• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Ryans Budget Plan Hits Federal Workers

cbaber

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
62
Reaction score
38
Location
Saint Joseph, MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Paul Ryan’s budget plan hits federal workers - The Federal Eye - The Washington Post

The spending plan proposed by Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mitt Romney’s pick as the Republican vice presidential candidate, has drawn strong opposition from federal employees.

Under the proposed House Republican budget, which Ryan sponsored as chairman of the Budget Committee, savings from the federal workforce would total $368 billion over 10 years. The two-year freeze on basic federal pay rates, scheduled to expire at the end of this year, would be extended through 2015 for a total of five years.

“The Path to Prosperity,” as the budget plan is named, also calls on federal workers to make an unspecified “more equitable contribution to their retirement plans,” which means higher costs to employees. Additionally, the federal workforce would be cut, through attrition over three years, by 10 percent, which equals more than 200,000 positions.

Because the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Justice and Homeland Security have so many employees, the majority of the eliminated positions would come from these agencies, all of which are related to national security.

The budget document says its plans “reflect the growing frustration of workers across the country at the privileged rules enjoyed by government employees.”

Ryan’s budget justifies the employee-related cuts, saying “it is no coincidence that private sector employment continues to grow only sluggishly while the government expands: To pay for the public sector’s growth, Washington must immediately tax the private sector or else borrow and impose taxes later to pay down the debt.”

This is EXACTLY why Obama is lying when he considers his deficit reduction plan "balanced". Liberals freak out when they hear the word "cut" to any kind of spending. Let me outline why exactly this article is meant to create fear and distort the truth.

1. Fed. Employee Contributions - It has been shown to us in Wisconsin and other states and cities that the days of promising gov. workers huge pensions is OVER. We cannot afford to hand someone 3 million dollars for serving 20 years, for no cost at all. I believe firefighters and police, or other gov. workers in a dangerous field are the exception, but an accountant for the GSA doesnt need a pension. I don't believe it is fair that taxpayers pay for your retirement when private sector workers have to contribute to their retirement plans as well. I think its only fair that we ask federal employees to contribute some of their earnings. This is nothing new folks, the private sector has been doing this forever.

2. Extended 5 year pay freeze - Most private sector companies, including all of the ones I have worked at since 2008, have been on pay freezes or hiring freezes. It is not too much to ask of government employees to accept the same type of hardship that the private sector is going through to save billions a year. Ryan wants to extend the freeze for 5 years. This means that many people will not get raises to their current position. Once again, this is standard operating procedure in the private sector but suddenly when you apply it to the magical federal worker, it is just downright inhumane according to liberals.

3. Worker cut. Ryan wants to cut the federal workforce by 10%. Thats awesome because it has been growing ever decade more and more. It is about time we stopped with all these useless agencies and downsized because we cant afford the non essentials. I am glad this author mentioned "attrition" when talking about cuts. Most liberal authors would just say Ryan wants to lay off 200,000 in the next 3 years. Not true. Under his attrition plan Ryan would not lay off or fire anyone! Attrition means that if an employee were to quit or retire most likely that position if it was not essential would not be filled back up. There is no sudden firing of federal employees folks, just a gradual reduction in the fed workforce. Once again, as before in the last 2 items, this is standard practice in the private sector. Actually, my hospital is doing this right now. It is responsible budget cutting, nothing alarming here.

4. Most of the cuts will come from the defense department, justice dept., homeland security, and the VA. And in case you didnt notice we are talking about federal employees, not state and local. So no teachers, firefighters, or the other people that Obama loves to reference when talking about public sector jobs. Just the scum like over at the GSA spending millions of dollars on hotel rooms and parties on the taxpayers tabs.

5. Finally, this line is great. It explains exactly why we need to implement these steps: Ryan’s budget justifies the employee-related cuts, saying “it is no coincidence that private sector employment continues to grow only sluggishly while the government expands: To pay for the public sector’s growth, Washington must immediately tax the private sector or else borrow and impose taxes later to pay down the debt.”

