Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cutting federal worker salaries: do you approve?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:08 PM
Original message
Poll question: Cutting federal worker salaries: do you approve?
Edited on Mon Nov-29-10 07:14 PM by MannyGoldstein
Obama today proposed a two-year salary freeze for federal workers. Measured against inflation, this is, of course, a pay cut.

You approve?

P.S. - Obama's Deficit Commission co-commissioners recommended a three-year freeze, so it looks like this is just the start of implementing their recommendations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. I thought they were frozen. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
68. I believe the Administration froze White House salaries early on.
Anyhow, unrec on the post for the slanted wording of the choices per the OP's clear predisposition against the move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
108. I support a 25% pay cut for Congress!
If Congress wants to freeze the pay of Federal workers, they ought to set an example and cut their salary by 25%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. other ...
look at all the pretty colors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. How do you figure a pay cut?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Because inflation keeps grinding on
We all need a pay increase each year to keep even.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
34. What was the COLA for 2010?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
54. You can't cut what you don't have. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
105. There is no inflation right now (it was negative in 2009)
Edited on Sat Dec-04-10 01:21 AM by frazzled
and almost nonexistent now (it's still way below 2008 and previous years.) Economists have argued that we actually NEED some inflation. Inflation figures here: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

So no, that is not an argument. It's hard for me to weigh in on this, for two reasons:

(1) I believe freezing the wages will actually save federal worker jobs. The new Republican majority is going to argue very hard for CUTTING the federal workforce. This was a preemptive strike to help save jobs.
(2) My own household was on a salary freeze for the last two years. Yes, it was somewhat tough. But everyone accepted it as the better alternative to having to cut people. This was in academia: where almost every college and university (Harvard even) froze professors' wages. I don't have the proper emotional mindset right now to either feel oodles of empathy or to think it is the end of the world for these workers. I know what it's like: things will be pretty much the same, but you'll have to defer getting that new sofa you wanted (because yours is 30 years old), and you will eat out less. It's not the end of the world.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Other: A pay freeze is not the same thing as a pay cut.
Just like how a pledge to reduce cost increases is not the same as a pledge to cut costs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It sure is.
If you don't index to inflation, it's a pay cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. No, it isn't
Congress and the executive branch are already under a freeze. It is not a pay cut.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. It's a big cut
Over time, it will cut tens of thousands of dollars in total earnings for federal employees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
36. As an ex-federal worker
I can tell you first hand, federal workers are overpaid and under worked.
Just my honest opinion. Take it or leave it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drahthaardogs Donating Member (482 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
91. Depends on where you work
I am a scientist with the Army Corps, and I am not paid nearly as well as private folks in my business. On the other hand, that was part of the deal. I mean eight years ago, when everyone was making a killing, we did not. The pay disparatiy was - 28%. We did not get it made up. However, I signed up because the benefits were good and the job security was great. Now, when the crapoloa hits the fan, he comes after us, because we are an easy target.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind not getting a raise, BUT I do take offense at all of the bitching about our pay being higher NOW. It is not my fault I chose security over greed, and now, when it comes time to reap my rewards, they want to punish me. Meh, I paid my dues, I made my choice, and other made theirs. Sorry if some caught their titty in a ringer. A deal is a deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #36
93. Is this the new nonsense coming from DEMOCRATS?
Federal workers are overpaid and under worked?

It disgusts me how far people have to go to defend Obama these days... insulting the federal work force is a new low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #36
120. I want that job, what did you do? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
129. As a former Federal employee,
you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #11
27. Of course it is a cut!!!
There is no spin you can use to get out of this reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #27
76. So if you don't get a raise every year at your job, you complain that its a "cut"?
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 10:14 AM by phleshdef
No one in the real world has that view. Thats fucking ludicrous. I'm all for raises for federal workers who do the important stuff. But don't sit there drooling all over your keyboard, talking about spin when thats all you do all day long.

Same fucking hypocrites yelling about "pay cut" are more than fine letting the middle class tax cuts expire this year. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. When the raise is part of the job. YES.
It is the REASON people take these jobs. They count on these small increases from year to year so they can continue to live their life.

And yes, I am ALL FOR letting the middle class tax cuts expire, because they NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. No it isn't.
Isn't that an insult to the millions of people who have taken actual cuts?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. Wrong.
When you don't get a promised increase it is as much of a cut as if your pay is actually cut.

The insult I see is to the intelligence of anyone who understands the way the world actually works as people desperately try to spin this to make it look like Obama isn't selling out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #92
94. Nope.
Actually getting less is a cut.

Getting less than you expected isn't a cut.

Goodness... anyone who watched Sesame Street could tell the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #94
95. Yep.
There have been lawsuits over items like this.

And the person getting THE CUT has won.


Why spin? Why can't you just be honest about what Obama is doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. Seventy five minus seventy five is not a negative number. Can I make it any simpler?
Edited on Thu Dec-02-10 01:41 PM by FBaggins
Words actually mean things. If an office is told that there's a pay freeze, they know their salary won't be going up. If they're told there are pay cuts coming, they know what that means as well. If you walk into the first office and tell them that their pay has been cut, you would be lying. You can tell them that their purchasing power is going down... you can tell them that it's like a cut or will have an effect like a cut... but you can't say that it is a cut. Not honestly.

