-
Take a Victory Lap, Ed Feulner
November 12, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Mitt, Newt, and the Greater Good
November 23, 2011 | 154 comments
-
The Market Sends a Signal: Short Warren Buffett
September 28, 2011 | 50 comments
-
Neoconservatism Interrupted
August 18, 2011 | 200 comments
-
In Praise of M. Stanton Evans
July 15, 2011 | 32 comments
A Further Perspective
The Fairness Initiative
It’s about time government employees learned they work for taxpayers.
Kudos to USA Today, that most mainstream of all major media, for reminding us who “we” are. In an enterprising and courageous story published in August, the paper reported that the average U.S. private-sector worker receives $61,051 in compensation while the average U.S. government worker receives $123,049. I say “enterprising” because that latter figure, The Number we’ve all been looking for, has been a closely guarded secret for decades, more effectively guarded, manifestly, than most of the nation’s military secrets. To tease The Number out of data designed to obscure it was a remarkable piece of journalism, an old-school, First Amendment-justifying “talking story.” And I say “courageous” because the paper was predictably attacked by agents of the bureaucracy, who variously alleged error, irresponsibility, base motivation, and bad manners. Even in the media doldrums of late-summer, the constituency for big government recognized a mortal threat and lumbered on to the field to combat it.
Let’s look first at the nature of the threat and then at the campaign to defuse it. For most of our history, the reigning metaphor for government employment has been “public service.” Embedded deep in the national imagination is the notion that a government job is the kind of work to which a responsible citizen is occasionally called, usually on a temporary basis, and for which he is expected to sacrifice not only creature comfort but also family time and the disruption of professional development. Although it is sometimes an adventure, that is, government work has traditionally been perceived as more duty than job, with Cincinnatus arrived reluctantly in town but still glancing longingly back at the plow. (In my own short stints in government, I was told by recruiters to expect sharp cuts in my paycheck and, on this particular commitment at least, the government delivered in full. That was a political generation ago, however, before the Bushes and Clinton managed to rebrand the old liberalism as big-government conservatism.)
Most Americans, despite accumulating evidence to the contrary, have liked to believe that our public servants are high-minded sorts willing to serve the community at some economic cost to themselves; the kind of people who went into government, we liked to think, were in some ways like pastors or nurses or those nice people down at Goodwill Industries, most of whom seemed to be answering to spiritual vocation rather than material incentive. What USA Today did with the publication of The Number was to explode the central myth of democratic governance: namely, that taxpayers are the masters and bureaucrats the servants. What became sunrise-clear as The Number was passed from barber shop to lunch counter to factory floor to yoga class was that our public servants are paying themselves twice as much as we have managed to keep for ourselves… after paying them. Without our notice, it has now been universally noticed, our public servants have been giving themselves quiet raises all these years, tweaking benefits, fattening pensions. Without our notice, they have been adding hundreds of thousands of new employees to their own ranks even as we taxpayers faced layoffs and cuts and freezes and closings: as we tightened our belts, they loosened theirs. The question has now re-formed itself in the national imagination: who, exactly, is working for whom?
In the aftershock of The Number, then, just who are “we”? We are the people who got snookered by the myth of public service, that much is clear. Confessedly, we are also the people who let the bureaucracy run wild. But we remain the people who have the power to redress this new and unacceptable situation. It says so right there in the Constitution, doesn’t it? (I checked. There’s nothing in there about bureaucrats being spared discomfort in an economic downturn.) That’s what it says all right, but the pertinent questions for this historical moment are not so much formal as procedural. Do enough of us still live and work beyond the reach of the bureaucracy? Do we citizen-taxpayers still have the raw numbers to survive a democratic showdown with the governing class and its political arm, the dependency class? And even if our numbers are sufficient to the task, can we muster the will to resist the encircling and stifling forces of statism? Read any blog, listen to any talk show and you know that many of our fellow citizens sense that we are approaching a Gladwellian tipping point, the point beyond which we would be incapable of reclaiming a vigorously free society. Just where are we on that graph — are we still on the near side of the tipping point, the side from which we could still recoil and recover? Or have we just passed over to the far side, the side from which we would have no choice but to slog numbly toward the fading light of the American day?
Return for a moment to the attack on The Number itself. The most widely sprayed rhetorical pesticide was this: The Number misinterprets statistical reality by ignoring the fact that government workers are, on average, considerably older than private-sector workers: it would be only natural for older workers, with greater seniority, to earn more than younger workers. That’s axiomatic, of course, but it’s tautological as well. One of the reasons that government workers are older is that government work is the kind of work that older workers can do. (Shuffling papers from an ergonomic chair, it’s been reliably reported, puts little strain on the lower back.) The other reason that government workers are so much older than the rest of us is that they are a static workforce, happily cemented in their privileged positions. They are rarely hired away, they are almost never fired, they are rewarded for immobility by steadily escalating compensation and, off at the end, they elide into a pension system so rich that many of them will ultimately make more for staying home in retirement than they made back at the office. Indeed, now that these “defined-benefit,” income-for-life pensions have all but disappeared from the private sector, public-employee pensions have become an open scandal. Let’s be clear about what’s happened: after it became clear that taxpayers could no longer afford to pay for their own pensions, they were compelled to pay for government pensions. That would seem to settle the question of who is working for whom.
The other argument launched frequently against The Number is that USA Today’s analysis was simpleminded, almost risibly so, in that it compared apples not even to oranges but to nectarines. Government jobs, the experts assure us, are not fungible with private-sector jobs and valid comparisons are thus impossible to draw. To which the answer from outside the Beltway echo chamber would be: “No problem. We’ll handle it.” No two jobs are identical in the private-sector, either, but every HR director at every private company is obliged to make defensible comparisons. That’s what HR people do in the real world. They develop benchmarks and comparables, which is to say that they define with some precision the relationships among apples, oranges and nectarines. And if they happen upon a particularly novel or recondite question, they call in one of a dozen world-class management consulting firms, any one of which would be delighted to provide the same service to government. What is risible is the idea that our government considers the task of evaluating its employees so analytically daunting that, just to be safe, it has resolved to overpay all but the senior-most executives. It should be understood that men and women with significant HR experience share a presumption that government employment data do not in fact defy analysis, and the further presumption that, once that data is comprehensively analyzed, it is highly unlikely that the average government worker will be demonstrated to have been twice as productive as the average private-sector worker.
