Feature
Those Underpaid Government Workers
The recession has exposed just how nice and cozy — and unaffordable — working for the government can be.
What recession? Government workers are probably wondering what all the fuss is about. The private sector has lost 2.5 million jobs since the Obama administration’s stimulus bill was passed, while the public sector — federal, state, and local government combined — has added 416,000 jobs over the same period. Although 85 percent of Americans work for private employers, the administration’s own Recovery Act database admits that four out of five jobs “created or saved” were in government. Likewise, average pay has risen in the federal, state, and local government, while private sector wages have fallen. More jobs, better security, and rising wages — it’s boom time in the public sector.
Ordinary Americans, along with a small group of elected officials from both parties, have finally been stirred to action. New Jersey’s Republican governor Chris Christie is a leader in taking on public sector unions over performance, pay, and pensions, and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has cajoled public employee unions into accepting pension reductions. Even some Democratic appointees — such as Washington, D.C., public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, who recently took the unprecedented step of firing 241 underperforming teachers — seem to have had enough.
Despite this, defenders of public sector workers continue to argue that they are underpaid. Union representative Colleen Kelley, in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, cited federal statistics claiming that federal workers are paid 22 percent less than private sector employees doing similar jobs. Likewise, recent studies from liberal think tanks claim state and local employees receive significantly lower pay and benefits than private workers. Until these arguments are addressed, fully and directly, the group of policy makers with the mettle to tackle public sector pay will remain small.
A raw comparison between the wages of federal and private workers suggests there is no contest at all. The typical federal employee received a salary of more than $79,000 in 2008, with benefits raising total annual compensation to more than $119,000. The typical private sector worker, by contrast, received pay of around $50,000 and total compensation of just under $60,000. Moreover, USA Today recently reported that federal employees receive higher average salaries than private sector workers in 180 of 216 comparable occupations. These numbers seem to speak for themselves.
Defenders of federal pay are quick to point out, however, that federal employees are more skilled than the typical worker in the private sector — in other words, they deserve more money. As OMB director Peter Orszag argued, “A comparison of federal and private sector pay…is misleading because the employees hired by the federal government often have higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector.”
Orszag is right: we do need to account for skill differences in the federal workforce, which is older, more educated, and more white-collar than workers in the private sector. But the question then becomes whether these differences are enough to account for the huge disparity in pay. Using the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, which includes earnings and demographic data on tens of thousands of workers spread across the public and private sectors, we can control for differences in education, work experience, race, gender, marital status, immigration status, region of residence, and several other variables. After doing so, we can see whether the pay gap between federal and private sector workers remains.
This “human capital” approach to explaining wage variation, the overwhelming preference of labor economists, assumes that in competitive labor markets individuals with the same productivity will command similar salaries, even if they work different jobs. The human capital method is commonly used by economists in other contexts — such as determining whether union members receive higher pay than similarly qualified non-union members, or whether women and minorities receive lower pay than comparable white males.
Even after including the full range of control variables in our own analysis, we found that federal workers continue to earn a pay premium of around 12 percent over private workers. In other words, someone in the private sector has to work an average of 13.5 months to earn what an equally skilled federal worker makes in 12 months. This is not a novel result by any means. Academic economists have been studying federal/private pay disparities since the 1970s, and they generally find a premium in the range of 10 to 20 percent.
Though the data are less precise, benefits like retirement contributions and health insurance rates are also more generous for federal employees. We have calculated that the annual overpayment of salary and benefits to federal workers comes to more than $14,000 per worker, totaling nearly $40 billion per year.
This does not mean everyone in the federal government should get an automatic pay cut. In fact, our data suggest the brightest people — research scientists, for example — receive no premium and may even suffer a penalty when they work for the government. If the federal government rewarded skills the way the private sector does, wages would adjust in different ways for different workers. Overall, however, total compensation would go down by around 12 percent, taxpayers would save tens of billions of dollars each year, and the federal government would regain some much-needed fiscal credibility.
BUT WHERE DO CLAIMS THAT federal workers are underpaid come from? From the President’s Pay Agent — not an actual person, but an obscure function headed by the Secretary of Labor and the directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. Relying heavily on the recommendations of the Federal Salary Council, a panel of labor union representatives, the Pay Agent submits an annual report to the president suggesting how much to increase federal pay. The 2009 report claims, remarkably, that federal workers are underpaid by more than 22 percent relative to the private sector.
Before we discuss the reasons for the large discrepancy between the Pay Agent’s results and ours, consider how implausible the 22 percent figure actually is. Why would millions of federal employees accept such a low wage if they could earn thousands more in the private sector? A desire to serve the public can go only so far. High-ranking government officials are no doubt attracted to the power and prestige of their jobs, but what about the vast number of unremarkable paper-pushing jobs the government offers? What is so attractive about these positions that justifies taking 78 cents on the dollar?
Barring an almost unbelievable level of civic-mindedness on the part of federal employees, either federal positions offer non-wage compensation that outweighs a 22 percent salary gap — in which case these workers aren’t truly underpaid — or the 22 percent salary gap figure is wrong to begin with. We think both are true.
The Pay Agent’s figure is inaccurate because of the method it uses to compare pay in each sector. Rather than using skills like education and experience to identify productivity, as most economists recommend, the Pay Agent relies on a survey of job descriptions in various localities. For example, suppose the federal government employs an accountant in Chicago. In order to determine how much to pay him, the government would look at the job descriptions of private sector accountants in the Chicago area. It would try to find the subset of accountants who seem to have the same responsibilities as the government hire, then take the average salary in that set.
Though it sounds reasonable enough, the process is highly subjective. Positions that seem “comparable” on paper could be much different in practice, and some federal jobs have no private sector counterparts. How much should an intelligence analyst be paid based on his job description? Most importantly, unlike the human capital approach, the Pay Agent cannot distinguish between high- and low-productivity workers in the same position. It is just assumed that a particular job description leads to a certain level of output.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (215) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/09/24/those-underpaid-gothose-underp
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- A Panoply of Beauties
- The Lehrman Standard
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
jd| 9.24.10 @ 6:50AM
These defenders of bureaucratic pay will be in the front row criticizing the greed of the corporate world. I work a non-union job in county government in the state of Michigan (I'm embarassed to say). About 10% of our workforce is NON-UNION. I have done my job without a raise for a few years now. The union clerks not only have received their yearly pay raises but voted not to take a slight pay cut in order to save a lower ranking clerk position. As a matter of expediency, I also took up some of the work from our union clerks because their ineffiency was slowing my work pace down. I just found out that non-union personnel across the board are getting a 5% pay cut -- not unexpected in the economic mess that Michigan has been mired in for YEARS. What is most galling is that we are getting that 5% pay cut but union members are not. Basically I am taking a cut to save a union job. I am a lifelong resident of this state and I am 100% convinced that unions have destroyed this country.
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 10:11AM
I grew up in Buffalo, NY. - I escaped the People's Republic of New York at 41 - I'm 52. As I child I marveled at the size of Bethlehem Steel.. the Huge Refineries, Westinghouse, American Brass, Trico Wiper Blades
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 10:20AM
Dunlop Tire, the 3 Chevy Plants, the Massive Grain Elevators, the Fleets of Grain or Ore Carriers lining the Harbor.... THEY'RE ALL GONE NOW!!! and what was the one SINGLE common denominator?? Right............... They were ALL Unionized... and now they're ALL gone. The term "Rust Belt" came in to the English Language due to Unions. The Unions would have you believe that Cities like Buffalo were
vtwin| 9.24.10 @ 10:41AM
Unions my a**, these jobs are the victims of FREE TRADE.
CharlesmartelsGhost| 9.24.10 @ 11:31AM
Correct because unions made it too expensive to do business in the "rust belt" and other states that do not have Right to Work laws.
SpiralArchitect| 9.24.10 @ 1:42PM
V-Twin - you have a mental defect; do yourself the courtesy of not commenting as it reflects poorly upon yourself.
Unions were designed for a good purpose. The need for unions is long past due. Unions are nothing more than a parasitic entity that thrives off the over inflated wages they mandate for the people that MUST pay them.
Abolish the unions and the Fed Reserve!
Both have brought this country down to a second world nation status. :(
Reagan| 9.25.10 @ 2:29AM
No, its you (or who you imagine you represent) who have done this. Pathetic.
Paevo| 9.25.10 @ 12:21PM
"Victim of free trade" is an oxymoron. You can only be a victim of UNFAIR trade practices. You are completely ignorant of economics.
Negro X| 9.26.10 @ 7:45PM
vtwin,
Negro X| 9.26.10 @ 7:47PM
vtwinmoron, Once again you show your ignorance and lack of due diligence. You are just another leftiest asswipe.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 11:28AM
True, Redstateboy. Unions are corporate killers. They demand and destroy. These marxists destroy comapies and cheer their destruction even as it means the end of their jobs. It is a strange sick mindset. Remember when the union goons cheered the death of Eastern Airlines on TV? I couldn't understand how "workers" could be happy their jobs just left.
My wifr used to work for a casino in Vegas and was subject to the Culinary Union. One day she received a mailing from the union, and I looked at the envelope. In the corner was their logo and the words "Worker of the world Unite! You have nothing to lose but youor chains!"
I then showed her the communist manifesto, with that same quote. She was so upset that they are openly communist, that she quit and went to work for a private business.
Unions should be charged under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act. Union goons and thugs are violent criminals and should be prosecuted.
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 12:23PM
ALL victims of Corporate Greed, Unfair Foreign Government
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 12:46PM
Susbsidized Competition or incompetent management.. Isn't that Totally it Vtwin... Greedy Union Slugs... Oh! They're all clean as the Wind-driven snow..
Nate| 9.24.10 @ 1:28PM
Red --
You've slid into a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The unions did NOT drive all these companies out of business, and assigning a causal link here is fallacious.
You need to bone up a little on what tax policy and trade policy since your beloved Reagan Revolution has done to our manufacturing base. I'll give you a little hint: unions were there for a long time before these companies and industries went under. Something ELSE happened. What might you think that could have been?
BackToBasics| 9.25.10 @ 1:19AM
Not just Reagan with GATT but GH Bush pushed NAFTA and Clinton also pushed it in the Senate and signed it into law. All policies under both Dems and Repubs have added to the loss of manf jobs and also the importation of cheap labor from the lowest-skilled jobs to the highest. Neither party is helping us now and the Dems certainly do not get a pass either.
Hence the push by many for the Tea Party. But they do not have a broad-based, "codified" platform yet so I do not know what types of trade policies their leaders and elected officials will adhere to. But it seems like they at least want to try to be serious about changing the tax code to help America with manf as well as personal income tax reductions. They also want smaller government which fits with the tax policies.
Silver Streake| 9.25.10 @ 12:47PM
It is completely disingenuous to say the unions had no part of closing businesses. Their demands for higher pay have caused companies to move where the cost of wages is lower so they can remain competitive.
The solution is right to work laws, passed and enforced throughout the country. When Toyota came to the US and set up a manufacturing plant, they didn't even consider a state with laws favorable to unions. They are located in a right to work state, as have other auto manufacturers done.
axbucxdu| 9.25.10 @ 9:25PM
The U.S. needs to toss the Fed and return to a monetary system based on competitive currencies, known as Free Banking. Tariffs can then be leveled in direct proportion to a foreign government's currency manipulation against the basket of U.S. currencies that result.
The Wilson/FDR/Nixon experiment in unhinged money has been a spectacular failure. Although cleverly concealed in plain sight, it's fiat dollars that have been the primary culprit in U.S. de-industrialization.
Fist of the Fleet| 9.25.10 @ 9:03PM
To Nate and RedStateBoy. I still live in Buffalo, and it is still declining. What you fail to mention are a 50 year succession of Democrat mayors.
Buffalo started its decline in the early fifities as "white flight" took over and its status as the terminus of the Great Lakes ended with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Long before free trade, NAFTA and Reagan.
jd| 9.24.10 @ 6:54AM
And lastly, at the end of the day when management signs off on these union contracts, I hold them just as responsible as the unions themselves. Their short-sightedness in appeasing unions over the years has only compounded the problem.
figus janus| 9.24.10 @ 7:01AM
Before I start know this. I am a veteran. I have 11 years in the navy. I also hold a government contractor position so i have seen alot of government waste.
People always say that government workers are more skilled and private sector employees. Well I say that there is a difference between educated and smart.
Educated means you have spent alot of time and money going to a place were the liberals control and indoctrinate a large majority of Americans. Smart is someone who can gather information. Then analyze and execute a proper solution. Since the government is only administrative why would they need engineers and college educated technical personnel in the administrations ranks? If we shrank the government and let the states run everything. The federal government would only be an oversight agency. Examples of waste Dept. of Energy, produces no energy. Dept of education which teaches no one. Environmental protection agency who rather protects the yellow haired tick mouse than the ordinary citizen, case in point Carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Hence we need mufflers in our MOUTHS!
Small government! Small government! Small government! Small government! Small government!
Paul D| 9.24.10 @ 9:37AM
You raise a good point. When you work with government civilians and examine their resumes you quickly learn that the standard of performance for hiring is to be credentialed NOT accomplished.
When I was on active duty as a Navy Officer, I once advertised for a GS-6 (basically entry level in Washington DC) opening on my staff. Within a week I was flooded with 250 applications, all of which looked and sounded the same and almost all of which were from people with at least some college background. If government workers are underpaid, why did so many people want this "low-paying position?"
There is more, so much more, I could write, but it would not be new news about this old and painful subject.
jrjr| 9.24.10 @ 4:53PM
Why accept a basic entry job? Well -- when I was employed by the Feds, it was a stepping stone to the next level, perhaps even jumping the next level GS-7) depending on the type of job (e.g., shortage of such employee type). After a couple of years, there was perhaps a jump to the next or second higher level. Very good employees were not necessarily promoted versus those who were adequate. Success at one's job wasn't particularly measured in accomplishments.
BackToBasics| 9.25.10 @ 1:39AM
I have a family member who works in gov and has a GS rating. He is a white male who scores on the 99th percentile often on tests within his area. Yet he is constantly passed over so that women and minorities who most of the time have lower scores can leap-frog over him with promotions. He has advanced within the GS rating within his own position and is now at the top.