Thanks for reading. What do you think? Are these proposed cuts in the Ryan plan really as bad as some are making them seem? Why shouldn't we cut back on the federal workforce and save more money to shed off the deficit? And BTW, these cutbacks will save us more than the "taxing the rich" plan.
 
I'm a federal employee.

I'm in favor of the money we have to put to our retirement pension being increased. I also think it absolutely should be high five instead of high three. Frankly, when discovering/rediscovering the notion that I get a pension towards the end of a process of my wife and I attempting to figure out what we needed to do with regards to our actual retirement plans (TSP/401K), I was flabbergasted.

I'm in favor of the freeze, but believe that it should be extended to congress as well. I find it utter and completely bull**** that Congress is telling the average federal employee they need to sacrifice in this regards and yet Paul Ryan has no issues with him and his boys getting money. It's an issue I have with all of congress right now with this. However, beyond that...I don't have a huge issue with this as long as it ends after 2015. There goes a point where it goes from asking Federal Employees to take a bit of hardship to simply using them as scape goats. The "raises" this is typically talking about are relatively slight increases each year due to inflation, general cost of living increases, etc.

I'm in favor of cutting with attrition. The notion that it's going to hit DHS or the Defense Department the hardest doesn't bother me. Actually, it is actually something that runs counter to the notion we keep hearing that the Republicans won't cut defense spending of various types. Though sadly I think this attrition may end up hitting the lower end more than the higher end in some places where you probably need that attrition happening on higher level jobs. Still, the federal work force has been growing and growing, and some scale back is probably useful. More than that, if we can potentially eliminate the necessity for some government employees...by for instance massively simplifying the tax code requiring far less IRS agents...then we could hit that 10% in perhaps an easier means.

As a federal employee, I've got no issue with this plan on the surface.
 
2. Extended 5 year pay freeze - Most private sector companies, including all of the ones I have worked at since 2008, have been on pay freezes or hiring freezes. It is not too much to ask of government employees to accept the same type of hardship that the private sector is going through to save billions a year. Ryan wants to extend the freeze for 5 years. This means that many people will not get raises to their current position. Once again, this is standard operating procedure in the private sector but suddenly when you apply it to the magical federal worker, it is just downright inhumane according to liberals.

3. Worker cut. Ryan wants to cut the federal workforce by 10%.

Thats awesome because it has been growing ever decade more and more.

5. Finally, this line is great. It explains exactly why we need to implement these steps: Ryan’s budget justifies the employee-related cuts, saying “it is no coincidence that private sector employment continues to grow only sluggishly while the government expands: To pay for the public sector’s growth, Washington must immediately tax the private sector or else borrow and impose taxes later to pay down the debt.”

And BTW, these cutbacks will save us more than the "taxing the rich" plan.
Wage stagnatation at the federal level has been in place since late 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

The federal workforce has seen a slight net uptick during Obama's term, mainly stemming from the stimulus and also acting as a countermeasure against massive layoffs at the state and local level. A 10 percent cut in employees would hardly be optimal at the given moment, given the general slowdown in consumer activity as of late. The notion that the only sector of the economy in which policy makers have the ability to intervene and stimulate the economy should experience the largest losses in employment is absurd.

Not really, in fact employment at the federal level has decreased by around 20% since 1970 (Military personnel comprising the bulk of said losses, but still, there is a noticeable lack of expansion in an sector supposedly plagued with overstaffing as some would have us believe.) Total Government Employment Since 1962

Actually, contrary to popular talking points, the private sector has expanded at a much quicker pace than has it's public counterpart in recent history, over two years straight of employment growth consecutively while the public sector has seen continual losses due to budget constraints. In fact, a general consensus among economists is that the decrease of public sector employment is one of the primary drags on overall growth at this stage.