For a brief shining moment in late August, the big-government noise machine floated a third argument in rebuttal to The Number. It was snatched back so quickly that we barely caught a glimpse of it, but the gist of the argument was — “we deserve it.” The rationale for the compensation premium advanced in that moment of unguarded candor was that because the government worker is (a) older, (b) better educated, and (c) engaged in more difficult work than the average citizen — because he’s a member of the clerisy, if you will — he should be paid twice as much. Adult PR supervision was soon imposed (it’s considered bad form just before a contentious election for bureaucrats to be caught chanting at voters, “we’re better than you are”) and so the argument was never allowed to take full form. Its brief appearance, however, revealed still another dimension of the problem with our governing class. Because of the high pay, rich benefits, and scandalous pension payouts — because government employment is now so financially attractive — government is becoming in these bleak economic times an employer of first resort. As such, it is beginning to attract, if not yet the best and the brightest, many people who could have succeeded in the private sector and would have elected to do so in more economically secure times. The result on a macro-economic level is that our government is beginning to outbid the private sector for the scarce resources of brains and talent. That development is unwelcome in any form of market-based economy.
A still-larger presumption upon which HR professionals would agree is that the government workforce is “thick in the middle.” Here’s a translation of the jargon. You will have noticed the almost daily “earnings surprises” reported in the business press over the summer, those blurbs on quarterly earnings results that “exceed analysts’ expectations.” Virtually none of those upside surprises was the result of sharply increasing revenues. Across the board, sales are flat to weak. Almost all of the earnings gains reflect, rather, cost-cutting initiatives and improved productivity. Granted, it seems counterintuitive: sagging sales and booming profits. How have American companies managed to perform so well, at least on the bottom line? Companies both public and private, slowly at first and then in hurry-up mode following the 2008 crash, have innovated in many ways but primarily by embracing the digital revolution to thin the ranks of middle management. Corporate America is now lean and mean, thin in the middle, with a few real decision-makers at the top directing the real workers who produce the product or provide the service on the front lines. Middle management has simply gone away and the resulting savings have fallen to the bottom line. (Maybe you’ve noticed: nobody admits to being a middle manager any longer. It can be hazardous to your corporate health.)
Government, as we have seen, responded differently to hard times. It ignored them. It continued to swell its ranks, continued to ratchet up its wage scales, continued to leave the digital opportunity largely unrealized and continued to send bigger and bigger bills to the taxpayers. Now that the winds of digital change have blown through almost all of corporate America and much of nonprofit America, the government stands as the last refuge of the middle manager, the kind of “executive” whose job description is speckled with one or more of the telltale slacker nouns: liaison, outreach, coordination, review, interface, feedback, schedule, assistance, oversight and the like — i.e., the functions most taxpayers perform in their spare time on a PC.
The hour is late. Both time and trend work against the citizen-taxpayer. Day after day, the governing class expands incrementally, inexorably, uncontestedly. They control the data, set the budgets, publish the timetables, and enforce the rules. If there’s any smart money still around, it would have to like the chances of the governing class over against what remains of the freedom class; the former steadily gains strength even as the latter watches its own leech away. All of which, in my view, argues for an early division of the house, an early headcount of just how many of our fellow citizens will stand with the freedom class. All of which argues for a citizen initiative that would declare straightforwardly: It shall be the policy of government at every level to cap public-sector wages and benefits at private-sector comparables. This new policy would restore a measure of balance to the relationship between the citizen and his government; when the economy heads into choppy waters, we would all be in the same boat. It would establish the principle in equity that taxpayers and the people who work for them should receive equal pay for equal work. It would free up critical resources for the private sector to re-stock the national economy. And it could be set in motion without delay. Senior government officials — mayors, county executives, governors, even the President — could in many cases start the process by executive order. We could begin the transition period immediately. We could call this new policy the Fairness Initiative.
The legendary British marketing guru Maurice Saatchi remarked some years ago that “America’s one-word (brand) equity is ‘freedom’.” In a language with 750,000 words, he noted, that’s a priceless asset. How much is it worth today?
About the Author
Neal B. Freeman is chairman of the Blackwell Corporation.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Neal B. Freeman
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/05/the-fairness-initiative
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Kenny| 10.5.10 @ 6:55AM
Government employees are parasitic to the extent they are over compensated (which is signiciant) and over staffed.
Bill| 10.5.10 @ 1:02PM
Hmmm. Should the parasitic prison guards just let the prisoners go free ? Should the parasitic 911 operaters, as well as the parasitic police officer ignore your call ? ..and how about all of those parasitic servicemen.. Your comments are too general in scope. Some people are overpaid, and others recieve just compensation, and others are underpaid....just like in the private sector
Osamas Pajamas| 10.6.10 @ 12:50AM
Bill, you dolt, natrually you would choose the necessary police, emergency, and national defense sectors as victims of the selfish taxpayers and their new revolution. But "limited government" presupposes restricting it to its [few] legitimate functions --- police, courts, and national defense. The rest I would chop off at the knees, and "I do not care" if those extraneous tax-eating bloodsuckers starve to death in the streets of America. It is said that government rests on the concent of the governed. Let us now withdraw that consent and that sanction, and replace this evil monster with an agency more to our liking, as privately-employed taxpayers.
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!
Bill| 10.5.10 @ 1:02PM
Hmmm. Should the parasitic prison guards just let the prisoners go free ? Should the parasitic 911 operaters, as well as the parasitic police officer ignore your call ? ..and how about all of those parasitic servicemen.. Your comments are too general in scope. Some people are overpaid, and others recieve just compensation, and others are underpaid....just like in the private sector
Bill| 10.5.10 @ 7:37AM
Indeed it is time to level the playing field. All in government should be on the same pay and benefit levels as the private sector and the tax payer who support them. For those in congress they should immediately flip to the same plans as the private citizens. If they represent us they need to resemble us. No special insurance plans or social security plans. The wind of change is blowing and it is picking up velocity. May it blow the chaff away.
Bill| 10.5.10 @ 1:10PM
Bill - I agree with you 100%. As a white collar professional working for the government, I'd love to get the 25% pay raise that you are endorsing to get us on par with the private sector. Can waste be cut ? Of course. But, who decides what service is unnecessary and can be cut ?
Oregonian| 10.5.10 @ 1:48PM
Bill2:
Bill1 referred to salary AND benefits combined. Nice try!
"Who decides what service is unnecessary and can be cut ?" The answer is coming on November 2, from your real employers: the American people!
Bill| 10.5.10 @ 2:36PM
Yes, I'm sure that the republican, democratic, or independent victors in November will be listening. Perhaps, the victor can head up a new committee....Frick will take Frack's place in the Halls of Power, and you will be happy in your Illusions of Change.
