« | »

Obama Announces 2 Yr Fed ‘Pay Freeze’

From an outraged Washington Post:

Obama announces 2-year pay freeze for federal workers

By Ed O’Keefe and Joe Davidson

Bowing to growing budget concerns and months of Republican political pressure on federal pay and benefits, President Obama will announce a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers Monday, the White House said.

The freeze applies to all federal employees — including civilian employees of the Defense Department, but not military personnel. The freeze will not impact step increases or bonuses for federal workers, according to the White House.

Then it is not much of a "pay freeze," since it is mostly through these “step increases” – which are based on time ‘in grade’ — that most federal employees get raises.

The decision will save the government about $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and $28 billion over the next five years, the White House said.

A real freeze would save a helluva lot more.

Obama is making the announcement today because Tuesday is the deadline to set federal locality pay, or variations the government makes in pay and benefits based on geographic location, officials said.

Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the freeze is "The first of many difficult steps ahead."

"Clearly this is a difficult decision," Zients told reporters ahead of Obama’s official announcement. "Federal employees are hard-working and dedicated and essential to delivering services to the American people. Today the president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice."

Isn’t that an impressive sacrifice? How many people wouldn’t like to have their pay (and benefits) guaranteed for two years at a level that is twice that of the private sector?

Not to mention that at the end of the two years (if not before) their salaries will be jacked up to make up the difference.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, November 29th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

31 Responses to “Obama Announces 2 Yr Fed ‘Pay Freeze’”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    I call bovine scatology.

    Check back in six months or a year and let’s see how the public sector unions reacted to this news.

    • Texasbacksass says:

      Who cares how public unions react…. they are servants of the public not rulers ruling over us.

  2. proreason says:

    Keep your eye on the pea.

  3. bill says:

    How about no federal employee can make more than America average wage.

    • mr_bill says:

      How about minimum wage for government workers? Their work product seems to be approximate to the guy who makes my french fries at the burger place down the street.

    • Texasbacksass says:

      What average? Each state and many localities within each of the states have their average pay including state to state federal employee wage scales due to differing costs of living.

      Like here in Texas the average pay for our twenty four million man woman child population private sector high to low is around ten bucks an hour a start decrease from 2001 doing the same work and same or less amunt of hours worked. And ten bucks an hour barely pays all the monthly bills in any of the fifty states. .The average pay for states like Alaska, California and New York as examples are three to four times higher than Texas due to three to four times higher rates in costs of living..

      So what should a national wage average be and how could it be determined with any degree of suitable coast to coast accuracy?

  4. tranquil.night says:

    Sure, we’ll just lock in the biggest growth in federal bureaucratization ever. Nice compromise, champ.

    The tricks are tried and tired. It’s done. You lost.

    • Texasbacksass says:

      You hit the nail on the head Tranquil. Sharp across the board federal salary reductions not freeze.

  5. U NO HOO says:

    And the federal government freezes income tax revenue from frozen employees. Nibbling around the crusty edges of the sandwich I say.

    Just close the department of education and save some real money, except for the 1000 weeks of unemployment the employees will receive.

  6. Texasbacksass says:

    You may enjoy this letter I sent out earlier this morning:

    This should have been done to those live high on the hog federal employee prima donnas years ago…and not just freeze, but substantially cut their pay. And it’s not Obama bowing to anybody, it’s Obama smartening up to one part of the facts that are causing this nation to go flat broke.

    The damned fat hog DOD needs to be cut off at the knees too and they can start by getting 3/4 of those four hundred plus over paid sit on their butts stuffed shirt two hundred thousand bucks a yearr “staff” general/admiral grade officers and work down through the thousands upon thousands pf staff officer ranks of hundred and fifty thousand busks a year colonels, hundred thousand bucks a year lt. colonels, eighty thousand plus bucks a year majors, all frothing at the mouth for their next promotions ie getting rid of all the dead weight.

    The U S military had no more than a combined total of one hundred generals and admirals during WW I or WW II.

    People want government spending cuts…well all the above are good places to start.


    Funtionally federal civil service employees don’t pay income tax….well they do and they don’t.

    When people working in the private sector, or some other level of govenment pay in or have income tax withheld, it goes into the U S Government’s general fund and in part goes into federal employees payrol checksl.

    When people working for the Federal Government pay in or have income tax withheld, it goes into that same U S Government general fund. But unlike private sector employees, most of income tax federal employees pay in or withheld out of their last paycheck, goes right back to them in their next paycheck.. Nifty racket huh,

  7. Mae says:

    How about makin’ it retroactive to 1980 instead…or maybe 1970 in present-day dollars and no accounting for inflation?

  8. GL0120 says:

    Wages will be frozen but I’m sure that performance bonuses (aint that a hoot? Performance out of federal employees?) will be granted.
    Why do I think that congressional staffers and White House aides will be exempt?
    Why doesn’t Obammy give up his pay, he and Moochelle are already rich and he makes a bundle from his fascinating but obviously ghost written books?

  9. Mithrandir says:

    Time for a round of layoffs. That is how the private sector gets rid of the bottom 10%, –the mistakes made by the H.R. department…..do the same with gov’t.

    The “freeze” will be made up by:
    ~Increasing pay a 1/2% for a few years after the 2 year freeze.
    ~Hire more people to make the jobs of the current staff easier.
    ~Increase C.O.L.A. a % or 2 now or after the freeze.
    ~As the article said, they will get bonuses and increases.

    They will make up this money somehow, it’s all a political show, these people will make it up when no one is looking—100% sure of this.

  10. AcornsRNutz says:

    Hold on a second. These same clowns have intentionally inflated the dollar and ruined vast sectors of the economy. They are raising taxes like crazy. I am a federal employee, and I had nothing to do with any of that, and yet you would advocate that I bear the burden of getting nothing to help me and my 3 dependants? I make about 43,200 bucks a year before taxes including my housing allowance( 12000 of that annually, not taxed). Add to that about 300 bucks a month for food. I have to buy gas, food and clothing too, and they have all gotten super expensive, while my government agency has taken the brunt of federal funding cuts, and will cut 115 billion over the next 5 years, so the inflated dollar issue had nothing to do with us. Oh, and I can easily saywe are owed this money, as my agency is one of the only ones the federal government is constitutionally mandated to provide for.

    Yeah, I guess when the freezes come, you can start with the military. They usually do. A lot of veterans and military are breathing a sigh of relief that we will not be refused the piddling raises (obamas first proposed miltary pay raise was the lowest since the 60s), so I am not going to complain. I’d say instead of freezing pay raises, start firing people. The entire EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Labor and Department of Education would be a good start.

    The military has gotten a bit topheavy, but don’t jump on the bandwagon of begrudging a man who devoted his life to a career in the military a comfortable salary. Cut out the fat, sure, but the dedication of 20+ years to military service requires a great deal more than sitting behind a desk collecting checks, and experienced leaders will leave if they can’t be paid. My grandfather retired as a Colonel and immediately walked on to a job paying more than he made in the Army in a field he knew nothing about (the technical side anyway), but due to his leadership ability and experience with DoD requirements and systems, he did extremely well. Many officers are in that position, and if htey aren’t compensated will leave on their own. When this happens in all ranks, the ones who are sucessful and useful are the ones who leave, and the useless ones who are hanging around for simple job security will be the last to go. End result, a military full of box kicking desk jockeys and no one to lead the troops.

    A little bit of military inefficeincy and a percentage of useless military personnel are part of the cost of having a military. Again, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be avoided and addressed, but go after us too hard and eventually you will start chopping away at what we need to do our job, which again, is one of the only ones your federal tax dollars should be spent on.

