Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Does Barack Obama Want to Cut the Salaries of Federal Employees? - Newsweek

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:35 PM
Original message
Why Does Barack Obama Want to Cut the Salaries of Federal Employees? - Newsweek
Why Does Barack Obama Want to Cut the Salaries of Federal Employees?
by Ben Adler
November 29, 2010

<snip>

President Obama is often blamed for not reaching out to Republicans. In truth, as Monday morning's announcement that Obama wants to cut the pay of all federal employees illustrates, he has the opposite problem. Obama frequently proposes essentially Republican policies, which makes it impossible for him to use those ideas to buy Republican votes for bipartisan legislation.

When legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions was being negotiated in the Senate Obama undermined the bargaining process by simply unilaterally opening up new areas for offshore oil drilling. Increased drilling was supposed to be one of the things Democrats gave to Republicans in a comprehensive energy reform bill as an inducement to vote for it. Republicans hardly applauded Obama for the move, and the average swing voter seems not to have given the Democrats any credit for it in the recent election. In fact, the BP oil spill turned the drilling decision into a potential liability for Democrats.

This was be a textbook lose-lose, and so is the federal employee pay cut. Just a few months ago Republicans were proposing the same thing, and Democrats, including even moderate deficit hawks like Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), were criticizing it. Democrats opposed to the idea of a two year pay freeze for federal employees, which is really a pay cut if there is any inflation, because it would be counter-productive to the economic recovery. If there is one thing that any economist from across the political spectrum will tell you it is that the government should currently be pumping money into the economy, rather than removing it. You can do that through a mix of immediate tax breaks for working families and infusions of investment in economically productive programs such as education and transportation infrastructure, as Democrats tend to favor, or you can do it less effectively through tax breaks for the wealthy as Republicans advocate. But the one thing you ought not to do is take money out of the economy. But that is precisely what this proposal would do, in the name of deficit reduction. How much deficit reduction? Not much, just an estimated $60 billion over 10 years, which is less than one-tenth of what the government will save if it allows the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans to expire.

The other reason many liberals are opposed to cutting pay for federal employees is that the argument for such a cut is based on the suspect premise that federal civil servants are highly paid. Many federal employees do indeed make more than the average American, but that's because of the type of work they do and their qualifications. Cabinet departments and law enforcement agencies are filled with lawyers, holders of advanced degrees, and other experts. Compared to the economy as a whole there are relatively few high school drop outs doing low-paid menial work for the federal government. So, in fact, it turns out that federal employees actually make less than private sector employees with comparable jobs. A report by the U.S. Office of Personnel Office for Fiscal Year 2011 found that federal employees' average 22.13 percent less (the disparity is bigger or smaller depending on where in the country). "In the context of the overall deficit problem Obama will get chump change from this policy and will only enlarge the degree to which Federal pay lags behind that of the private sector," says Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.

<snip>

More: http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/11/29/why-does-barack-obama-want-to-cut-the-salaries-of-federal-employees.html

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nice contrast to the other federal worker thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Makes One Wonder, No ???
:shrug:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Yes, it does; it really does. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. No. It is further confirmation
It is simply Obama being consistent. Consistently conservative. He is the most conservative Democratic President in 100 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obama gets chump change,
now that's funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Shhh...
:hide::rofl::hide:

:evilgrin:

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Ohh sorry ,I'll be quiet,
it just struck me funny. Kind of like what we got. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. LOL !!!
:evilgrin:

:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gmoney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yes, contradicts Thomas Frank's book "The Wrecking Crew"
A central premise of that book is that republicans suppress government wages compared to private sector jobs in order to keep the best and brightest OUT of government, so they can point to it and say "hey, it doesn't work, let's cut this department or that program or this budget" which just perpetuates the free fall, and the flight of qualified folks into the private sector.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnnieBW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. They turn around and become contractors
So that the Repugs can say that they "shrank the size of the Federal Government" by outsourcing the whole damn thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. What a silly "conclusion."
Only a diehard of your stripe could come up with that nonsense. Somehow the fact that people with highly specialized training and skills get paid more is "proof" that your faction has no interest in suppressing wages?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's a bad move, and I'm very disappointed. This hurts my family and so many others. Ultimately
I believe it will be a bad move for the economy as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrMickeysMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. I think it's a bad move to make, too...
Edited on Mon Nov-29-10 11:43 PM by MrMickeysMom
Side note: I've been trying to finish Lincoln (Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns book, really good) and started reading Ravi Batra's book on Alan Greenspan this holiday.

1) Batra's book makes clear explanations of how the tax code and pay as you go programs like Social Security have been gutted. Madness comes over me with his ability to make good clear explanations of how Greenspan/Reagan/Bush have been punching the little guys since 1981, in particular 1983, then 1990, when they started really breaking the law to serve themselves.

2) I've been reading Lincoln to TRY to understand if there is something Barack Obama knows that must be SO far above what I see in his actions... SOMETHING, ANYTHING that would be better understood by me when explained in the genius of Lincoln's ability to pull together what he did, sacrifice what he did and accomplish what he did. I do this because of the craziness and need to find reason, plus, I know the President has been an avid reader of Lincoln.

So, in the midst of the all reading, I say to myself, "How come he doesn't act like Lincoln?" When I see the rules long broken by congress in the flattening of the income tax brackets and gutting of the middle class so well explained by Batra's book, it hits me - Mr. Obama wants the same job security, too. It's just not ours...

They've given us nothing, this Congress. It's the hurt that keeps on hurting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You make an interesting point. I'm going to check out both of the books you mentioned. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. My pom-poms are in off-site storage after this, Mr. President. It was a stupid and cowardly thing to
do.

Happy to rec this thread after decking it out in the "poor pitiful architect" thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. Ben Adler and/or Newsweek are intentionally misleading their readers with that headline .
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 12:31 AM by MrsCorleone
Don't you all even care about accuracy anymore? Or is just more fun (?) or, perhaps, politically expedient to lurch blindly at every "news" story, regardless of obvious biases? Just curious.

This is intellectually dishonest of Newsweek. Certainly doesn't help their credibility and that of Ben Adler.

FYI, it's a pay freeze for years 2011 and 2012, not a cut. Do I like it? Of course not. I'm a small biz owner and .gov employees spend money, too.

That being said, have to ask: have any of you even bothered to research federal wage policies and the limits imposed?




Edit to correct author's name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Um... Brendan Smialowski Is The Photographer For Getty Images (Photo) In The Article...
The AUTHOR of the article, is Ben Adler.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thanks!
I corrected my post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. It's what I would expect from a Republican spin doctor.
Newsweek should be ashamed but they haven't been relevant for years anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Who's The Republican Spin Doctor... Brendan Smialowski ???
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:wtf:

:banghead:

:beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrsCorleone Donating Member (844 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Hi Willy. You still haven't answered my questions?
I think they're valid, no? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. A Fox News style attack is still a Fox News style attack
Edited on Tue Nov-30-10 12:39 AM by Radical Activist
no matter who it comes from. You should ponder that fact for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-30-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. you need an intervention
desperately
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 Sat May 04th 2024, 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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