There have been lawsuits over items like this.

If you have a contract that says that you're due a 2% raise every year and you don't get it, you have a course of action. But it will be based on breach of contract for failing to provide the agreed-upon raise... NOT because the pay was cut.

I'd be very interested to see a single link to a case where a court agreed that an unchanged salary was actually a cut.

You should also know that COLAs are not part of most federal employees contracts... so the point is moot. Congress and the President set the (non-in-grade non-promotion etc) rate and there is no requirement that it be at or above the COLA or inflation.

Why spin?

How ironic. Care to try to answer that yourself?

Once again. There a millions upon millions of people who have taken actual cuts. There is a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. No difference. It's a cut.
No matter how much you try and spin it.

The audacity of some of the people trying to defend this is beyond the usual insanity of the hoarde on this board.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. I haven't defended "this"
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 10:21 PM by FBaggins
That's just your strawman.

I've merely corrected your poor understanding of the English language (and/or basic mathematics).

Sorry if that's confusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. You are trying to claim it is something different than what it is.
That is defending it, by trying to spin it.

And, yes, it is STILL a cut, no matter how much you try to deny it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:03 AM
Response to Reply #101
102. except that in all intellectual honesty - it isn't a cut. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. Of course it is.
To suggest otherwise is just wrong.

It is sad when democrats are forced to spin THIS much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #104
106. I've had a pay cut and a pay freeze
i know the difference. there is no spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. Obviously you don't.
They are the same thing.

Or are you one of those people who believe a lie by omission is not a lie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. Obviously what?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that I don't know the difference between making the same money and making less?

It isn't the same thing. It really, really isn't. Have you experienced both? I'm completely flabbergasted that you don't understand this. In my job now - the pay cuts weren't too drastic and now I have a SO that helps with the bills - but before this I went from making 30k to 19k and had to pay COBRA. I had my natural gas turned off twice - had to heat water in the coffee pot and microwave to take bath, cashed in some ESOP stocks I had left and worked a second job to make it through that year.

Making less money sucks a whole lot more than making the same money. How in the hell is that a lie? by omission or anything else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. Yes, you don't know the difference.
Edited on Sat Dec-04-10 02:02 AM by Milo_Bloom
You are arguing DEGREE.

Pay freezes will have completely different impacts on different income level people, which will have the exact same effect as a cut on others.

A lie by omission is a lie.

A pay cut, by not giving a raise the people who take the job COUNT ON, is still a cut to them.

Some people can live through a freeze easily... others can't.

Some people can live through a pay cut easily... others can't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #110
111. Do YOU know the difference and have you lived it?
you never answered that question. Because if you have, you would know the difference between a pay cut and a pay freeze. Most of us that tweeter in the lower/middle working class know what our monthly expenses are - rent, car payment, insurance, utilities, child care, food, and we know how to make it work with the same money in January as we had in December. What hurts is when pay is less or we have to pay more in health insurance (especially if we are left with only a COBRA option). Sometimes we have some so called fat to cut like cable TV, cell plans, vet bills for our pets, or even organic groceries or a good preschool for our kids. But sometimes we cut until the cuts get into the very, very basics.. like car payments, groceries, heat, heath insurance and rent.

You say that some can live through a pay freeze easily and others can't... You seem to want to be a champion for those of us that have or will live through it. But have you? If not, trust me - we can live through making the same paycheck a whole lot easier than pay cuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. Again, you are showing you don't understand.
The fact that you are talking about COBRA also means you are trying to equate LOSING a job or CHANGING jobs with keeping a job. That's not "taking a pay cut".. that LOSING YOUR JOB.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #111
130. In this town
cable TV or satellite is a requirement, if you want to get news or entertainment. Local law prohibits erecting an antenna that can pull in a signal from over the mountains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #101
115. "But Officer! I don't understand why you pulled me over!"
"I know that I was told to slow down... but you know that this road goes downhill. My speed would otherwise be increasing. So I'm sure that you agree that by maintaining the same speed, I really was slowing down."

"Why are you still writing a ticket?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. A lie by omission is still a lie.
Receiving less money than you expected whether by cut or freeze is still receiving less money that you expected.

Spin as you will... it's STILL a cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. You obviously believe that if you call a tail a leg... that a dog would have five legs.
Edited on Sun Dec-05-10 04:49 PM by FBaggins
Receiving less money than you expected whether by cut or freeze is still receiving less money that you expected.

Yep. But "increase", "decrease", or "no change" has nothing to do with what you expect. Your BS would also mean that if you "expected" a 10% increase but only got 5%, that would be a "cut" even in a zero-inflation environment.

That's not a lie of omission ya got there, MB... but only because no "omission" is involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #119
121. No, just living in the real world, where it is a cut.
Your hypothetical spin, 'Your BS would also mean that if you "expected" a 10% increase but only got 5%, that would be a "cut" even in a zero-inflation environment" isn't the real world.

