Should Obama not announce a pay freeze for federal workers and let Republicans get 10% pay cut or...

[zulchzulu]

...complete job elimination for federal workers?

Face it.

Obama is going to have to show that he is making cuts to manage the deficit in the next years. Cutting federal jobs entirely or cutting 10% or more of wages for federal workers is what Republicans have said they would do.

So we now have people who haven't bothered to see th whole picture suddenly yak that Obama is doing something entirely evil. These same people appear to not know what is going on. Obama needs to at least keep federal workers employed, albeit with a wage freeze.

Consider the alternative. Republicans were ready to slash and burn federal workers' jobs when they get the first chance, but they now have to hold back with Obama's request to save the jobs but freeze the wages:

"It's a great start. I'll applaud when he does the right thing, and he did in this case," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican and the presumptive chairman of the House subcommittee on federal workers. "I'd like to see things go further. Personally, I would like to see the overall payroll cut by 10%."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/29/news/economy/federal_pay_freeze/index.htm

Federal workers annually get 3% wage increases, versus the public sector that get an average of 0.8%.

...federal civilian workers had an average annual wage of $81,258 in 2009, compared with $50,464 for the nation’s private-sector workers. Average federal salaries rose 58 percent from 2000 to 2009, compared with 30 percent in the private sector.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html?_r=1&src=twrhp

The Office of Personnel Management describes in a recent report these findings, which show that federal workers have been getting wage increases far outpacing public sector wages:

Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

There's more. The "hurt" that federal workers would get for still keeping their jobs with a temporary freeze surely is better than leaving the cubicle with boxes and heading to the unemployment line:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Again, is saving jobs that have had solid wage increases over the years with a temporary wage freeze worse than having the jobs eliminated or having wages cut by 10% or more?

On rec or unrecs:

If someone can give an honest assessment that federal workers would not get their jobs and/or wages cut with Republicans in charge AND that federal workers haven't been getting wage increases far outpacing the private sector, I'd love to see the evidence. :hi:

[katandmoon]

1. Unrec.

[zulchzulu]

3. So what

You think that the Republicans would not touch federal worker jobs now that they are in leadership roles and have said they would eliminate jobs?

Ew... facts. Never mind.

[mediaman007]

2. Just make sure that the tax cuts for the wealthy are in place.

[zulchzulu]

4. Absolutely! n/t

[Clio the Leo]

5. thank you. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

6. How far we have fallen

Oy gevalt.

[zulchzulu]

7. Lay out the argument where Republicans would not touch federal workers' wages

Got anything? Let's see it.

Define how having the Republicans cutting federal worker wages by 10% (which is what they would do and have the votes to do it) is better than a temporary wage freeze.

Define how federal workers, having had wage increases outpacing private sector jobs by up to 30%, could not afford to have a salary freeze for a couple of years while everyone inDC wants to make cuts to decrease the deficit.

Don't be a pisher.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. After you lay out the argument how Obama's move would affect that

If the Republicans actually tried to do it. Which is pure conjecture.

Perhaps Obama should cut taxes on the rich by 10%, to prevent the Republicans from cutting taxes by 50%.

[zulchzulu]

16. I didn't think you could answer the question...

The "No, you first..." crap doesn't work with me.

[boppers]

9. Thanks. I was tired of having to repeat many of these points in other threads.

Now there's an OP for it.

[dflprincess]

10. The money this will supposedly save over 5 years won't pay for

6 months of his war in Afghanistan.

If Obama were serious about the deficit he'd get us out that mess rather than announcing he wants to continue it for at least another 4 years.

[CakeGrrl]

11. Apparently a standoff over "principles" is the preferred option

rather than dealing with the realities of what Republicans would do - a more damaging option - instead.

I think some here are so far gone around the "Obama is a miserable failure" bend that the reality-based arguments don't matter any longer. Reminds me of another political demographic.

[craigmatic]

12. He should cut military spending and raise taxes on the rich and that'll pay for the deficit and debt

[bvar22]

13. Did I log on to the right site today?

Was "Hope & Change 2008" a complete failure?

Do the Democrats still hold the Senate and the White House?

Should we just stop fighting for "Democratic" Principles? :shrug:

Maybe if the Democrats had actually FOUGHT FOR Democratic Values over the last two years,
we wouldn't be in this shape.

Taking MONEY out of the Working Class hands that will SPEND it is an economic De-Stimulus,
but the rich Overlords will be happy.
:party:

[zulchzulu]

17. You and others are absolutely missing the point

Should Obama have a wage freeze for federal workers instead of having the Republicans ELIMINATE THE JOBS or CUT their wages BY 10%, as they have promised?

Obama doesn't have a magic wand. Obama isn't a monarch who can decree his wishes.

He has to work with Congress (NOW IN CONTROL OF REPUBLICANS) and cut the deficit or at least make an attempt. Will he try other things like?

Yes!

OK.

Door #1: The federal worker gets to keep his or her job with a temporary wage freeze

Door #2: The federal worker gets a 10% (or more) wage cut because Republicans have the votes to pass

Door #3: The federal worker LOSES his/her job due to job elimination because Republicans have the votes to pass

Which door is the best one? :shrug:

[Raine1967]

14. Excellent assessment.

I can't add anymore to this --

Bookmarking for later use.

[Mass]

15. Is something wrong on DU today? Because frankly I dont get it.

First, the president has still veto power, so if the GOP was passing a law as outrageous as the one you are imagining in the House and that somehow it would pass the Senate where the Dems are a majority, he could still veto and his veto would not be reversed. BTW, this freeze still needs to be voted by Congress. If the situation is what you describe, he did his move for nothing.

Second, if he wants to do something like that, he should get something in exchange. Right now, he has decided unilaterally to do so. Does he hope this will make the GOP take measures that are a lot more important than that, like extending unemployment insurance?

Third, even if we accept the numbers from USA Today out of context (where do federal workers mostly work? What is the average private wages in these same areas, what is the median of these salaries, ...), would it not have been better to offer a freeze salaries ABOVE a certain level? Should a Democratic President try not try to be somewhat progressive?

Also, he may change his registration to Republican. It probably has more chance of getting the GOP on board than any Democratic proposal, as twisted to the right as it may be.