Tea Party Fuel

Why do people assume that government workers shouldn’t be highly paid? Those civilian Pentagon employees might well be doing very difficult, highly skilled work that’s crucial to saving the lives of enlisted men and women. What starts as a policy paper might well become a law that you and I have to live with. Things like infrastructure planning, managing the telecom spectrum and overseeing elections are all important and difficult jobs. Some government employees manage teams, offices and projects that are far larger than most you’d find in the private sector.

So your saying that the Teapartiers should be horribly upset that there’s a lot of people earning over 1.5K bit OTOH think that people making over 2.5K are oppressed by excessive taxation.

No one ever said they were consistent

I’m sorry Mark but, a $150 to 170k government job is what Americans should be angry about? And why is your first instinct to pass on the myth that government workers are not working for or some how not deserving their paychecks?
.
One thing you don’t bother to explain is why there are now 994 people in the defense department (Not the Pentagon) earning those amounts. And please don’t tell me they are all just pushing position papers, policy options, and reports. That’s BS. We got 2 wars going on, the war on drugs, and the war against terror. WTF do people think the cost of our protection will be? It should be free or at the worst minimum wage workers can handle job?
.
The USA Today article also explains that medical doctors at the VA and Federal prisons earn 179K up from 111K in 2005. So we got more wounded veterans than we have in a long time and we put everyone we can in prison. Yeah that wont’ cost anything either.
.
I’m sure there are some problems that need to be addressed, but that article and this post are both BS.

One group has their money confiscated and the other is the recipient is the inconsistency!

“A pair of stories out this morning highlights just how fat and wealthy your nation’s capital has become. It’s the kind of information that’s likely to turbo-charge Tea Party anger as the rest of the nation struggles with its continuing economic woes.”

.
You betcha!! We are not just angry, we WILL roll these outrageous wages back. Count on it.
.
:)

The USA Today story begs for a more detailed analysis for the reasons behind the facts stated.

–Who authorizes these increases
–Is there a reason some outpaced inflation so much in recent years … such as catch-up increases?
–How do the salaries of these positions compare to non-private sector comparable positions?
–Did the Obama administration do something that called for or enabled these increases? If so, what, and was it justified?
–Are we getting an appropriate ROI on these salaries?

if we had that information, we might know better just how outraged we should be over statistics that in and of themselves might be more justified than they appear for people in top positions in one of the most expensive cities in the country.

Oh and while everyone is defending the practice of highly paid government employees or attempting to compare private and public wages, ask the question “what does being a public SERVANT actually mean?
.
Hopefully the answer is not a highly paid bureaucrat who bilks hundreds of thousands of dollars from tax payers. Not very servant-like when it happens in my mind.

It’s a springboard to book deals.

The primary reason that so many more government pukes (as we lovingly refer to ourselves) are earning over $150K is inflation. A secondary reason, many will be surprised to learn, is the wacko pay system that Don Rumsfeld conned Congress into letting him put into effect about five years ago. The two of them had the combined effect of pushing the salaries at the very top of the pay scale from just below $150K to just over. (The Rumsfeld pay system has been rescinded by Congress, and Defense is going back mostly to the old General Schedule.)
.
It’s as if someone who used to charge $9.95 for a haircut raised the price to $10.50. Suddenly there would be a whopping increase in the number of haircuts costing more than ten bucks. As usual, it’s how you frame things.