But he cannot get promoted with the discriminatory practices in very many of the government service positions. Even his boss told him "off the record" that women and minorities were given preferential treatment. He's a well-rounded person and easy to get along with so it is not a personality issue. this has been going on for years.
I do not work for the government but I have had three occasions where I was well qualified and already ahd the experienced they wanted but I believe I was discriminated against in the interview process or pre-interview process because I am a white male.
One time a recruiter called and said my resume matched the position perfectly. The recruiter tols me how to format the resume. I changed it as requested and she said it was okay. The gov agency hired through an agency. The recruiter sent my resume and cover letter and other info along to this agency. After almost 2 days I get a call frim the recruiter saying the agency changed the "format" for the resume and wanted a new one but the deadline was 12:00 noon. It was 10:30 in the morning and I was already at my other job.
This was an IT position and it's just nonsense that they would not accpet my resume (which they wanted in Word) beacuse of a "formatting" issue. The recruiter told me that this was highly unusual. I told her that I was 95% certain that it was done so they would nopt have to hire a qualified white male. I also told her that the reason why the gov agency probably goes through a 3rd party hiring company is so that the government itself cannot be charge with discrimination.
In any event I did not get the position. The other 2 were different scenarios but it was pretty obvious that it was discrimination against white males.
BackToBasics| 9.25.10 @ 1:50AM
For my scenario to make it more clear the hiring process was like thhis:
A) Me-> B) Recruiter for outside agancy -> C) Agency that hired for government -> D)government
It was "C" that wanted a 2nd reformat of the resume, but I'm sure the instructions for this silliness came from the geovernment itself.
Darin| 9.24.10 @ 7:04AM
You need to be careful comparing government to private sector jobs. Instead, compare fields of work. This will factor in education requirements (high school, bachelors, masters, doctorate). Also consider security clearance requirements. Not everyone can get a Secret clearance, let along Top Secret or higher. Items like jail time or bankruptcy can disqualify you for a clearance or cause a clearance to be revoked. Someone who works as a janitor may be required to maintain a security clearance depending on where they work. Further, almost all government positions are subject to random drug testing. Some private companies also do this, but not all. I'm not aware of any studies that consider these and other factors, but such would be a more accurate depiction of the public and private sector.
Pat Spooner| 9.24.10 @ 7:09AM
An just what does this mean - As OMB director Peter Orszag argued, "A comparison of federal and private sector pay...is misleading because the employees hired by the federal government often have higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector." - does he mean that more education somehow translates to a higher degeree of efficicnecy, productivity or enhanced work experience, or wisdon, or dedication to doing the job most effectively? Statements like this can only come out of the mouth of someone who has very little real (non-governmental) experience!
David Berger| 9.24.10 @ 12:36PM
It means you can't compare a NASA scientist, an NIH cancer researcher, a CIA agent, a foreign service diplomat, and NTSB inspector, an FAA air traffic controller to somebody working at McDonalds (not that there's anything wrong with that). The private sector numbers include the latter, whereas the pubic sector numbers do not.
Publius| 9.26.10 @ 1:02AM
I can tell you that in the aerospace sector, the "more highly educated" government workers run a very distant second to their contractor counterparts. For a good reason: In the civil service workforce, a GS-15 - most of whom are in their mid 40s and up - tops out at what a college graduate engineer will make in about 8 years after graduation. If there are 10 contractors and 10 civil service employees in a technical meeting, the 11th smartest person in the room is the smartest government employee.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.24.10 @ 7:14AM
The real question is not what the skill differences are, but how many federal bureaucrats perform functions that are really needed?
Look at the Department of Energy. Not only have they not created any energy, they have stood in the way of energy creation. The budget for the DOE is 43 billion a year.
The recent Bernie Madoff scandal indicated that S.E.C. employees had been asleep at the wheel for decades. Not years, but decades. That was money well spent.
This isn't the time for pay comparisons. This is the time for massive reform. The world has changed over the last 20 years but many federal agencies have not changed with it.
Their skill sets belong to the pre-technological era which would indicate that perhaps many are not only overpaid, they are not needed at all.
Paul D| 9.24.10 @ 9:45AM
You also raise an important point. Most government civilians are good people and no different from you or I. But the fundamental nature of their work is soul-robbing because it is unnecessary work.
In the long run it would be better for the employees of these agencies themselves if their agencies were abolished. I would start with the abolition of the Dept of Education, the Dept. of Labor, the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, the Dept of Energy, the EPA, and the Dept. of Agriculture, to name a few. I'm sure I could name more if I REALLY got going.
Just think how much money it could save if the Feds layed off 500,000 workers. The budget would be balanced within a year.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 4:05PM
Agreed Paul D. Abolishing those extra-Constitutional wastes of taxpayer money would be a great START. We need to elect representatives that will adhere to their Constitutional limitations and recognize the sovereign States rights.
Mel Torme| 9.24.10 @ 4:22PM
No, Paul, it wouldn't. At 100 K$ each, that is $50 billion saved. That is no small sum compared to my checking account and CDs, but perhaps a week or two of Fedzilla's spending appetite. Where does all the rest of the money go? Well, most is transferred from the taxpayers for entitlements - "everybody wants some!!", or "I'm old, gimme, gimme, gimme", in the immortal words of David Lee Roth and Abraham Simpson, respectively.
So, we need to get rid of more departments than just the ones you mentioned, although your list is a very good start. (oh, I see now you said you could go name more, OK)
I will go one more step here (# 3):
1) Per our writers' study and just general observation, the government employees have it pretty good, let's just put it that way. Maybe they should feel some pain.
2) Even if these "public sector" (a bogus term, how about "leaches" vs. "producers"?) were getting paid squat, they are not, in general, doing work that is helpful to the economy at all, so their GDP, so to speak, is a negative. Get rid of most of the departments, as Paul said.
3) Even if these people did no work for the big bucks, that be something we could overcome. i.e., if we just gave them a venue and enough quarters to play bumper pool and air hockey all day long, they still would not be ruining the economy at the current employee level. However, the regulations and massive economic uncertainty promulgated by these inglorious bastards are an even bigger hit to the economy.
So, yeah, good start, but we need to make Washington City and the many federal buildings look like they were hit by one of the pestilences mentioned in Revelations before we get our country back on track.
Paul's list first, then:
Dept. of "Human Services," gone!
Dept. of Fatherland Security, gone!
ATF - converted to a chain of privately owned, big-box or convenience stores.
Civil Rights Office - converted to an organization to force government to obey Constitutional Civil Rights, a brand new concept which will require a new logo, new letterhead, and a mass firing.
Army/Navy/AirForce procurement offices - reduced in size from 100,000's to 10 people.
jrjr| 9.24.10 @ 4:58PM
Department of Non-Education.
Mel Torme| 9.24.10 @ 8:34PM
To give Paul credit, JrJr, he did mention that one first. I say, "last created, first eliminated". I would save the demolition of the IRS building for Super Bowl Sunday, however - maybe half-time.
Melvin| 9.24.10 @ 8:01AM
Shortly after a hurricane struck NC a number of years ago, a section of a secondary gravel road had corner washed out.
I still being active duty Marine Corps and had a background in construction, was asked for a recommendation by Major Zimmerman in how we could repair the small section of road that was washed out relatively quickly because since the damage was on a blind corner a military vehicle could fall into the hole without seeing it.
My recommendation was a tandem load of medium aggregate rock and a backhoe could have it repaired in about 4 hours.
"OK, Ssgt. how long would it take if we ask the civilian government employees to fix it?" I replied " About a year." Flabbergasted the Major said, "Marines could get killed or hurt if their vehicles drove into the hole."
The problem with government employees is, that the bureaucracy is so large and immovable that it will take 50 government bureaucrats in all their safety regalia of hardhats, safety vests, personal GPS locating devices, holographic government ID cards, and the ever present handled communicating device in where they can communicate with fellow bureaucrats all over the world, to come out to that small washed out section of gravel road to say, "Yep, yep, there's a hole their alright," get into the caravan of pickup trucks and leave.
It acutally took 11 months and change for the government civilian employees, to come out with a dump truck and a backhoe to fill in the hole.
The very same thing I told Major Zimmerman that I could have fixed with Marine Engineers in a matter of hours.
And the part that really annoyed the hell out of me is that they had to send out a environmentalist that had a honest to goodness Doctorate degree to come out and inspect the hole to make sure there wasn't any endangered species that had taken up residence there. For crying out loud how much did the government waste by having a doctor come out and inspect a hole in the ground?
I don't know about you, but asking a lowly E-6 in the Marine Corps to see if a bunch of critters are living in a hole is much, much cheaper than sending a doctor out to do the same thing.
Oh by the way, I had the displeasure of sneaking a peak at the civilian government payroll roster one day, let me tell you everything you hear about government employees living large is absolutely true, but if you saw what I saw on that roster in terms what they were pulling in, would cause an instant revolution.
Just drive by one day and see what type of vehicles that are parked in a government parking lot (local school board), you won't find any Yugo's parked there, thats for sure.
uncle curmudgeon| 9.24.10 @ 4:21PM
Right you are, Melvin. It is a given that a great contributor to the rapid recovery of German and Japanese societies after WWII is the fact that, prior to hanging all their bad guys then loaning them all of that money and know-how, we vaporized their bureaucratic infrastructure. If a bridge needed building, or a crop dusting it was done, and done right.
Alice Moore| 9.26.10 @ 6:46PM
we vaporized their bureaucratic infrastructure. If a bridge needed building, or a crop dusting it was done, and done right
I think, that this is what will happen in the present day US. One day the gov't will find they cannot get blood out of a turnip.
It won't be pretty and many good people will suffer. Unlike the Germans and Japanese, of past, there will not be any benevolent power to fund an Economic Miracle.
Doctor Right| 9.24.10 @ 8:05AM
Don't think I haven't been tempted during the last 2 years to chuck it all and join the Government payrolls.
Great benefits, great vacations, and a practically non-existent sense of urgency on ANY project?
Hey! Where do I sign up?
...But alas, my belief in the importance of the private sector won't allow me to do it...
Redstateboy| 9.25.10 @ 11:30AM
I often felt I was one of the few who feels this way but now I suspect there are millions of us who believe as you do. I appreciate your sentiments completely.
Jim O'Brien| 9.24.10 @ 8:05AM
Overpaid and physically Fat. We need new federal legislation to regulate the diet of fat bureaucrats. A slim fast method would be to fire 20% of all government workers, eliminate the Department of Energy, eliminate the Department of Education, shut down Amtrak, repeal Obamacare, eliminate all funding for the UN, global warming studies, et cetera.
David Berger| 9.24.10 @ 1:57PM
Yep, there's no urgency on ANY project. The FBI and CIA agents hunting down terrorists: no urgency. The NSA mathematicians breaking codes: no urgency. The CDC epidemiologists investigating anthrax and smallpox: no urgency. The NIH doctors looking for a cure for cancer: no urgency. The FDA laboratories investigating pharmaceutical treatments: no urgency. NASA scientists launching a satellite: no urgency. The Justice Department prosecuting criminals: no urgency. The NTSB investigating a plane crash: no urgency. The naval pilot landing on a carrier: no urgency. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant!
Some additional facts:
Federal employees pay taxes, including social security taxes.
Most federal employees get a small pension, equal to about 10% of pre-retirement salary.
Most of a federal employee's retirement income comes from investments in a TSP account (similar to a 401k), and from social security
Federal employees contribute to their medical insurance plans (I paid approximately $3000 last year) and the dental plan is not worth the money
Federal employees start with 2 weeks vacation
Kishego| 9.24.10 @ 2:27PM
Federal employees do not add to the tax base! Let me explain it to you like I had to with my son. Take 100, 1 dollar bills and hold them in your little paw. Act like that is the tax revenue collected. Now, if your a federal employee, pay youself 3 dollars from the 100. Now put back 1 dollar in the form of your "taxes". You are left with 99, 1 dollar bills, not 101, 1 dollar bills. Hence, not a net increase to the tax base but, a net decrease instead. Federal employees don't add to the tax base. Some Federal employees are necessary, the rest only suck the life blood of the private sector.
DRed| 9.24.10 @ 6:06PM
100-3+1=98.
Teacher| 9.24.10 @ 7:30PM
The government, using tax payer funds, hires a federal employee and pays him $3 to provide $5 worth of labor/services. After the work is performed, the government demands $1 dollar back, which can then be used to purchase addtional goods and services, elsewhere.
Mel Torme| 9.24.10 @ 8:56PM
Let me elaborate a bit on this example, if I may:
After the Federal Employee has worked 4 days on digging the hole for his 3 dollars pay, another Fed., who is payed even less (maybe a G-2), say $2 to fill in the hole during the next week. They both retire at the end of the year, collect large benefits, and vote Democrat until they die and God asks them about their wasted, useless, pathetic lives.
In the meantime, 5 blocks away, the private contractor, who turned down the hole digging/filling job due to the tremendous paperwork requirements from the EPA, OSHA, EEOC, IRS, and the HDA (Hole Digging Authority), would like to invest in a used front-end loader for another project which would result in something being built for a private company or citizen who actually felt it was worth it (as opposed to a paid ($8/hr) bureaucrat's decision).
But, that contractor could not afford even a used front-end loader, as his corporate and his payroll taxes were so high, in order to pay for stuff like, oh yeah, the digging and filling in of holes by cheap Fedzilla labor.
If you need any more help on your parables, oh government school sage, don't hesitate to ask, though I will insist on private citizen wages for my advice (may be kind of high, as I got to cover 15 % for my SS, a shit-ton of paperwork, and another shot of Jack Daniels).
"Take the pebble from my hand, government-school grasshopper"
Mel Torme| 9.24.10 @ 8:59PM
Owwweee, that should be "paid", not "payed". Obviously, my government skool training has not payed off one bit! There's 4 years I'll never git bak.
Teacher| 9.25.10 @ 9:22AM
Concentrate, concentrate. The question was 'Do federal employees pay taxes'? The answer is yes. Again using the example above, the taxpayers (through their elected representatives) decides to spend $3 of $100 in tax revenue. Suppose they decide to pay that $3 to an air-traffic controller. At the end of the day the taxpayers have $97 and a safe sky for flying. They decided that $97 and a safe sky for flying was better than $100 and and a dangerous sky for flying. The air-traffic controller then is asked to pay a tax of $1. The government now has $98 and a safe sky (valued at $3). The article we're discussing is whether the air-traffic controller was underpaid or overpaid, compared to what he would be paid in the private sector.
We could also discuss whether or not we need the air-traffic controller, whether air-traffic controlling should be privatized (in which case the air-traffic controller is still paid by the taxpayers but is now a contractor), whether or not we could do with less air-traffic controllers, or whether or not we could improve efficiency of air traffic controlling. But one thing is certain, the air-traffic controller traded expertise for money and then paid taxes on it.
Mel Torme| 9.25.10 @ 11:06AM
It's obvious, Mr. Teacher, that you didn't read through my comment. My point is simple: If the job is not worth doing, than all of the $5 worth of "services" is not services, and not only wasted effort but usually a negative effort, as most government jobs result in extra regulation or uncertainty (due to varying constricting rules on business).
If the Fedzilla worker who creates nothing of value gets $3/day and pays $1/day taxes, then the taxpayer is still screwed out of $2/day. Or, how are we doing this math here on Airstrip One, now, Comrade?
(Sorry for the name-calling. If you really do a useful job, i.e. ATC, then my post doesn't apply to you. You would be one of, say 5-10 % of the Fedzilla doing something of a real service, in that case).
Teacher| 9.25.10 @ 4:53PM
Actually, Mr. Torme, I acknowledged your point in the last paragraph of my previous post. I was actually responding to the orginal post by Kishego, which neglected to acount for the fact that something of value was exchanged. We're not talking welfare here. We're talking about someone providing a service.
If, as you say, the service provided by the federal employee is not needed, or not worth the amount being paid for it, then your conclusions follow and we're in agreement.
Mel Torme| 9.25.10 @ 6:58PM
OK, Teacher, agreed. I try to put the name in my post of whomever I'm writing back to. As, I wrote below, but earlier, it is hard to tell otherwise after 4 or so indentations (or is it indentions??, help me out hear, teach...)
Speaking of constructive work, this ain't it ;-)
Have a good evening.
carnot| 9.26.10 @ 7:00PM
except that all too often you have huge redundancies in providing the same service.
Alice Moore| 9.26.10 @ 7:04PM
I'm sure you could quantify the cost of said services, Teacher. Is there any quantifiable Demand?
Many gov't services do have a demand. That is, most citizens would willingly pay taxes for them.
Other "services" only have value in the would be provider's mind. Someone conducting a cow flatulence study may be providing a service of questionable value.
Don't give the cost, demonstrate the Value. A humble burger flipper at McDonalds is providing more of a valued service than an army of Phd endowed doctorates at the EPA.
Tell us what would happen if 20% of the alphabet soup agencies had to find employment elsewhere.
RWinks| 9.25.10 @ 12:32PM
If you believe the government builds the tax base by spending taxes, you may be interested in a perpetual motion machine I have.
Mel Torme| 9.25.10 @ 4:23PM
Hey, you talkin ta me? There's no one else here. You must be talking to me.
/Taxi Driver
I figure not, but it's hard to tell. The indentations quit after about 4, and I know that's for a good reason.
Kishego| 9.25.10 @ 8:42AM
How embarrasing to screw up the simple math...gees!! Proof read, proof read, proof read....
RWinks| 9.25.10 @ 12:21PM
First Berger, you work for what agency that allows you to be playing around on the internet at 1:57PM on a Friday?
Secondly, I guarantee the FDA has no urgency. Their methodology is such they make no mistakes unless they APPROVE a drug, process, device, Etc. They have caused pain, suffering and death to untold thousands more than they have saved through bureaucratic delay. But no one keeps count of the cost of regulation.
As for NASA, a guy named Hanson looking for ways to distort and falsify data is hardly evidence of value for the dollar.
Counting members of the Armed Forces as Federal bureaucrats is beneath anyone. And, I'm sure their pay was not included in these Stats.
The Federal DOJ ARE criminals.
The last "epidemic" the CDC worked on was Bird Flu.
Nearly all NIH research is contracted out through grants.
Nice try though. Like all large organizations, the Federal Government consists of some hard workers and some drones. It's just that the percentage of drones is far higher in the government than private organizations. Most studies conclude that for any given task, private action could obtain equal results for 40% or less cost. To put it into easily understood terms, the trillion plus dollars expended as "stimulus" over the last 2 years destroyed at least $600 billion of this nation's accumulated capital.
David Berger| 9.25.10 @ 4:25PM
RWanks, as I mentioned in another post, one of the reasons I chose federal employment was the alternative work schedules (I work a 9 5/4 with Fridays off). Lower pay, but more time off to pursue other interests. Nice try, though!
Publius| 9.26.10 @ 1:08AM
First, don't confuse the military with the civilian government workforce. There's no comparison.
Second, let's look at your examples:
NASA - using Russian rockets to get to its 70s era LEO space station.
DOJ - can find it's way to prosecute two thugs intimidating voters outside a polling place in Philly.
CDC - Looked at the results of the anthrax vaccine used on military personnel? Scandalous.
CIA - Yep, right on top of nuclear proliferation, isn't it? India won't have the bomb before 2020. Oops!
Sorry - I've been military, civil service and private sector. The civil service runs a distant third to the other two.
Old Soldier| 9.25.10 @ 12:10AM
20% is way too low a number. There are 141,000+ employees at the department of Commerce. Reading their mission, the job should require maybe 100. The rest are waste, intrusion, and redundancy.
Redstateboy| 9.25.10 @ 12:13PM
And Liber-uls think that solution is completely insane but it IS the only real solution and the sooner Liber-ul politicians stop pandering to that blithering idiot base of theirs.. the better it'd be for ALL!
DoD Civilian| 9.24.10 @ 8:08AM
In all the eagerness to take public sector pay and benefits down to sustainable and comparable levels, I'd just like to throw at the reminder that not ALL federal employees are overpaid deskfillers. The political appointees, union members, and bureacratic class might be, but I work as a civilian for the Department of Defense, I'm a veteran, and I have been overworked and underpaid compared to the private sector for most of my adult life. My job description in the civilian world is accomplished by not one, but two people, and both of those people make about $10,000/year more than I do. (I researched that when I asked for a raise at the beginning of the year.) I guarantee I'm not making it up in benefits. And my situation is the norm in my particular organization.
I would love to see a massive reduction in the numbers of federal employees and some salary adjustments in general, but I'd also like to point out that those federal employees who are actually doing a job mandated to the federal government by the Constitution, as compared to Commerce-Clause employees, are significantly underpaid compared to their public sector counterparts. There's a reason most young military families qualify for WIC and foodstamps.
And having said that, it strikes me as pathetic that the only people the government pays at LESS than the going rate in the private sector are the people actually doing the job the federal government is SUPPOSED to do.
S in Severn| 9.24.10 @ 10:22AM
You, like thousands of other DOD and Law Enforcement folks are getting painted with the same brush for all those "clerks" and "administrative support" folks hired by every other agency out there.
Recently I went to a jobs fair hosted for military veterans, retirees, and their family members. I was there as a retired military member looking for a job, every person I talked to told me to go to the web portal, but did hand out a sheet about their "available jobs." I had our daughter and son-in-law with me, they were also looking for jobs beyond the local grill, or call center...
The Treasury Department had recruiters that were taking down names and telling some of them that they were hired. This was not through the web portal that everyone else was supposed to be going through.
Political "Patronage" jobs ARE back in the Civil Service.
BigTony| 9.24.10 @ 8:15AM
The government employees I worked with when I was working on the HITS project in Hawaii were surly, ignorant and more than a few admitted to me they had lied about their knowledge and experience to get the job they had. Not all were like this but the majority were. All of the military people I encounted seemed to be top notch people.
I know a CDC employee who was thinking about retiring recently but stated she didn't know if she could make do with a retirement of only $100,000 per year.
If we are dependant on the courage of elected officials as this article suggests the country is in deep trouble.
Brat Magusrsky| 9.24.10 @ 8:31AM
I am one of those local government slugs (I am civil Judicial case manager or judicial paper pusher county employee of a rather large State Court Office [the judges have an average open case count of 1500 cases\day]) and i make 27K\yr holding a Masters Degree. My benefit package is considered a cadillac plan by the US government and i drive 55 miles each way to work. Anytime there is a push to form a union I am pretty vocal that I wish not to participate. I would rather stand and fall on the merits (or lack thereof) of my own work standards. The only ones really making fat checks in this system are the attorneys, judges and court administrators. All attorneys have to do to make their money at the expense of everyone who has to pay the inflated prices their litigation fosters is tell a good story to a judge or 12 disinterested jurors who just want to get it over with and go home . Judges just get to sit around & complain about legislators & listen to endless legal dribble all under the auspices of keeping legal proceedings fair....... (fair...really ?!) and court adminstrators just go to meetings all day to find ways to better wield more bureaucracy. So come one, come all & tell my why this system isn't broken and who fixes it......
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 8:37AM
Excellent article. But the final conclusion is that federal workers are a luxury we cannot afford. Everyone I know in the private sector lost 1/2 of their wealth in the 2008 crash and our small business now earns 1/2 of what it earned in 2008. Have any government workers suffered the same? We are now going to have our taxes raised and for what? To prop up the federal workers. It is a tremendous injustice to do this to the American taxpayer. It is in fact, abusive. I know there are many good people working for the government, but the fact is they are living off our backs. We don't have the money for it. It's gone. Our retirement accounts and income are gone. We can't afford it. The money isn't there.
Pam| 9.24.10 @ 10:08AM
Yes we have suffered also from the crash of 2008. Our 401K is called Thrift Savings Plan, and is based on the Stock Exchange. I lost almost 30,000.00 of my retirement savings. I've been saving for 20 years. And I pay taxes too! Maybe we are paying ourselves, but we aren't exempt from the IRS.
Sure, go ahead and kick us all out of our jobs. Then your taxes can go even higher, because we will all be claiming unemployment benefits.
Emma| 9.24.10 @ 10:38AM
No you won't be claiming unemployment benefits, because that's one of the things we're going to get rid of...unemployment benefits.
We're not just ticked, Pam. We're REAL ticked.
Take your attitude and go get a low paying job.
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 11:50AM
Not to mention that at least unemployment benefits end eventually. Not so for salaries and bloated pensions.
Pam| 9.24.10 @ 1:10PM
What's the difference between you and the Obama Administration who wants to tax you out of existence and your home?
Answer: NOTHING. You are ticked? My heart bleeds. Nobody was ticked during the 90's and 2000's. Nobody said the government was too bloated then. The hell with your elitist attitude. I earned my retirment and I'm going to get every d*mned dollar of it.
You think I'M ticked? Deal with it. Or apply and get your own d*mned govt job.
Kishego| 9.24.10 @ 3:28PM
"Nobody said the government was too bloated then" Oh yes we did!! There have been plenty of people saying this for a LONG time. As for losing 30K, maybe you should have paid more attention to what your account was doing instead of waiting for a quarterly return. Why would you entrust some fund manager you don't know with your retirement savings is beyond me. I studied and learned it for myself. I got out of the equities market and into commodities in late '06. It may have been a little premature (anybody that claims to have called the exact bottom and top are liars) but, I've been taking profits ever since. The commodities pendulum has a little swing left in it (study the Dow Theory) and then it will be time to move back into Bluechips. Do what George Soros and Warrn Buffet do instead of doing what they say.
Anon| 9.24.10 @ 3:49PM
Dang! Kishego. Wish we knew this in 06, too! Good for you. Thanks for the tip.
Emma| 9.25.10 @ 1:52AM
Gee, thanks, Pam. I have never been called an elitest.
I would have sworn that elites didn't really exist in that grand world of way less than $50,000 before-tax income.
Your heart bleeds? I don't think so.
Nobody was ticked during the 90's and 2000's? Nobody said the government was too bloated??? Oh, you are way wrong on that. It's just that nobody was hearing us. Now that you hear us, you don't like it much, do you? My heart bleeds.
You're the elitest, Pammy....when you consider your retirement dollars damned. (Your words, not mine)
We live on $36,000 a year and don't consider a single one of those dollars damned. We appreciate them. We are in our late 60's and my husband works fulltime at Home Depot so that we can cover our expenses. Except he'll be on an unpaid medical leave later this fall because he has no choice but to have hip replacement surgery.
Why didn't we have disability insurance? Oh, we did, Pammy. Been praying premiums for over 4 years. Little kicker though--when we went to prepare to submit a claim to provide a little cash support when he's off work we found out that he's not eligible to receive those benefits because we have that lush Social Security.
Why don't you and your family try to live on $36,000 a year and see how that works out???
You're the elitist. I'm just one of those idiots that still balances our checkbook and pays your salary.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 11:32AM
Govt. employees should face an immediate 40% pay cut and should be forced to eliminate a similar number of jobs. We cannot afford the luxury of paying these people and setting them up with their cushy lifetime jobs.
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 11:46AM
Pam honey, we lost 10x that much. 20 years worth of saving. We went 10 years without a vacation, paid for our own medical insurance, paid for all our dental , vision, and other expenses ourselves and paid for (and continue to pay for) our children's educations, ourselves. We did private school which means we paid for our neighbors' children's education in addition to our own.( Please don't pull out the "it was your choice" routine, where I live , it's not a choice.) I am not saying you are not a wonderful person. I am sure you are. You clearly have great taste in blogs. But you are a servant of the people. You work at our behest. And our behest went down the drain with our money.
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 11:55AM
One last thing and then I'll shut up - which I admittedly should have done long ago- Pam, if you and all the other government workers will join with us to vote for prosperity and freedom and the growth of the private sector, you will not only be preserving the goose that laid your golden egg, but earning our eternal gratitude and respect. Join us! Vote for free markets and a free people in November!
Pam| 9.24.10 @ 1:17PM
Then what am I supposed to do when I lose my career, and everyone is celebrating my demise as a federal employee? Get hired in the private sector? Yeah, good luck with that one. I'm white and over 50. Who's going to hire me? NOBODY. Political Correctness started in the private sector with Affirmative Action. So while you all are celebrating free markets, I'll be living with my inlaws because I can't find work to pay my mortgage through no fault of my own. All of your compassion is underwhelming. I am not EVER going to apologize for choosing public service as my career. Oh and by the way, how many veterans do you think work for the govt? Thousands. count me as one. Denigrade my govt service, denigrade my active duty status. One and the same. I can't believe the blind hatred shown towards people who's only crime is to choose to serve the public as best they can. So much for this site. There are too many Haters on it.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 1:49PM
Once again the liberals resort to calling everyone who does not agree with their views "haters". You show the world your idiocy when you do that Pam.