Does that claim take into account the ensuing loss of FICA, Income, Sales taxes and other forms of revenues that would otherwise stem from those former employees?
 
Last edited:
Wage stagnatation at the federal level has been in place since late 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

The federal workforce has seen a slight net uptick during Obama's term, mainly stemming from the stimulus and also acting as a countermeasure against massive layoffs at the state and local level. A 10 percent cut in employees would hardly be optimal at the given moment, given the general slowdown in consumer activity as of late. The notion that the only sector of the economy in which policy makers have the ability to intervene and stimulate the economy should experience the largest losses in employment is absurd.

Not really, in fact employment at the federal level has decreased by around 20% since 1970 (Military personnel comprising the bulk of said losses, but still, there is a noticeable lack of expansion in an sector supposedly plagued with overstaffing as some would have us believe.) Total Government Employment Since 1962

Actually, contrary to popular talking points, the private sector has expanded at a much quicker pace than has it's public counterpart in recent history, over two years straight of employment growth consecutively while the public sector has seen continual losses due to budget constraints. In fact, a general consensus among economists is that the decrease of public sector employment is one of the primary drags on overall growth at this stage.

Does that claim take into account the ensuing loss of FICA, Income, Sales taxes and other forms of revenues that would otherwise stem from those former employees?

Great points. But why wouldn't the government be run like any other business? State governments are my favorite example. They cannot borrow money from China to pay the bills. They have to resort to cuts like these. Walker of WI turned the budget in that state around by simply taking away bargaining rights from most state employees. And the entire population of WI had a chance to un-do it, but those choose to accept the reality that we cant spend money we dont have. WI is a great example of how I think America has generally shifted right on budget issues. This is why Ryan will help Romney this year.
 
Great points. But why wouldn't the government be run like any other business?

State governments are my favorite example. They cannot borrow money from China to pay the bills. They have to resort to cuts like these.
There are large, unsubtle differences between the federal government and your average business, for one, their primary motivators are not strictly related to profit margins, they do not face the same financial constraints, and they have a distinct and vested interest in seeing the entire populace thrive, not to mention competitors (foreign entities.) Laying off large amounts of individuals in a time where economic activity is at a premium only slows an already crawling recovery at this stage.

Understood, and many would advocate for federal intervention to act as a stopgap measure of sorts to alleviate said constraints, seeing as the cuts themselves have played a large role in dampening the recovery.
 
Wage stagnatation at the federal level has been in place since late 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

The federal workforce has seen a slight net uptick during Obama's term, mainly stemming from the stimulus and also acting as a countermeasure against massive layoffs at the state and local level. A 10 percent cut in employees would hardly be optimal at the given moment, given the general slowdown in consumer activity as of late. The notion that the only sector of the economy in which policy makers have the ability to intervene and stimulate the economy should experience the largest losses in employment is absurd.

Not really, in fact employment at the federal level has decreased by around 20% since 1970 (Military personnel comprising the bulk of said losses, but still, there is a noticeable lack of expansion in an sector supposedly plagued with overstaffing as some would have us believe.) Total Government Employment Since 1962

Actually, contrary to popular talking points, the private sector has expanded at a much quicker pace than has it's public counterpart in recent history, over two years straight of employment growth consecutively while the public sector has seen continual losses due to budget constraints. In fact, a general consensus among economists is that the decrease of public sector employment is one of the primary drags on overall growth at this stage.

Does that claim take into account the ensuing loss of FICA, Income, Sales taxes and other forms of revenues that would otherwise stem from those former employees?

All well and good but since gov't is mostly clerical work it should follow that computers alone would account for huge decreases in personnel needs. While the absolute numbers of federal employees have not increased as much as expected their cost has gone up more (since 1969 up by 577%?). See link: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/94-971_20100120.pdf

Add in that federal retirement cost as well: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...ederal-retirement-pension-benefits/50592474/1
 
Last edited:
[...]