Is an attorney with an Ivy League law degree, a masters of law in his specialty, and forty years’ experience worth a salary of about $160K? Uncle Sam thinks so. Maybe that’s influenced in part by the awareness that that same person could be earning severl multiples of $160K in the private sector. Okay, there are compensations in working for Uncle instead, like seeing one’s kids and grandkids more frequently and a greater freedom to call things as one sees them.
.
Yes, the other side of the coin is that $160K must look like unimaginable wealth to some poor ex-factory-worker whose unemployment benefits have run out and whose mortgage puts him under water. But if he’s going to envy someone, how about those Wall Streeters who are trying to restore casino gambl — excuse me, derivatives trading so they can draw bonuses in eight figures and not just seven?
.
We’ve tried running the government with stupid people, and it didn’t work very well. In one sense, now is a good time to cut feds’ pay, because they can’t just hop into the private sector as in normal times. But the notion that we’re all a bunch of overpaid slobs who spend the entire day goofing off is a fantasy — and, of course, a rank insult. There are goldbricks everywhere, and government is no exception, but we have real work to do, and almost all of us do it.
.
Apparently scapegoating teachers and liberals isn’t enough. Just be careful what you wish for. If Congress guts the civil service, the country is going to be much the worse for it. Of course, those of you for whom the government does nothing won’t notice any difference — until your parents’ Social Security money goes astray, or the local freeway falls apart because there’s no one to keep the federal highway funding flowing, or you can’t go camping in the local National Park because it’s locked, or your child comes home from school hungry because the federal school-lunch support program has collapsed, or you develop food poisoning because no one from the Department of Agriculture inspected the meat you ate last night, or you’re fired for trying to organize a union and the NLRB tells you “tough sh!t, we don’t have anyone to talk to you.”
.
You may not like it, and maybe it should never have happened, but the federal government is like a giant national circulatory system, and with few exceptions every capillary has some value. There are things we can do wthout, and there are things that could be done better, but it’s a delusion that you can just pull out the arteries and veins and not have the body suffer. The federal government is the way it is because — no matter what people say — that’s what people want. They want the programs, they want the transfer payments, they want the low taxes. They don’t want the deficit — just everything that creates the deficit.
.
This country is in a pathological condition, and the Republicans are pandering instead of looking for a real solution. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe we’re doomed. But we might at least try something that makes sense instead of stuffing the rich as if we’re trying to make foie gras — and pretending that all those federal employees are sucking at the public teat and offering nothing in return

The USA Today story begs for a more detailed analysis for the reasons behind the facts stated.
.
Yup. This sort of superficial presentation of stats doesn’t do much more than provide a rationale for more faux-trage. More steak, less sizzle, please.

What he said.

“what does being a public SERVANT actually mean?

Uh oh. Rustyblogwhore has gone full teatard.
..
Apparently, you think it means that all employees in the public sector should bow, scrape and, if they’re lucky, earn minimum wage. So much for “the best and the brightest.”
..
The top positions in government are competing with the private sector for talent and they will not attract any at “servant” wages. As others have mentioned (thanks jc46202), more evaluation and context are needed to discern why these salary increases occurred and whether or not they are justified but that doesn’t suit the teatard position.

You articulated it perfectly bobell. Thanks!

Excellent. I agree completely!

Some analysis from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule

A lot of good general info on how federal workers are compensated. Most pertinent paragraph that applies to this discussion:
.
“In 2010 a USA Today analysis reported that federal civil servants earned in 2009, on average, twice as much in pay and benefits including unrealized pension benefits, $123,049, as the average private worker, $61,051. Average benefits were worth $41,791, most of it due to pensions. The average federal salary grew 33% faster than inflation from 2000 to 2009. Average compensation grew 36.9% since 2000, after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers. Also, this statistical difference is due to the pool of government workers that have seen most of its lower tier workforce outsourced/contracted leaving a mostly college educated, professional workforce. While the average workforce for the rest of the population statistic includes a large unskilled workforce that skews the numbers.”
.
From my own experience, wiki’s explanation of the statistical difference rings true. In my directorate, we have not hired new federal workers since 1991. So, those that are left are older (median age is now 50) , highly skilled, and generally work at the higher pay grades. The young folks where I work are all contractors.

I have to weigh in with 6.1 on this issue. The government has to at least attempt to compete with the private sector for skilled workers. I know the answer you wish to give is less of everybody working for the machine, but you need to pay people what they are worth, or the problems with quality that you complain about would only be worse.

The career I am involved in does not command the salary like what was portrayed in the article, but it’s not insignificant either. As a college educated professional I cannot afford to take a position that will not pay me what I am worth. I have worked in both the private sector AND have recently begun work as a government contractor. Government salaries are NOT on par with equivalent private sector jobs. If you wish your government to do the job right, you have to have the right people doing the job.