Osamas Pajamas| 10.6.10 @ 1:03AM
You lie, Bill --- as usual, you are blowing smoke up everyone's axx. Most government employees should be fired without pensions --- I have no contract with them even if the politicians and bureaucrats do --- let them pay out of their own pockets, then. The salaries, benefits, pensions, properties and investments of all government employees everywhere should be published on the internet by the name of the employee and maitained for at least ten years after they leave government employment --- complete trqansparency and no "privacy" for these so-called "public servants." After all, America's #1 terrorist group --- the IRS --- gets to know everything important about YOU --- and you're the privately-employed taxpayer who pays all the government's bills --- and the government is YOUR employee and responsbile to YOU. Notice how everything in government today is ass-backwards? Screw 'em!
Sally| 10.6.10 @ 10:16AM
let them pay out of their own pockets, then. The salaries, benefits, pensions, properties and investments of all government employees everywhere should be published on the internet by the name of the employee and maitained for at least ten years after they leave government employment --- complete trqansparency and no "privacy" for these so-called "public servants."
We pay for all the benfits just like you. And before you talk so much - go on-line dude it's public information. You or anyone can look on-line and see exactly what every person I work with and I make. It's published for all the world to see! Can I see your's???
Sally| 10.6.10 @ 10:11AM
Low-level government employee here, that doesn't make MORE than the next guy, or private sector employee. I pay taxes too!!!!
Jeff| 10.6.10 @ 12:29PM
It's appaling that some of these people don't know that salaries are public information. I guess that it's far easier to just complain than actually look up the facts. Work has to be performed by government agencies, whether by staff or by independant contracters....like it, or not. The only difference is that the non governement worker is paid about 3 times the amount that the staf worker gets paid. Then, after they leave, the staff cleans up their mess. People who actually believe that the status quo will change when a new party is in power are the usefull idiots of the world.
Public Servant| 10.5.10 @ 7:41AM
Of course we get better pay and benefits. We're worth it.
Doctor Right| 10.5.10 @ 11:04AM
Yes, of course!! Because you produce so much, and create so much wealth!!!
You bureaucrats are the salt-of-the-earth! It must be a wonderful feeling to know that every dollar you "earn" actually comes from someone else's pocket!
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 3:02PM
pssst...don't tell anyone: gov't workers pay taxes too.
trroy| 10.6.10 @ 12:00AM
carnot, please explain how a government worker pays taxes.
Sally| 10.6.10 @ 10:20AM
HELLO! INCOME TAX! CITY, STATE, AND COUNTY TAX, PROPERTY, REAL ESTATE, SALES TAX! Let's see is there any other kind of tax - cause we pay those too!!!!! Were you born yesterday? We pay tax on every single thing that you do.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 7:58AM
having worked both sides..AMSPEC should be ashamed over its dishonesty in all of this. the numbers do not include the absolutely HUGE bonuses private sector workers earn during up years. and not just at the top but on down to middle management. ever wonder why so many sales types make it big? it aint based on salary. so.......if you're going to engage in the same BS class warfare rhetoric the Dems/Libs play (this is a losing theme and will end up biting conservatives in the arse) at least do a complete analysis.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 8:04AM
to add to the theme: conservatives are barking up the wrong tree on this. the focus ought to be on deliverables...not pay. what are we getting for our tax moneys? that's where the real philosophical argument lies.
we can get to all the corruption, over charging, crap products the proud "private sector" producers later. if you're going to pump your chest and feel virtuous...make sure you clean house across the board.
JP| 10.5.10 @ 8:54AM
Carnot,
It is you who have it wrong. We don't want thier "deliverables" (ie more IRS agents, EPA regulators, HHS enforcement lawyers, OHSA, FCC, DOJ, DOA, and FTC bureaucrats, scientists, lawyers, etc...).
During the Bush years, the federal government began outsourcing many of the clerical, administrative, and support functions out to private firms (include payroll, HR, IT, etc..). What we are talking about now are educated, credentialed specialists who will use thier talents and education to carve out a larger and larger pie for the federal government. And the word has gotten out to many college campuses and recruiters that the place to be is the Beltway.
The GOP if they take back Congress will find it very difficult to roll back this expansion of the federal payroll. But, considering our dire financial situation, they will have no choice.
Sandra| 10.5.10 @ 9:38AM
How about this for "deliverable," the number of seized computers from persons accused of trafficking in child pornography? The number of seized computers examined? The number of NEW (meaning previously not known, and not stopped) images (and video) of child porn?
What about the number of people charged, prosecuted and sent to prison?
What about the "mental health" services that normal decent man and women that are examining this crap need to remain mostly sane doing an insane job?
What about the "others" that investigate the connections between "kiddie porn" and organized crime? Or the connection with "hostile forces and countries," some of the stuff, is just "cover" for other things, like worms, viruses and the like.
This type of "job" is being done by a small number of experts, all with college degrees in computer science, and most with advance degrees. This is NOT a job a kid out of high school, or a young adult out of college does.
Oh, with the "average" incoming hard drive being over a Tera Byte (a billion binary sets) it can take days to make an perfect image (cloned copy) so that the copy is what is actually "touched" and the original is in original condition.
Last time I checked, you want Law Enforcement under Government, not private sector, controls.
JP| 10.5.10 @ 10:36AM
Sandra, please enough with the strawmen. Please re-read my post and try to offer a less insane answer. And BTW, some of the best forensic computer specialists have no training. The FBI uses them all the time. As a matter of fact, most law enforcement IT people are considered to be jokes. The government must contract civilians to do most of the really technical work.
And finally, I never mentioned law enforcement.
SANDRA| 10.5.10 @ 12:32PM
Oh yeah, JP? How about giraffe molesters? Ever seen them? And how about the decent men and women who are forced to see the images of a man cornering a giraffe, putting an extension ladder up to the giraffe's butt, tying the ladder around the giraffes waist, climbing up the ladder with his pants down and then having his way with the giraffe? How about these people and the years of therapy they need to wipe that image from their minds?
I suppose you and your Glenn Beck followers enjoy giraffe molesting! Seeing perverts tie up the giraffe, attach themselves to the giraffe genitalia and have dirty giraffe sex! Hanging there 12 feet or more pleasuring the giraffes! You and your Republican friends want to de-fund the Giraffe Sex units so you can have your way with them, don't ya? Don't ya?!
Well, we Progressives are against giraffe sex! And we plan full funding of anti-giraffe sex units all across America. This will help create hundred of thousands of jobs arresting and prosecuting you Republican Giraffe-a-philes. You sicken me.
Rick Z| 10.6.10 @ 3:17PM
Clearly,
we need to Outlaw Step Ladders !
