696 in Medicare taxes

 

They'll then have $20,808 to live off of for the year, or $1734 a month. It's not much. And that's assuming he's single and doesn't have children.

 

The employee who makes $10 bucks an hour, or $20,000, will pay $2,660 in payroll taxes, and will have to live off of $17,340, or $1445 a month.

 

...So in your mind, what we really need to do to turn this country/economy around is to start making these types of workers pay income taxes?

 

Again, you're going to have to explain to me how this thinking works. What does this accomplish, and why would it be worth it?

[Chicopee John]

>>And if you're asking me where I'd look for the more obvious sources of waste and duplication, I'd look to the defense budget. But even a lot of that is by design. To take an example from Connecticut, the Navy can say, "We don't need or want that sub built" but if certain Senators and Congressmen push it anyway, and it becomes part of the Defense bill, and Congress then appropriates the money, guess what? They're building it.

 

And that makes me sick, Heck.

 

The bluest of blue states and the anti-defense sentiment goes away as they circle the wagons to 'protect jobs' and , of course the Pentagon, etc. is wrong. THEY NEED THESE SUBMARINES!!!!

 

It's always, 'not in my backyard'.

 

Building subs for the sake of creating jobs amounts to little more than building another type of bridge to nowhere.

 

I agree 100% with you. There is a TON of waste in Defense. I asked it before and I will ask it again: why do we need an Air Force? To me, there has to be duplication of effort because the Army, Navy and Marines - who are actually part of the Navy - have their own air support. People say I'm crazy but nobody ever gave me a good reason why we couldn't live - once again - without the Air Force.

 

Also with earmarks.

[Chicopee John]

John, here's a story from a guy who took a job as a cook at Applebee's:

 

"But even if I move up the ladder, from expo to line, it doesn’t guarantee much improvement when it comes to wages. When Freddie hired me, he told me I’d make $8 an hour for training and $9 an hour after that, putting me on the lower end of kitchen workers, whose median wages range from $8.69 for prep and $10.09 for cooks. Geoff, who cooks the burgers on mid, and Calixto, who does steaks and sides on broil, tell me they earn around $12 an hour, which sounds like a lot until I calculate what it means in annual salary: $24,000."

 

Now, here's what happens:

 

Geoff and Calixto both make $24,000 a year if they work a 40 hour work week for 50 weeks of the year.

 

Out of that paycheck will come:

 

- $2496 in Social Security taxes

- $696 in Medicare taxes

 

They'll then have $20,808 to live off of for the year, or $1734 a month. It's not much. And that's assuming he's single and doesn't have children.

 

The employee who makes $10 bucks an hour, or $20,000, will pay $2,660 in payroll taxes, and will have to live off of $17,340, or $1445 a month.

 

...So in your mind, what we really need to do to turn this country/economy around is to start making these types of workers pay income taxes?

 

Again, you're going to have to explain to me how this thinking works. What does this accomplish, and why would it be worth it?

 

 

Sometimes, Heck, people have to work multiple jobs to bridge the gap. Not a pretty picture but nobody said folks should make a 'living wage' if what they do does not warrant that level of wage.

 

I'd tell this guy to get an additional job. He'd be better off in the long run. Also, maybe get some training that might put him in a position to increase his earning power over time.

[Westside Steve]

Doesn't the employer pick ip half the SS?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes and no. They have to pay half, but just pass most of that cost on to you in the form of a lower wage. You pay most of it one way or the other.

 

But I think you're right about the figures. I plugged them into an online FICA calculator. They don't look right.

 

...Aha. There. Another one gives me $1488 and $348, which is correct.

 

"The 7.65% tax rate is the combined rate for Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security portion (OASDI) is 6.20% on earnings up to the applicable taxable maximum amount (see below). The Medicare portion (HI) is 1.45% on all earnings.

 

* Section 601 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reduced, for wages and salaries paid in calendar year 2011 and self-employment income in calendar year 2011, the OASDI payroll tax by 2 percentage points, applied to the portion of the tax paid by the worker and the self-employed individual."