    • proreason says:

      It’s not personal ARN, although it may seem so to you.

      My view is that there are plenty of good and hard-working people in the government, and that many of them are talented and do good work. The problem is that most of the work they do shouldn’t be done. Example, perhaps you are a computer genius. But if your genius is applied in some useless welfare department, the genius is entirely wasted.

      The other problem is that even for the minority who get to work on useful things, the bureauracracy guarantees that they will be inefficient. Even if they are personally efficient, as many are, the nature of bureaucracies is to reduce all workers to the lowest common denominator. If you are so effective that you can’t be stopped, they will give you less and less important things to do, or reduce the output of those who surround you to make sure that next year, more people to do the same things will be required.

      It’s about government, not you.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      For the most part I’m in your court on this as well, as I generally am with your comments here. What concerns me is that we are arguing this one on the margins, IE how much do we cut the miltary/DoD and federal workers, instead of how do we shrink the government’s expenditures to managable and sustainable levels. I know this freeze is a show, but the talks of military pay scale freezes have not left the building, and we get paid a hell of a lot less than plenty of nicely protected federal workers. Instead of freezeing their pay at 90K+, lets jus tshut down their agency. Cold hearted? Perhaps, but necessary. I wouldn’t regard my job as any more important if I was in a different line of work, but as you and the rest of the good people here well know, the US needs the military strong, well funded and properly supported now more than it has in many years.

      I also have no issue with not getting raises, but what bothers me is that these same people are the ones making everything more expensive! I can stand on the money I make now since I have what I need in order, but that is assuming that I don’t see my monthly food and gasoline expenditure double over the next 6 months.

      Again, I don’t want to come off badly here, I just really get upset at how the military (and it’s civilian employees) take it on the chin every time. Conservatives are falling victim to Alinsky-esque rhetoric and get behind it because it’s veiled in fiscal responsibility language. But it’s a sham and will weaken this country’s last surviving effective federal program, which itself keeps the country on the map.

    • proreason says:

      ARN, I’m pretty sure that most commentors here will agree with both of us.

      Our first choice would be to see entire government bureaucracies eliminated. Next, we would like to see overcompensated people have their compensation frozen (and in some cases cut) until the compensation aligns with equivalent private sector work. And that certainly does NOT mean that every salary should be at or under the average civilian salary, because some government work requires high skill levels. Back to the IT example, government IT workers should be compensated just like the private sector.

      btw, although I never had a governent job other than the military, if I had hired onto the government, I probably would have stayed unless a significantly better opportunity had come along. Not many people chose jobs for ideological reasons, so I have no issue at all on an individual basis with most people continuing in the line of work they are in. Plenty of people in my family have done so, and I don’t run around knocking their livelihoods. My sister and her husband draw 5 government pensions, and I don’t even knock that. They played by the rules and their choices have now worked out for them. More power to them. Of course, I won’t lose any sleep if those pensions are adjusted down in the future either.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      ARN, This is the same old argument that we see in the state legislatures every time there’s a “budget crisis”. They scream and fight for more taxes to “help the poor” and so when taxes go up, the schools stay havens for crappy gang-infested kids and the numbers of poor actually increases.

      Yet the real kicker comes when there’s a “budget crisis” and the legislators want to shut funding for the fire department, police, infrastructure, etc. and the “poor” still get their handouts. It’s an unbelievable exercise in futility. Then they use school closings as pawns to get the public’s ire really incensed. And they insist that there’s “no other way” to save the money they need to save except by closing this school or that.

      The same thing applies on the federal level when they start screaming about military spending. But wait, wasn’t the Graham-Rudman-Hollings bill the be-all to end-all in military spending curtailment? It was to save hundreds of billions of dollars, no?