The omission is the raise expected with each year of the job they took.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. "Isn't the real world"?
You actually going to pretend that federal employees have never gotten a raise that was below actual inflation?

The omission is the raise expected with each year of the job they took.

There is no such "expectation". You've been corrected on that at least once.

Regardless... whether a salary is "cut" or not has absolutely nothing to do with what your expectations are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. Yes, there is an expectation.
It comes with the job.

You can spin all you want to CLAIM there isn't that expectation, but here in the real world... we know that claim wouldn't be the truth.

But, I do admire your effort to spin for the administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #125
133. You're not entitled to your own facts... Sorry.
There is no contractual or legal expectation that most federal employees will get any particular amount. It's an entirely political decision. Congress and the President determine how much (or even if) they get.

But by all means put up or shut up. Surely there's an employment website that says "one of the great reasons to work for us is that your purchasing power will never go down!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #133
135. What to ignore everything that was said.
This is what the spinners do. Try and change the terms so they can apologize for Obama's mistakes.

There doesn't need to be a legal or contractual obligation to create an expectation.

Federal jobs come with the understanding that there is a cost of living increase each year and excellent benefits.

Your spinning and twisting doesn't change that fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. The spin is all yours.
Edited on Mon Dec-06-10 12:59 PM by FBaggins
You're the one who claimed that inflation adjustment was "part of the job".

Now you're trying to pretend that years of raises creates an "expectation" that they will always continue.

The rest of the world figured out many years ago that this wasn't the case. When will you rejoin reality?

Federal jobs come with the understanding

Prove it. Claiming it does not make it a "fact" - nor does repeating that BS over and over and over again. Repetition does not add credibility.

Words mean things. A "raise" is when your nominal (not your inflation-adjusted) salary goes up... a cut is when it goes down (again, regardless of inflation or "expectation"). A freeze leaves it unchanged. I'm pretty sure that everyone who made it through second grade gets that at this point. It doesn't become a "cut" by being less than you expected it to be.

There doesn't need to be a legal or contractual obligation to create an expectation.

But there does need to be a factual one... and that's what is lacking from your argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #136
137. Sorry, I live in the real world.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/policy/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228400138

"The knowledge that new jobs will come without the expected cost-of-living"

What was that? An EXPECTED increase?

Any other Spin you want debunked?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #99
131. When the salary remains the same,
and the health insurance premiun goes up, that's a pay cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. Not getting a raise is not the same as taking a pay cut.
You can try to equivocate all you like, but a pay cut means literally being paid less, not having less buying power.

You might as well argue that the Costco food court lowers the price on a hot dog and soda every year or that high school freshman get younger each year. Maybe even that a lower than expected global temperature increase means that temperatures are actually going down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cosmocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #38
74. "private sector" and government salaries in the 2000s ...
strongly broke from one another ...

Yes, the rich MFers made BIG money, but the average wage in this country WENT DOWN over a 10 year period, while most government salaries continued to raise at a 90s rate ...

Only way to get government budgets back in line is to hold or draw back salaries, federal, state and school districts ...

Politics aside, it is the practicle and responsible thing for people in government to do ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
30. My company did a pay cut in '08
A 5% "across the board" cut. Not a COLA freeze, they actually paid you 5% less than the year before. The next year they floated the idea of giving it back, as a "raise" only to some employees, but decided against that as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laconicsax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
39. One of my former employers did that too.
COLA freezes are great compared to that kind of bullshit that goes on. Did they ever try to sell a smaller than scheduled pay cut as a raise? (i.e. "We're cutting pay by only 3% instead of 5%--you're getting a raise!")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #39
47. No, but as I mentioned, they floated the idea of trying to sell
returning the 5% the following year as a "raise" (according to a friend of mine tied in with the CEO). In the end, the decided that they weren't going to give everyone their 5% back the following year, so they just scrapped the whole plan. Frankly, I'd rather be furious that they were trying to convince me that getting the money restored was a "raise" as opposed to not getting it back at all.

They also sold us the 5% cut as "We've listened to you, and decided rather than doing layoffs, we're going to do this 5% cut, and we thank you for your sacrifice for your fellow workers", so anyone who complained about it would seem like an a-hole (as if a pay cut or layoffs were the only choices, the company beat Quarter over Quarter revenues each quarter for the last 2 years).

Our CEO and top executives took a 40% cut on their salary (which they made a big deal about), but according to SEC filings, their salary only made up about 20% of their total compensation (which they didn't mention at all).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #30
42. My company
cut wages 25% across the board two years ago. We haven't got the money back and I doubt we ever will. Needless to say, there are no pay increases either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
70. you got lucky
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 06:07 AM by Skittles
mine was %13.5, and no raises since
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #30
103. me too - pay cut in '09,
froze in '10 - but took less hours for reduced salary (my choice)
froze again for '11. (reduced hours negotiable)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #5
69. Agreed, NOT a cut. I've heard of a school district doing the same thing
With the EXACT rationale being done here: Either freeze increases or cut jobs.

Which would people rather be done? More people on the unemployment rolls, or keep the jobs they have?