Oh, gee, you MUST get to keep your cushy govt job or what am I supposed to do?". You make me sick. Typical liberal entitlement mindset. "Serve the public"?? More like rape the public. One of the two biggest lies is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". You got into govt. jobs because you were afraid of actually having to earn a living in the real world.
Good riddance from this site. We conservatives see through your liberal bullcrap. Now get off the computer WE paid for and go back to the job WE pay you for and stop wasting work time. We can't afford you.
TR - fuck you| 9.24.10 @ 4:11PM
Seriously go fuck yourself. Do you have any idea? I was calming reading the letters until you started with this idiocy about everyone joins the federal government to get rich. My dad spent 37 years as a federal employee if you count his military service in Vietnam (which I do), and then followed that up as a Federal law enforcement officer. Were you there when he had to go to the VA for the PTSD he suffered? Where were you the nights he was out on a stake-out keeping his community safe? He was at the Pentagon on 9/11, but was lucky enough to be on the other side. Ultimately, he wound up dying of cancer related to his Agent Orange exposure, but you know what? He did it because he loved serving his country, not because he was there for the money. I remember that when we were buying Irregular clothes at Marshalls so they could pay the bills, because we were such a "rich" family living off the government tip. If you add such value in the private sector good for you, but I bet you don't have the balls to do have the jobs that federal employees do because you're a spoiled selfish asshole. And deep inside yourself you probably know you're a pussy which is why you're so tough on anonymous posts on the internet. As for where you think all the government employees are liberals, I'm not even going to guess.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 5:42PM
Ouch, that really hurt. By the way, nice mouth, using my initials with your excellent vocabulary.
You eat with that mouth? Nice mouth, filthy girl.
carnot| 9.28.10 @ 8:03AM
except that he is right.
Alice Moore| 9.26.10 @ 7:28PM
Many people were or are in the situation you mentioned; being white and over 50. I had to learn a new profession in Health Care to get a job in 2007. I'm working more hours, but, I'm not dead and still have my house.
It may come to that for many public employees. This would not come through any popular vote or actions of elected officials. It will stop because the money will not be there and CANNOT be raised even through dictatorial taxation.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 1:55PM
Another typical idiot liberal comment - "affirmative action" started in the private sector??? What kind of ignorant idiot are you?? Race based preference is a DC created institution forced on private companies under color of law. Your employer demands that unqualified persons be hired solely based on their skin color or gender. That is, I would say, legalized discrimination. But as long as the victims are white men, it's OK, right?
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 3:42PM
"I'll be living with my inlaws because I can't find work to pay my mortgage through no fault of my own."What we are trying to say is that is exactly what just happened to us in the private sector. We have lost our jobs and our retirement and our homes. We , too , have spent the past 20, 30 , 40 , 50 years working. Our kids are graduating from colleges and grad schools with tremendous debt and there are no jobs for them so they can pay it off. We are in a big mess. It has already happened to us. Haven't you seen it around you? Don't you care what is happening to your neighbors? Why should you be shielded from what your fellow citizens are enduring? What kind of attitude is that? Don't you realize we are all in this together? Of course it is not your fault (unless you have been voting to grow this insatiable monster. ) It isn't our fault either! The government,through both parties, has been spending money it doesn't have and making promises it cannot keep. Well, we hit the wall and now we are going to have to work TOGETHER to get out of this mess. Without a change in policy and philosophy,we are Greece. Your "us vs. them" response is precisely what is infuriating the average person in the private sector. We pay your salary. We fund your retirement. We are your fellow citizens. You enjoyed the fruits of our prosperity, is it too much to ask that you help us regain that? Have a little empathy. Have a little compassion. For Pete's sake. Why are you mad at US?
Kishego| 9.24.10 @ 3:47PM
And there you have it folks. Kinda makes the case for reduced federal government doesn't it?
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 8:27PM
Hi Pam. Well I was looking at our exchange and all I can say is, I am starting to annoy even myself. No wonder you were offended. I was too opinionated and sassy and I apologize. It's hard times for everyone. Please don't hate this great website because of me. There is lot's of good stuff on it. Peace.
Publius| 9.26.10 @ 1:12AM
Taxes will go higher if you're unemployed?
Do you intend to get more in unemployment than you're already getting in salary?
Some government employees are necessary (probably 10%) but they provide zero productivity.
Stuart Koehl| 9.24.10 @ 9:34AM
In defense of Federal workers (of which I am not one), the salary figure is inflated by the extensive outsourcing of low-level clerical, maintenance and technical jobs to private sector contractors. It's very hard--I would say almost impossible--to find any Federal civil servants in the GS-1 to GS-5 brackers, and relatively few between GS-6 and GS-8, which covers salaries from $17,800 to $48,917.
Because of outsourcing, the Federal workforce today consists mainly of technicians, scientists and managers, and this tends to skew the average salary. A typical division head in a Washington office, roughly akin to a mid-level manager, is typically a GS-14 making between $95,000-$100,000, which is generally comparable to what one finds in the private sector. For senior scientists and technical experts, the figures are perhaps slightly lower--and a bit behind their peers in the private sector.
So it is a bit misleading to claim that the average Federal worker makes $80,000, as if this means the janitor at a Federal building or a clerk/typist (I remember when they had those) is making that much money. You would have to compare salaries rather with some kind of law firm or R&D company to get an apples-to-apples comparison.
Overall, I believe that outsourcing of low-level clerical and administrative functions has saved the taxpayers a lot of money, since the government pays the outsourcing company a flat fee for its services, and leaves the company to pick up direct compensation, overhead and benefits. Under the old system, the government had to take those people into the Civil Service system, which (a) made them difficult to terminate either for cause or when their services were no longer needed; (b) had to pay them annual step increases; (c) had to provide benefits for them and their dependents; and (d) had to pay their retirement benefits.
As for Federal Employee benefits, as compared to those of state and municipal workers, they are pretty spartan. My parents, both retired NYC workers, got fully paid medical and dental benefits and an extraordinarily generous retirement package. Federal workers can choose their health care plans, but it is impossible to find one that actually meets all one's needs without paying an arm and a leg; most Feds pick the one that has something of value for them (e.g., well child care, dental benefits), but get shortchanged in other areas. And, of course, nothing is free. They may be better off than some private sector workers, but they aren't getting a free ride, by any means.
Bob K.| 9.24.10 @ 11:01AM
Your 2nd paragraph is misleading. Many of those GS 14s are not managers and are doing work that GS 8s and 10s or 11s should be doing. I know a couple and they are not managers or assistant managers.
David T.| 9.24.10 @ 11:04AM
A typical GS-14 actually makes between $100K-$130K, depending on the location. Also, I would hardly call federal retirement benefits "spartan," even in comparison to those of state and municipal workers. Federal retirees have the same health insurance plan (GEHB) as our esteemed Congress has.
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 9:38AM
Sheeezzz... after reading and reading - I Stopped Reading... Everyone knows Public Sector workers are Now getting better wages and benefits than us Schmucks in the Private Sector... Who by the way.... pay these salaries!!??
Pete| 9.24.10 @ 9:47AM
This is all part of the strategy of buying votes. You just have to pay them more than those on welfare. Welfare recipients, government employees, illegals, felons - all part of the same strategy. They haven't quite cracked the military nut yet, but it isn't for lack of trying.
David Berger| 9.24.10 @ 9:50AM
In one section you ask this:
"Why would millions of federal employees accept such a low wage if they could earn thousands more in the private sector?"
And then later you answer your own question:
"EVEN LEAVING WAGES AND BENEFITS aside, the intangible perks of public employment -- automatic annual raises, flexible hours, generous paid vacation time -- provide significant added value. Then there is the near-certainty of not being fired."
I am a government employee. In my field, mathematics/statistics, I could make much more money working at an actuarial firm, pharmaceutical company, or aerospace company. How do I know that? Because I've had offers. In the end I turned them down because of the not so intangible 'intangible perks' of federal employment. Having been laid off while working in the private sector, and having a family to support, job security is worth about $10,000 to me. A flexible work schedule and time off to pursue non-work interests is also worth about $10,000 to me Those two perks alone caused me to turn down a $20,000 pay increase for a job in the private sector.
That choice isn't for everyone, and others would assign different values to these 'perks'.
Interestingly, during the dotcom boom, when my friends in the private sector were bringing in 5-digit bonuses, no one was complaining about my civil servant salary. The difference between their choice of career and mine, is the difference between an investment with greater highs and lows (their choice) and a steady investment that can weather bad storms (my choice). It is they who want it both ways.
The truth is that when you compare the salaries of government professionals (such as attorneys, doctors, engineers, statisticians and others) to their counterparts in the private sector, the government salaries are generally lower. Better to focus criticism on the number of government agencies and the number of employees. That, more than excessive pay, is the real source of government waste.
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 9:59AM
David- you are so confused. You got your flexible time and security and other perks ON OUR DIME. We are paying you. We can no longer pay you. Yes, when times were good we could afford you, sort of. Times are bad. We can't afford you. You, and the landscape company, and the cleaning service and the cable TV have to go because WE ARE BROKE. Your "security" is based on our PROSPERITY. No prosperity, no security. Understand?
David Berger| 9.24.10 @ 11:59AM
MPH, the discussion is about whether or not federal employees make more or less than their private sector counterparts. My comment addressed this topic. It is you who are apparently confused and drifting off-topic.
But since you mentioned it, and as a fellow taxpayer, I agree that government is too big and too wasteful. I believe we should reduce both the size and scope of government. I also believe that federal employees (when comparing apples to apples) do not make more than their private sector counterparts. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 4:13PM
David- sorry just saw this. My response? Ummm... touche'! Well stated. And I am not against Federal employees, I am against having lots and lots of (unionized) Federal Employees. I also know they don't make more than those in the private sector. But they do have benefits that balance things out fairly well, especially at retirement. What I resent is their being shielded from the vicissitudes of life, including, maybe especially, the results of government mismanagement, at taxpayer expense. That stinks.
Pam| 9.24.10 @ 10:04AM
Mr. Berger has it exactly right. I work in the accounting section of my agency, but I'm only a technician. I don't have a college degree in accounting, and my salary base reflects this. I make about what an average civilian employee makes in the private sector.
And I've argued the dot.com scenario on other websites also, because it is the truth. When I started in government service, minimum wage was 5.15 an hour. This was the early 90's, when a lot of investors were raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars from the new internet technology. I averaged about 6.00 an hour, but I chose government service, because it was a stable career choice, and I had a family to help support also. I've spent 20 years making below average annual salary as reported here. Don't penalize me for factors I have no control over. I still have over 10 years to work because I'm hoping my Social Security will still be there, so I can at least manage to survive on my retirement and social security.
Warrior | 9.24.10 @ 12:19PM
So, you did not have the skills or ability in the free market to rake in a six figure income and decided 6 bucks an hour was sufficient. Face it, if you had the ability or talent to compete on the open market for the large salary and bonuses you would have.
Pam| 9.24.10 @ 1:03PM
What part of I traded career stability for salary don't you understand? Should I speak slower so you can read my lips?
Not everyone who works for the government without a college diploma is mentally challanged. I find your response elitist and extremely insulting.
Warrior | 9.24.10 @ 1:56PM
What part of you did not have the ability to earn six figures in the open market did you not understand? Bullshit the liberals all you want, it won't work here. How many people truly believe you made a choice to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars for the security of your $6 and hour (approx. $12,500 per) government job? That actually would point to some issues of being mentally challenged. Elitist is a great comeback. I'm surprised you didn't throw racist in there also. Insulting is only because the truth hurts.
Emma| 9.25.10 @ 1:58AM
Do you frequently find those you are dealing with elitist? I'm seeing a pattern here. Poor thing....
CalMark| 9.24.10 @ 11:47AM
The authors emphasized that scientific types (gee, that kinda includes a mathematician like you, doncha think?) are somewhat UNDER-paid working for the government.
And as for the rest, most government workers ARE overpaid. How do you explain the making 15-25% more than consultants with comparable jobs? And that doesn't even take into account productivity.
In California, there are people who just don't bother to show up (Union protection, anyone) 2 or 3 days a week, and still pull in 50 grand a year. Then there are the rooms and rooms full of people drawing between 70 and 100 grand a year--and nobody can tell you what they do all day.
The Bishop| 9.24.10 @ 9:59AM
As a federal employee spanning over 39 years, I can testify from first-hand experience that the federal bureaucracy is bloated, overpaid, and wasteful. Coleen Kelley's organization is dedicated to defending poor performers and negotiating for mediocrity. The taxpaying private sector has every right to be thoroughly pissed off.
RichTex| 9.24.10 @ 10:31AM
I think we should arrange for all of those federal bureaucrats to get the 22% raise they deserve. Just fire them all so they can go work in the private sector where they can make more money!
Ferd B| 9.24.10 @ 10:35AM
As a fairly new federal employee coming from 25 years in private consulting, the pay rates do seem higher for government work. The worst part though, is the sense of entitlement that some gov.'t workers have. I shouldn't be paid just for showing up! You have to produce. There is also some people in government service who wouldn't make it in the private sector and you can't get rid of them once they've been on the federal payroll for a year. 3 out of the 10 people in my department could disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow and it wouldn't prevent us from getting our work done in a timely manner - this is one small department with very good management. Federal employees need to remember that they can be furloughed and that no job is forever. I still can't get over getting a cost of living pay raise and a regular pay raise in the middle of a bad recession. Need to cut costs - bring federal pay rates back to 2007 levels. That should be considered before anything else.
Emma| 9.24.10 @ 10:35AM
...and three of those females in the front row are obviously eating well....obviously eating very well
Sandra| 9.24.10 @ 10:35AM
It is MORE than the Federal Government; State and Local Governments are as or more bloated.
Bell California is just "one town" how many others are there?
JayDick| 9.24.10 @ 10:43AM
I worked as an auditor for the federal government for 35 years, so I saw a lot of government employees in action. My general observation is that some are overpaid and some are underpaid. Those that are underpaid tend to be in higher level positions and those that are overpaid tend to be in middle and lower level positions.