      I have held a firm belief that we need to keep the spending high on the military side and let the lefties who say “but we aren’t in any danger right now” just talk to the hand. EPA, Dept of Energy and Dept of Ed, and many many others can do with a huge slashing for all the money they waste. If it takes the average man a dollar to do something, it takes the government a thousand dollars to do that same thing. The military is necessarily expensive; History has proven that time and time again and therefore is a necessary expense. The time to suddenly “have” a large military isn’t when you’re surrounded by the enemy, but well before-hand. However, explaining that to socialist liberals is a waste of time.

      Some clown from Texas was coming here and flaming the cost of the military and 200,000+ dollars a year salaried generals but has no idea where the backbone of the military is. The vast majority of the military is mid-rank with the lion’s share of the work being done by masses of lower-rank enlisted members. His ignorance on this is glaring. My guess is he has no military experience or has watched too many action films, but I digress. Those of us who understand how the military operates also get that the cost of the technology that is used is WORTH IT. In very few cases did any conflict that was mismatched in military technology ever pan out well for the ill-equipped side. It is therefore necessary to spend the money for research and development and to have the best possible advantage over any/all enemies.

      Liberals will argue that point until the sun burns out but they are as wrong as an open bar at a Baptist wedding. They cannot grasp the utterly simple concept of development costs, why it’s expensive and who benefits. No metaphors can be used to explain it, they just don’t get it. They always come back to “Well, that’s all well and good but I still don’t see why it’s so expensive.


      Well, speaking as a party of one, I am always for military spending. I served at the end of the Carter term and through the Reagan years and was glad to do it. Reagan supported a very strong military and we enjoyed a pretty good life while on active duty. This is not to say that waste and abuse of tax dollars shouldn’t be carefully controlled. Always room for doing something better or possibly more cheaply. But largely, the military complex is a necessary facet of our rich society. The fact that no one has tried to overrun us in our history except in 1812 proves it. The Civil War has its own interesting take on that subject but I leave that as an internal conflict, not an aggressor nation trying to take us by force. Deterrence works. And to keep a standing military with highly trained and well-equipped personnel is paramount. You just can’t suddenly whip up a batch of soldiers when the trouble shows up; It has to be ready. Always.

    • untrainable says:

      you would advocate that I bear the burden of getting nothing to help me and my 3 dependants?

      No. What I would advocate is that you pay taxes like the rest of us. I propose that you bear the burden for yourself and your family and get your hands out of my pockets because you need a housing allowance. I don’t get a “housing allowance”. There is no part of my income that is “not taxed”. Every dime I make is taxed so that YOU can have benefits that people outside of government don’t get. If you feel that you don’t make enough money then you should go somewhere else where you can make enough to feed your family. Get a second job. Get a third job. But you would rather count on the government raising MY taxes to pay for YOUR benefits and raises. Personally I haven’t had even a cost of living increase in 4 years, but my rent keeps going up. And you propose cutting government… except where it involves you. Cut the military? How about we cut the benefits you get for no other reason than that you work for the government. You are OWED this money? Why exactly is that again?

      Think about this. If you make 43K, someone in the private sector is making considerably less for the same work, they pay taxes on every dime they make, and they don’t get a housing allowance. They have to buy gas, and food, and clothing and deal with the inflated prices too. They don’t get a government funded pension. They don’t get free healthcare at someone elses expense. Are you suggesting that the inflation of the dollar is their fault? Is this typical liberal myopia, or just total self-absorption.

      A little bit of military inefficeincy and a percentage of useless military personnel are part of the cost of having a military.” That is nothing short of insulting. It doesn’t suprise me that you feel that way. After all you work for the government. Uselessness and inefficiency are tools of the trade for government workers. Almost, it seems, a prerequisite for service these days.

      Instead of making cuts to the military in a time of war, lets cut some of the useless and inefficient people that you seem to think are necessary in government simply because it’s government. That ought to save those of us that pay taxes from confiscatory tax rates to pay for all that necessary uselessness. We could effectively cut the government by 50% and probably not notice any real difference in what gets done. You seem to have forgotten where your money really comes from. Your raise comes out of my future earnings. Wake up.

