I cannot believe the stuff that's out there. One of my Facebook "friends" (a reasonably nice guy on the surface whom I know through a non-political common interest), who has turned out to be a rabid wingnut posted this link to a piece of dreck which was authored in response to the SotU address. While generally about fairness, it aims much of its vitriol at government employees in broad strokes, and as a retired civil subservient myself, I'm compelled to respond. The fun begins in the untamed arena below the orange filter.
Well, first of all, I dashed this brief comment off to my "friend"'s Facebook post:
"rich federal workers"—ha, ha, ha, ha. How in the hell did I miss that boat? 30 years federal service.
As will be seen in a bit, that wasn't enough for me, so with some pique in hand I did some searching for supporting data and then posted another brief response:
The more I ruminate on that article the stupider it sounds. Here's a link to a chart that lists General Schedule (GS—the federal pay tables) pay grades and the typical education needed to earn the pay: GS Levels Explained
That link is based on the 2006 GS, so to be as accurate as possible, here are the GS rates for 2012, which ironically are the very same rates as 2010—talk about fair: 2012 General Schedule
I guess this is what happens when you believe crap written by someone who doesn't have the remotest clue as to what they're talking about. And those two links are the most very basic information. They don't explain, for example, that to get from Step 1 to Step 10 of a pay grade takes 18 years. For a very average GS-9, that means less than $1000 per year pay raise on average. I should tell you that those last three steps are three years apart.
You all can rail all you want about congressional pay and how it may or may not be reflective of average federal workers, but their pay and the average federal workers' pay are light years apart. How about picking an appropriate demon to excoriate. I and all the other GS-15 and below workers are not demons.
And no, you couldn't have done my job, not with all the training in the world. I do not apologize for the work I did and the pay I got in my 30 years.
I'm still not happy, and for that, you must suffer. Let me go through his arguments, point by point. I won't regurgitate all of his stuff here—no one deserves that—I'll just use a key phrase followed by the refutation.
- "average Federal employee vs average American employ…" While I don't have any empirical data to equate Federal vs public salaries, the very first question I have is, "how do we know this isn't already the case. And, of course, are we comparing job for job, or average per average—lawyer to lawyer, janitor to janitor? The General Schedule is already set up to attempt parity between Federal and public salaries, so my question remains, "aren't we already doing that?"
- "…retired Federal employee [tied to] highest Social Security monthly amount." Good grief, that's unreasonable and unrealistic on so many levels. At the very least it wholly ignores the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS—in place since ≈1983) and the fact that FERS is comprised of Social Security contributions and payouts plus essentially a 401K, largely funded by the employee. The very first thing that comes to mind is why should someone building a 401K not be able to reap its benefits just because a non-Federal SS recipient doesn't have one? Does a GS-15 retiree have to accept a lesser SS payout because of some arbitrary and irrelevant public employee SS payout?
- "…Federal pay cuts until parity with public average." I worked for the Federal Government from 1968 until 1997. I cannot tell you how many years of those we received only a percentage of an equivalent COLA (cost of living adjustment) to the public sector even after legislation was enacted to require parity. It was always less than the true cost of living. Always.
- (I'll quote this in its entirety, it's so absurd) "After all, how can the government hope to get more money from taxpayers who are earning less?" Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. If all taxpayers were earning less, we could begin to have a discussion. But we know from voluminous data extant that quite a percentage of high income earners are not only earning more (much more, in many cases) than the average taxpayer, but they are paying much lower taxes on that higher income. The question really should be "why isn't the government getting more from taxpayers who are earning more?"
- "Why should government employees be able to run for any federal office while holding…another elected office?" Can you see where the logic train falls off the tracks here. The blogger is clearly painting the Civil Service, not with a wide brush, but a loaded spray gun with the broadest tip. There are hundreds of thousands of Federal Employees. So far as I know, there are only <500 of them who run for office every two years (I know, that number is skewed a bit by a lot of circumstances, but for the sake of argument, let's just accept it). I am unaware of any unelected Federal Employees who are able to run for office without taking a leave of absence (without pay). Just Congress and the President, unless I've missed someone. Cabinet members, agency heads, etc., pretty much have to resign to run, and many are prohibited by law to run without resigning.
- "…receive more than one pension." I've railed against the double/triple dipping complaint for years. I always cite my friend, a retired Chief Petty Officer who spent twenty years in the Navy, retired, took a job that qualified for SS quarters, accumulated 40 of them, then took a job with an institution that had a generous pension. Please tell me which of the three annuities he shouldn't be allowed to take. He's a triple dipper and he's earned every dip. He's not the only example I know, but he firmly makes my point.
- "Penalize unsuccessful congress critters." As fun as that sounds in the abstract, and as much as we here at DK excoriate them all for nonfeasance of leadership, the fact of the matter is they all do work, dithering though it may be, and I'm not sure there's a defensible way of treating Congress like the College of Cardinals. There's certainly not a Constitutional one that I can imagine.
- "congress/lobbyist—vice versa" The sad part of this is there's an element of truth to it and even sadder there's supposed to be a prohibition already in place providing for a cooling off period. How come we don't enforce it? Oh, wait—wouldn't that be a freedom of some kind? We know how choked up these wingnuts can get about freedom (unless it's women's reproductive freedom).
- "Air Force One" Well, I never suggested it wouldn't get silly. The dollars and cents involved with A1 operations is such a pittance that the accounting costs alone might make it a wash at best. Besides, I don't have a problem, fair or otherwise, with the Chief Executive getting to tote the family along for the ride.
- "full scanning and/or patdowns" See, that's just vindictive…and not well thought out. The purpose (alleged, I'll grant) for the screening is for security. Is there any flight more secure than the one carrying the President? Are there any lower risks than those associated with the President and family? C'mon.
- "more Air Force One" I mentioned not knowing what one is talking about and in point of fact, I believe it would be the GAO, not the CBO, who might determine prices. But are they to be assessed for a first class ticket or the cheapest commercial fare (which, I believe, is the standard for such calculations)?
- "tax code" I think the guy is a little off base here on gifts/deductions and other stuff. This is also in the realm of "parking places counting as income" and I don't know that we've ever moved to assessing for that.
- "Air Force One/campaigning, etc." Since A1 is inherently a political vehicle—its described purpose is "projecting America"—I don't see how it's possible to separate out the functions listed. And by the way, how is fairness an issue?
- "more taxes" More silliness. I don't know that the poster can assert without fear of contradiction that some of what he complains about isn't already tax policy. And no vacations? Why not tell all Federal Employees they don't get vacations, either, and by the same logic (as yet undemonstrated)?
- "unions" Gee, what a surprise—an anti-union rant from a wingnut. His "unions take money from taxpayers…" while absurd on its face actually does play into an argument I made for many years: since I (when I was a government employee…well, still, actually) am paid out of the national treasury (funded by taxes), why should I be taxed? I figure there's ≈20% of my salary that just rolls around in a continuous circle from the treasury to a notation on my W2 and back to the treasury. I never see it. The government uses it elsewhere (as it's a zero-sum instrument), yet it's charged against me when wingnuts like the OP rail against the Federal Employee.
- "vested, or conflict of, interest" This is actually a point on which we agree. Sadly, it is so fundamentally common sense, it's discouraging that it even needs to be legislated. But, unfortunately, I think it should.
- "rich Federal workers" I refer you to my original response to this nonsense. As to the rest, I drifted off because it's basically an "Obama is stupid" rant, and I can get that on any media outlet by reading rethuglican quotes.
Okay, I feel a little better. I read the comments to the OP's drivel, and decided it was pointless to register (I'm not sure to what) for the purpose of writing something on the order of the above. I wasn't going to change any minds, and I can be called a "libtard" in plenty of other venues, so I gave it up. But, I thought I'd share…