Republicans want to CUT the Federal jobs. Wanna let 'em?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
8. No, it's hard enough to get good people to work in the federal government as it is
Government workers need to make more, not less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
9. Does it include Congress? -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No - the Executive has no control over the Legislature
Separation of powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. Showing my ignorance here,
but aren't they considered federal employees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. Inflation is pretty low right now.
This isn't a significant move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. +1
symbolic pandering at most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. It's tens of thousands of dollars in lost wages over time
Even at the 1.4% level they were due to receive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
48. Over time being 2 years.
Edited on Mon Nov-29-10 09:36 PM by Cant trust em
It's not a decade long policy.

This isn't a world changer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
132. It is quite significant when the bulk of your money is subsistence.
Housing is going up, gas is going up, utilities are going up, food is going up.

Big ticket items and luxuries are stagnant or even going down in cost but those of us on the lower end are getting clobbered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. my pay has been frozen for going on 3 years now.
do you agree with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. No. That's why I'm a strong believer in unions
And in the rich paying their fair share in taxes, and in ending "free" trade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. THANK YOU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. Measured against current inflation, its nothing.
That standard isn't advancing your argument anywhere at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. How about a freeze for all federal salaries above, say, $150k?
Those of us on SS have already endured one year of a freeze on COLA's and we will go through another one in 2011.

And I don't know too many people who receive more than $150,000 a year from Social Security but I'm willing to throw them under the bus as well.

For that matter, Obama could probably get by on Considerably less than the $400,000 or so he pulls down. He gets free housing, free meals and free travel for his family as well as himself.

Just don't dump the whole problem on low paid federal grunts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Empowerer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
21. I approve of the freeze, but not because "federal workers have it too good" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mentalsolstice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
22. Other, cut wages more.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

"Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #22
46. I'm willing to bet most of that is in increased health insurance premiums.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
59. $5,000 a month insurance plan?
That seems unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #22
60. Oh dear god. Yet another DUer pushing this bullshit RW meme.
Let's ignore that the private figure includes slave wage Walmart workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. Should the political class be paid better than everybody else?
Workers are living hand to mouth, while bureaucratic paper pushers and CEO's are guaranteed raises?

Here's a hint: During deflation, a pay freeze is a pay *increase*.

Yes, that private figure includes workers wages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. The political class? Seriously?
You think the people who work at your regional SS office are a bunch of privileged political apparatchiks?

This is unbelievable. I am currently unemployed and not even eligible for UI right now. Hand to mouth describes my existence perfectly. I'd be homeless if I didn't have a boyfriend with a house (he's self employed and struggling too). But I'm not out to stick it to those fancy overpaid gumbint workers. Cutting their pay doesn't help me one iota.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Yes, seriously.
"You think the people who work at your regional SS office are a bunch of privileged political apparatchiks?"

Compared to a Wal-Mart greeter, a coal miner, a teacher's assistant, a waitress?

Hell yes.

They were getting annual raises while we were getting fired or laid off.
They were getting better health care while we were losing ours.
Our services got cut, they got raises.

"Cutting their pay doesn't help me one iota."

Yeah, it wouldn't do anything for you, right now, if you're not in the taxpayer group now... at least you're not paying for them to do less, or the same, while being paid more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #63
64. "if you're not in the taxpayer group now... at least you're not paying for them ..."
boppers, you have a way of making a gal feel lucky. :eyes:

Race to the Bottom FTW!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Hey, it's my best wishes that you get to the maximum tax bracket as soon as possible!
I have an unfortunate "silver cloud" mindset. Sometimes, it's not very helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shawn703 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
81. Baker Donelson's workers average $319,779 a year
Of course, most of them are lawyers.

The average level of education and experience of a federal worker is higher than the average level held by private workers, because most of the jobs requiring less education/experience are outsourced to contractors.

The equivalency you're quoting is a false one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #81
84. It's hard to come up with fair comparisons, on that I agree.
On paying *any* government worker 3 times the median national income, well, I just can't see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
82. First of all, they made absolutely no adjustment for regional cost of living.
Since I'd wager most federal government employees work in the DC metropolitan area, that's a pretty heavy chunk of the difference right there. Need proof: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/27/AR2010112703988.html

Secondly, they paid no regard to job requirements. Many, if not most, government jobs require a college degree - that's another big difference.

Lastly - and this one is key now - private sector wages have not appreciably increased in a long time. Meaning we're all working for less in the private sector. Federal government workers shouldn't be penalized because their boss has a conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. Ah, so the political class gets increases?
I've heard this argument before, in the 80's.... where was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. The pay freeze
is only for any cost of living adjustments. They still get any other raises negotiated/scheduled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. ie, it disproportionately hurts the less "skilled" workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. No. It's ridiculous.
All of that money tossed out to billionaires for their stupid bonuses two years ago and now workers have to take a cut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
28. FFS
Better than layoffs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
31. Anyone who has had their pay cut knows a freeze is highly preferable
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. + 1 brazillion. n/t
Edited on Mon Nov-29-10 08:30 PM by hughee99
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
33. What reason is there to do it?
How fascinating that one does not see that anywhere. So far this debate looks one sided.