1. Fed. Employee Contributions - It has been shown to us in Wisconsin and other states and cities that the days of promising gov. workers huge pensions is OVER. We cannot afford to hand someone 3 million dollars for serving 20 years, for no cost at all. I believe firefighters and police, or other gov. workers in a dangerous field are the exception, but an accountant for the GSA doesnt need a pension. I don't believe it is fair that taxpayers pay for your retirement when private sector workers have to contribute to their retirement plans as well. I think its only fair that we ask federal employees to contribute some of their earnings. This is nothing new folks, the private sector has been doing this forever.
You make it sound like Fed workers don't pay anything into their retirement plans but I'm pretty sure that's false. They might not pay as much as private industry workers do, though I'm not even sure of that and apparently you aren't either, but they contribute none-the-less.

I believe you're committing the same error here of which you accuse others - distorting the truth.

3. Worker cut. Ryan wants to cut the federal workforce by 10%. Thats awesome because it has been growing ever decade more and more. It is about time we stopped with all these useless agencies and downsized because we cant afford the non essentials. I am glad this author mentioned "attrition" when talking about cuts. Most liberal authors would just say Ryan wants to lay off 200,000 in the next 3 years. Not true. Under his attrition plan Ryan would not lay off or fire anyone! Attrition means that if an employee were to quit or retire most likely that position if it was not essential would not be filled back up. There is no sudden firing of federal employees folks, just a gradual reduction in the fed workforce. Once again, as before in the last 2 items, this is standard practice in the private sector. Actually, my hospital is doing this right now. It is responsible budget cutting, nothing alarming here.

4. Most of the cuts will come from the defense department, justice dept., homeland security, and the VA. And in case you didnt notice we are talking about federal employees, not state and local. So no teachers, firefighters, or the other people that Obama loves to reference when talking about public sector jobs. Just the scum like over at the GSA spending millions of dollars on hotel rooms and parties on the taxpayers tabs.
"It is about time we stopped with all these useless agencies and downsized because we cant afford the non essentials."
- And which agencies would that be? The ones that watchdog business for the public? Or was that a slip and you really meant to say "useless agencies at DoD, DoJ, and DHS" even thought that's not what you really meant?
- The problem I have with any of this is politicians are born to lie and do so often. I have a difficult time assuming the Plan really means to reduce the workforce of the mentioned departments while leaving intact those the GOP dislikes. Call me crazy but I don't trust ANY of 'em to tell the truth and I suspect dishonesty even more when they say they'll go against their historic behavior.


Uh, "the scum like over at the GSA"?
Editorialize much - but you want a fair hearing of concerns?!? LOL!
Thanks for reading. What do you think? Are these proposed cuts in the Ryan plan really as bad as some are making them seem? Why shouldn't we cut back on the federal workforce and save more money to shed off the deficit? And BTW, these cutbacks will save us more than the "taxing the rich" plan.
I think Congress should have been the first to make a sacrifice but I don't recall seeing anything about their retirement plan, healthcare plan, or any other Congressional compensation of any kind being changed, frozen, or otherwise. Yep, it's just business as usual on Capital Hill while they suggest others save the Fed money. Isn't this kind of like the bank CEO's and other bank officers taking millions and millions with them on the way out the door after the Crash? Does anyone - except them, of course - really think Congress has been doing it's job the last 4 years?!?
 
All well and good but since gov't is mostly clerical work it should follow that computers alone would account for huge decreases in personnel needs. While the absolute numbers of federal employees have not increased as much as expected their cost has gone up more (since 1969 up by 577%?). See link: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/94-971_20100120.pdf

Add in that federal retirement cost as well: Benefits for ex-federal workers explode
A few excerpts from your article:
Under the terms of the Federal Employees’ Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-509), pay
for civilian federal employees is adjusted each year to keep the salaries of federal workers
competitive with comparable occupations in the private sector. The annual increases in federal
employee pay are based on changes in the cash compensation paid to workers in the private
sector, as measured by the ECI.