    • proreason says:

      Military spending should be an exception to budget slashing.

      Yes there is tons of inefficiency. It’s a bureaucracy. OF COURSE, there is waste. It’s inevitable

      The problem is….IT”S THE MILITARY. If there is one area where we can accept some waste, that’s it.

      There should always be efforts to reduce waste, but cutting the military budget? lunacy.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      I do pay taxes. I get a housing allowance as part of my MILTARY PAY. Do you want me to support my family on 2400 bucks a month before TAXES? Fine, I could, because I will do whatever it takes to provide for them and won’t take a penny from you except my salary. You are right it comes from your earnings, and I have had some very serious personal troubles over that matter, but I know that of all the things your tax money goes to, my pay is probably not at the top of your angry list. And as for the military inefficiency comment, get as insulted as you like, it’s a fact. No private enterprise is 100 percent efficient, nothing is. You want to gripe about the overpaid beauracracy be my guest, I’ll join you. But don’t give me a hard time about working for the federal government, I work for the United States Marine Corps, and I am none to pleased about the fact that we are at the mercy of whatever government is running the show, but it’s just the way it is. I am hardly overpaid for what I do, and unless I occupy a small wooden box, I’ll’ not see in 10 years what the average federal employee makes in 2.
      I have met civilians that do similar jobs to what I do, and they make a hell of a lot more than I do. Please show me the civilian who has been to combat 3 seperate times and makes less than I do. My cousin, as a stainless steel welder, with no particular certifications or specialized expertise makes considerably more than I do, as does is wife, a recently minted RN.

      Rusty, you are spot on about the grandstanding to garner support. That’s the oldest trick in the playbook. But the military really is getting a huge squeeze right now, and a lot of stuff that hasn’t happened since the mid Clinton era is happening now. I’m not of the school of thought that money solves all our problems or that the military should be spending billions without discretion, but that’s not what we are dealing with right now.

      To clarify, I was in fact initally taking exception to the very phenomenon that Rusty referred to, but like I said, the Alynski tactic of hiding your actions behind language that youe enemies can agree with is at play here. Hiding behind fiscal responsibility is how they have sold a number of very destructive policies, and is also the pre-cursor to demanding tax increases. I just hate it when dems start crying fiscal responsibilty, because it’s a crock, and I’d rather a slightly bloated but effective miltary (including their supporting civilian staff) that is effective to a HEAP of government expenditures that are useless and are never considered for the chopping block. Wasteful spending is an inevitability with a government, and I am no fan, but why do dems only look at the DoD like we are the only ones who waste money.

  11. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Is this typical liberal myopia, or just total self-absorption.

    When a person is in the military, their very existence is at the whim of the federal government. Or, if you will, The People. Their lives are largely managed and they have to jump through hoops you cannot imagine just to stay employed. Every year there’s a physical fitness test so they can’t just eat whatever they want and get fat. They are subjected to constant social-engineering which makes annual and semi-annual mandatory classes on race-relations, sexist-elimination, even how to “be a good person” type of classes. And the biggest sacrifice they make is that when the government says “you go there”…the military member has no right to say no and their life is on the line. That’s the contract. So drawing a parallel to civilian life in that regard is illogical.

    For me, I have no problem with military spending. But the majority of cost doesn’t go into salaries. It goes into equipment and other materiel. And, for the record, most if not all military members are acutely aware of who pays their salaries. But by and large, they spend far more hours doing their jobs than the average civilian and are on call 24/7/365. Even if they go on leave (vacation) they are subject to recall in a national emergency. The sacrifice in their personal freedoms is huge. How dare you make this liberal association.

