Menu

The Fed isn’t the enemy folks

constitution quill penPrivatization of the federal workforce was a goal of Ronald Reagan during his administration. He convened the Grace Commission to look into how best to do just that. Now, more than thirty years later, the number of contract employees compared to career federal employees approaches a five to one ratio.
Clearly, there are some benefits to contracting out some very skill-specific functions, but the value of a properly staffed and experienced federal workforce should not be taken lightly. Nor should a dedicated federal workforce that is sworn to uphold the Constitution and not the profit motive of the company winning a federal contract be something that is taken for granted.
Placing the burden of the federal deficit on the shoulders of the federal workforce is doing exactly that and is certainly not cost effective.

Since 2011, feds have contributed more than $120 billion toward deficit reduction.
How did I arrive at this figure, you ask? In 2011, 2012 and 2013 there was a pay freeze totaling some $98 billion. Add to that some $15 billion resulting from the increased retirement contributions for federal employees hired in 2013 and another $6 billion for federal employees hired in 2014 and beyond.
Add in another $1 billion due to lost wages from sequestration-related furloughs and you come up with the $120 billion contribution made by the federal workforce to address the federal deficit.
Contributing to reducing the federal deficit is not the problem; paying more than one's fair share is the problem. That brings us to the fiscal year 2018 budget threats to federal employees and retirees by the 115th Congress and the president of the United States.
The 2018 budget threats include cuts to earned retirement benefits of federal retirees and employees by reducing or eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for current and future federal employees and retirees, doing away with the annuity supplement, increasing retirement contributions, basing federal annuities on the highest five years of salary instead of the highest three years.
These are just a few of the examples in the proposed budget that are of great concern to our federal workforce. Moreover, this is tantamount to changing the rules midstream.
Our government made a commitment to middle-class federal and postal workers when hired that they would receive modest federal annuities in retirement in exchange for years of hard work over long careers.
As was made clear during the hiring process, when a federal employee comes on board he or she is sacrificing wealth for stability. Now, after decades of commitment, this Congress and this president would like to change the commitment made to these employees and retirees and upend the promise of stability.
Make no mistake about it, these budget proposals have more to do with privatizing the federal workforce than it does with deficit reduction.
It is a myth that reducing the federal workforce through attrition will put an end to government growth, save money and boost government efficiency.
This is because reducing the federal workforce by any arbitrary number fails to take into account existing projects and workloads.
This drives inefficiency and delays critical projects. Remember the impact of sequestration?
Having national parks not open pales in comparison to the long term impact of government agencies unable to deliver the government services they were established to do.
Anyone concerned about any delay in receiving his or her Social Security check?
How about receiving a refund from IRS?
Like most things, you don't miss something until it is no longer there or delayed. It is quite confounding that citizens do not appreciate a qualified and experienced federal workforce until such time that they need it as in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma!
Despite claims to the contrary, there are fewer federal employees working today than were working in 1967.
During that period of time the population of the United States has grown some 60 percent and the private sector workforce has increased some 135 percent. As a result, the work not able to be performed by the ever reduced federal workforce must be taken on by someone else, namely outside contractors. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office “refusing to fill open positions would inevitably lead to hiring private contractors, a costly and unaccountable action that would mitigate any potential savings.”
Point made!
To add further insult to injury, Trump recently sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan announcing his intention to cut pay raises for civilian government workers.
In the letter, Trump cited his authority in times of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare” to make adjustments to the 2018 pay schedule for federal employees. Feds were scheduled for a 1.9 percent increase, but Trump will use his authority to lower that to 1.4 percent. According to Trump,“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course.”
He further stated “A pay increase of this magnitude is not warranted, and Federal agency budgets could not accommodate such an increase....” “Pay raises for government workers outside of Washington, D.C. will average only 0.5 percent and will be specified in a coming executive order”, according to Trump. Regarding members of the military, Trump will maintain the 2.1 percent pay increase.
Apparently these fiscal concerns do not apply to his quest to build the “unbuildable” and quite expensive wall along the southern border with Mexico.
Wonder if he caught the last episode of Game of Thrones regarding the vulnerability of walls! To those feds who voted for him, YOU will get what YOU deserve.

@PKSpaul

 

Privatization of the federal workforce was a goal of Ronald Reagan during his administration. He convened the Grace Commission to look into how best to do just that. Now, more than thirty years later, the number of contract employees compared to career federal employees approaches a five to one ratio.

Clearly, there are some benefits to contracting out some very skill-specific functions, but the value of a properly staffed and experienced federal workforce should not be taken lightly. Nor should a dedicated federal workforce that is sworn to uphold the Constitution and not the profit motive of the company winning a federal contract be something that is taken for granted.

Placing the burden of the federal deficit on the shoulders of the federal workforce is doing exactly that and is certainly not cost effective.

Since 2011, feds have contributed more than $120 billion toward deficit reduction.

How did I arrive at this figure, you ask? In 2011, 2012 and 2013 there was a pay freeze totaling some $98 billion. Add to that some $15 billion resulting from the increased retirement contributions for federal employees hired in 2013 and another $6 billion for federal employees hired in 2014 and beyond.

Add in another $1 billion due to lost wages from sequestration-related furloughs and you come up with the $120 billion contribution made by the federal workforce to address the federal deficit.

Contributing to reducing the federal deficit is not the problem; paying more than one's fair share is the problem. That brings us to the fiscal year 2018 budget threats to federal employees and retirees by the 115th Congress and the president of the United States.

The 2018 budget threats include cuts to earned retirement benefits of federal retirees and employees by reducing or eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for current and future federal employees and retirees, doing away with the annuity supplement, increasing retirement contributions, basing federal annuities on the highest five years of salary instead of the highest three years.

These are just a few of the examples in the proposed budget that are of great concern to our federal workforce. Moreover, this is tantamount to changing the rules midstream.

Our government made a commitment to middle-class federal and postal workers when hired that they would receive modest federal annuities in retirement in exchange for years of hard work over long careers.

As was made clear during the hiring process, when a federal employee comes on board he or she is sacrificing wealth for stability. Now, after decades of commitment, this Congress and this president would like to change the commitment made to these employees and retirees and upend the promise of stability.

Make no mistake about it, these budget proposals have more to do with privatizing the federal workforce than it does with deficit reduction.

It is a myth that reducing the federal workforce through attrition will put an end to government growth, save money and boost government efficiency.

This is because reducing the federal workforce by any arbitrary number fails to take into account existing projects and workloads.

This drives inefficiency and delays critical projects. Remember the impact of sequestration?

Having national parks not open pales in comparison to the long term impact of government agencies unable to deliver the government services they were established to do.

Anyone concerned about any delay in receiving his or her Social Security check?

How about receiving a refund from IRS?

Like most things, you don't miss something until it is no longer there or delayed. It is quite confounding that citizens do not appreciate a qualified and experienced federal workforce until such time that they need it as in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma!

Despite claims to the contrary, there are fewer federal employees working today than were working in 1967.

During that period of time the population of the United States has grown some 60 percent and the private sector workforce has increased some 135 percent. As a result, the work not able to be performed by the ever reduced federal workforce must be taken on by someone else, namely outside contractors. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office “refusing to fill open positions would inevitably lead to hiring private contractors, a costly and unaccountable action that would mitigate any potential savings.”

Point made!

To add further insult to injury, Trump recently sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan announcing his intention to cut pay raises for civilian government workers.

In the letter, Trump cited his authority in times of “national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare” to make adjustments to the 2018 pay schedule for federal employees. Feds were scheduled for a 1.9 percent increase, but Trump will use his authority to lower that to 1.4 percent. According to Trump,“We must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course.”

He further stated “A pay increase of this magnitude is not warranted, and Federal agency budgets could not accommodate such an increase....” “Pay raises for government workers outside of Washington, D.C. will average only 0.5 percent and will be specified in a coming executive order”, according to Trump. Regarding members of the military, Trump will maintain the 2.1 percent pay increase.

Apparently these fiscal concerns do not apply to his quest to build the “unbuildable” and quite expensive wall along the southern border with Mexico.

Wonder if he caught the last episode of Game of Thrones regarding the vulnerability of walls! To those feds who voted for him, YOU will get what YOU deserve.

back to top