And if they'd gotten a raise, there would be no consideration for why either, just condemnation where SS recipients did not get a COLA raise, the government workers are getting theirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Finally someone ask's the right question.
Only reason to do it is for propaganda purposes.

Did he freeze defense spending? Afghan war spending? Aid to Egypt, who just had some of the most corrupt "elections" in history?

Did he implement a Federal hiring freeze? Wouldn't that have allowed pay increases to keep up with inflation and still save money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
35. Yes, along with a few other items...
When one is voted out of office, they should not be allowed to keep their health care. The only benefits they should be allowed to have are those that they saved for like any one else, in a Roth/IRA/401K. We should not have to carry their asses with special benefits simply because they held a federal office, they will get their social security and medicare/caid just like the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
37. Well we all have to make the sacrifice. I hope this will include the senators and congresspeople.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
40. Loaded questions, another push poll.
As An Elected Local Official, I Voted To Freeze Our Pay For 4 years from 2008-2012

The vote was unanimous. The governmental body in question is for offices on a Township board and all but one position is part-time. The full-time position was cut in pay $4,000.00 per year.

Given what was happening in the private sector it was the right thing to do, and fiscally responsible action given our declining tax revenues.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. If it's a loaded poll, then why have 1/3 of opinions been in favor? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Why did you not include, "Yes," without any insults to Federal workers
just wondering
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. By definition, if you think they should be paid less than planned
Didn't they have it too good?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. In My Private Sector Job We Had A Pay Freeze For All of 2010
We all had reduced hours and have not kept up with COLA in 3 years. But we never had any layoffs either. We all kept our jobs and our medical coverage. I can live with that.

Shared sacrifice builds solidarity. And a pay freeze beats lay offs and job reductions. This is not THE answer to all of our problems but it is one of the many options that will need to be reviewed until we get the massive FUBAR left over from the last 3 Republican Presidents cleaned up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. Which is why we need unions, fair trade, and realistic tax policy
Not why we need to cut worker pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. On that We Agree
But until we get the first three, the last option remains on the table. As much as it burns my sack that's reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. "Worker pay"...
How are you defining "worker"?

Oh, and a massive number of federal employees are union already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:35 PM
Response to Original message
50. I wouldn't mind voicing my opinion in a legit poll on the topic.
This is not one. Bah... Par for the ... your course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Can you share your opinion, please?
And why is this poll not legit?

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. One can support the salary freeze but NOT believe that "federal workers have it too good."
Plus, to get more wonky into survey methodology, your value categories are not mutually exclusive. "No, this is unfair" overlaps with "WTF? This is nuts".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. My thoughts exactly nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. Other: It's better to keep a job with a wage freeze than to have it eliminated
The Republicans were ready to hatchet jobs and eliminate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
65. It's a real asshole move, considering that we're engaged in quantitative easing to prevent deflation
So the message is "we don't want deflation, unless it's wage deflation"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #65
67. Uh, no. Deflation already started.
Right now, a wage freeze is a wage *increase*, because of deflation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
71. Obama's joining the Republican attack on the middle class
If Obama wants to do something about high salaries, he should target executives at companies that receive taxpayer dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #71
75. Do tell how Obama has control of executive salaries
in private corporations. You spat that out, support it. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Onlooker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #75
83. Sure. We can negotiate contracts.
There is nothing stopping the government from setting criteria for companies that do business with the United States. So, for instance, the government could require potential companies to include their compensation rules for executive employees in a proposal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigEd7 Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
72. I'm for a pay freeze.
I just came off of one with my company that lasted 2 years and my motivation isn't about quid pro quo or any such notion. It simply makes sense in terms of saving money and in the long term will have a ripple effect through the pension structures as well in terms of salary ratios related to pension values. Plus if with deflation a wage freeze can actually end up having a positive purchasing power impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
73. A freeze is not a cut, but you're unsurprising, as usual. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
78. NO! The people who actually do the daily work of government
are NOT overpaid - they have the salary and benefits all Americans should have, and put upp with a lot of shit to get it.

I was a State civil service employee and if you think government workers life is a picnic, I urge you to get a job with the government and see how long you can tollerate it.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elana i am Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
79. it's not high on my outrage meter
i've been unemployed for almost 2 years, and before that my salary had been frozen or 3 years.

a salary freeze is a hell of a lot better than a pink slip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
80. except no one's cutting anything manny. but you knew that, didn't you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okieinpain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
86. i wouldn't call it too good, but I've had my pay raises frozen for
the past 4 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
88. Other - Yes... but NOT "because they have it too good"
Rather it's the same as in the private sector. Budgets are tight and a freeze is better than laying many more people off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
89. I might - MIGHT - be open to a pay freeze...
so long as the Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy were ended and Congress Critters also has the same pay freeze, though I would prefer all the cuts expire. (I say this as a member of the workng poor who benefits greatly from the tax cut.)

If everyone is sharing the finacial pain then I MIGHT be open to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
90. No, no, no, hell no. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
96. Its very progressive in a pragmatic sort of way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-02-10 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
97. You don't know what a salary cut is...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exilednight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
112. This was the stupidest decision he made this year when it comes to the budget . This freeze will
only save 0.1% of the overall budget over the next few years.

It's the same with earmarks. You're talking about teardrops in an ocean when compared to the overall budget and debt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sammytko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-04-10 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
114. other - freeze is not a cut
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fruittree Donating Member (488 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
117. I think times are tough..
Many of us have not had raises in years or have had the minimal 1,2 or 3% raise. If a pay freeze for all means that it will prevent anyone from having to be laid off due to financial reasons then I think it's the better option. We need to start operating in reality and that means recognizing that the country really is in more than a bit of a financial crisis. The fact that it's not our fault doesn't make it any less real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creative Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
118. Their salaries have not been cut. However, what I would like to see
is an overall reduction of the fedgov workforce by at least 10%.

Then, we would be getting somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #118
122. why would we be getting somewhere?
should we have less people regulating BP and other oil companies?

should we have less people regulating the financial sector?

if so, then why 10%? why not just have zero employees? everybody can fend for themselves, or if they are killed their offspring can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creative Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #122
126. What we should have is less people doing nothing and more people
who are responsible to the people who pay their salaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. so you are saying to everyone here that Federal Workers do "nothing"
and you also seem to be saying that they pay no taxes.

after two months here, you pick tonight to flame out?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creative Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. In case you haven't heard, the government is out of money.
We can no longer afford all of this.


A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies

A

•
9-11 Commission (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)
•
Administration on Aging (AOA)
•
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
•
Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
•
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
•
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
•
African Development Foundation
•
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
•
Agency for International Development
•
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
•
Agricultural Marketing Service
•
Agricultural Research Service
•
Agriculture Department (USDA)
•
Air Force
•
Alabama
•
Alaska
•
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
•
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau (DOJ)
•
American Battle Monuments Commission
•
American Samoa
•
AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
•
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
•
Appalachian Regional Commission
•
Architect of the Capitol
•
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
•
Arctic Research Commission
•
Arizona
•
Arkansas
•
Armed Forces Retirement Home
•
Arms Control and International Security
•
Army
•
Army Corps of Engineers
•
Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
B

•
Bankruptcy Courts
•
Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation
•
Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs Office
•
Botanic Garden
•
Broadcasting Board of Governors (Voice of America, Radio/TV Marti and more)
•
Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade (Treasury)
•
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (Justice)
•
Bureau of the Census
•
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

•
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
•
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
•
Bureau of Industry and Security (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
•
Bureau of International Labor Affairs
•
Bureau of Justice Statistics
•
Bureau of Labor Statistics
•
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
•
Bureau of Prisons
•
Bureau of Public Debt
•
Bureau of Reclamation
•
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
•
California
•
Census Bureau
•
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
•
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
•
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing
Administration)
•
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
•
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board
•
Chief Financial Officers Council
•
Chief Information Officers Council
•
Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
•
Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (formerly Immigration and Naturalization
Service)
•
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
•
Coalition Provisional Authority (in Iraq)
•
Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General
•
Coast Guard
•
Colorado
•
Commerce Department
•
Commission of Fine Arts
•
Commission on Civil Rights
•
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of
Mass Destruction
•
Commission on International Religious Freedom
•
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
•
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
•
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
•
Community Development Office (Agriculture Department)
•
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
•
Community Planning and Development
•
Comptroller of the Currency Office
•
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
•
Connecticut
•
Constitution Center
•
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
•
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
•
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
•
Corporation for National and Community Service
•
Council of Economic Advisers

•
Council on Environmental Quality
•
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
•
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
•
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
•
Court of Federal Claims
•
Court of International Trade
•
Customs and Border Protection
D

•
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
•
Defense Commissary Agency
•
Defense Contract Audit Agency
•
Defense Contract Management Agency
•
Defense Department (DOD)
•
Defense Field Activities
•
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
•
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
•
Defense Intelligence Agency
•
Defense Legal Services Agency
•
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
•
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
•
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
•
Defense Security Service
•
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
•
Delaware
•
Delaware River Basin Commission
•
Denali Commission
•
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
•
Department of Commerce (DOC)
•
Department of Defense (DOD)
•
Department of Defense Inspector General
•
Department of Education (ED)
•
Department of Energy (DOE)
•
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
•
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
•
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
•
Department of the Interior (DOI)
•
Department of Justice (DOJ)
•
Department of Labor (DOL)
•
Department of State (DOS)
•
Department of Transportation (DOT)
•
Department of the Treasury
•
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
•
Disability Employment Policy Office
•
District of Columbia
•
Domestic Policy Council
•
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
E

•
Economic Analysis, Bureau of
•
Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs (State Department)

•
Economic and Statistics Administration
•
Economic Development Administration
•
Economic Research Service
•
Education Department (ED)
•
Election Assistance Commission
•
Elementary and Secondary Education
•
Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits
Administration)
•
Employment and Training Administration (Labor Department)
•
Employment Standards Administration
•
Endangered Species Committee
•
Energy Department (DOE)
•
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
•
Energy Information Administration
•
Enforcement (Treasury Department)
•
Engraving and Printing, Bureau of
•
Environment, Safety and Health
•
Environmental Management (Energy Department)
•
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
•
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
•
Executive Office for Immigration Review
•
Export Administration (now the Bureau of Industry and Security)
•
Export-Import Bank of the United States
F