    And much of this also goes for the GS ranks. Many of them are former military people still engaged in the military as civilians but allowing the government to capitalize on their experience in order to benefit others. Still, it’s largely about sacrifice but I won’t ignore the compensation part of it. In return, the GS-rated government employee exists at the whim of a base installation commander, for the most part. They also don’t really get to have their own life. If the command dictates that they do “X”, then that’s what they do. The only thing they DON’T do is physically go to war. But I was trained by many instructors in the GS ranks who did a hell of a job and they also fill vital positions that otherwise would occupy a military member who would have to deploy and leave a temporary vacuum in such an event.

    Your ignorance is showing untrainable. I suggest talking to some military members and learning more about before you make assumptions. And, for the record, not ALL military members or GS’s get a housing allowance. Most first-term and many second + term military members live on-station where a room is provided. But they have to pay for their own meals, depending on their rank and married status. They live, predominantly, in a socialist-run structure. Necessarily so. But you need to be careful about your assumptions, please.

  12. untrainable says:

    Rusty. You misunderstand. I have absolutely no problem with military spending, and I didn’t think I made any association between liberals and the military. The myopia I was referring to was on Acron’s part. Suggesting that the military should be the first spending cut because of all of the usless people that are part and parcel to, acording to Acorn, having a standing army. (That particular comment stuck in my craw.)

    My comments were referring to someone pointing the finger at the military as waste while collecting civillian government benefits including a “housing allowance” which is untaxed and assuming that those same goverment employees are OWED something extra simply because they work for uncle sam. The proposal that there is waste, but always looking elsewhere for it rather than looking in your own house. And at the same time showing no understanding of the difference between working for the government and working in the private sector. Compaining about the salary while people doing the same job in the private sector scrape by for a considerably smaller salary without the untaxed income and housing allowance.

    None of my comments were meant to reflect anything but a profound respect and appreciation for our military. I understand and appreciate the sacrifices and if anything would approve wholeheartedly increases in military spending to keep them equiped and trained for anything they might be asked to do, and to provide for they and their families because of those sacrifices.

    Acorn referred to himself as a federal employee. If Acorn’s military, then I misunderstood. If not, then I stand by my previous comments.

    This whole “pay freeze” is smoke and mirrors shoved onto the front page in an attempt to make Oblamer look good. Not working.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Agreed on the smoke and mirrors part….

      The line that Acorn used that told me he was military was “but the talks of military pay scale freezes have not left the building, and we get paid a hell of a lot less than plenty of nicely protected federal workers.” and “A lot of veterans and military are breathing a sigh of relief that we will not be refused the piddling raises” (emphasis mine)

      So it seemed obvious to me that Acorn was a military member. Thus the position of my argument.

      As regards other federal jobs where such a sacrifice as one’s very life is not in the contract, I’m in complete agreement with you. So sorry if I came off a little harsh. But so many people are ignorant of the military pay structure and the rules and regs they have to live under it kind of burns my toast when such ignorance becomes apparent. However, you seem to be one of those who are aware of it vs. the others and I’m glad that you are.

      Again, my apologies for being abrupt. Yes, federal employees, in general, are not much to my liking. Some are great at what they do and many do not have an entitlement mentality but for those who do, and I’ve met many, they can go pound sand.

    • proreason says:

      I think you have misinterpretted Acorn’s remarks. He wasn’t saying anything about military cuts, just that cuts usually start there, and that his cohorts were breathing easier that THEY didn’t get cut.

      Looks to me we are all in violent agreement that the military should be protected from salary cuts or freezes.

  13. untrainable says:

    No appology necessary. My bad. Once my craw is stuck my hackles go up and sometimes I get a little ahead of myself. I actually come from a military family and though I never served, I know what military service means, both to those who serve and those of us who reap the benefits (our freedom) and suffer the losses of that service.

    It’s the fact that the guy who empties Oblamer’s ashtrays in the oval office makes more than most of us out here in private sectorville, and then complains that he only makes twice my salary and has free healthcare for life but doesn’t have the $300K house in the burbs that he really needs (because of course the messiah’s butt bearer is very important for the survival of western civilization) , that gets me fired up. Instead of cutting the obvious waste in the nightmare that is Washington, they cut police, and emergency first responders, and release convicts because they have to fire prison workers. Then they have the “audacity” to tell us that the only other option is to raise taxes to make up the difference. (hackles raising again…)

    Sorry ARN. No offense intended.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      And I apologize for getting ticked off as well. There was clearly an internet induced misunderstanding here. I called myself a federal employee only to point out the euphamism being used here by the WH and Congress, and didn’t anticipate that it would go the way it did (I should have in retrospect)

      I’ll try to start over. Here is what I see happening with this pay freeze nonsense. The report says civilian DoD employees. This is to get everyone used ot the idea of cutting DoD budgets, but keeping conservatives from getting to worked up over it, as they generally don’t approve of such funding cuts. The truth is that funding cuts for the military proper are already in the works, and a 3 (not 2) year pay freeze for us has already been “discussed” which is code for going to happen in my opinion. It’s a con job all around.

      I’m glad that we are all back on the same page now, since it seems yourself, proreason, Rusty, and I have all pretty much said the same thing ten different ways.

  14. Mae says:

    If a person, especially a male, makes $42,300 per year, you know he is not a regular government employee. That’s barely receptionist pay in WDC. Remember during the Monica scandal the salaries paid to those women for office work? Seems to me Linda Tripp was making $65,000 per. In the private sector that often is an executive pay, not an assistant to the assistant.

    As for our military, they are poorly paid. Period. Even with a housing allowance, occasional free transportation, PX, etc., their sacrifices are above and beyond during wartime. Personally, I’d give that one segment of government a 50% salary raise and cut all regular employees benefits 50% and salary 25% to make them comparable with the private sector. Value to our nation should be the criteria.

    • Petronius says:

      Mae, there is a world of difference between civilian agencies and DoD.

      The DoD is well managed and workers are generally one to three pay grades below workers in civilian agencies. Nearly all DoD workers are veterans. Within DoD, Navy and Air Force fare better than Army.

      Democrats regard assignment to DoD agencies as a kind of punishment detail.

      You may recall that the Clintons moved Monica Lewinsky to a job in the Pentagon as a form of punishment. They gave Linda Tripp a $20,000 promotion at the Pentagon solely in order to get her out of the White House until she could be fired.

    • Mae says:

      Petronius, thanks for the info and correction. One would hope that those at the Department of Defense have a military background or if not having been active military, then certainly a thorough understanding of the military. That includes entry-level personnel. I do not begrudge a military person anything. Military serving during wartime, especially, should not have to worry about family going hungry or housing being foreclosed. They serve and protect and die and, thus, are in a special category, in my book…unlike a speech writer at the White House or a computer operator at the Dept.of Education.

      I do find it offensive that any government worker in civilian agencies (excuse my ignorance, but I’ve never thought of government workers as civilians–but of course that’s correct since they are in “civil service” and having taken a civil service exam, though I can’t possibly see how some of them ever passed any exam at all), would make more than a comparable worker in the private sector. As a matter of fact, I believe the private sector worker should make more since he is footing the bill for the government (and, yes, I’ve heard the argument that govt. workers also pay taxes). A “servant” should not make more than his “master.”

      I still find it outrageous that anyone in a governmental professional office assistant capacity would make $65,000. I never made that per year plus benefits in my entire working life. I sure as heck was efficient and never broke the law or did anything dishonorable, except perhaps keeping an office pen in my purse.

  15. Liberals Demise says:

    It means jack shiite unless those on Capital Hill lead the way by forgoing midnight pay raises and relinquish the perks that were never meant for them to have on the taxpayers dime.
    Does Mooshele really need alllllll those ladies (?) in waiting?
    Let us start where the principle of the act……nay……where the shiite hits the road!
    Everything else is pure teleprompter gaga.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »