Skip to main content

Rolling out his plan to cut the national debt last week, Mitt Romney promised to "align federal employee compensation with the public sector."  If so, the roughly 2.8 million federal workers whose pay has been frozen by President Obama can expect a big raise from President Romney.  As the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday, federal employees are now underpaid by 26.3 percent compared with similar non-federal jobs, a two percent increase over the previous year.  And as it turns out, as a percentage of the total U.S. population, the federal workforce Romney wants to cut by 10 percent is already at its smallest since the 1950's.

For months, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has been at the forefront of the Republican crusade to demonize government workers as "freeloaders" and a "new privileged class in America."  Regurgitating talking points from the right-wing Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, Romney declared that "average government workers are now making $30,000 a year more than the average private-sector worker."  And in the plan to cut federal spending he unveiled last week, Romney took aim at Uncle Sam's workforce:

Align Federal Employee Compensation With The Private Sector -- Savings: $47 Billion. Federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account.  This must be corrected.

As it turns out, not so much.

As the Washington Post reported Friday, the large and growing pay gap runs the other way:

The federal government reported Friday that on average its employees are underpaid by 26.3 percent when compared with similar non-federal jobs, a "pay gap" that increased by about 2 percentage points over the last year while federal salary rates were frozen.

As in the previous assessments of the numbers presented to the Federal Salary Council, federal workers are paid less than their counterparts in the30-plus metropolitan area surveyed, as well as the catch-all "rest of the US" (RUS):

The pay gap in the Washington-Baltimore area was calculated at 36.9 percent, slightly below the 38.1 percent reported last year...The gap in the locality with the largest number of federal employees, the catchall locality, was pegged at 19 percent, up from 14.7 percent. The overall average gap was calculated at 24.1 percent last year.

That persistent and growing gap hasn't prevented Republican mythmakers from claiming exactly the opposite.  Consider, for example, the "2 to 1" claim now dominating the U.S media:

"The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year. The average private employee makes $60,000 a year."  (Rand Paul)

"It's gotten to a point where the average federal worker makes twice as much as the average private sector worker."  (John Boehner)

"Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector."  (Tim Pawlenty)

But as with state and local governments, this line of attack is an apples-to-oranges comparison at best and an outright deception at worst.  As FactCheck pointed out:

The analysis is based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and crudely done by dividing total compensation (salary and benefits) by the number of current federal civilian employees. Comparing such averages is quite misleading, for two reasons:

First, BEA says the figure is inflated by including compensation that is actually paid to benefit retirees, not just for current workers. The figure is at least several thousand dollars too high, by our calculations.

Second, the average federal civilian worker is better educated, more experienced and more likely to have management or professional responsibilities than the average private worker.

Over 44% of federal employees have a college degree, compared to about 19% of private sector workers.  More importantly, an assessment of salaries (excluding benefits) by the Office of Personnel Management found that on average comparable federal civilian workers are paid 22 percent less than private workers.  The disparities, even including incentive pay, are even greater in some metropolitan areas:

It is worth noting, as FactCheck does, that there are limitations to the OPM data. Not only are benefits not included, but the benchmarking methodology makes direct public/private section comparisons difficult. But as Sheldon Friedman, the chairman of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, pointed out last year, the absence of the apples-to-apples comparisons for health care and retirement benefits doesn't alter the larger conclusion:

"Certainly it is true on average the benefits in the federal government are superior to the average for the private sector workforce, but that workforce include many millions who probably have no benefits whatsoever," said Friedman. "If you are comparing an engineer at a GS-12 or 13 in the federal government with their counterpart with Boeing or any other private company, I would guess the benefits aren't that different. But we really don't know."

Regardless, Mitt Romney wants to take an ax to federal employees' compensation and, it turns out, the workers themselves.  As Romney proposed last week:

Reduce The Federal Workforce By 10 Percent Via Attrition -- Savings: $4 Billion. Despite widespread layoffs in the private sector, President Obama has continued to grow the federal payrolls.  The federal workforce can be reduced by 10 percent through a "1-for-2" system of attrition, thereby reducing the number of federal employees while allowing the introduction of new talent into the federal service.

Again, Mitt Romney's central claim is a false one.  As the chart from the St. Louis Fedshows, federal government employment has been essentially unchanged under President Obama.  (Ironically, Bill Clinton reduced Uncle Sam's workforce dramatically after the ballooning of the Reagan years.)

As it turns out, the federal civilian workforce is not only smaller now than during Ronald Reagan's supposed heyday of small government; as a percentage of the U.S. population, federal employment is near 50 year lows:

As it turns out, Romney's straw-man is just a slightly less deceptive version than the one his former presidential rival turned endorser Tim Pawlenty offered in December:

"Since January 2008 the private sector has lost nearly 8 million jobs while local, state and federal governments added 590,000."

It's with good reason Politifact branded Pawlenty's fabrication a "Pants On Fire" lie.  With the temporary surge for the 2010 U.S. Census long since over, by the end of the 2010 the federal government's payroll had grown by a miniscule 34,000 over three years.  Meanwhile, state and local governments have shed over 600,000 jobs since the recession started.  (Nevertheless, conservative columnist George Will deemed the latest public sector job losses "good" while Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called them a "local" problem.)

McConnell's "local" problem includes the pay of state and municipal workers as well.  A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute found a similar dynamic of underpaid government workers at the state level as well. Just one of many recent analyses debunking Republican charges about government workers and their unions, EPI found that "on average, state and local government workers are compensated 3.75% less than workers in the private sector." The report by Labor and Employment Relations Professor Jeffrey Keefe of Rutgers University revealed that public employees are undercompensated compared to similarly skilled private sector counterparts:

The study analyzes workers with similar human capital. It controls for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity and disability and finds that, compared to workers in the private sector, state government employees are undercompensated by 7.55% and local government employees are undercompensated by 1.84%. The study also finds that the benefits that state and local government workers receive do not offset the lower wages they are paid.

The public/private earnings differential is greatest for doctors, lawyers and professional employees, the study finds. High school-educated public workers, on the other hand, are more highly compensated than private sector employees, because the public sector sets a floor on compensation. The earnings floor has collapsed in the private sector.

And compensation for state and local public employees is worst among the usual suspects. As the New York Times documented two weeks ago, state workers without a college degree generally make more than their private sector counterparts ($34,000 versus $32,000, or a 6.3% gap), while college graduates make much less (a -19.9% gap). But in the reddest of states, public employees experience a pay deficit regardless of education level. In Mississippi, the pay penalty for state workers without a college degree is 11.9%; for college graduates the deficit is 16.9%.

(Click here to see full size image.)

But that's just fine with Mitt Romney and his Republican colleagues who are so determined to lead a national race to the bottom.  Their goal, it appears, is to make Washington DC - and the rest of America - look like Mississippi.

* Crossposted at Perrspectives *

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Romney is a liar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lissablack, rodentrancher, jennybravo

    Always has been, always will be. Facts are meaningless to him and other wannabe presidential candidates.

    In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

    by vcmvo2 on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 12:56:37 PM PST

  •  15 yrs Ago When I Was Programmer for State of OH (4+ / 0-)

    a private contractor doing outsourced work for a neighboring department offered me a 50% raise to work for them. They didn't talk to me about any sacrifices I'd have to make if I left my nanny state job.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 01:07:20 PM PST

  •  Excellent post - (4+ / 0-)

    Exposing the lie from a multitude of different perspectives.

    This is going into my "Republicans Lie" category of bookmarks.

    Nice work.

    "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

    by NWTerriD on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 01:08:40 PM PST

  •  I'd like to see a comparison (7+ / 0-)

    of federal government contractors over time relative to actual government employees over the same time.  Pay would be good too, but I expect that isn't available.  I would bet that the increase in government contractors far outweighs the decrease in government employees, and if the data was possible to get, the contractors on average cost a bunch more for the same work.  This is why they never save any money when they freeze government salaries or cut government personnel.  They hire three contractors to replace every two civil service jobs they get rid of.  

    Reagan started it.  

    I retired from the Civil Service about 5 years ago, pretty much watched this happen the whole time.  Now there is a huge problem in the civil service and no one even discussing it anywhere, as far as I can see.

    •  YES! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lissablack, jennybravo

      Very important point.

      Private contractors doing government work usually cost more and get paid less than government workers at the same job.