Average wages among all workers in the economy have risen by 632% since 1969. Salaries for civilian federal employees have increased by 428% since 1969
 
All well and good but since gov't is mostly clerical work it should follow that computers alone would account for huge decreases in personnel needs. While the absolute numbers of federal employees have not increased as much as expected their cost has gone up more (since 1969 up by 577%?). See link: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/94-971_20100120.pdf

Add in that federal retirement cost as well: Benefits for ex-federal workers explode
Keep in mind none of the amounts shown in that report are inflation adjusted, though there is a CPI (Consumer Price Index) adjustment in Table 1. Let's look at the data in table #1 and do some comparisons. With 1969 as a base Fed pay is now at 5.28 while average wages (everyone) are at 7.32 and the accumulated CPI is 5.77. In other words, Fed workers have taken a (1 - 5.28/5.77=) 8.5% cut in actual buying power. However, retirement has increased 5.95 since 1969, a 3% increase in buying power while SS has increased 7.25. Overall, Fed workers have gotten the crappy end of the deal in pay and retirement over the past 50 years compared to the average American worker.
 
I'm a federal employee.

I'm in favor of the money we have to put to our retirement pension being increased. I also think it absolutely should be high five instead of high three. Frankly, when discovering/rediscovering the notion that I get a pension towards the end of a process of my wife and I attempting to figure out what we needed to do with regards to our actual retirement plans (TSP/401K), I was flabbergasted.

I'm in favor of the freeze, but believe that it should be extended to congress as well. I find it utter and completely bull**** that Congress is telling the average federal employee they need to sacrifice in this regards and yet Paul Ryan has no issues with him and his boys getting money. It's an issue I have with all of congress right now with this. However, beyond that...I don't have a huge issue with this as long as it ends after 2015. There goes a point where it goes from asking Federal Employees to take a bit of hardship to simply using them as scape goats. The "raises" this is typically talking about are relatively slight increases each year due to inflation, general cost of living increases, etc.

I'm in favor of cutting with attrition. The notion that it's going to hit DHS or the Defense Department the hardest doesn't bother me. Actually, it is actually something that runs counter to the notion we keep hearing that the Republicans won't cut defense spending of various types. Though sadly I think this attrition may end up hitting the lower end more than the higher end in some places where you probably need that attrition happening on higher level jobs. Still, the federal work force has been growing and growing, and some scale back is probably useful. More than that, if we can potentially eliminate the necessity for some government employees...by for instance massively simplifying the tax code requiring far less IRS agents...then we could hit that 10% in perhaps an easier means.

As a federal employee, I've got no issue with this plan on the surface.

Agreed. I was a federal employee until I retired a few years ago, but I came aboard too late to get into the CSRS system. The experience left me with an abiding appreciation of Dilbert cartoons, and we would often wonder which of our coworkers was the Dilbert spy in our office. Most of my coworkers were conscientious and hard working, and that was even true of some of the managers. But the problem on the managerial level was that the only way to get a promotion was to have more people working for you, so there was never a shortage of harebrained schemes which would require a larger staff. And when a manager did prove to be incompetent, it was almost impossible to fire him/her so the result was generally a "turkey farm" where the incompetents were assigned to unnecessary tasks where they couldn't do any damage.

I completely agree that there are too many government workers - I remember the Ross Perot joke from twenty years ago about the USDA employee weeping at his desk because "his farmer had died" - and I agree that attrition is probably the most achievable way to cut back (with the possible exception of recent hires in the IRS for ObamaCare, or TSA agents where the task is privatized).
 
Wow, I like this Paul Ryan guy already, and I've never heard of him until this morning. Why is he not the Presidential candidate instead of Romney?
 
Once again, its not appropriate to use the term lay off when it comes to cuts in the federal workforce. There would not be a dramatic loss of jobs. These people are quitting or retiring not being fired. I do not endorse the complete cutting of major departments but it is a fact that waste is much worse in the public sector than the private sector. I just point out the GSA because it was the latest waste scandal. Who knows how many smaller examples of that we have in every department within the government. When you are using other peoples money why wouldn't you spread it around either to help out your buddies?
 
Once again, its not appropriate to use the term lay off when it comes to cuts in the federal workforce. There would not be a dramatic loss of jobs. These people are quitting or retiring not being fired.
There would be a dramatic loss of jobs and, yes, it would affect the economy to some small extent.

I understand no one would be fired. In all honesty, attrition is just a cheap way to reduce the workforce - but the workforce will still be reduced by 10%, which I call a dramatic cut.

I do not endorse the complete cutting of major departments but it is a fact that waste is much worse in the public sector than the private sector.
That's a nonsense comparison from the get-go. How can there be "waste" in the private sector at all - except that which the CEO decides is no longer useful?

And you specifically stated,
"It is about time we stopped with all these useless agencies and downsized because we cant afford the non essentials."
That seems like you are endorsing cutting agencies and you still don't deny that. So, which agencies are we cutting? Which are useless?

I just point out the GSA because it was the latest waste scandal. Who knows how many smaller examples of that we have in every department within the government. When you are using other peoples money why wouldn't you spread it around either to help out your buddies?
Are there occasional idiots that make mistakes? Of course! They're people so it's bound to happen. Can we stop all of it? No way in hell, they're people and they will make mistakes. It's appropriate in the right place to take about these things, and certainly worthwhile for the press to bring them up because government employees should have it pounded into them that it's wrong to do this, but it does us no good in a discussion of government spending. People will make mistakes, even Mother Teresa.
 
Last edited:
That's a nonsense comparison from the get-go. How can there be "waste" in the private sector at all - except that which the CEO decides is no longer useful?
.

I'll try to answer this one. My son works for a large utility company. He's decently paid and has good benefits. Each time they lose an employee, they just add the workload to him. Nobody has had a raise in 5 years.

They just hired the 48th $2 million a year VP. This one is the VP of the VP of the VP of, trumpets please, AWARDS.

I suspect this is not unique to private industry.

Govt. workers have always been empire builders.

Not taking a side. Just adding from my knowledge...
 
I'll try to answer this one. My son works for a large utility company. He's decently paid and has good benefits. Each time they lose an employee, they just add the workload to him. Nobody has had a raise in 5 years.

They just hired the 48th $2 million a year VP. This one is the VP of the VP of the VP of, trumpets please, AWARDS.

I suspect this is not unique to private industry.

Govt. workers have always been empire builders.

Not taking a side. Just adding from my knowledge...
I didn't say there weren't stupid things happening in private industry. I've been around too long to make that mistake. But someone "upstairs", the CEO or one of his close minions, made a decision to move forward in that manner. ;)

Yes, I know government groups tend to build empires. It's the nature of their funding beast that does it. The system of funding in bureaucracies could use a 21st century update. Sadly, that takes more public awareness of how governments work and, as I see more and more each day, that simply will not happen anytime soon. :(
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I was a federal employee until I retired a few years ago, but I came aboard too late to get into the CSRS system. The experience left me with an abiding appreciation of Dilbert cartoons, and we would often wonder which of our coworkers was the Dilbert spy in our office. Most of my coworkers were conscientious and hard working, and that was even true of some of the managers. But the problem on the managerial level was that the only way to get a promotion was to have more people working for you, so there was never a shortage of harebrained schemes which would require a larger staff. And when a manager did prove to be incompetent, it was almost impossible to fire him/her so the result was generally a "turkey farm" where the incompetents were assigned to unnecessary tasks where they couldn't do any damage.

I completely agree that there are too many government workers - I remember the Ross Perot joke from twenty years ago about the USDA employee weeping at his desk because "his farmer had died" - and I agree that attrition is probably the most achievable way to cut back (with the possible exception of recent hires in the IRS for ObamaCare, or TSA agents where the task is privatized).

I worked for a large corporation where it seemed that Dilbert worked. It matches your experience, but it was a private company listed on the NYSE. My experience is that people behave like people no matter where they are working.
 
I'm a federal employee.

I'm in favor of the money we have to put to our retirement pension being increased. I also think it absolutely should be high five instead of high three. Frankly, when discovering/rediscovering the notion that I get a pension towards the end of a process of my wife and I attempting to figure out what we needed to do with regards to our actual retirement plans (TSP/401K), I was flabbergasted.

I'm in favor of the freeze, but believe that it should be extended to congress as well. I find it utter and completely bull**** that Congress is telling the average federal employee they need to sacrifice in this regards and yet Paul Ryan has no issues with him and his boys getting money. It's an issue I have with all of congress right now with this. However, beyond that...I don't have a huge issue with this as long as it ends after 2015. There goes a point where it goes from asking Federal Employees to take a bit of hardship to simply using them as scape goats. The "raises" this is typically talking about are relatively slight increases each year due to inflation, general cost of living increases, etc.

I'm in favor of cutting with attrition. The notion that it's going to hit DHS or the Defense Department the hardest doesn't bother me. Actually, it is actually something that runs counter to the notion we keep hearing that the Republicans won't cut defense spending of various types. Though sadly I think this attrition may end up hitting the lower end more than the higher end in some places where you probably need that attrition happening on higher level jobs. Still, the federal work force has been growing and growing, and some scale back is probably useful. More than that, if we can potentially eliminate the necessity for some government employees...by for instance massively simplifying the tax code requiring far less IRS agents...then we could hit that 10% in perhaps an easier means.

As a federal employee, I've got no issue with this plan on the surface.

Under the Paul Ryan plan, you'd feel the pain many state public employees like myself have been feeling now for the past 4-5 years! No raise since (at least) 2008, a 15% increase in our health insurance premiums, a 30% increase in contributions to our retirement plans. Meanwhile, our state legislators found it totally justifiable to vote themselves a fat pay raise not once but TWICE since 2006.

Just as public employees were once the target of Conservative budget cuts, it will be federal employee's turn under the Paul Ryan plan. Are you ready for it? Because that's what you'll have to endure if Team Romney/Ryan wins the White House.
 
I worked for a large corporation where it seemed that Dilbert worked. It matches your experience, but it was a private company listed on the NYSE. My experience is that people behave like people no matter where they are working.

Agreed, people will be people. But the purchasing public imposes fiscal discipline on competitive private enterprises, where government does not.
 
Under the Paul Ryan plan, you'd feel the pain many state public employees like myself have been feeling now for the past 4-5 years! No raise since (at least) 2008, a 15% increase in our health insurance premiums, a 30% increase in contributions to our retirement plans. Meanwhile, our state legislators found it totally justifiable to vote themselves a fat pay raise not once but TWICE since 2006.

Just as public employees were once the target of Conservative budget cuts, it will be federal employee's turn under the Paul Ryan plan. Are you ready for it? Because that's what you'll have to endure if Team Romney/Ryan wins the White House.
The federal government is running a $1,300,000,000,000 deficit each year. Where do you suggest the cuts come from? There really isnt a way to reduce that level of debt without literally millions of Americans feeling the pinch.
 
Agreed, people will be people. But the purchasing public imposes fiscal discipline on competitive private enterprises, where government does not.
That may apply to Mom & Pops and even slightly larger companies but once you get into MegaCorp range I disagree completely. By their sheer size those corporations will absorb those irregularities without even knowing they were there.
 