If you wish to refute what I say, that is your perogative, but to save a bit of needless argument and invective, I feel completely unthreatened by a theoretical purging of government workers, because I perform a much needed service, to which the proper skills required to do said job are very rare, the nature of which job any foaming at the mouth extremist (from either end of the political spectrum) would be hard pressed to make a case against and which the pay is on the low bar of the industry average.

We should immediately reduce the pay of all civilian, federal employees by 80%. Once that is done, we should then decide how much further the salaries of individual, grossly overpaid, taxpayer-sucking, civilian, federal employees should be cut.

Of course, many states and local governments should also institute such a plan for their grossly overpaid, taxpayer-sucking, government employees.

For those government employees who would object to their new, reasonable salaries, thirteen words: If you don’t like the pay, then don’t work for the taxpayer-funded government. Got it?

That’s one of the stupidest, most ignorant statements I’ve ever seen around here. What you’ve described is not smaller government, it’s NO government. What is known as Anarchy. Are you an anarchist? This great nation will be reduced to settling issues like the Hatfields and McCoys. We wouldn’t be a nation anymore that’s for sure. Just a conglomeration of city-states.

While it’s sometimes nice to throw out sweeping generalizations. I don’t even know why I responded to this. I’ve gotten better political commentary from the crazy cat-lady who wears a dress made from a blanket.

What’s there to be upset about. After all the high paid government workers that are paid by the lower paid private sector workers a so valuable. What would we do without them? In fact, they are so necessary that Obama doubled the number we need. Makes on wonder how we survived without them in the past.
.
It’s just great that the government is creating jobs for themselves at our expense. While the government’s policies encourage private sector jobs to be sent to other countries. Let’s all get government jobs. The government can just print the money; we don’t like corporations here anyway.
.
If you cannot see how stupid this scenario is, you have no business commenting.
.
As for the pitchforks comment, the people may have to carry the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham out naked, and you forgot the tar and feathers.

“This country is in a pathological condition, and the Republicans are pandering instead of looking for a real solution. Maybe there is no solution. Maybe we’re doomed. But we might at least try something that makes sense instead of stuffing the rich as if we’re trying to make foie gras — and pretending that all those federal employees are sucking at the public teat and offering nothing in return”

.
I must have missed the part where you offered a solution that makes sense.
.
How is it again that we need twice as many federal employees under Obama? Are we going to have double the fun?
.
Sorry, but the private sector cannot sustain a government workforce that draws double the pay and benefits of a comparable private sector job, while YOU demonize industry and Wall st. just like YOU did in your comments. YOU are a joke.
.

In fact, they are so necessary that Obama doubled the number we need.

More fact free drivel, I see. Do you have a source for your claim that Obama doubled the number of Federal employees?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/a-tea-tray-in-the-sky/

jc: Thanks. Details would be nice. But some pundits like to feed the anger.

Newrusty: Take a look at Halibuton and other contractors. How did they handle their private obligations?

lmd: “I must have missed the part where you offered a solution that makes sense.”
.
Okay, here are the outlines of a solution. No doubt you’ll see it as Marxism, Still, you asked.
.
1. Transition health care nationwide to single-payer, run effectiveness studies to eliminate unnecessary procedures, and control the costs of those procedures that do take place. Oh, and tort reform.
.
2. Allow the tax rates for the wealthy to revert to pre-Bush rates as of 1/1/11. Extend the remaining cuts but with a gradual three-year phase-out.
.
3. Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP.
.
4. Iniitiate a trillion dollars worth of infrastructure improvements, with expenditures peaking two years from now and then phasing out. The taxes paid by the people so employed will repay a significant portion of that trillion. It’s a trade-off of some added deficit for a reduction in unemployment.
.
5. Legislate strong cap-and-trade, with all permissions to emit greenhouse gases paid for in hard cash, not given out.
.
6. Cut defense spending 20 percent beyond the savings from shutting down the two wars..
.
7. Freeze federal salaries. (I’ll take a hit; will you?)
.
This is off the cuff and not fully thought through. But at least it’s an attempt to address the real problems in the economy, first unenployment, then the deficit. And at least I’m not pretending that I can cut taxes, increase expenditures, and balance the budget.
.
Of course, the country and the Congress and the president all lack the political will to do anything even vaguely resembling this, Not to mention that the likes of you would fight it to the death.
.
Remember, you asked. If you don’t like my solution, what’s yours?

bobell: Thank you for your insight. If only Mark Thompson could have been half as informative.

Don’t ever make comments about Palin not reading.

“Now the nation’s capital, where manufacturing is limited to position papers, policy options, and reports, is the place to go for good jobs. USA Today says that the number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more annually has jumped 10-fold in the past five years, {and doubled since President Obama took office.”}
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/10/tea-party-fuel/

What will this cost us? Investigations will keep lots of staffers and legal consultants busy. Let the gates begin.
.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022217-503544.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsPCAnswer+
.
New rw hero Christie isn’t so attuned to government cost cutting. Likes cutting tunnel funding but sure liked high cost travel expenses.
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/chris_christie_no_1_us_attorney_in_wasting_govt_travel_money.php?ref=fpb

Try again jacka$$. It doesn’t say what you think it does. For example, if there were 100 employees with 10 earning more than $150K and, five years later, now there are 100 employees with 20 now earning $150K then the number of employees at that specific pay level has doubled; the total number of employees has not doubled.
..
You, like Palin, lack reading comprehension, facts, logic and reason but nice try.

Mark: If you took time to read your company’s history you would find that it located in Cleveland initially to expedite western distribution. Britton Hadden, Luce’s partner, moved the publication to NY while Luce was on vacation. Hadden thought that Cleveland was a backwater. Printing was moved to Chicago. It was all about logistics. Other than printing, few jobs were generated outside of NY.
I suggest you read Alan Brinkley’s book: Henry R. Luce and the Rise of the American Media.

Look who’s a Jacka$$…THAT’S WHAT I SAID. Here it is again:

“After all, the {high paid} government workers that are paid by the lower paid private sector workers are (sic) so valuable. What would we do without them? In fact, they are so necessary that Obama doubled the number we need.”

doddeb,

I think I know the answer to this question, but from your experience you might know firsthand:
How many, if any, of those lower-level federal employees were replaced by for-profit outside contractors, and do you know if any money was actually saved thereby?

The reason I ask is because I’d rememebered reading about the IRS, after downsizing its own collection ranks, farmed out the collection of past-due taxes to private contractors – at the direction of Republican lawmakers, natch.

The result was we paid out more to the contractors to collect past-due taxes than the taxes we got back – while the contractors took their profits home.

“If that outsourcing resulted in improved tax receipts — or even managed to break even — then the preference for private contractors over civil servants or vice versa would remain an ideological question. But the IRS contractors have actually closed fewer back-taxes cases. This isn’t a question of ideology, but a question of good government practices.

When New Jersey Democratic Congressman Steve Rothman asked at a recent hearing if the outsourcing program was recovering less than would be recovered by using the money to hire new IRS agents, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson replied, “I freely admit it.” … Everson, however, refused to admit that a program that spent more to get back less was wasteful. Rothman was baffled. “You’re costing more for the same job,” he said. And Everson replied, “That’s true.”"
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=coming_to_collect

“For less than that fee, the IRS could hire staff who would bring in about eight times as much revenue as the private collection agencies are projected to, according to former IRS commissioner Charles Rossotti. In testimony before the House of Representatives, Everson freely admitted that hiring more staff is far more efficient than privatization. But inadequate appropriations for the IRS, he claims, have made it impossible to hire new staff.”
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/3041

Again, who said Obama doubled them? The post, like you, is severely deficient on facts and analysis.

The solutions you propose would cripple our economy, allow terrorist to go right back into Afghanistan, weaken our military, make us vulnerable to attacks, and put the government (what a surprise a government worker that wants more government) in charge of making all decisions about an individuals health care.
.
I don’t know where you get your ideas, but they are the absolute worst policies imaginable.
.
I am amazed that you actually believe that taxes paid by workers whose jobs are funded by tax payers will help pay a SIGNIFICANT amount of the trillion dollars you propose in spending to hire them.
.
Did you also invest in Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme?
.
Let me guess your work with the government is related to “helping” people with buying a house they cannot afford, no doubt.