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:53PM
laughing at this one. having traveled for a time in the same circles....the problem is that many of these whizzes spent their early youth violating the law to the tune of millions!
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 1:55PM
JP....interestng response. couple thoughts...from someone who has been slugging it out for a long time:
1) The outsourcing started with Bush I but really took shape during the Clinton years as part of the "Peace Dividend". The theory was that outsourcing would eliminate gov't obligations for retirement pensions, medical, etc. Some of those "savings" were obviously lost in contractor pricing with the caveat that the gov't could let contractors go.
2) I have no beef with your larger theme, but I am searching for some balance
- there are quality people in gov't who care and produce..perhaps just not enough... :-) ....
- there are intractable problems that only government can solve. I see it every day in the security field. the issue is figuring our - in this day and age with its challenges - what is properly the reserve of gov't. it's more than national defense and less than all these friggin income transfer/social justice initiatives
- the dirty secret is that if the Tea Party realizes a significant toehold post Nov 4...they will then become accountable. they too will have to lead. while we need to do a lot of pruning...that's not enough. the big problems will still be there. we can easily be sitting here 2-4 yrs from now tossing missiles at TP types. They will have ownership in the problems
- my observation has been that the educated "elites" who populate the SES/appointee levels don't so much work to expand the pie (though that obviously happens) as they do work to set themselves up for a lucrative exit about 22 mos into the job....to a private sector eager to influence and expand their share of the government "pie"...
3) The private sector has its own villians. someone like me isn't interested in trading a set of incompetent, power aggrandizing socialists for a different set of crooks
- Barney and Co may have been at the root of the financial crisis, but the crooks/frauds on Wall Street exacerbated matters by orders of magnitude. they are not off the hook. BP, afterall, is a private company. incompetence isn't limited to the hallways of Capitol Hill. STANDARDS NEED TO BE ELEVATED ACROSS THE BOARD.
- small businesses aren't immune to cheating customers either. I see it all the time where I live.
- it's not as though a large part of gov't work (e.g., DoD) isn't being performed by PRIVATE companies. where does the blame really belong in many instances?
I, for one, am searching for leadership. That is what is lacking in all quarters. I, like others, will vote the current set of bums out of office. but you know what? the TP/Repub candidates on the slate right now are singularly unimpressive. mediocre at best. (yes...I know....wandered off on a tangent)
Dan in Somers| 10.5.10 @ 2:36PM
The problem might be compensation but the bigger problem is empire building. Every govt. manager wants to increase the number of people working for them as it makes there job more important and if they can spin off managers working under them that is even better. That plus all the additional bureaucracies being added by Obamacare and Financial Regulation, not counting the depts. of Energy and the EPA you just have a lot more govt employees. My idea is give each department thazt existed in 2007, the budget they had back then and let the department heads figure out how to manage their departments with that amount. That's what the private sector is doing. Repeal of Obamacare and sensible repeal of FinReg parts that are dumb will also help. Then we can get realistic about health care reform with such things as purchasing health care insurance across state lines, tort reform and cover pre-existing conditions.
Bruce Berger| 10.5.10 @ 8:12AM
carnot,
Even if your assertion is true, which it may very well be, it is irrelevant to the core of the argument, at least as I see it. If private sector workers are over-compensated that is an issue to be worked out between a company's shareholders and its managers. If the company compensates its workers, beyond the value that they create, the company will ultimately fail. So, ultimately there is some sort of check on unwarranted compensation, as the market is fairly effective in a Darwinian sense. I grant that there are some large companies that are exempt from this market discipline because they can survive off the public teat for survival but these companies don't drive the statistics that we see in this debate.
The problem with public sector compensation is that there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that compensation roughly equals value added. Without such a mechanism it becomes likely that compensation ends up diverging from value-added. It could diverge on the high side or it could diverge on the low side, but I think it is pretty clear from turnover statistics and so forth that is has diverged on the high side. And, really, is that at all shocking? When politicians pay public sector employees with other people's money, is there any reason to think they will be prudent?
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:12PM
look....I was a Naval Aviator. while most won't admit it...they would have bolted after their initial obligation (in fact most did in the 90s) were it not for pocket stuffing aviation career incentive bonuses and monthly acip payouts. the gov't had to make these payments to keep competent people. the reality? in good times - gov't pays way less than the private sector for skill positions. yes, we all want efficient government...but, for obvious reasons, government can't be run like a private company.
be careful what you wish for. in many instances you will end up with greater incompetence. a more sophisticated approach is needed beyond the divisive class warfare rhetoric/envy politics that conservatives are playing into here. let's take an example: there is a need to manage frequency spectrum. there is demonstrable benefit to expanding wireless to rural areas. but many of the same frequency bands are used by the military and state/local agencies. huge costs associated with moving out of those bands. you believe the private sector/markets are going to effect the cost/benefit analysis needed to make the "optimum" allocation? I don't think so. I'm all for gutting the Dept of Education and castrating EPA.......but what are the in the weeds functions that government is needed to orchestrate? The TP really hasn't pressed forward with its detailed list...now has it?
how will the government compete for talent?
Michael| 10.5.10 @ 4:28PM
Carrot,
Not sure as though we "compete" much for talent now with government jobs. Just look at the massive amount of "talent" at the TSA.
Freeman is articulating what many have long since known: that we in the dreaded private sector now work for the public sector and that long, long ago were quaint notions of "public service" replaced with professional politicians and hacks creating mountains of wealth for themselves along with a self-sustaining bureaucracy that holds out little hope of ever shrinking.
Truly, could you or anyone really be concerned that government would run any worse if we somehow found a way to cut it down by say...a million employees and several useless Departments (Education, HUD, EPA, and Homeland Defense -- yes, HD -- much rather have the "old" system with simply better walkie-talkies and computers).
Jack| 10.5.10 @ 7:08PM
We started working for the government when the 16th Ammendment passed. Progressive socialists got that approved and continue to use it to the detriment of the rest of us. The best way to move up in the civil service is to rationalise the increase in personnel needed in your department. A GS 12 becomes a GS 14 when he hires an extra 8 people. His boss then becomes eligible for a raise also. Check out what happened to the civil service after WW1 when Harding and Coolidge cut it in half.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 9:33PM
mike...matter of perspective. I have worked with lots of gov't types in the security field...even DHS! there are plenty of really, really capable engineers. the problem in government is partly systemic/organizational.....and vicereally tied to leadership (i.e., lack thereof). I agree that it is very often a supremely ineffective creature - overwhelmed by tribal interests. but I object to the characterization that gov't is one huge reservation of indolent, overpaid bloodsuckers.
MacDaddy| 10.5.10 @ 11:56AM
I would be happy to pay to you half of the entire sum of my bonuses ove the course of my 20+ year career in the private sector, in exchange for ONE year of your health care coverage after I retire.....
I have gotten zero bonuses....for you to presume that many in the private sector get bonuses is naive snobbery....you should be ashamed of yourself for foisting such juvenile logic on the rest of us....
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:18PM
oh BS. it's not like others don't have friends at CISCO, IBM, LMC.......and on and on.
I can't account for your limitations as a private sector worker. take it up with your boss.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:19PM
oh. I don't work for the gov't.
Michael| 10.5.10 @ 4:33PM
The notable difference between private sector raises and bonuses and the public system is the automaticity of the public sector receiving raises regardless of merit. Apart from the 7 million private sector union members, merit, company performance, and flucuating market forces determine pay changes.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 9:41PM
mike....gov't bonuses range from the hundreds to a few thoudands. I have had friends in the IT industry make 70 to 100 thousand dollar bonuses during good years - nothing like that happens in gov't. I have also observed bonuses in both communities reflect criteria other than just performance.
I continue to maintain...focusing on pay is the wrong path to walk. It appeals to the wrong set of motives and emotions. the focus should be on the proper scope for gov't, the size of gov't and the effectiveness of gov't. That's what we as taxpayers should be looking at - not our neighbor's paycheck.
Michael| 10.6.10 @ 4:42PM
Carnot --
I readily agree that the primary focus of concern should not the size of the government paychecks but the amount of paychecks going out (or, as you state, the scope, size, and effectiveness of government).
However, I do object to the very notion of holding private enterprise and the methods of how it awards bonuses or structures its pay in the same comparative light as how government should pay itself. The two systems are inherently different and need to be treated that way. Public sector work hinges on the concept of performing a task whose value is determined by the collective...the public. It is purposed on full-filling a public need. The public, therefore, can and should have means to control the expense of filling that need -- either through altering the scope of work, altering the pay of who peforms it or a combo of both. But we, the public, have no such means -- not at the federal level at least. The paymaster is himself is a federal employee...or a system that has empowered itself to determine its own worth and, in most cases, the scope of its work -- enter professional bureaucracy. And that makes the systems fundementally different. Comparing what a CEO makes or a private sector scientist makes to what a government version should make is fundementally flawed.
Michael| 10.7.10 @ 7:59PM
The major difference is that private sector bonuses depend on performance of the individual, the team, and the company. Just hanging around for another year doesn't earn you anything but a quick exit.
Melvin| 10.5.10 @ 8:15AM
Come on people let us be realistic here. There is no way in eternal hell, that that those of us who work in the private sector are ever going to be on par with a government employee with pay and benefits.
It's called Unions. We bust the Unions, we can bust the government employee sector to a more sane and realistic level.
Government is broken down much like an anthill. No one will probably believe me, but believe it or not there is actual government employees who work their butts off.
But the thing with them is, their not part of the bureaucratic collective yet. These workers are sometime temporary with renewable contracts when their year is up. If the job doesn't get funded for the next fiscal year, then these people are let go with nothing.
These temp jobs are a year at a time, and sometimes but rarely develop into a permanent government job where all the milk and honey is.
I've seen many people work in these type of jobs for years hoping to get picked up on a permanent basis, and I've seen many of them get let go to.
If we want reform we have to go to where the tenured queens reside, that is where the milk and honey is. You have no idea how much these government queens are pulling in. The reason I know, is because someone left the pay-roster out in plain view and I took a look-see. This Country would revolt in open warfare if you new how much these tenured government queens are pulling in, and that is not counting the benefits.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.5.10 @ 9:01AM
Melvin,
Very well written, Sir. Splendid.
Doctor Right| 10.5.10 @ 11:06AM
I remember well when President Reagan crushed the Air Traffic Controller's union in 1981...It was a GREAT thing to behold! All those slack-jawed union bosses standing around looking like they'd just been kicked in the groin! PRICELESS!!!!
...I live to see it again, and soon...
Jack| 10.5.10 @ 7:14PM
Part of the pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making below $250k is not disturbing the civil servants. Why do you think that three of the richest counties in the country are immediately adjacent to D.C.?
coal carrier| 10.5.10 @ 8:25AM
There is a mathematical formula here. When the number of takers rises above the number of producers, the system will eventually collapse. Since the producers supply the money for the paychecks of the takers, when you run out of producers, you run out of money. The arrangement is unsustainable. And what happens then? The takers begin to riot in the streets. First example: Greece. We are well on our way.
Kishego| 10.5.10 @ 4:13PM
We are already there. We are living on barrowed time (and money).
Petronius| 10.5.10 @ 8:44AM
Woe unto all who receive paychecks, Social Security, CSRS Annuities, and contract remunerations from the federal government and have no consideration for the taxpayer's ability, much less willingness to pay.
Cheesburger in Paradise| 10.5.10 @ 9:04AM
Gotta raise the Bulls**t flag on this one. Do your homework before you start spouting off. The pay scales for US Gov't employees have been published for years and are easily available on several Gov't websites such as ; http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/index.asp
Union organization/collective bargaining for Federal Employees stops at GS-11 Level. If you take the highest level of GS pay; GS-15 that maxes out at 129k, and that is after more than 25 years of service. GS-15 comprise less than 1% of the workforce, I'd tried researching and found NO sources or references for the supposed average pay of 123k. I am retired military and work as a Federal Acquisition Official. I have a masters degree, am a subject matter expert, and I work my tail off to make sure the warriors at the tip of the spear have everything they need in the fight. I get paid 69k annually, and am worth every penny of it. When I get burned out here, I will probably take a private sector job, half my workload and double my pay.
Rick V.| 10.5.10 @ 10:07AM
I admit I’m a little sensitive on this issue because I am one of those despicable federal employees. I have worked for the federal government for 25 years, all of those years serving the US military in some way. I’m proud of my work. I make less than $70,000 annually. I do not envy those who make more than I do, either in the public or private sector, and I vividly recall when my annual income was $12,000 and I thought I was making good money. Times and income levels change for all of us.
Cheesburger was right on point. Federal pay scales may seem confusing and unfair, perhaps deliberately so, but they are plainly available for all to see. I’m a GS-11, not a GS-15, but I was a GS-5 for 10 years trying to get ahead, so all things are relative. Just like in the private sector. And, in my defense, I don’t set my pay, my annual increases, my benefits, etc. People that get paid a whole lot more than me make that determination. One of them is the president of the United States. The others are Congressmen.
But we as a nation are headed toward lean times (unless you’re the president or a congressman), so let me make this offer. Consider this an invitation to discussion. I would be willing to volunteer for a pay freeze for the next five years if the president and Congress would agree to the same, as well as a spending and tax freeze for the entire country for the same period. Put that proposal to the AFGE (of which I am not a member) and let the union members and membership decide if it’s better to remain employed at current levels or risk cutbacks at higher pay steps. I’d be curious to see what happens.
Michael| 10.5.10 @ 4:44PM
I'll go out on limb here and say that I don't believe that the lion's share of frustration and anger at the federal government's pay inequities and overall insulation and protection is aimed at the military and its employees. Yes, the military is federal, but they are the last vestige of "service" we have in government.
JP| 10.5.10 @ 10:47AM
The total compensation for federal workers far outstrips the comprable worker in the private sector. The GAO cam out with thier study, and USA Today just re-prints what the GAO published.
Also, what you don't say is that federal logistics have essientially an open ended budget. Costs over-runs may be a concern, but at the end of the day the Treasury can either borrow or print up more money. Private firms have no such luxury. Supply chain management is only one facet, and it is considered a non-value added function with all of the cost restraints built in. What the federal government can do is far more expensive and less efficient than what the private sector can ever tolerate. Sorry, but you would probably not last a week at firm like Wal-Mart. They have razor thin margins on every product they sell -and a firm like Wal-Mart would never tolerate any of thier shelves being empty for even 12 hours. There is no "good enough for government work" in the private sector.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 3:14PM
awesome! so we can expect the Wal Marts of the world - unfunded by gov't - to handle the next Katrina? in a timely, humane and efficient manner?
Kishego| 10.5.10 @ 4:27PM
They probably would if they were allowed to, and do a hell of a lot better job than any govt entity. Organizations such as the Red Cross have always been there before the government and, always there after the cameras and photo ops are gone. Using Katrina as an example only proves my point.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 9:50PM
no they wouldn't...not in a million years. especially at that scale.
- private companies work by contracts
- private companies would have to deal with inevitable law suits
- private companies can't generate the communications and logistic lift needed on short notice and they won't carry the overhead
- private companies won't have the manpower
- how would this even be done? charge cities as insurance clients?
nope. private companies can play a critical role supporting a castrophe response ....but they aren't built or purposed for events like Katrina.
Michael| 10.5.10 @ 5:03PM
Are you seriously suggesting that they couldn't do it better than FEMA? Or that FEMA handled Katrina in a "timely, humane, and efficient manner?" Brownie would love hearing that.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 9:54PM
no...I'm saying private companies aren't structured to respond in a day to a castrophe like Katrina.
maybe sometime we can talk about what the government did for certain corporate CEOs who were nowhere near NYC when 9/11 went down. private companies couldn't do much WHEN THE FRIGGIN AIR SYSTEM WAS SHUT DOWN.
Len| 10.5.10 @ 2:21PM
Compensation, not pay.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:44PM
I know exactly what you do. and you are woefully underpaid.
txn4ever| 10.5.10 @ 6:02PM
Go back and read the article. It's about "total compensation", not pay scales. So, your references for pay scale are meaningless.
Being retired military and now having a cushy government job means you may get to be one of those double dipper types. Both of which are part of your "total compensation." Both of which we, the private sector, have to pay.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 10:03PM
first....since there are millions more in the private sector was the data normalized? give some shape to the numbers...for example, what is the standard deviation?
in a world in which corporate leaders are earning MILLIONS in annual bonuses and wall street traders hundreds of thousands.....I'd give this theme a rest. it's a loser.
focus on the size and role of gov't.
Redstateboy| 10.5.10 @ 9:19AM
Tell a Liber-ul that we are absolutely going the way of Greece and they won't debate you.. How can they? Union Pension obligations are strangling us... just as they're doing in any other Socialist Democracy.
Lolly | 10.5.10 @ 9:40AM
Government jobs produce nothing. Maybe that annoying "Story Of Stuff" broad could do a Schoolhouse Schlock fest about that. Gen-Xers eat that nostalgia crap up like Pelosi does pork.
Panem Et Circenses | 10.5.10 @ 9:49AM
Uh, the difference is that you don't have to buy a private company's "crap product" or own stock in it. If you don't like a particular business - who runs it, how much they make, what they produce, where they produce it, etc etc etc - you just don't give them a dime or your money. You can't say that about government workers (of which I am one, by the way! I worked 11 years in private industry and now for 2 as a civilian employee of the US Army) - taxpayers MUST pay for government workers. This is not BS class warfare or anything else - government workers should not be allowed to form unions and pay should be at parity with private sectors incomes. Period.
I'm not too sure about the 123k number being the average (I know I don't make that much and very few around here do that I've seen - one strange thing about government service is everyone knows what everyone else makes because the grade/pay scales are published), but otherwise I agree with this article.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:40PM
taxpayers vote. the dirty secret is that many taxpayers LIKE their benefits. just like farmers/agribusiness, for example, enjoy their annual subsidies. therei s the obvious matter of monopolies/oligopolies and aberrant pricing mechanisms...service availability in those industries.
what is missing from this blog and this thread is what government ought to be doing. once that discussion is started you can then get around to how much should be paid for it. let's assume most would agree national defense would make the final list - where should that budget be set? how much should the taxpayer fund the talent needed to execute, manage and lead that function? (i.e., what quality of service do you really want? how much "national defense" do you want?) how is experience priced?
Wayne| 10.5.10 @ 10:10AM
Like Cheesburger, I'm a government employee. The $123k average is definitely not valid. But the question of pay is a moot point because it is what it is. However, the size of government is another thing. The federal government, like most state governments, is BLOATED! It must be downsized and controlled if we are ever going to get out of this downward spiral we are in.
JP| 10.5.10 @ 10:55AM
There is something called "total compensation". That is, what is the total cost of employing someone. The federal government offers a host of benefits that if bought in the private sector raises the cost of said employee. Health insurance, vacation pay, federal holidays, pensions plans, accured sick and personal days (something that has pretty much disappeared for private salary workers), etc add costs to each employee. Most private health insurance plans have fairly large employee premiums. Most federal insurance plans would never be offered in most private sector jobs, and cost the federal government anywhere from $18000 to $25000 a year per emplyee. Add that to the recent pay increases (since 2001 they are 25% higher than private sector jobs), and the total compensation for a federal employee exceeds $100,000. That is the cost to the taxpayer as computed by the GAO.
michigander_sandusky| 10.5.10 @ 11:10AM
I used to work for the government. When I hired someone my budget was charged 1.52 times whatever their "pay" happened to be. The .52 paid for all the payroll taxes, benefits, retirement, etc. So, someone hired at $70,000 actually costs $106,400.
