Bush Holds Federal Pay Raise to 2% in 2004

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Story

"President Bush exercised an escape clause in federal pay law yesterday that allows him to stick to his proposed 2 percent pay raise for civilian employees next year rather than agree to a formula that would trigger an increase of about 15 percent...."

BUSH IS THE ANTI-CHRIST! HE IS STEALING MONEY OUT OF MY POCKET! NO WAR FOR OIL


Seriously, though, I am willing to forgo the extra cash, given that Bush has put forth a 4.1% pay raise for members of the military...always willing to yield some greenbacks for those wearing green. And with the tax cuts, it's nearly a wash anyway Of course, the AFL-CIO doesn't see things this way...

 

[burnedout]

Towards the end of 1991, if I'm not mistaken, Congress voted themselves a pay increase while the country was in recession. Gawd, that made me madder than hell.

 

[dabuddha]

We got ripped last year regarding our raise. I don't think it'll happen again this year. He knows that if he does it, he will not serve another term.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: dabuddha
We got ripped last year regarding our raise. I don't think it'll happen again this year. He knows that if he does it, he will not serve another term.

I concur; military pay has become the proverbial 'third-rail' of politics, much like healthcare.

 

[Fausto]

2% vs. 15%? How is that going to be a "wash" with the tax cuts exactly?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Fausto1
2% vs. 15%? How is that going to be a "wash" with the tax cuts exactly?

The 15% is a crap statistic used by the post; you figure out where they derive that number, please let us know...it was going to be ~ 4.5% with the cost-of-living increase included. You can aggregate the total cost of the government workforce and do some 'fuzzy math' and get any high-end confidence interval you want.

We will, I suspect, get the 4% when all is said and done....mark my word

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Fausto1
2% vs. 15%? How is that going to be a "wash" with the tax cuts exactly?

The 15% is a crap statistic used by the post; you figure out where they derive that number, please let us know...it was going to be ~ 4.5% with the cost-of-living increase included. You can aggregate the total cost of the government workforce and do some 'fuzzy math' and get any high-end confidence interval you want.

We will, I suspect, get the 4% when all is said and done....mark my word

Yeah, I was kinda thinking that number seemed high after reading the article and a few others......

Anyway, I certainly hope we get our usual raise. It's bad enough already trying to get anything purchased with all the budget cuts. I had to beg/plead/grovel to replace a fscking pH meter in my lab this week! How are we supposed to function without one?!

At any rate, this isn't going to do any good with regard to the overall morale of federal employees; everyone here at the CDC is good and POed about this news. I know it's not really a lot of money on a per-person basis, but it's still irritating in principle.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

True, but that's really a separate issue. This punishes the worthy and unworthy alike. I've had nothing but outstanding yearly reviews during my tenure with the CDC and this is my reward?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

True, but that's really a separate issue. This punishes the worthy and unworthy alike. I've had nothing but outstanding yearly reviews during my tenure with the CDC and this is my reward?

I would argue that it is not the President himself who should 'reward' you, but instead, it is the responsibility of your immediate supervisor, no? I get a raise every year, then the 2-4% "adjustment" as a New Year's gift

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

Is this the pay-band system? They were trying to implement this for CG, but then decided not too.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

True, but that's really a separate issue. This punishes the worthy and unworthy alike. I've had nothing but outstanding yearly reviews during my tenure with the CDC and this is my reward?

I would argue that it is not the President himself who should 'reward' you, but instead, it is the responsibility of your immediate supervisor, no? I get a raise every year, then the 2-4% "adjustment" as a New Year's gift

It more or less works that way here as well, but the raise isn't proportional to your assessed level of performance. Basically, if your ratings are "acceptable" or above, you get a raise. If not, you don't. So I get the same basic "within-grade" bump as the guy who just does enough to not get fired. Where's the incentive to do anything above and beyond your basic job functions? It sucks.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

Is this the pay-band system? They were trying to implement this for CG, but then decided not too.

Yea, pay bands...Bands I-V

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I feel your pain, sir, but there are a number (a very large number) of federal employees who are not worth what they are making now, let alone paying them more. Where I work, we have the 'pay-for-performance' plan working, and it seems to weed out the complacent government 'lazy people'...no steps, per say...no automatic raises for tenure...you work, or you don't get paid (any extra)

Is this the pay-band system? They were trying to implement this for CG, but then decided not too.

Yea, pay bands...Bands I-V

What department? I only know people in DOT (and I've worked for DOT and DHS), and they all use the GS (or equiv.) scale.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

you know half the reason for a %4 pay increase is to help offset the effectsof inflation. What I find ironic is that with Bush's policy of "free money" (aka increase spending, decrease taxes) we end up paying for our deficit through inflation. If you're not sure how this works, ask around. Generally speaking, the more debt we owe the less our money is worth. I just find it kind of funny

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
you know half the reason for a %4 pay increase is to help offset the effectsof inflation. What I find ironic is that with Bush's policy of "free money" (aka increase spending, decrease taxes) we end up paying for our deficit through inflation. If you're not sure how this works, ask around. Generally speaking, the more debt we owe the less our money is worth. I just find it kind of funny

A better term would be funnyish, when payback time comes it'll be hard to crack even a smile.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
you know half the reason for a %4 pay increase is to help offset the effectsof inflation. What I find ironic is that with Bush's policy of "free money" (aka increase spending, decrease taxes) we end up paying for our deficit through inflation. If you're not sure how this works, ask around. Generally speaking, the more debt we owe the less our money is worth. I just find it kind of funny

A better term would be funnyish, when payback time comes it'll be hard to crack even a smile.

Only problem is, this country is not even at a historical high for debt to gdp ratio...

 

[SuperTool]

Is the government giving 4% across the board raise? Has inflation been at 4%?
Seems kind of strange to me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
you know half the reason for a %4 pay increase is to help offset the effectsof inflation. What I find ironic is that with Bush's policy of "free money" (aka increase spending, decrease taxes) we end up paying for our deficit through inflation. If you're not sure how this works, ask around. Generally speaking, the more debt we owe the less our money is worth. I just find it kind of funny

A better term would be funnyish, when payback time comes it'll be hard to crack even a smile.

Only problem is, this country is not even at a historical high for debt to gdp ratio...

Perhaps not, but it certainly is headed that way fast. I assume WW2 towards the end was the highest level? If so, I'd say that at least it was for a good reason.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
you know half the reason for a %4 pay increase is to help offset the effectsof inflation. What I find ironic is that with Bush's policy of "free money" (aka increase spending, decrease taxes) we end up paying for our deficit through inflation. If you're not sure how this works, ask around. Generally speaking, the more debt we owe the less our money is worth. I just find it kind of funny

A better term would be funnyish, when payback time comes it'll be hard to crack even a smile.

Only problem is, this country is not even at a historical high for debt to gdp ratio...

Perhaps not, but it certainly is headed that way fast. I assume WW2 towards the end was the highest level? If so, I'd say that at least it was for a good reason.

I think it was only 20-25 years ago.

Granted we fought WWII on 20% of GDP...what we run the goverment on today :|

 

[LunarRay]

OPM site for their analysis

At the botton of the link is the GS altenative plan link and the Presidents alternative plan letter to congress link.

I think the full 4% should have been effected. A further economic stimuli and the military should get an increase as well (beyond what is scheduled) A good 200b more in stimuli would do wonders for the economy and increase the debt much less in the next FY if at all.
I think the CBO and OMB should consider their macro models with a more solid mirco foundation. I'm sure there economists feel it is solid enough for 'government work' and it may be solid for all I know. It just don't seem so.

 

[Ferocious]

I wish there would have been no tax cuts for the wealthy and all the money was given to the military for pay raises.

But most of them would not have sent big checks back to Bush's campaign.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I'm sure there economists feel it is solid enough for 'government work' and it may be solid for all I know. It just don't seem so.

Ea-sy, big guy...

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

What department? I only know people in DOT (and I've worked for DOT and DHS), and they all use the GS (or equiv.) scale.

Dept. of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis...one of those dumb economists cranking out 'government work'

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I wish there would have been no tax cuts for the wealthy and all the money was given to the military for pay raises.

But most of them would not have sent big checks back to Bush's campaign.

Thanks for jumping in yet another thread and giving us your opinions of Bush; your thought(s) is/are noted. Have a nice day.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: LunarRay

I'm sure there economists feel it is solid enough for 'government work' and it may be solid for all I know. It just don't seem so.

Ea-sy, big guy...

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

What department? I only know people in DOT (and I've worked for DOT and DHS), and they all use the GS (or equiv.) scale.

Dept. of Commerce; Bureau of Economic Analysis...one of those dumb economists cranking out 'government work'

Well... I often refer to the DofC as having the better economic output. But, well it is true IMO. I'll have to defer to your opinion more often..