      •  This started under Reagan. (0+ / 0-)

        I was there.  They assumed that contracting out was cheaper than keeping work internal to the government.  I don't know if they really believed this but that was what they said.  No effort was made to keep any data that might allow a cost comparison.  One of the bad things about it was that although it took more people and cost more, the actual people doing the work were not necessarily paid more, the extra cost was caused by higher overhead costs.  At levels like janitorial service the people were paid much less and had no protection and no stability as they had as civil service employees.

        Some of that changed when they passed the double dipping law.  Then lots of retired military officers who might have joined the civil service went to work for companies instead.  They cost MUCH more than they would have otherwise, and increased the amount of higher level government jobs that went to contractors.  

        Now it isn't at all clear in the military that contractors aren't making the decisions in many cases.  And higher ranking officers are thinking about making huge salaries after they retire by going to work for contractors.  It is utterly corrupt.  Especially generals.  None of them should be allowed to work for any company that has anything to do with the military ever after they retire.  

        They repealed the double dipping law, it was a pretty big mistake (or deliberate) in retrospect.  But it is too late.  Some of the most truly ethical military officers go into the civil service now, but most still want to go make the big bucks with contractors.  Most of them are too young and have too many debts to just retire and not have a job.

        It's a serious problem that has not gotten much attention anywhere, and now we are so buried in much bigger problems that it isn't important enough to make a huge stink about.  Not as important as the banksters.  But part of the system that is wrecking the country.

  •  Very difficult to generalize about federal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PrahaPartizan

    govt pay.  As the example states, if you compare what an engineer makes at Boeing in Seattle versus an engineer with the govt, the pay at Boeing might be better.  But an engineer at a smaller company in a smaller city might make less than a govt engineer.  The "pay gap" has been a concern in the fed govt for a couple decades, culminating in a "locality pay" approach to compensation for the General Schedule.  But with private sector wages stagnating and even going down in the last sector, the pay of govt employees has become much more comparable and even better than the private sector in many cases.  Comparing professional pay to giant corporations will get the disparity, but other than that I think things have changed alot.   The pay gap mentioned is a little surprising to me as it appears even higher than a decade ago.  

  •  Good lord, this diary is a freaking (5+ / 0-)

    encyclopedia on this issue.  Tipped, rec'd, and favd for future reference.   We should get this post added to kos wiki...

    I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

    by bhfrik on Sun Nov 06, 2011 at 01:33:23 PM PST

  •  Pay gap depends on specific job (0+ / 0-)
    The public/private earnings differential is greatest for doctors, lawyers and professional employees, the study finds.

    Exactly. This.

    So much of the discussion about this seems to be based on the notion that all feds are interchangeable parts, doing some generic, interchangeable "government job".

    A DoD shipyard welder is not an FBI agent is not a EPA biologist is not  a physician at CDC is not . . . you get the idea.  Somehow the right-wing echo chamber doesn't.

    Most extreme example of the pay gap I know of is a family member's fiance', who left a job with one of the big investment banking firms and went to work for the FDIC. She took about a 90% pay cut.

    Great diary, thank you Avenging Angel!

  •  As a federal employee.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....this kind of hateful rhetoric terrifies me.  Federal employees do a lot of important work.  I currently work for VA taking care of veterans-you know, that group that Republicans pretend to care about.  I can't imagine having to do even more than we do already, but with less.  I think a lot of the Tea Party folks would be very upset if it took even longer to get their disability benefits than it does now.  Of course, it would be all our fault because we're a bunch of fat, lazy govt employees, not the fault of the politicians they elected who subsequently eviscerated the govt workforce.  

    Wanna cut something from the federal workforce?!  How about cutting executive level pay and positions-VA at least (and probably many other agencies) is very top-heavy with SES paygrade positions who get paid huge amounts of money in salary and bonuses for doing very little.  At least, this is how it appears to the rank-and-file.  Who knows, maybe they do a great deal; I just haven't seen any evidence of it.  Anyway, you'd get a lot of bang for the buck by cutting these positions and/or payscales while at the same time improving morale in the rest of the federal workforce by keeping our pay and benefits safe.  Continuing to cut the average federal employee's salary or benefits is not the answer.  Most of us can't really afford to take any more cuts, and morale is rock-bottom as it is.  I think it's time the bloated SES folks feel the pinch, too-

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site