Sarah| 10.5.10 @ 12:17PM
Oh sure, that $123k average is valid. For like the top 1% of those under the GS system. Like it's supposed to be!
My husband is a GS11, just got a promotion - the kind where your work-load increases exponentially, but your pay? Not a cent! - and is now working a good 50% more than he did previously. If not more. Our children hardly see him anymore as a result. But he does it, because he believes that what he does - supporting the warfighter - is worth every ounce of blood, sweat and tears that he can pour into it. If it saves just ONE of our sailors, soldiers or marines, he's done a good job in his opinion. Just one.
I know not of these "government unions" that people talk about. On our base, they are non-existant. Where on earth would you find these creatures? I remember the whole FAA thing with Reagan, but where else are the unions existing in government?
Kishego| 10.5.10 @ 4:35PM
"I know not of these "government Unions" that people talk about". "Where on earth would you find these creatures". Oh come on that's just B.S. and you know it. Gov employee unions are legion. Maybe the ones around you are off having the giraffe sex you find so fascinating, (a little projection there me thinks).
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 2:26PM
bingo!
Ned| 10.5.10 @ 10:52AM
Couple of points:
1) the "number" includes both salary and benefits, and public sector benefits are off-the-charts lavish compared to private sector. That *used to be* justified by lower salaries in the public sector. Today, not so much. So, no, you may not see $123K on your paycheck, but all those bennies add up quickly.
2) on the other side of the coin, I've been in a public sector job now for going on 10 years. Prior to that I did 25 years in the private sector. After 10 years here my salary has only recently surpassed ONE HALF of my private sector pay... although my benefits are much better here. But I don't actually do a hell of a lot, so I'm fine with that.
3) comparing my fellow employees in both careers, the folks here in the public sector are mostly clowns. They try to do a good job, but where I'm from they would be eaten alive... and my private sector career was not even in one of the especially brutal areas that are out there.
4) don't even imply that somebody living in a commission based job and making big money isn't earning that income. If you can balance the needs of your customers, move products, beat your competition regularly, AND avoid the traps your own management builds into your compensation plan, you've earned every dime. Plus you have just become a big fat target for everyone else in town with a similar product and the drive to win.
To be more specific - try living on $1K a month for three or four months in a row until that big "bonus" comes through...
5) a lot of verbage is tossed about how people in the public sector are somehow more qualified or more skilled, or better educated.... bullsh*t.
Mimi| 10.5.10 @ 11:20AM
ONE NOTE: When we win this election..We all have to realize there will be some painful cost cutting, if we are to restore this country to sound financial footing. Remember, we must support the LEADERS we elect. We are in for some hard times before the nation is on the right track.
JShizzle| 10.5.10 @ 11:21AM
I get passed by a 2009 Ford Fusion everyday on the way to work. It is a Parks Dept. car. It pisses me off to no end every day as I watch the crazy driver blow past me, weaving through traffic with no concern that it's taxpayer money that will have to pay for the damage of the inevitable wreck.
Ned| 10.5.10 @ 1:19PM
so get his tag number and report the SOB... EVERY time you see him... to the cops, the Parks people, the Mayor's office, the barista, and the metermaid...
John| 10.5.10 @ 12:01PM
Government workers, hummm. What is orange has a flashing light on top and sleeps four? Answer: A State Hiway Department crew cab pick up.
Al Adab| 10.5.10 @ 12:09PM
It is called downsizing. Business and industry all across this country have done just that. Isn't it about time we took a look at the agencies and departments with which our federal government is replete and cut those budgets and staffs?
Oldefarte| 10.5.10 @ 1:26PM
You have got to be kidding, huh ['......The rationale for the compensation premium advanced in that moment of unguarded candor was that because the government worker is (a) older, (b) better educated, and (c) engaged in more difficult work than the average citizen -- because he's a member of the clerisy, if you will -- he should be paid twice as much....']? Have you ever set foot inside a Post Office in your life?????????????
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 4:12PM
you're right.....scientists at DARPA and Los Alamos should be paid minimum wage!
Pat| 10.5.10 @ 4:06PM
In those days when your personal wealth used to be your own, government jobs didn’t pay much, you became a GS-27 or a GS-64; jobs which still paid less than an energetic truck driver made annually. Sure, you had security, but a lifetime of work resulted in a small pension without the gold watch. But, no longer. Now a government job is high paying, secure and you have an old fashioned pension plan instead of a 401-K fund which recently lost 45% of its market value. And, to top it off, quite a few government jobs have been steadily outsourced, the jobs didn’t go overseas though, the foreign worker came here instead.
California is a good example of this outsourcing of government jobs by bringing foreign nationals here to do them. Every young Chinese, Filipino or Columbian kid wants to come to America, the land of opportunity and civil service jobs. Before 9/11, many of these foreign nationals used to wand you at the airport but that all changed and now they work as auditors, inspectors, clerks and man the hot lines. If you call up Sacramento to ask a question on how to fill out the latest California environmental impact form or business census report, you’ll most likely be talking to a John or Emily, except their accents are so thick you’ll think you’re in an old Charlie Chan movie. John or Emily is their adopted civil service name, their real name is unpronounceable. With a lot of “excuse me’s” or “how’s that again?”, you eventually get there but it ain’t easy or nearly as efficient as talking to a real home grown John or Emily.
Multiculturalism and diversity are great, civil service jobs are better than ever – don’t believe it, ask any foreign national working for California’s government – and, with luck, you’ll even understand their response.
Donovan| 10.5.10 @ 4:52PM
I find this very, very hard to believe, considering NONE of the government workers I know make anything close to that. In fact, all of them have very modest salaries for what they do - and many of them could have made more in the private sector. But then again, I'm from Minnesota, and our government and taxes have ensured for years our place at the top of the list when it comes to health, education, and employment. Even our cultural arts scene rocks. The only reason we've been slipping is Pawlenty...such a tool.
Oh wait, I get it, 'The Number' must have been including the Bush administration's corporate and oil connections as part of the government! I suppose they pretty much were part of it for nearly a decade, so I guess it makes sense.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 10:14PM
yea...that 2 billion in taxpayer stimulous money that went to Min...and the 2 bil in borrowed money for the school system.....good stuff! and the near 7% unemployment rate - below the national average that's for sure! yahoo for Min!
Laine| 10.5.10 @ 6:43PM
What adds insult to injury is the continued denial and stonewalling by government bureaucrats about the quality of their co-workers if not themselves. Let's say you personally really are working your buns off for modest pay. That is NOT the case for the vast majority of your fellow bureaucrats as any citizen sees and experiences everywhere he interfaces with government employees. It is simply insulting to keep shoveling union talking points at us, starting with disingenuous talk about pay when so much compensation has been hidden in exorbitant perks by politicians buying bureaucrats' votes and help campaigning. Where is the fairness in private sector workers having to slog away to 65 and beyond to gift civil servants with far less stressful jobs retirement at 55? Wherever unions have had decades of monopolies and strikes, they have achieved inflated compensation and work far fewer hours with far less stress than private sector workers. The quit rate tells the story. They all stay at what is clearly a trough. Incidentally, the apologists for bureaucrat compensation who claim they themselves don't work for government invariably have a spouse or family member on the government payroll. It is common to see spouses, parents etc. of teachers sitting on school boards as elected officials ostensibly representing community interests when their real interest is seeing their relative better compensated for less work. Their conflict of interest is glaring.
Sandra| 10.5.10 @ 8:25PM
I'm not talking about computer forensics (BTW those are all CONTRACTORS), mostly General Dynamics, and KBR, and contractors cost the government about $75 an hour. The FBI does not do "kiddie porn" very often, it is either bumped either down to a local task force, or over to a special unit for the "fine tooth combing" (What I was talking about.)
I have no idea whom SANDRA is, but very funny.
Overpaid Fed| 10.5.10 @ 9:08PM
If you want to search, the federal employees database is available here.
http://php.app.com/fed_employees/search.php
I understand that people think Feds are overpaid, and in many cases they are... but it comes with restrictions some times. For instance, I regulate... doing so for 4 years. The entities I regulate would like to have my expertise on their payroll at twice my current salary. I'm precluded by law from working for them... no sweet bonuses, not big paychecks... but that is okay. I like my job and I try to do it to the best of my ability...
Don't like paying me, fine. I can and will go somewhere else, its not really a problem, except in times like this maybe... I understand the frustration... you look around at what others have and become resentful... if this is such a good gig, please apply...
I'm not saying fed people aren't overpaid; I'm not saying fed people aren't given a lot of benefits; I'm not saying fed people are overworked. I'm sure that exists. Locality pay here in DC is pretty high... but so is contractor pay, lawyer pay, lobbyiest pay and the pay of many others than glom on here to the govt tit.
But again, you're welcome to join if you have the talent and skills (and sometimes even if you don't).
Do me a favor though and have Cato or Heritage adjust their numbers for experience/education... it would make some difference... We may only seem overpaid by 50%...haha
Overpaid Fed| 10.5.10 @ 9:46PM
I wanted to add...
According to an article on Forbes, the payroll (wages and salaries) for civilian federal workers is about $150 billion per year. (Not sure if that includes benefits.)
And the fed govt workforce is at its lowest per capita since Kennedy...
You can cut it 10% - 20% - 30% and you still haven't made a dent in the budget deficit; government mandates; and overspending and transfer payments. The three biggest govt outlays are SS; Medicare; Medicaid; Interest and Military... really want to make a ding in Govt spending, go after those cherished programs.
Overpaid Fed| 10.5.10 @ 10:13PM
I meant to cut off at three, but just kept going. I can count... truly I can... I'm an accountant... haha
CJohnson| 10.5.10 @ 9:57PM
In public employ longevity guarantees a wage increase. In the private world, only merit improves the chance for a wage increase. We are so lame.
Overpaid Fed| 10.5.10 @ 10:12PM
I agree and disagree... I saw plenty of wage increases in the private world that were not completely deserved. I've seen plenty of raises in the public world that were...
but, POTUS did away with pay for performance in DOD because people weren't 'treated fairly'...
So it existed... and they took it away.
carnot| 10.5.10 @ 10:20PM
you're kidding right? you honestly want to make the case that private firms promote ONLY on merit? I'll check with the family scion to see if that is rock bottom truth. and I'll also check with some failed CEOs who amazingly get picked up by other compnaies.
moron| 10.5.10 @ 10:22PM
Don't forget about the double dipper government workers. Reach retirement age, retire for a month to qualify for their pension, then go back to work shuffling paper, effectively doubling their salary.
FlorenceN| 10.6.10 @ 11:26AM
I work as a nurse for the VA and have for years...best job in the world! Five weeks paid vacation, generous sick leave, educational reimbursement, 401K matching dollar for dollar for the first 3% then 50cents on the dollar up to 5% with total 10% tax shelter. Once you pass probationary period you have to really screw up to get fired. Automatic raises every two years. I see small annual bonuses ($500-$1000) on occasion, but the department heads get bigger bonuses. I pay small monthly rate for benefit amount 5x my salary and health insurance is excellent even though premiums have been going up. More nurses should come work for the VA! Not overpaid, just fairly compensated. If I work 30 years I'll get 30% of my income as retirement along with social security, 401K distributions and generous health insurance benefits. Fair compensation for services provided!
GreginOkinawa| 10.6.10 @ 11:36AM
I am a "Non-Apprpriated Fund" (NAF) government employee. Many of you out there have probably never heard of NAF employees. Our salaries and benefits are paid out the revenues generated..examples included Marine Corps and Navy Exhcnages, Army and Air Force Exchanges, and Morale Welfare and Recreation divisions. I manage a recreation program in Japan for the Army. I supervise 18 employees and make a PROFIT of over $250K a year on a good year. I have an MA in Economics, speak fluent Japanese and am not a double-dipping retiree. For all that I make $21 per hour.
Not counting NAF which serves the military, I'd say about 10% of the government workers do all the work whilst 90% should be canned or replaced. The engineering divisions are overrun with with 3rd country nationals sporting "store-bought-engineering-degrees", and the govt is ROUTINELY ripped off by unscropulous contractors. NAF employees, but their butts at work day-in and day-out.
KW-37| 10.6.10 @ 8:52PM
I am a Federal government employee. Most Federal employees are paid using the General Schedule (GS) system. At the very top of this pay scale is a GS-15. Even at the GS-15 level, you would have to have almost 20 years experience (at that level, not toal experienece) to earn anything close to a $123K salary. As for the "fat pension", our pension plans are extremely small. Mine will pay me around $2K a month when I retire 20 years from now. This is because social security is supposed to make up 1/3 of our retirement. A 401k-type plan that we contribute into is supposed to make up 1/3, and the remaining 1/3 is our "fat pension" plan (which we also pay into). So, I'm not sure what Freeman is referring to or what USA Today was using for data. Maybe State/local employees? Federal employees are certainly not making the big bucks. $123K average salary? Everyone I work with is making less than half of that after 10-20 years of service.