The biggest problem is that it is nearly impossible to fire someone for poor performance except at the higher levels. So, poor performers are frequently given "nothing" jobs where they can do the least damage. They end up getting good pay and benefits for doing little or nothing.
This problem seems to be nearly insoluble, and is one of many reasons government's role should be cut way, way back.
owyheewine| 9.24.10 @ 10:51AM
Public sector workers are overpaid. period. The main reason is that they do not , in the most part, add value to the country. Even the young burger flipper performs a function that adds value to his employer, and thus the economy. Other than armed services(which also employee significant deadwood), public safety (ditto) and a few scattered engineering and science based workers, public employers are nothing but lead weights to our society.
George S| 9.24.10 @ 11:01AM
My solution is to dust off the list of all federal, state and local government employees who are told to stay home during a snowstorm and fire them.
Ferd B| 9.24.10 @ 1:01PM
In order to be fair, shouldn't we do this for private sector workers too?
Kishego| 9.24.10 @ 3:45PM
The private sector doesn't tell you to stay home when there's only an inch of snow on the ground
Old Soldier| 9.25.10 @ 12:18AM
What "we"? You are talking about at-will-employees of corporations. My employer is shedding all redundant employees they can right now to keep up with the falling revenue. I wish the Feds would do the same.
Dan Hoadley| 9.24.10 @ 11:06AM
"It is just assumed that a particular job description leads to a certain level of output". True, Gov job description are often completely inflated when you look at what duties people are actually performing under these job descriptions.
Dan Hoadley| 9.24.10 @ 11:06AM
"It is just assumed that a particular job description leads to a certain level of output". True, Gov job description are often completely inflated when you look at what duties people are actually performing under these job descriptions.
Paul from SA| 9.24.10 @ 11:16AM
Authors Biggs and Richwine,
I want real numbers. Real salary, wage, benefit, pension numbers, and hours worked. I understand many highly paid gov't workers only work part-time, compared to the private sector. Many union members get about 3-4 months off every year for holidays, vacations, comp days, personal days, union meetings, smoke breaks, safety (pot) meetings. They get discounts for tuition, child care, legal services, transportation, tax filing services, and a slew of other things they keep secret.
I want details.
Paul from SA| 9.24.10 @ 11:19AM
1. reduce staff
2. reduce compensation
3. reduce hours
Fed Contractor| 9.24.10 @ 11:30AM
My job as a federal contractor is 100% due to the lack of motivation, lethargy, and flat out not doing their job attitude of federal workers. Without contractors, nothing would get done.
CalMark| 9.24.10 @ 11:38AM
Amen, you are correct. There are govt workers, but the vast majority don't do much and get paid big bucks for it. Same goes for State workers.
If civil servants were so darn competent, hardworking, and productive, consultants wouldn't be needed.
Filofox| 9.25.10 @ 12:46AM
No, actually, Fed Contractor is NOT correct. In my agency, there are five GS employees providing IT support from desktop to network at a headquarters and 15 remote sites. We are constantly on the go. The HQ we report to has a small staff of GS employees and some 20 IT contractors. All the contractors do is back-seat-drive my operations from 6 time zones away causing confusion, mis-information, and extra work. They get paid more than I do and they go home at 5 PM with no call-backs hanging over their heads. If we wanted to save money, that's the place to start.
JimP| 9.25.10 @ 11:44AM
Please tell us what the job is and what agency it is with. I will report this to an agency that will actually do something about it. Thanks in advance.
Anthony| 9.24.10 @ 11:34AM
If Obozo and his Keysian economics is correct, in that massive federal spending will get us out of this depression, then Obozo should expand the federal workforce to include all Americans over the age of 20.
If Keynes is correct, it would 1) lower Obozo's 10% unemployment rate to 0 overnight and 2) inject huge amounts of $$ into the economy to spur it.
Of course, Keynes, Obozo, and the sage of Princeton, Paul Krugman, have their economic heads up where their global disruption begins.
Gee, there goes my cushy pension and that special heath care only Fed workers get.
Troll Hunter| 9.24.10 @ 11:36AM
Govt workers are greedy. True story:
California has furloughs 3 Fridays per month. A State worker was needed for time-sensitive work on a Furlough Friday. That meant a full day's pay (at regular rates) instead of 8 hours unpaid.
All available State workers said no, emphatically, even offensively: no one would work for "just straight time." In other words, they felt entitled to the time off, even though it was a weekday, regular-pay day--and expected overtime pay to work on a Furlough Friday.
Seek| 9.24.10 @ 11:39AM
Emma:
I've noticed the same thing. Those gals in that photo must have generous per diem meal allowances. They could use a Jenny Craig diet. After that, taxpayers can put government on a diet.
Ammo Guy| 9.24.10 @ 11:47AM
I started off as a GS-2 in 1971 and now make more in one paycheck than I did in an entire year back then. Am I worth it? Beats me - the stuff I do with ammo and explosives is not easily transferable to the private sector…and vice versa; plus what I've learned the hard way in the field is not taught in any classroom that I'm aware of. If I calculate incorrectly, soldiers could die so I am literally being paid for what I know and what I'm responsible for than for what I actually "do." That being said, when I go to some research lab and watch a microbiologist in a blue protective suit work with some pretty exotic and deadly bacteria or virus, I feel like I'm overpaid. Over the past 40 years, I've watched colleagues leave for greener pastures and much more recompense, but I stuck around because I enjoy the labor and the relative security. Who was smarter? I dunno, but I firmly believe that government has gotten way too big and too intrusive. I'm not sure how to fix that, but I wish to thank all you taxpayers for putting up with me for so long…I'll be out to pasture soon and glad of it considering who is in charge nowadays.
MPH| 9.24.10 @ 3:56PM
If you are working with ammo and explosives I assume your work must be pretty important. You, my friend, I don't mind paying. Mr. EPA checking to see if there is an important species in the neighborhood puddles, he can go to blazes. I mean that in a nice way.
Ammo Guy| 9.24.10 @ 4:48PM
You wouldn't believe the headaches these enviro-weenies cause us in the ammo world. Just don't get me started on the subject of "green ammunition" - tungsten vs lead. Personally I am a big fan of depleted uranium - packs quite the wallop, but you better aim carefully because it goes downrange practically forever.
Tim| 9.24.10 @ 12:24PM
"By Andrew G. Biggs & Jason Richwine from the September 2010 issue"
I doubt they pay these guys enough.
Albert| 9.24.10 @ 12:36PM
The purpose of government employment is not to do a job or perform a necessary function. It is to vote Democrat. Nothing more. Furthermore, government employee unions are not only unnecessary, since government employees enjoy good benefits and near lifetime job security, they are essentially a scam. Taxpayer money is paid as wages to a government employee (I refuse to say "worker"), then part of that money is siphoned out as Union dues which funds the political campaigns of Democrats. So Democrat politicians get elected with taxpayer money so they can hire more Democrat voters and get even more taxpayer money. And let us not forget the "taxes" paid by government employees. That's another scam. Government employees are paid from tax revenues, so when "taxes" are witheld, the money is really just making a "u-turn" and going back to the government, whence it came. No wealth is added to the treasury, but this is counted as tax revenue. Let's face the truth, government has devolved from representing the People in the practice of self government, into a scam wherein the hard earned money of private sector workers and employers is confiscated and distributed for the benefit of Democrat politicians. It is not the man who builds a business and employs workers who is "greedy." The "greedy" people are the Democrat politicians who steal the wealth of others to spend on themselves.
Pat| 9.24.10 @ 12:48PM
Besides accepting great pay and wonderful benefits, government workers can pretty much determine how their market behaves – not the stock market of course, rather their justification for holding onto their jobs so they can keep earning that great pay and those wonderful benefits. Take the American business community, for instance, who are in a no holds barred match with government regulators similar to Geico Insurance’s “the Gecko” slugging it out with George Foreman – basically, private industry is one of the primary punching bags when it comes to finding work for government employees and has been officially designated the happy hunting ground of regulators looking for new areas to regulate.
Each month, every major federal and state Department of This, That and Some Other Things mails out “government reports” to be filled out by private business. And how much does private industry get paid for filling out all these reports? Why nothing, of course. What about that law a few years back which required each “freebee” government report to state whether completing the report was voluntary or not? Well, strangely enough, every report suddenly became “legally required”. Businesses do these simple 15 page reports for free, right, at no extra cost to them – or to you? Dream on, Tiny Dancer – you, the consumer, indirectly pays American business to employ thousands filling out government reports every year – and, by the way, these report cowpunchers in private industry earn less than the government workers who file them, send out delinquent notices, man the help lines and generally go through the “I’m really busy” motions.
What kind of government reports? You name it. How many do you employ and in what categories? Where are your sites located? What is the pay distribution of your employees, the numbers of males vs. females, how much in annual sales, what kind of sales, where, to whom, with what kind of product materials, boxers or briefs (ok, only kidding about that last one). And what if you deliberately “lose” the report or don’t have the staff to fill them out? Does the phrase “subject to fines for non-compliance” evoke any vibrant images? Could this “government reports” busy work be outsourced to India like all those American jobs which used to exist in private industry – sure, but then where’s the great pay and wonderful benefits in that silly suggestion?
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 12:52PM
when you think of decimated cities like Detriot, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Bethlehem, PA., Allentown, PA. and a hundred other communities.. sort of makes you look at Unions as one would view Locusts. They decend, they consume everything and when it's gone - they leave with devistation in their wake.
Seek| 9.24.10 @ 2:43PM
With the exception of Detroit, none of these cities are even close to "decimated." Pittsburgh, in fact, is in excellent shape. What would improve matters in all cases, one must admit, is a far lower proportion of blacks.
Nate| 9.24.10 @ 1:23PM
Ah, yes.
The evil government worker.
Wouldn't it be great if we didn't have people to administer and execute the laws? To see to it that public resources were distributed according to acts of the legislature rather than along blood and clan lines?
Wouldn't it be great if no one managed the great public parks of our country?
Wouldn't everything be better if there were no teachers, no policemen, no firemen, no FBI agents, no astronauts, no librarians!
Because we could just privatize it all, like they do in Somalia, Afghanistan, Niger, and many other places with "decentralized" governments.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.24.10 @ 1:36PM
We're buying shrimp, Nate. That is right. The government worker deserves more and the only legitimate job is a government worker like they do in Somalia, Afghanistan and Niger. When you get through selling that whopper could you try the summer of recovery and the Chevy Volt? It is good to see you are over your lethargy. Remember only five Red Bulls a day. Don't ask, don't tell forever, baby. Golf this afternoon, for the poor of course.
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 1:30PM
Ok, I'm sick of reading so many of these disgusting skewerings of gov't employees! My husband works for the FDA and I can tell you this, he is underpaid! The salaries you keep hearing about are upper level folks. Are there underperforming, undereducated, overpaid, lazy dunces in the gov't? Yes, but not all of them are!! And why has he stuck it out? Because of job security!!!! While many folks jumped ship for gov't contractor employment and higher pay, he did not. Many are now un or underemployed and he is not. His job is secure, safe and steady because he was NOT greedy. Are we well off? NO! We live paycheck to paycheck and not outside our means. We live in the DC area, with a high cost of living and an avg to subavg salary to work with. We don't go on grand vacations --EVER. We don't have nice new cars at all. I have an 11 yr old beat up minivan and he has a 10 yr old barely keeping up sedan. Our kids are in public school and we can't afford private. We struggle and wince when something in our 50 yo house breaks because it costs so much to fix it. Our driveway needs to be repaved, it has cracks and weeds growing all over it, but 4,000 is too much for our budget. Health insurance, we have one of the cheapest plans available - an hmo, which has copays that for procedures and hospital visits would sink our financial life raft!
So when you sit there and snottily bash us, stop and take a look at how many of us really live. You probably have beautiful granite counters, updated appliances, over 2500 sq ft with a deck and landscaped yard. We have 1800 sq ft, overgrown trees, peeling laminate countertops and old pipes that keep clogging with just normal use. SO spare me your holier than thou pious crap!!!! You don't know anything!
CalMark| 9.24.10 @ 1:48PM
Stow the outrage, lady.
You and your husband made choices. Welcome to the real world.
By the way--your husband still has a job? Congratulations. Millions of highly productive, competent, hardworking private sector Americans don't. Or are in danger of losing their jobs, which your husband isn't.
Lots of people here who have firsthand knowledge of Govt vs private sector. This isn't just bashing--it's fact based.
Sorry your life stinks. But life stinks even worse for a lot of jobless private sector folks.
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 3:55PM
Yes we did make choices. And so did the ones who decided to go after the gold offered by the beltway bandits who are now crying about about cuts. While they were getting fat and rich, we kept on with our meager life. I know life is hard out there, but some of those folks made some choices too.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:31PM
yes...millions of hardworking sorts...,many of whom no doubt voted for Obama.
Truth to Power| 9.24.10 @ 1:53PM
No. You spare me your holier than thou pious crap. You work for us you moron. On average you do a crappy job and you are paid way too much. More than your pipes are clogged. You live off private productivity. When our idiot President decided to try and destroy our economy, that was eventually going to have an effect on you as well. Vote conservative.
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 3:54PM
You shove it! I always vote conservative - jerk! My husband has worked hard to find ways to save taxpayer money. To date, I can tell you he has saved all of us over 5 million dollars. For one guy in one small office, that's a lot. We both take this seriously and he tries hard to be worth the amount he is paid.
Truth to Power| 9.24.10 @ 4:12PM
You shove it, jerk. On average government workers do a crappy job and are overpaid. I've seen the saved money claims in the federal government. They are like a lot Obama's saved jobs claims. Vote conservative.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:33PM
calm down...these people are widgets. they have gone too far in this thread are are too stupid to realize they are alienating people they need to team with.
stick to your principles. you don't need strokes from these people. they have no idea what is going on.
Redstateboy| 9.24.10 @ 5:11PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa Slick!! VaSweetTea is, most likely, being on this site, already a Conservative and
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 6:07PM
Thanks Red, I already told the truth nut that I am a conservative. My husband is a hardworking gov't employee. I just hate to see hardworkers like him smeared.
My husband has literally saved that money for ungrateful idiots like him. We are not Obamabots. I can't even stand the idiot and can't wait for 2012! And I vote for Palin!
Truth to Power| 9.24.10 @ 7:18PM
Listen idiot, I am not buying your sack of garbage. You can say it over and over but the stink is too much. Right now I don't feel so grateful to government workers of any kind. Almost all my experience has been bad and the waste is obvious.