Last edited:
Great points. But why wouldn't the government be run like any other business? [...]
Because when private business kicks their employees to the curb with no healthcare or no pension (despite the employees paying into those plans), the employees have to go on government welfare (or avail themselves of government programs like unemployment insurance or pension guarantees, all funded by tax revenues or private insurance premiums).

Given that, explain the logic of the government kicking its employees to the curb with no healthcare or no pension, requiring that in order to survive the employee has to go on.... government welfare.

What Ryan (and others) are telling people is that 'yes, you've been screwed by your employer, so to make things fair, the federal government is now going to screw its employees too.' It's the classic race to the bottom for the workers and the middle class (the other usual right wing excuse for cutting the workers' standard of living is foreign competition).

I don't believe it is fair that taxpayers pay for your retirement when private sector workers have to contribute to their retirement plans as well.
All employees contribute to their retirement -- it's called working. A little historical research on worker benefits that were spawned during the wage controls post WW-II would give some insight and innoculate against vapid right wing talking points. What happened is that corporate lackeys/raiders mismanaged the funds, or lost heavily on Wall Street (another source of raiders), and can't pay the defined benefit plans. What happens then? Current retirees get shafted, and current workers get shafted by having to contribute to a much more poorly constructed plan (defined contribution).

The right always screams about getting rid of Social Security, but is letting corporate America ditch the one solution that would work -- portable defined benefit retirement plans.
 
Last edited:
I'm in favor of cutting with attrition. The notion that it's going to hit DHS or the Defense Department the hardest doesn't bother me. Actually, it is actually something that runs counter to the notion we keep hearing that the Republicans won't cut defense spending of various types.
You've answered your own question -- the Republicans will not let the cuts happen. As they are now casting about on how to ditch sequestration, they'll do the same whenever it comes time to cut DHS/DoD employment levels.

Bet on it.
 
Once again, its not appropriate to use the term lay off when it comes to cuts in the federal workforce. There would not be a dramatic loss of jobs. These people are quitting or retiring not being fired. I do not endorse the complete cutting of major departments [...]
So, you let your local fire department lose 10% of its jobs due to attrition. In a city with 10 fire stations, that would mean the loss of 1 fire station. Would that be dramatic? It would depend on how close you lived to that 'attritioned' fire station and what kind of emergency arose.

To cut gov't the best approach may well be to cut entire departments, rather than let the whole operation try to get by on fewer people, and possibly deadwood at that. The only intelligent way to go thru the gov't is line by line... bring in some outfit to analyze every department and every position and every employee. It would take years, but it would be a focused approach that could truely eliminate waste, such as the sole surviving USDA employee, instead of -- as the corporate world usually does -- make everyone work harder for the same pay (actually less as time marches on, due to inflation), with the smart and capable people leaving in disgust and frustration (your attrition) and leaving the deadbeats behind, who faithfully show up just for a paycheck.
 
Last edited:
Under the Paul Ryan plan, you'd feel the pain many state public employees like myself have been feeling now for the past 4-5 years! No raise since (at least) 2008, a 15% increase in our health insurance premiums, a 30% increase in contributions to our retirement plans. Meanwhile, our state legislators found it totally justifiable to vote themselves a fat pay raise not once but TWICE since 2006.

Just as public employees were once the target of Conservative budget cuts, it will be federal employee's turn under the Paul Ryan plan. Are you ready for it? Because that's what you'll have to endure if Team Romney/Ryan wins the White House.

Did you somehow miss the point where I said "I've got no issues with this plan on the surface"?

Yes. I'm ready to endure it because I believe ultimately it's what's best for this country in the long run and what's most in line with the theory, principles, and philosophy behind what this country founding notions were imho.

If I completely changed my tune simply because suddenly my view that has been long established and long spoken actually causes me issues then I'd be a blatant and ridiculous hypocrite.

For all the cries of how greedy Republicans are, the fact that my vote make things a bit harder for me...but better in the long term imho for the United States...due to long held principles on my part is not something that's going to suddenly make me change my vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom