How about federal employees sharing in the sacrifice?
About a year ago, USA Today reported that federal workers are earning twice what their private sector counterparts take in:
At a time when workers’ pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
So, given that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sought a Sense of the Senate resolution on Shared Sacrifice (which, Ed Morrissey reports, fell “to defeat on a procedural vote“), how about asking federal workers who draw their salary from taxpayer funds to share in the sacrifice?
I mean, if a private company suffers a revenue shortfall, it often cuts costs by reducing the salaries of its employees. Our federal government has such a shortfall and federal workers have been seeing pay and benefit increases even as the company, er, government, operates in deficit.
So, here’s a suggestion. According to Wikipedia (citing 2005 census figures), the median gross income of all persons working full time is $39.509. We’ll take $42,500, a number a little higher than that (to be generous to our government employees), as our baseline.
We wouldn’t ask federal employees to sacrifice any of that $42,500, but every dime they earn over that and less than $85,000 (twice $42,500) will be cut by 10%, every dime over $85,000 and less than $170,000 (twice $85,000) will be cut by 20% and everything over $170,000 will be cut by 30%.
If Suzie who works for the Department of Transportation, currently drawing a salary of $40,000, won’t see any cut in her salary, but Joe down the hall who takes home $43,000, will receive a salary cut of $50 (10% of 500 (the amount of his salary over $42,500), far less than 1% of his salary. But, his supervisor Jo-Anna who brings in $60,000 will see a $1,750 cut.
Harvey now earning $105,000 would face a salary cut of $8,250 (10% of 42,500 = $4,250) + (20% of $20,000 = $4,000).
Harry Reid would sacrifice $28,270 of his current salary is $193,400, (10% of 42,500 = $4,250) + (20% of $85,000 = $17,000) + (30% of 23,400 = $7,020).
So, since Mr. Reid is so eager for rich people who don’t live on the largess of Uncle Sam to share in the sacrifice, I’m sure he’d eagerly share in that sacrifice himself.
Oh, and, one more thing. Even Mr. Reid who would see the largest cut, would only see a reduction of 14.6% in his salary, not the approximately 50% required to ensure equality with private sector employees.
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I suggest they raise taxes on people residing in some of America’s wealthiest counties. You know, the ones surrounding D.C.
Not a day goes buy that I don’t read of some government waste so egregious that I have little doubt that they despise us. Today, it’s the Omaha schools spending $130,000 on white-bashing “diversity” books for all 8,000 employees (Omaha has that many school employees?!). Yesterday, it’s the news that Colorado is dictating racial quotas for daycare center dolls and requiring a doctor’s note for whole milk.
And then there’s the unfirable quack that got $750K in California (where else?) last year..
http://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-rohlfing-california-highest-paid-2011-7
Comment by SoCalRobert — July 13, 2011 @ 9:21 pm - July 13, 2011
I think they should also start paying into social security.
Comment by jann — July 13, 2011 @ 9:52 pm - July 13, 2011
Federal employees hired after January 1984 do pay into Social Security. Only those employed before that do not, and only if they opted out by staying with the original CSRS (though I imagine many of those older employees chose to stay with the old system).
Comment by Neptune — July 13, 2011 @ 10:52 pm - July 13, 2011
Here we go again, trying to introduce logic into politics (“poly” is a word meaning “many,” and “ticks” are blood-sucking parasites). That trick never works!
Comment by Dottie Laird — July 14, 2011 @ 12:50 am - July 14, 2011
Of course, all this would do is take money out of people’s pockets and worsen the recession. The core problem with the economy, consumers not spending enough, would only be exasperated by cutting so many people’s pay. And for what, so we can say the deficit is reduced by some tiny fraction? That simple piece of information is so magical that it would counter-balance the billions and billions this would leach out of the economy?
Comment by Levi — July 14, 2011 @ 1:33 am - July 14, 2011
Levi, it’s as magical as believing that “taxing the rich” will balance the budget. I have read that the administration believes any couple making $250,000 or more are rich. That would include many small business owners (who employ people, remember?).
Actually, we should start with Congress and employees in the White House. Have you seen some the THEIR salaries? It’s a symbolic gesture, but then the Dems are all about symbols.
Comment by Mary — July 14, 2011 @ 3:09 am - July 14, 2011
So now Levi’s contradicting himself? Suddenly the “core problem” isn’t that the liberals haven’t spent enough of our money setting up slush funds for themselves..
Comment by TGC — July 14, 2011 @ 3:22 am - July 14, 2011
@ TGC
It’s self interest. Levi lives in the DC area. If they started cutting federal employee salaries then demand for the phones he sells (i.e. “a choice that continues to let people waste their own money”) would dry up.
Levi believes in spending other people’s money, not his own.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 7:35 am - July 14, 2011
I never said that was the problem. The problem is that people aren’t buying things – and making it that much more likely that a few million workers buy even less only makes the problem worse. Why should a business owner hire new people i f they know that everyone that lives nearby is going to have a fraction of their disposable income?
Comment by Levi — July 14, 2011 @ 8:08 am - July 14, 2011
Levi – the money in the pockets of public sector workers comes out of private sector pockets.
Comment by SoCalRobert — July 14, 2011 @ 8:33 am - July 14, 2011
I never said that was the problem.
link
link
Two examples in 5 minutes. Not bad.
Besides, in a moment of candor, Levi showed what he really thinks about the proles making money. “Money belongs to the government”
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 8:40 am - July 14, 2011
And the productivity of public sector workers directly and indirectly saves private sector workers all kinds of money in thousands of different ways. You can’t just pretend like nobody gets absolutely any value out of what our taxes pay for, just because you may be able to point to some redundancies or inefficiencies.
Comment by Levi — July 14, 2011 @ 9:02 am - July 14, 2011
Notice the hilarious contradiction here.
Levi screams that we can’t take money out of peoples’ pockets because it would “worsen the recession”.
Then elsewhere Levi demands a massive tax increase to take more money out of peoples’ paychecks — despite just having said that doing so makes the recession worse.
Seriously, how much more stupid and incoherent can Levi be?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 9:35 am - July 14, 2011
And here’s a great example of what Levi calls saving the private sector money.
That’s right, folks; Levi considers government workers downloading child pron and being paid six-figure salaries to do it a “savings”.
Not only is Levi a fascist, he’s a pervert.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 9:40 am - July 14, 2011
What’s the value in getting shot by Los Zetas, again? Oh, right. Less carbon dioxide emissions.
Comment by TGC — July 14, 2011 @ 9:52 am - July 14, 2011
What sticks in my craw is when Democrats talk about the federal deficit and spending in terms of ma and pa at the kitchen table.
I am ma and pa at the kitchen table. There are two options I do not have to help me solve my financial concerns: 1) I can’t tax my neighbors and 2) I can’t print money in the basement.
But, what the hey, the Democrats just blather on about ma and pa at the kitchen table and reject any concept of cutting expenses.
I favor cutting a entire model lines of government in the same way GM killed Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer. My suggestion is to shut down the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and spin off Puerto Rico.
I do not see a lick of difference between the unemployed Saturn worker and an unemployed Department of Education worker. Except, when the private industry factory is closed all the supporting businesses suffer and even fail. When the Department of Education disappears nobody notices.
Comment by Heliotrope — July 14, 2011 @ 10:43 am - July 14, 2011
Like the people at the DMV for example.
I gotta laugh because this comment reads like it was written by someone who has had absolutely no interaction with a government bureaucracy ever, and I read it as I was preparing the 20+ pages of paperwork required to get such a bureaucracy to issue a new birth certificate for the kid I adopted late last year.
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 11:21 am - July 14, 2011
@17
Make sure it’s a long form, just in case he ever runs for President.
(Congratulations, BTW)
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 12:00 pm - July 14, 2011
Check it out: Obama bureaucrats preparing to screw business again.
Now, excuse me while I work on the 18 pages of paperwork to renew my foster care license.
Comment by V the K — July 14, 2011 @ 12:25 pm - July 14, 2011
And Levi’s delusions just get more and more entertaining.
And the productivity of public sector workers directly and indirectly saves private sector workers all kinds of money in thousands of different ways.
Like the 6.1 BILLION hours, equating to $163 BILLION of lost productivity, that the Obama Party’s tax code and bureaucracy costs the private sector each year.
This is the difference between liberal atheists and conservative religious people. Conservative religious people can quote and use facts, statistics, and rational thought; liberal atheists like Levi depend on wild, emotional statements requiring willing suspension of disbelief.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2011 @ 12:26 pm - July 14, 2011
I must be the only person I know who likes my DMV. The Motor Vehicle Commission offices nearest me in NJ are the most efficient and friendliest of any state I’ve dealt with. Of course, this could be an anomaly, but I’ll take it.
Comment by Neptune — July 14, 2011 @ 12:48 pm - July 14, 2011
Fun DMV story to ligthen to mood.
When I had to get plates for Dante, the first three letters were EAT. Taking my size into account I said, “This plate says ‘eat’ You gave me this because I’m FAT didn’t you?”
The guy was all apologetic and everything I said ‘it’s ok man it’s ok, just frakking around.” unlike most state folks, he had a sense of humour.
Comment by The_Livewire — July 14, 2011 @ 2:26 pm - July 14, 2011
Speaking of the “bureaucracy”, did you know that to get a US passport you now need your “long-form” birth-certificate…not the short-form that many of us have used for decades? It’s a recent change in State Dept. regulations.
My short-form birth certificate was issued over 50-years ago and it’s never been challenged before…
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 14, 2011 @ 5:25 pm - July 14, 2011
[...] class warfare, wondering why we don’t ask the rich to pay their fair share. (What about having federal workers share in the sacrifice, considering their salaries are considerably higher than those of their counterparts in the private [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Initial thoughts on president’s debt speech — July 25, 2011 @ 10:50 pm - July 25, 2011