You have a funny way of talking with people but I have tried to engage you that way. It is kind of fun. Vote conservative. By the way Sarah Palin is not running this time.
Truth to Power| 9.24.10 @ 7:10PM
Whoa yourself. I was greeting her in a way that was consistent with how she greets and nothing more.
VAsweetTea| 9.25.10 @ 10:11AM
You really are an idiot - low IQ - living with your parents still probably, too.
Sarah may actually be running this time and she was the only reason that McCain got my vote. You love being an antagonizing moron, I know. I bet you're really a troll. Only trolls act like you.
Sack of garbage? No - that's your life. While my life has been hard, I have never sought handouts. Unlike you probably. You're just that type. It's not my fault if you don't have a job, are over 30 and still live with your parents. Grow up a bit, or are you mentally depleted? So you've probably sought handouts and have been denied. You're probably a lazy welfare lunkhead who's made about being denied. I pay my taxes, my husband pays his. I work as a substitute teacher and freelance writer. My life is not as cushy as you may think. You missed the entire point of my posting which was to show that not all government workers are lazy, unaccomplished, money sucking, and living high on the hog. That would be the Obamanites and other dems. Not all of us fall into that category. But how could I expect someone with your low intellect to understand such a difficult concept. Go back to your sewer, democRAT.
Truth to Power| 9.25.10 @ 11:43AM
Government workers hardly should be calling anybody a lazy welfare lunkhead. You are projecting. That would mean that you are a troll, live with your parents, are an idiot with a low IQ, are immature or are mentally depleted, are a DemocRat, live in a sewer and most importantly seek handouts. Vote conservative. What is Sarah running for in 2010? I love your style.
VASweetTea| 9.26.10 @ 11:56AM
You have shown your own low IQ. I hate scum like you! You are no conservative. If you were you would know that Sarah Palin has stated that if the American people want her to run for president in 2012, then she will. You really are a stupid baby, crying for another bottle of handouts. I detest and despise lowlifes like you! You don't know the first thing about conservatism. Have you donated to Christine O'Donnell? Have you helped her campaign at all? Do you know who she even is? Get a clue and get out! Now, give the keyboard back to your mommy and get your homework ready for tomorrow. freaking idiot! Bet you don't even have a GED. I along with everyone else here have received high school, college and some even master and graduate level degrees. We don't need to be lectured by a kid who hasn't even finished high school yet. So go play with kids your own age.
Truth to Power| 9.26.10 @ 4:21PM
You have provided an amusing display of that government worker temperament. I repeat your insults and you go off your rocker. Why do your own insults drive you into such a frenzy? I always suspect projection. There is nothing wrong with a GED Sweetie. It is good that you accomplish something. Keep working at it. In the meantime vote conservative.
VASweetTea| 9.27.10 @ 8:23AM
You are truly ignorant. You never should have been given that GED as you obviously never completed the work to accomplish it and flunked the test. You stupid moron, you can't read apparently. I don't work for the government. And I'm more conservative that you could ever dream to be. But since you can't read, you must have missed those points. Good bye ignorant doofus with pillow stuffing for a brain. I bet your basement bedroom is really getting musty today.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:35PM
you're being bated! move on to more important things/people.
TR| 9.24.10 @ 1:59PM
"Because of job security"
Then you spend the rest of your post crying about your cars and house.
I know a lot, and one thing is that you CHOOSE to live in DC, that you CHOOSE to have a cushy job that you will never be fired from, or that you have to prove your worth on a daily basis. Lazy, govt. leech is what I call you.
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 3:59PM
Choose to live in DC? No, I was born and raised in the country around this area, as was my husband. Why should we move away from our families so that you and folks like you can't bash us for living here. You are a frickin mouthy hack! The job is far from cushy and is mundane and boring but necessary to protect you from crappy meds - dumbhead! And it's not my job, it's my husband's.
I spoke about the conditions of our life so you can see that we aren't living high on the hog as so many think all gov't workers do. I deal with my life - just showing you idiots that it's not all country clubs and cadillacs - which I have never belonged to or owned!
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:37PM
what? that she follows the very incentives structure that supposedly motivates those in the private sector? if it's there I don't blame her one iota.
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 1:32PM
And yes, we do know health hardships. Our son has had cancer. We got tons of bills and are still sorting out what we owe and don't owe between our healthcare providers, the insurance and bill collectors. So don't even try to insinuate that we don't know how everyday Americans live! We've been through worse than many of you!
Steve A| 9.24.10 @ 2:50PM
VASweet, Sorry about your son. I hope all works out. My wife is also an "evil" Fed. employee. She is an appeals atorney (keeps the bad guys in jail.) She makes decent $$ but nothing crazy. There is, however, massive waste at the court of appeals. They go out of their way to spend pre-authorized budget $$ (buy all new computers when not necessary) otherwise their budget is lowered. Many of the staff attorneys are incredibly inefficient, lazy & incompetent. There is no real accountability on case load production. None of this would fly in the private sector. Last year, they had 2 openings & 220 qualified applicants for attorney positions. 6 years ago, the ratio was 2 openings & 12 appliacants. This tells me that the grass is WAY greener on the fed side right now. Be thankful for what you have & take a long hard look @ the efforts of this current administration to decimate the private sector (Bush did not help much either in terms of spending). If this sector continues to slide, there is no $$ to collect to pay your man's salary. Regards, Steve
VASweetTea| 9.24.10 @ 4:01PM
Thanks, Steve. I hear where you're coming from. There's definitely some chaff to filter out in the gov't. I just get tired of folks thinking that all gov't employees are chaff.
Jim| 9.24.10 @ 1:35PM
At the end of the day, you're valuable if someone, absent govt. coercion, would pay you for what you do. No one I know would pay someone at the DMV a "living" wage to stand at a counter and push a button on a camera to take my driver's license photo. Only in "government world" is this a job worthy of a "living" wage. Some govt. workers are worth their pay (perhaps more) but most of the ones I interact with have jobs that could be done, at worst, by someone making minimum wage, and at best, by a computer or other automated device. Can anyone say "Spanish American War telephone tax?"
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:43PM
here's the problem: after 3 decades of military service which included multiple tours with acquisition duties...I have seen just as many slothful, do nothing, overpaid, down Dino's back and out the door at 1530 slimeballs in the private sector AND THE MILITARY. I'd be careful with this one since this particular mirror can reflect multiple images.
I personally don't give a *amn about government salaries. conservatives are making a HUGE mistake pressing this one. the action is with all these entitlement programs and income transfers. start growing those down and you begin to really reduce the size of government.
THIS IS PRECISELY THE SORT OF INCOME ENVY GAMES THAT DEMS/LIBS PLAY. this is a very stupid and hypocritical theme to press on. one would think AMPSEC would be a bit more savvy.
Jim O'Brien| 9.24.10 @ 2:47PM
"I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 1785
Federal spending should be cut by $2 trillion "yesterday". The Bush tax cuts should all be kept, and then the Fair Tax should be enacted. www.fairtax.org
jm| 9.24.10 @ 3:21PM
Those gvt folks in the photo look well-dressed and well-fed.
Pat| 9.24.10 @ 4:12PM
America is a great country and what makes us so great is that we tolerate, maybe even love, inefficient government. Think of the most inefficient process imaginable, maybe sending Wisconsin dairy cows to Latvia daily via American Airlines (coach only, no first class seating), having them milked and sent home on the next flight, then having the Latvians turn the milk into cheese, the cheese shipped to Wisconsin for taste testing and the folks in Wisconsin shipping it back to Latvia for packaging before sale back in American grocery stores. Pretty inefficient process right, but our government at all levels merely sneers at such amateurish inefficiency, they can easily top that.
For example, take American businesses sending their sales taxes in. First, you act as every local government’s collection agent, for free of course. Then you fill out the monthly sales tax forms for each separate jurisdiction, no easy task since no 2 forms are alike – but the government tax agencies provide websites to teach you how - only each government recipient has its own separate website - that’s city, county and state websites by the way. What if you didn’t collect any sales taxes this month for some city, county or state? Well, the famous “zero” report says you have to report that you have nothing to report, then send it in for one of their employees to review and file away – and don’t forget to completely fill out and sign the report first. You can be audited periodically to check your performance as an “unpaid” tax agent, auditing is a good government job and the complexity of the regulations insure you must have done something wrong (you civilian dummy), so interest penalties and fines result if you’re stymied by the regs – those “oops” aren’t forgiven, they’ll cost you extra.
Are there sales tax loopholes you must consider when collecting city, county and state sales taxes – tons of them, why else would God have created lobbyists? And, your unpaid job as tax collector includes reading pages of regs for each tax jurisdiction, plus remember to keep up with the court cases to find out what some judge has burped out lately. So, next time you fork over your money to pay sales taxes when you purchase that Wisconsin cheese, don’t complain, remember all those government workers you’re employing and be proud that we’re so wealthy we can afford the most inefficient government on the planet, outside of Latvia.
Dave| 9.24.10 @ 4:40PM
Years ago I was a consultant in State government. I found both hard workers and lazy bums on the govt. payroll - more workers than bums. I suspect it is much the same for the Feds. And, for that matter, not much different in the Fortune 500 companies I have worked with since that time. They have similar numbers of non-performers.
Upon reflection, the key is not the individual workers, but the top-heavy management structure of government employment. Everywhere you turned around in government there was a supervisor, or a manager, or a director. Lower level government workers are as industrious and hard-working as their private sector counter parts. But there are many more levels of management and many more managers in the government than in private industry.
This excessive managerial overhead is what makes the bureaucracy go creepy-crawly along day by day. Decisions are pushed up to the proper pay grade, which takes time, and then filter down through layer after layer of sub pay grades until they finally get to the poor worker bee for implementation. Streamlining the government managerial structure would go a long way towards fixing the problem.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:46PM
bingo....and I have met large numbers of upper management Ivy Leaguers in storied private firms who couldn't make a decision if their lives depended upon it.
Nate| 9.25.10 @ 12:22AM
This was actually a pretty interesting thread.
I'm amazed though at how cruel and utterly stupid some of you are to conservatives who happen to work for the government.
Some of you, and it's pointless to say it I realize, are absolutely out of your TREES.
There is in fact such a thing as a government in this country.
It's true. It's going to be there tomorrow and the next day. It's going to collect TAXES. It's going to pass LAWS that you have to follow. You won't have a choice. That's why they call them LAWS.
Government is GOOD. It's the reason why we live in relative security and peace and -- yes -- plenty. We've fallen on hard times, but think about what hard times for us means in a world where 3 out of 5 people have inadequate access to fresh water!
And YES, we have (more or less) adequate access to fresh water because of some government bureaucrat somewhere wasting your tax dollars. God. Some of you people are fucking MORONS. Tax money was definitely wasted on your inadequate public education!
Jesus Christ. You're like whining fucking children.
What is it that you want?
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.25.10 @ 5:06PM
We're buying shrimp, Nate. Nice, very good my little gunsel. You have sold the idea that the federal government has something to do with access to fresh water. Now it is time to sell the summer of recovery, wind farms and the Chevy Volt, payoffs to my union buddies, payoffs to my political buddies, payoffs to my little friend Mahmoud, payoffs to big banks, payoffs to big business, payoffs to Wall Street, payoffs to pharmaceuticals, payoffs to solar companies, high unemployment, rising insurance costs and an improving golf game. Who do these guys think they are to complain about the government now that I am in charge. It should be illegal. You keep telling them they have no right to complain. They shouldn't be able to criticize me either. It is racist as you have noted many times. That should be illegal. I think all people should refer to me as Father Obama and be forced to have a picture of me on their mantels. I recommend a 16 x 20 with nothing else allowed. You know respect like that nice fellow from North Korea gets from his people. We're making a paradise on Earth and nobody has anything nice to say besides knuckleheads like you. Well back to the football games. Don't ask, don't tell forever, baby. By the way if you keep using the f word so much people are going to figure out that you are the Liberal Reader. Maybe you will need another name change soon.
barnesworth| 9.25.10 @ 12:42AM
forget about the great analysis i see here. just look at the photo. they're all fatter 'an hormel hogs in iowa. fat on OUR money and sweat. pigs.
Kishego| 9.25.10 @ 8:54AM
Right on barnesworth, not a single chin among that group is there.
VASweetTea| 9.25.10 @ 10:13AM
Yeah, I know. There aren't double chins in the welfare, poppin out babies every year for more handout dollars crowd either.
VASweetTea| 9.25.10 @ 10:14AM
You must have them confused with the fatsos in the unions.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:48PM
you mean like Gov Christie?
QuietPro| 9.25.10 @ 10:22AM
Oh, gimme a break, people. I've worked in both highly paid private sector jobs and in lower paid government ones. For those of you who enjoy screaming about how much we gov. workers are overpaid, let me give you a little history reminder. Back in the 90's, when the economy was rocking and investments were soaring, government employment was often snubbed. Dot-Com millionares and their start up tech companies were all the rage. "There's no money in gov. work, there's no ambition in it, etc...." I've also heard the tired old arguments that all levels of gov. workers are nothing but mindless worker drones, doing mediocre work at best. Who in their right mind would want to work for Uncle Sugar?
Then, funny thing, the economy fell apart. Unemployment soared instead, and huge corporations screwed they very employees who were uttering these comments by giving them pink slips. Now these people are in unemployment lines, and screaming about how gov. workers have un-parralleled job security AND they're overpaid.
I grow sick and tired of hearing this over and over from private sector employees, many of whom are unemployed. This "public anger" is nothing more than ENVY in disguise. "I didn't get mine, so YOU can't have yours!" That's all this is; envy. Spare me your false indignant attitudes; this gov. worker has nothing to apologize for.
So ladies and gentlemen, be advised: I have no intention of giving up my career field. It is something I love doing which also happens to be entirely a government function. Some of you feel that I'm "entitled". No, people, I'm not "entitled" to anything. I work and earn my pay. I don't stand in an unemployment line for over a year waiting for handouts, bemoaning my fate. Get back in the soup line please, and let me do my job.
Emma| 9.25.10 @ 11:01AM
I've never been in a soup line, even when we made less than $20,000 IN THE 1990'S. So I'm not sure who you're addressing here.
I have never filed for unemployment.