•
Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
•
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office
•
Farm Credit Administration
•
Farm Service Agency
•
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
•
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
•
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
•
Federal Bureau of Prisons
•
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
•
Federal Citizen Information Center (FCIC)
•
Federal Consulting Group
•
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
•
Federal Election Commission
•
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
•
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
•
Federal Executive Boards
•
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
•
Federal Financing Bank
•
Federal Highway Administration
•
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
•
Federal Housing Finance Board
•
Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
•
Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
•
Federal Judicial Center
•
Federal Labor Relations Authority
•
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
•
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

•
Federal Library and Information Center Committee
•
Federal Maritime Commission
•
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
•
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
•
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
•
Federal Railroad Administration
•
Federal Reserve System
•
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
•
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
•
Federal Transit Administration
•
Federated States of Micronesia
•
Financial Management Service (Treasury Department)
•
Fish and Wildlife Service
•
Florida
•
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
•
Food and Nutrition Service
•
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
•
Food Safety and Inspection Service
•
Foreign Agricultural Service
•
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
•
Forest Service
•
Fossil Energy
•
Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
G

•
General Accounting Office (GAO)
•
General Services Administration (GSA)
•
Geological Survey (USGS)
•
Georgia
•
Global Affairs (State Department)
•
Global Communications Office (White House)
•
Government Printing Office (GPO)
•
Government National Mortgage Association
•
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
•
Guam
H

•
Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
•
Hawaii
•
Health and Human Services Department (HHS)
•
Health Resources and Services Administration
•
Holocaust Memorial Museum
•
Homeland Security Department (DHS)
•
House of Representatives
•
House Leadership Offices
•
House Office of Inspector General
•
House Office of the Clerk
•
House of Representatives Committees
•
House Organizations, Commissions and Task Forces
•
House Representatives on the Web
•
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD)

•
Housing
I

•
Idaho
•
Illinois
•
Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Commission
•
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Bureau of
•
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services)
•
Indian Affairs, Bureau of
•
Indian Arts and Crafts Board
•
Indian Health Service
•
Indiana
•
Industrial College of the Armed Forces
•
Industry and Security, Bureau of (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration)
•
Information Resource Management College
•
Institute of Education Sciences
•
Institute of Museum and Library Services
•
Institute of Peace
•
Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
•
Interagency Council on Homelessness
•
Interagency Electronic Grants Committee
•
Inter-American Foundation
•
Interior Department
•
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
•
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB)
•
International Labor Affairs, Bureau of
•
International Trade Administration (ITA)
•
Iowa
J

•
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
•
Japan-United States Friendship Commission
•
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
•
Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
•
Joint Chiefs of Staff
•
Joint Forces Staff College
•
Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeal, by Geographic Location and Circuit
•
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
•
Justice Department
•
Justice Programs Office (Juvenile Justice, Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women and
more)
•
Justice Statistics, Bureau of
K

•
Kansas
•
Kentucky
L

•
Labor Department (DOL)

•
Labor Statistics, Bureau of
•
Land Management, Bureau of
•
Lead Hazard Control (Housing and Urban Development Department)
•
Legal Services Corporation
•
Library of Congress
•
Louisiana
M

•
Maine
•
Marine Corps
•
Marine Mammal Commission
•
Maritime Administration
•
Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department)
•
Marshall Islands
•
Marshals Service
•
Maryland
•
Massachusetts
•
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (formerly the Physician Payment Review
Commission and the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission)
•
Merit Systems Protection Board
•
Michigan
•
Midway Islands
•
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
•
Mine Safety and Health Administration
•
Mineral Management Service
•
Minnesota
•
Minority Business Development Agency
•
Mint
•
Missile Defense Agency
•
Mississippi
•
Mississippi River Commission
•
Missouri
•
Montana
•
Morris K. Udall Foundation: Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
•
Multifamily Housing Office
N

•
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
•
National Agricultural Statistics Service
•
National AIDS Policy Office
•
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
•
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
•
National Capital Planning Commission
•
National Cemetery Administration (Veterans Affairs Department)
•
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
•
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission)
•
National Communications System (Homeland Security)
•
National Constitution Center
•
National Council on Disability
•
National Credit Union Administration

•
National Defense University
•
National Drug Intelligence Center
•
National Economic Council
•
National Endowment for the Arts
•
National Endowment for the Humanities
•
National Gallery of Art
•
National Guard
•
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
•
National Imagery and Mapping Agency
•
National Indian Gaming Commission
•
National Institute of Justice
•
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
•
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
•
National Interagency Fire Center
•
National Labor Relations Board
•
National Laboratories (Energy Department)
•
National Marine Fisheries
•
National Mediation Board
•
National Nuclear Security Administration
•
National Ocean Service
•
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
•
National Park Foundation
•
National Park Service
•
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
•
National Reconnaissance Organization
•
National Science Foundation
•
National Security Agency/Central Security Service
•
National Security Council
•
National Technical Information Service
•
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
•
National Transportation Safety Board
•
National War College
•
National Weather Service
•
Natural Resources Conservation Service
•
Navajo and Hopi Relocation Commission
•
Navy
•
Nebraska
•
Nevada
•
New Hampshire
•
New Jersey
•
New Mexico
•
New York
•
North Carolina
•
North Dakota
•
Northern Mariana Islands
•
Northwest Power Planning Council
•
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
•
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
•
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
O