Envy? You have GOT to be kidding. We're just tired of incompetence in government, endlessly rising costs and now a Congress that doesn't even bother to vote on a budget.
QuietPro| 9.25.10 @ 3:55PM
I am addressing the blanket statement that we are all a bunch of lazy and overpaid drones; a statement that mainly comes from envious people who are in the private sector. If you've you've never filed for unemplyoment, then that's good on you Emma. But being angry at gov. incompetence doesn't justify you being angry at the postal worker who does her job, the policeman who does his job, the roadway worker who does his job, the teacher who does her job. Take aim at the proper target, is what I am saying. Fire your represenatives in November. I know I will. I stand by what I wrote about envy being disguised as anger. i.e.:
"I can't/don't have mine, so I don't want you to have yours."
Finally, incompetance is not the sole trait of the gov. I've seen more than enough incompetance and greed in private sector employers. Does anyone remember Enron, Worldcom, GM, Tyco, or Lehman Bros.?
Publius| 9.26.10 @ 1:19AM
Wow, Filofox - you mean you're a GS and you actually work? Amazing.
If the others have such a better deal, why don't you avail yourself of that opportunity?
Filofox| 9.27.10 @ 5:47AM
Didn't say they had it better, Pubis, I said they needed to go. Those of us who "provide for the common defense" don't need them any more than we need your sarcasm.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:50PM
so am I. And I am also tired of private sector crooks (hello Wall Street!) who took us all to the brink.
JimP| 9.25.10 @ 11:21AM
QuietPro makes a valid point. Especially in the 90's people were shunning working in government for all the reasons he states. I knew a number of people who made "obscene profits" (just kidding) right up to the end of 2007. But now that the economy is in the tank we start hearing again (it happens with every economic downturn) about how overpaid etc government workers are. It's true that some are (apparently CA is one of those places) but there are plenty that aren't. Much depends on where/who you work for. Government is unresponsive and inefficient. Right now I am dealing with a private contractor that is unresponsive and inefficient. We need to reduce the size and scope of government. Ultimately that is the solution to government employee salaries.
VASweetTea| 9.26.10 @ 11:59AM
I wish there was a like button to click for postings! You are smack on right!!!!
JimP| 9.25.10 @ 11:03AM
I'd like to see the average after taking out the Senior Executive Service (SES) salaries. I've worked for both the state and federal governments in several different positions. Some definitely were underpaid, some were pegged right where the private sector had them, and some were paid more than the private sector. Also, I would like to know how much the Wash. DC pay scale skews the average. DC is where most feds work and it is very expensive to live there. $79 G's ain't a lot of money there. Most people I knew went to work for the feds for job security. The pay and benefits were secondary.
In comparing the pay between private and public, consider that in the private sector the owner/entrepreneur takes a much higher precentage of the pay/income than in the public sector where there are no 'risk takers', hence the money gets "spread around" in a more ... um, egalitarian manner. Ultimately, IMHO, when we campare public and private pay averages it is an apples and oranges situation. There are many similarities but an exact comparison does not seem to be possible. At least I have never seen one.
Lastly I've found as many slugs in the private sector as the public. Working for government was never nirvanna. Bureaucrats live to make others as miserable as they are. As an entrepreneur/risk taker I deserve a greater share of income. As a government 'cog in the machine' there are/were no risk taker counterparts, so it makes sense, to me anyway, that the average pay would be higher.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:53PM
exactly...I know private sector types who have made huge bonuses in good years...enough to double even the best GS salary. this doesn't factor into the averages at all.
Nate| 9.25.10 @ 1:08PM
I'd like to see some evidence that government workers are on the whole "incompetent," as many of you people allege.
I think that's a fantasy spun by the media.
Are there some incompetent people working for government?
Of course. How else could you explain the Republicans "Pledge to America" that says deficits are bad and then pledges to increase them by a half a trillion dollars?
But that doesn't mean all government workers are incompetent. Read up on terror plots that have been foiled, for example, in the last ten years. The private sector had nothing to do with that, kiddos. The private sector doesn't protect your water, and very evidently it is unwilling to protect your food. (The government has to do more of that sort of thing, if you look at it in a reality-based way.)
In other words, the whole premise of this article and most of the comments above seems weak and fallacious to me. You don't offer any evidence. Just boneheaded and emotional outbursts you imitate from the Glenn Beck show.
The One We've Been Waiting For| 9.25.10 @ 6:25PM
We're buying shrimp, Nate. Keep it up Nate. You are really selling those government workers. Remind them of what those government workers did on the run up to 9/11. They let a bunch of Muslim nuts into the country and then ignored critical intelligence concerning the same. Then afterwords blamed the low wage airport security, who were the only ones that did their job. We got a nice union gig out of that and that really is all that matters. Don't forget about the rest of the program, the summer of recovery and the Chevy Volt. Here is an idea from John Kerry: "Democrats’ woes stem from uninformed voters". He better hope that they don't get informed about him. He'll end up like Martha Coakley, just another unemployment statistic, a broken egg in the making of a delicious omelet. Cap and trade, baby.
JimP| 9.25.10 @ 10:03PM
I'm betting the dummies in MA will reelect the schmuck until he croaks like Ted.
WhaleBrunch| 9.25.10 @ 10:28PM
We're munching on caviar too, Nate. It's Obama's and he's invited us for brunch. He didn't call you? Pity, pity, what a pity!
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:44PM
The charges range from incompetent to superfluous and unneccesary --- no matter --- flush out 75% of them.
John2| 9.25.10 @ 6:28PM
Dear Nate,
I have enjoyed your 2 days of contempt for people who are ahead of you in facts and interpretation thereof. How do you not understand what you are hearing? You cannot bear to hear it.
philfl63| 9.25.10 @ 8:47PM
Buncum. Just plain buncum. The only federal gov't employees authorized by the Constitution are those in the military, federal law enforcement, federal courts, and others such as the Treasury. The rest of the gov't: regulatory agencies i.e. FDA, FCC, EPA, et al are not authorized under the Constitution. The various departments: labor, commerce, energy, education, etc are also not authorized under the Constitution. There are hundreds of others I missed that I do not even know exist. Extra-constitutional gov't employees do not do anything but create red-tape, regulation, and bureaucracy. They consume huge amounts of tax dollars to collect more tax dollars to perpetuate their existences and create more bureaucracy and more gov't jobs to get more of our tax dollars to create more bureaucracy and gov't jobs to continue the destructive cycle. Most federal gov't jobs are political patronage jobs down to the lowliest clerks and security guards. Go to Washington, D.C. sometime, and you will see the people working these jobs. A huge number are minorities who are employed in these worthless, non-productive jobs. This nonsensical article comparing and contrasting federal jobs vs. private sector jobs and pay is ludicrous. The private sector creates. The public sector merely consumes and creates nothing.
Nate| 9.26.10 @ 9:27PM
Phil --
Your post is a fascinating mix of errors and cliches from right wing talk radio.
The Constitution does not -- in fact -- authorize what kinds of departments the government can have. That's not how the Constitution works.
There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about a department existing that the founding fathers did not approve.
A water authority, for example, that monitors the safety of drinking water, is perfectly constitutional even though such a thing didn't exist in the late eighteenth century.
What's so weird is that you seem incapable of understanding one of the great miracles of the Constitution:
It was written to CHANGE with the society, restraining it sometimes, being flexible others.
For all your supposed love for the document, you don't understand it or how we use it. Like many people with your belief system, you REALLY could use a refresher course in civics and American history.
Finally, your notion that the private sector "creates" while the public sector "consumes" is idiotic.
It's one of those worn-out things you hear on the radio everyday and assume must be true. But it's really not. The "public sector" creates plenty; the "private sector" consumes plenty. Just use your common sense a little and see how fatuous what you're saying is. Jesus. Do you repeat EVERYTHING you hear Rush Limbaugh say without stopping to think it might be bullshit?
The One We're Waiting For| 9.26.10 @ 11:20PM
We're buying shrimp, Nate. Little gunsel, are you intentionally trying to offend Christians? One might suspect you think I am a phony Christian too, maybe a Muslim. I did go to Reverend Wright's church for 20 years. Like you he liked to use the Lord's name in vain plus he had kind of racial take on Christianity. In fact there was a lot of race and not much Christianity. Oh well. I like the riff about repeating Rush Limbaugh. It is especially funny given that you had just got through repeating our trollish talking points. I guess you never stop to think that it might be bull, whoa, you are using profanities again. People are going to realize you are that foolish Liberal Reader. You have a lot of nerve. Well continue on and why not bring up the summer of recovery while you are at it. We're closing gitmo, baby. The government creates. My, my that was a good one. You have a tremendous sense of humor.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 5:56PM
the problem with your argument is that there is no real market to set the true value of those government services.
philfl63| 9.25.10 @ 8:51PM
BTW, an addendum to my rant above. America functioned just fine before the federal gov't became a leviathan.
Fist of the Fleet| 9.25.10 @ 9:11PM
One day at the Department of Agriculture, an employee came across a fellow employee sitting on bench in the hall holding a piece of paper and crying, the fellow employee asked what was wrong and if he could help, the crying employee replied no, my farmer died
Jon| 9.25.10 @ 9:30PM
I'm suprised the authors didn't mention days off. Even if EVERYTHING were equal between a private and government employee, the government employee gets about a week of extra days off for minor holidays.
QuietPro| 9.28.10 @ 7:18PM
Jon, that is not true. I am required to work holidays, weekends, and nights on a regular basis. In fairness and honesty, I do get paid overtime for hours worked on federal holidays. (10 holidays) But days off for holidays? Nope, not in my Fed. job.....
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:24PM
Overthrow these bloodsxckers --- unionized or not. And bust the private-sector unions right down to the ground and force them to compete with everyone else. Don't like "free trade"? Too bad. I buy and sell my own labor effort and property as I wish. Get in the way --- and get pancaked.
Emma| 9.25.10 @ 11:29PM
The Russians tell the story on themselves and their "system." A citizen watches as Worker #1 puts a stick next to the road every 50 feet to mark a location. Worker #2 arrives a few minutes later and digs a deep hole, about 2 feet wide, and then moves on. A long period of time goes by. Worker #3 arrives and fills the hole in. After the citizen watches this process on about 4 holes, he finally goes and askes #3 why on earth the three of them are doing this.
"Oh, usually there are four of us. The third one puts a tree in the hole, then I come along and fill it in. The guy that puts the tree in the hole is sick today."
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:37PM
In my grandfather's day, "a government job" was "a slap in the face" --- he called it evidence that the man in question couldn't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight Monday through Friday, and Saturday and Sunday he couldn't hit a bull in the ass with a banjo. This contempt for bureaucrats and functionaries was widespread in his day, and more than a few of these offcious busybodies got their butts kicked into the next county for trying to enforce government regulations on a population unwilling to tolerate them. Ties have changed now and the pro-government propaganda is spouted and spewed from every quarter, such that I have to remind my children to ignore the brainwashers and develop their own view of our oppressors. The Republicans are wrong about one thing, however. My children "are not" going to pay OhBummer's massive public debt. I've taught them to shoot and to fight and told them that killing dictatorships and their supporters is the morally correct thing to do --- that dictators and their ruling cliques are not to be obeyed --- they are only to be used for target practice. Bye-bye, Nate!
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:40PM
You pro-government fat cats --- listen up! A limited government requires cops, courts, and national defense --- that's it. The rest of you skunks can go take a hike.
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:46PM
The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” --- a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be a “Warmonger!” and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a “Fascist!” --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Fascist!” than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.
So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos’ enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:46PM
OhBummer is a boob and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.
And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.
He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.
He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.
He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.
He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.
He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.
Osamas Pajamas| 9.25.10 @ 11:47PM
SAM ADAMS IS MORE THAN JUST A GREAT YANKEE BEER!
TAX HATER SAMUEL ADAMS, ON A ROLL AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, AUGUST, 1776……
"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”
“It does not take a majority to prevail….but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Alamitos Bay| 9.25.10 @ 11:48PM
What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!
whyyeseyec| 9.26.10 @ 3:46PM
There`s book learnin` and there`s logic. Where govn is concerned the two rarely cross paths...
Old Fed| 9.26.10 @ 8:00PM
Let's start with "Government workers are probably wondering what all the fuss is about." Messrs. Biggs and Richwine are simply not in a position to characterize the state of mind of any individual or group of Government employees. Most Government employees that I know are painfully familiar with the state of the economy, as their TSP accounts were devastated by the market downturn. Even if they were invested in Government securities, most of them appreciate the predicament of there spouses or their neighbors. If they don't, they would at least notice they are being consistently barraged with largely unfair criticism of their worth by anti-government zealots making political hay out of misfortune.
I don't know a great deal about staffing, current or historical, in State and local Governments, but I'm fairly familiar with the Federal environment, and any increase in Federal hiring over the last year follows decades of understaffing, with some amount of the current uptick being offset (or scheduled to be offset) by a reduction in Government contractor personnel. See
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/His.....ce1962.asp While some economies in staffing over this period could be expected due to automation and other efficiencies, the extent to which the American public has come to rely on Federal programs since 1962 makes the current staffing laughably low, especially in the non-Defense and domestic security areas, which were only saved from further ruin by the tragic event of Septemer 11, 2001.
The authors cite Recovery Act data that suggests that jobs created by Recovery Act funds were largely in the Government sector. They should shed a little light on that observation, since most funds went to State and local grants, which might observably increase governmental administrative jobs, but which, in turn, resulted in contracting with private entities to perform private sector activities (like roads, bridges, and telecommunications paths). Did the authors "follow the money" in making their job assessments for the purposes now used. Who knows?
They state: "Likewise, average pay has risen in the federal, state, and local government, while private sector wages have fallen." However, the operative question is over what period of time and what jobs are being compared, in what labor markets, at what skill levels, and as measured by what data samples in each sector. The "typical or average" Federal worker and the "typical or average" private sector worker are statistical figments. The authors state that USA today (an institution known for its statistical and deomgraphic acumen?) "recently reported that federal employees receive higher average salaries than private sector workers in 180 of 216 comparable occupations. These numbers seem to speak for themselves." Really, they don't. Were the occupations measured in the same labor market? Were the incumbents of those positions similarly qualified or skilled (and I'm not only talking about education, although I think that can make a difference)? How many Federal positions have no private sector analogs, and what does that do to the averages the authors' employ elsewhere? What would the comparison have been before the tight labor market (and I can assure you that Messrs. Biggs and Richwine had no interest in the issue before it could be mined for political advantage). The authors purport to take account of some of these variables, but anybody familar with extended treatments of the subject see that only lip service and thinly veiled manipulation was applied to them. First, I really don't know what "race, gender, marital status, and immigration status" have to do with a fair comparison. "Region of residence" is perhaps the way they are trying to take account of the relevant labor market. If so, it's a poor substitute and one likely to confound any worthwhile comparison.
The authors state that: "Academic economists have been studying federal/private pay disparities since the 1970s, and they generally find a premium in the range of 10 to 20 percent." One would really need some support for this grand statement for it be regarded as credible, especially if it is meant to imply that most academic economists that have examined this issue agree with the authors' conclusion that there is a Federal pay premium in the range of 10 to 20 percent after all meaningful variables have been taken into account FROM 1975 TO 2010. I would imagine that the interest academic economists have in this issue is more ideological than scholarly, in any event.
Then there is the allegation of union bias in the Government's pay comparisons. My God, what gall coming from the likes of Heritage and Cato and their minions. Bias, indeed. Now that we're past the "anything new?" part of this post, let's recall how this anti-Government assault began, with the empty rhetorical comparison of the "average salaries" offered up by USA Today and Cato. When that was pretty much roundly revealed to be analytically empty and trumped up, they brought in the big guns from Heritage to try to start making sense of their palaver. Heritage puts up a good show, but it dodges most of the important questions.
Sorry to spoil the anti-government party. The facts are that the dismal job market of the last two years has left the public dissatisfied with the political status quo and the machinery of Government. The relative stability of Federal employment, including pay and benefits, has become, frankly, the object jealousy among disaffected private sector workers. Certain political operators, most notably Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Conservatives, have seized upon the public's dissatisfaction with the job market to further inflame those impacted by it. They mischaracterize Federal employment in an effort to promote their anti-government political agenda. Whether you are for limited Government, or a more active Government, or somewhere in between, the fact is that much of the recent negative talk about Federal employment, pay, and benefits is misinformed or worse (an artful fraud perpetrated by those who seek to reduce Government to a skeletal operation incapable of executing laws that have been enacted, as a substitute for acting to change those laws).
There are several common techniques used by these anti-government activists to discredit Government employment and employees. The first technique, championed by the original USA Today authors and Libertarian Chris Edwards, was to employ statistical averages to make it appear as if Federal employees are overcompensated for the work they perform. The gambit is to compare "average Federal salaries and benefits" to "average salaries and benefits in America at large." There is a large disparity. Yet, the disparity “between the averages” is understandable and justified, once the differences in those workforces are understood. Not surprisingly, the later activists employing the comparison are doing everything they can to avoid identifying the right variables and do everything they can to minimize those differences once forced to take them into account (our current authors). They use inapposite data to explain those differences away and duck key variables, such as the relevant labor market.
The comparison of "average Federal salaries and benefits" to "average salaries and benefits in America at large" is, frankly, neither fair nor useful. There are no average jobs, nor are their average salaries or benefits. The comparison of averages is entirely inapt because:
• Many Federal jobs simply do not translate into the private market for purposes of comparison (Conceded in this article: What is the private sector equivalent of a Customs and Border Protection agent?)
• The Federal sector has far fewer of the lower paid (unskilled, semi-skilled, blue collar, and pink collar) jobs than the private job market. Over the last thirty years, the Government outsourced many of those jobs, which once existed in abundance in the Federal sector, to private industry– sometimes at the insistence of the same people now complaining about the high “average pay” of the Federal workforce.
• The Federal sector jobs are more heavily concentrated in high-cost job markets than the private sector jobs.
• The Federal sector worker is older than the average worker in the private sector and is being paid for his or her education and accumulated experience in skilled, often professional, lines of work (see bullet two above), which quite frequently involves a specialty or sub-specialty.
Were the anti-government activists to compare truly comparable jobs, at the job level, in the same labor market, and performed at the same skill level, the gambit would be exposed for what it is – a cynical, politically-motivated intellectual fraud perpetrated on the unemployed and underemployed -- a group of people whose current circumstances make bitterness and anxiety difficult to resist for understandable reasons. For those who were poised to settle for the raw "averages” gambit (in effect to compare the pay and benefits of a 23 year old forklift operator in Wichita with a 23 year Federal patent attorney in Washington), I would imagine this article was unnecessary. Even when pay is compared on a job by job basis, while the gap diminishes, without fair consideration of the other discriminators, the results are skewed at best. The instant article is better than most because it attempts to negotiate the critical flaws of the USA Today article with control information from Government and academic studies and data prepared for wholly different purposes. Yet, that information is not useful for the conclusion proffered. The fact is that comparing the "same types of jobs" and "jobs in the same region" and differentiating between "urban and suburban" captures everything except what is salient -- comparing the same jobs in the relevant labor market.
Younger workers have not been attracted to the Federal workforce, due in part to the disparaging way in which Federal work has been portrayed during their lifetime by anti-government activists, politicians, and an ever-growing group of “Government know-nothings” masquerading as “conservatives.” Until very recently, the Federal job corps had been remarkably flat for two decades, and well beneath its post-WWII historical highs. This is despite increasing expectations of it by the public, lawmakers, and the laws themselves. Although there has been a great effort to attract new, young Federal workers recently, the real problem exists in the ranks of middle management. Since so many of the older, higher paid workers (and managers) are nearing retirement, the U.S.is rapidly approaching a vast management and knowledge vacuum in Government, which successive Administrations have attempted to meet with bright but inexperienced political appointees, contracting out, agency flattening, and a host of other techniques ill-suited to running the Government effectively. The other technique is simply ignore the problem. As in this article, the age and durability of Federal workers is sometimes argued to be a function of how difficult it is to fire them or the sweetness of the Federal employment package. While firing a Federal employee after their probationary period is cumbersome, Federal employment, by its very nature, attracts workers seeking stability rather than high pay. The fact is that low turnover among the Federal workforce is because, as a class, Federal workers are very, very old (and even newer entrants are unwilling to give up job stability for better opportunities in this tight job market). Obviously, the older Federal workers are as apt as any other “company man” to give up their career investment by voluntarily shifting jobs in late career -- after paying their dues earlier in their career (the part with fewer benefits and lower pay).
Although many wish it were otherwise, managing a Government workforce is distinctly different than managing in the private sector, and so, simply importing middle management talent from the private sector frequently fails. Often, the new manager cannot handle the restraints on management prerogatives that he once employed in the private sector, which restraints are written into the laws he or she is charged to execute (and that have nothing to do with labor relations). I've never belomged to a labor union, Government or otherwise. There is no red tape longer or more convoluted than the red tape by which Congress binds and hobbles the Executive agencies. Yet, some of the red tape is absolutely necessary because of the nature of Government service. However, it makes Federal managers, and the workers they supervise, deal with restrictions on their private and work conduct, often enforced by criminal penalties, which most private sector workers would find intrusive and onerous. Many federal jobs require security clearances (for even low level jobs) that half of the Nation could not clear. These negative attributes of Federal employment are, of course, never discussed by the anti-government activists.
The anti-government activists wax on professorially about luxurious Federal employment benefits, without explaining that their examples are often drawn from Federal employees of the longest tenure and highest rank or that the studies on which they rely include Government contributions to retirement programs not only calculated to cover current employees, but also former employees who had much more favorable retirement schemes. In truth, the Federal Government has a credible set of benefits, for which many Federal workers endured years of substandard pay in the go-go 1990s and the beginning of this decade. There is another related oversight from which the anti-government activists take a debater’s profit. Federal employees are supposed to take cuts in pay and benefits when the domestic economy performs poorly, but when the domestic economy performs well, there would appear to be little room for discussion of pay increases beyond those necessary to keep up with inflation. In truth, many Federal employees are still underpaid in comparison to their private sector counterparts (considering their exact job, performance, locality of performance, skill set, and, where relevant, education and experience). This has been so for a very long time -- even considering their benefits. This is the case even as urban pay for Federal workers is pegged to definitions of “job localities” that are increasingly absurd, such as by making the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore pay area include counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The benefits were better under the old CSRS retirement system, which hasn’t had a new entrant since 1988, but is frequently invoked in the examples used by the anti-government activists. The “new” FERS system relies on Social Security; a Government 401(k)-style plan (called TSP, to which the employee contributes and the Government matches to 5%, and that can be invested in Government or private sector securities); and an annuity that is calculated at 1% of the average of the employee’s highest three years of pay, times the number of years in service. Various articles have portrayed this retirement system as extravagant. Federal retirement is a blend of programs that existed at most corporations before they defaulted on their contractual obligations to employees through various reorganization, off-shoring, and expatriation schemes. In truth, more than the 30% annuity, the quality of lifetime Federal employee retirement under the current system has more to do with the consistency of the employee’s elective contribution to the TSP program and the wisdom of their securities investment decisions within that program. It is surprising to see some of these authors talk about no risk retirement packages. Like everybody else, Federal employees’ retirements have been profoundly degraded by the recession through its impact on the private securities market and resultant impact on most TSP funds.
It is always useful to have an informed dialog about what this country needs to do through Government, what laws it can afford to execute, how contractors should be used, and what incentives have to be provided to persons to attract and sustain the necessary Government workforce. This article, and more pointedly the reader comments on it, however, just display unfair and unmasked vitriol towards a straw man of a Government employee. Do not to degrade or devalue or minimize the Government workers because at sometime, in some place, you saw a Government worker not doing his or her job or being overpaid. Nate makes some sense. I've worked in both sectors for extended lengths of time, and I can assure you that those characters exist everywhere and, despite market forces, have an amazing tendency to survive even in the private sector economy. Do not degrade or devalue or minimize the Government workers because you disagree with the law or program he or she is hired to execute. Those choices were made by your representatives and various Presidents over scores of years. If Heritage, or Cato, or other more fringe political elements want to discuss those issues afresh, that is their right, but I ask that they do it directly through changes in te public policy, and not through an ignorant and malignant cacophony against Government workers in general. Wish the best to all, especially the unemployed and underemployed (but I didn't do it to you, and cutting my pay isn't going to get you into heaven any quicker).
About myself, I'm a Government attorney that, after 23 years in Federal service, is making less than a first year associate in large law firms in the city in which I practice. I held a couple of jobs in the private sector legal market as an attormey for six years before that and worked in various full-time, part-time and temporary non-professional private sector jobs through school and in between periods for the 8 years before that (starting at the age of 14). I've given a VERY GREAT deal of uncompensated overtime to my employer and this Nation over the years, and not one of you has the right to cast aspersions on my work ethic or track record (or that of my colleagues, of whom you know nothing).
Steve A| 9.27.10 @ 9:40AM
Old Fed, Ah, no offense, but the impression you give is as if you are doing us all a great favor with your "federal attorney service." First off, don't bitch about your salary in comparison to "private practice." You are not under the gun to go hustle clients, wine & dine & rack up billable hrs. You cashed that life in in exchange for less, but still excellent pay, great benefits & stability.
My spouse is an appeals attorney for the Fed. so I have some insight here. There is incompetence, lack of production & waste spending to fill budget that would not be tolerated in a private firm, period.
You have a valid point in criticizing the ignorance of many negative comments directed at Fed amployees on this thread. This is the SMALL PICTURE. The BIG PICTURE is a frustration with a bloated, inefficient, massive, ever increasing Federal system with an entitlement philosophy with virtually zero accountaility.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 6:05PM
oh BS....I have also worked for private law firms who cheated customers with extravagant billable hours like nobodies business. gimme a figgin break. the best part???? many of these holier than thou types WERE CHEATING THE GOVERNMENT.
VASweetTea| 9.27.10 @ 8:28AM
Oh you are right on the money. Thanks for that well-presented and factual account of the argument. SO much was missing in this article about the reality of federal employment. It just spoon-fed the ignorant angry masses.
carnot| 9.27.10 @ 6:03PM
another irony? Bush1/Clinton inspired "Peace Dividend" led to what? substitution of contractors for government types. during that period of almost 20 years...would most in this thread claim government service improved or declined? we all now the answer to that.
again...income envy is a losing theme. stick to entitlements, union payoffs, etc., folks. much more traction in the long run.
Jim| 9.27.10 @ 3:43PM
"The typical federal employee received a salary of more than $79,000 in 2008, with benefits raising total annual compensation to more than $119,000." Really????? Curious as to how this number was reached. This equates to a GS12, Step 8. There are a total of 15 pay grades, GS 1 - GS 15. I would think there are far more at the lower end of the pay scale. Who did this "raw comparison"? A responsible journalist quotes sources/references.
Spyder308| 9.28.10 @ 4:46PM
If you want good people such as boarder patrol guards, food inspectors, NIH health scientists, soldiers, FBI officers, DOJ lawyers, highway engineers, SS clerks getting out checks on time, atomic physicists, rocket scientists, etc you have to pay them well. Otherwise the good people go somewhere else.
lexie1025| 10.3.10 @ 6:04PM
All of this is due to the vicious/cycle/'circle' which is snowballing out of control. The largest percentage of govt budgets is employee salaries and benefits. Lest we forget (how can we?) what happened when public sector was allowed to unionize and we get to watch dumb 'leaders' in our local to the top 'negotiate' with savvy union lawyers and/or crooked politicians! Combine this with the fact that as far as 'workload' goes, there are five gov't. employees which one employee does and should do (if qualified) in the private sector. Now take the fraud and abuse of our taxpayer funds by govt and its 'quasi' little side empires like school systems, kickbacks, etc. and the tax goes up, up, up. Taxes go up, up, up and businesses/industry leave, leave, leave. Now we have this "free" trade as opposed to "fair trade" and more industry leaves or outsources. Angry? try LIVID! And, when the markets slump, I sure don't have taxpayers helping to "re-feather" my retirement nest,but government, public sector employees, appointed officials (the list goes on and on) do, in fact, enjoy a GUARANTEED multimillion dollar portfolio courtesy of those who have lost their shirts! And, while unemployed or underemployed, we also get to insure their cadillac health care and rising salaries. How can America stand with this obvious unbalance? I love the liberals who talk about "unfairness"--when most of them are public sector and/or union members who suck off everyone else--there is just so much money and it appears obvious that they sure get theirs!