•
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
•
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
•
Office of Compliance
•
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
•
Office of Government Ethics
•
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
•
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
•
Office of Personnel Management
•
Office of Science and Technology Policy
•
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
•
Office of Special Counsel
•
Office of Thrift Supervision
•
Ohio
•
Oklahoma
•
Oregon
•
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
P

•
Pardon Attorney Office
•
Parole Commission (Justice Department)
•
Patent and Trademark Office
•
Peace Corps
•
Pennsylvania
•
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (now the Employee Benefits Security
Administration)
•
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
•
Policy Development and Research (Housing and Urban Development Department)
•
Political Affairs (State Department)
•
Postal Rate Commission
•
Postal Service (USPS)
•
Postsecondary Education
•
Power Administrations
•
President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond
•
President’s Commission on the U.S. Postal Service
•
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
•
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
•
Presidio Trust
•
Public Debt, Bureau of
•
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (State Department)
•
Public Health Preparedness Office
•
Public and Indian Housing
•
Puerto Rico
R

•
Radio and TV Marti (Espaρol)
•
Radio Free Asia (RFA)
•
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
•
Railroad Retirement Board
•
Reclamation, Bureau of
•
Regulatory Information Service Center

•
Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
•
Research, Education and Economics (Agriculture Department)
•
Research and Special Programs Administration (Transportation Department)
•
Rhode Island
•
Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
•
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
•
Rural Development
•
Rural Housing Service
•
Rural Utilities Service
S

•
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
•
Science Office (Energy Department)
•
Secret Service
•
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
•
Selective Service System
•
Senate
•
Senate Committees
•
Senate Leadership
•
Senators on the Web
•
Small Business Administration (SBA)
•
Smithsonian Institution
•
Social Security Administration (SSA)
•
Social Security Advisory Board
•
South Carolina
•
South Dakota
•
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
•
State Department
•
State Justice Institute
•
Stennis Center for Public Service
•
Student Financial Assistance Programs
•
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
•
Superfund Basic Research Program
•
Supreme Court of the United States
•
Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
•
Surface Transportation Board
•
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
T

•
Tax Court
•
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP)
•
Technology Administration
•
Tennessee
•
Tennessee Valley Authority
•
Texas
•
Trade and Development Agency
•
Trade Policy Staff Committee (House of Representatives)
•
Transportation Department (DOT)

•
Transportation Security Administration
•
Transportation Statistics, Bureau of
•
Treasury Department
•
Trustee Program (Justice Department)
U

•
U.S. Border Patrol (now Customs and Border Protection)
•
U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission
•
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
•
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
•
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
•
U.S. International Trade Commission
•
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
•
U.S. National Central Bureau -Interpol (Justice Department)
•
U.S. Postal Service
•
U.S. Sentencing Commission
•
U.S. Trade Representative
•
U.S. Virgin Islands
•
Unified Combatant Commands (Defense Department)
•
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
•
Utah
•
Vermont
•
Veterans Affairs Department (VA)
•
Veterans Benefits Administration
•
Veterans Day National Committee
•
Veterans' Employment and Training Service
•
Veterans Health Administration
•
Vietnam Educational Foundation
•
Virginia
•
Vocational and Adult Education
•
Voice of America (VOA)
W

•
Washington
•
West Virginia
•
White House
•
White House Commission on Presidential Scholars
•
White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance
•
White House Office of Administration
•
Wisconsin
•
Women's Bureau (Labor Department)
•
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
•
Worldnet Television
•
Wyoming

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-06-10 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #128
134. You still won't answer why you said gov't employees "do nothing" and pay no taxes
and you haven't explained how you can make companies do oil drilling responsibly or be shut down without giving someone else authority and oversight over those companies.

sounds like you live in a rarified world where you don't need a government and companies will act responsibly or be shut down, by, ummmm, i guess garden gnomes or something since we can't have government or gov't employees to serve this function that you think can just happen without people or legal authority.

i guess you were reading Ayn Rand when they were teaching public policy and constitution...oh and science --since your observations on evolution and environmental issues are about as good as they are on government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Creative Donating Member (831 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-07-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #134
138. Did you hear about this, CreekDog?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336287/Fed-forced-quarantine-1b-100-bills-printing-error-makes-worthless.html

Some government employees made some mistakes. One-billion mistakes, to be precise.

How much do want to wager that no one loses their job over this. In fact, no one will be held responsible either.

So, were these govt. employees doing their jobs?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-11-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #128
139. You can't afford Nevada ,New Hampshire , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York or North Carolina?
So what are you going to do; abolish them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-05-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
123. Get your facts straight before you post something misleading like this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC