I think Reagan can be said to have won the Cold War in the same sense that a tiny pebble can be said to have been the cause of a landslide that wipes out an entire town. Russia was a house of cards trembling in the breeze, waiting to collapse well before Reagan was elected.Originally Posted by A-1
Transward
nil humanum a me alienum est
Can we please get this back to the topic.
Are Federal Workers receiving twice the pay of private sector workers?
The USA Today article was based on data produced by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). BEA acknowledges on its web site that using its data to compare federal sector compensation with that of the private sector will provide distorted results. BEA explains why in clear language right on their website. And USA Today was aware of BEA's disclaimer.
A clearer picture of the disparity between the federal and private sectors is data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). This is the data used by the Federal Salary Council and the President’s Pay Agent and actually compares like jobs in various geographic areas. That data shows that federal employees are paid an average of 22 percent less than their private-sector counterparts.
So why would USA Today choose to publish an article based on admittedly distorted data? The answer is simple. a headline claiming that government workers are underpaid is boring. Their readers don't buy papers to read boring facts. Using distorted data to create flashy headlines sells papers. National Enquirer knows it. And USA Today proves that it knows it also.
A few years back, Congress decided to outsource some of my agencies work to the private sector. A few year later, they brought that work back because they found that Federal workers were doing the job better, cheaper, faster, and with fewer complaints than our private sector counterparts.
And now we have the rest of the story, once again if you look for half facts, semi truths you will find them, its always good to do this in an election year because half the people are just to damn lazy to find out the real truth, then you have the Republicans who just make it up as they go.
River
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke
The only thing Reagan did was put in the last nail, Pope John Paul II had been working to that end for years along with others.
But
Was it a good thing? The old CCCP is no more and now we have unstable little governments all over the place that the Russians had control over. I think an argument can be made that the fall was not that good of a deal. Add that with the money Republican presidents have spent because of it and your looking at about 7 or 8 trillion in debt. For those Republicans who have no clue what I am talking about its Star Wars, Two unfunded Wars which are still going on and to quote them "do you feel safer?" Do you still have the freedom you once enjoyed? Yea, right, that's what I thought.
River
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke
Re: Federal Civilian Workers Make Twice What Private Workers Do
May I be the FIRST to say WELCOME TO THE ZOO!
It IS sad to see the news media sink into the tactic of YELLOW JOURNALISM, but as you say some have been at it for years and years.
While the National Enquirer WAS many times a "tongue-in-cheek" publication the main players in the attempt at Right-Wing PROPAGANDA are deadly serious about mis-informing, and are seemingly protected by the First Amendment.
The saying "No one has the right to yell FIRE in a crowed movie house..." probably came from Supreme Court Justice Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes ruling in SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) 249 U.S. 47 SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES. BAER v. SAME. Nos. 437, 438. Argued Jan. 9 and 10, 1919. Decided March 3, 1919. which states in part...
Clearly, the intent to FALSELY influence political power is on a par with yelling fire in a theater and using propaganda for political gain and to work evil against society and certain of its citizens ala Senator Joe McCarthy....the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205 , 206 S., 25 Sup. Ct. 3. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
It is almost as heinous a concept as binLaden's philosophical ploy of using the freedom of Americans as a shield when attacking America and necessitating a "War Powers Act" type of legislation that became known as "The Patriot Act".
Certain news media on the LEFT AND RIGHT have DANCED upon this line for many years, hiding behind the FIRST AMENDMENT to do their evil by broadcasting innuendo and falsehood.
When one makes a DEMAND for truth in media we slam against finely crafted First Amendment arguments in court that are designed to protect such inherently EVIL practices from being discontinued.
When being fed a continual diet of LIES and politically motivated PSEUDO-HISTORY, the body politic will become sick, much like Nazi Germany did in its persecution of the Jew and other minorities. The only thing that protects individuals from this IS the U.S. Constitution.
When a GROUP starts demanding the repeal of a Constitutional Amendment or the adoption of a Constitutional Amendment be VERY, VERY wary. THEY ARE UP TO NO GOOD!
It is time that somebody PUSHED and PUSHED HARD for a truth in media regulation and forged a campaign and mandated the differentiation between unbiased news and rancid opinion in the media in a clear disclaimer required in each and every news broadcast so that the public could know the difference between news and opinion.
A-1
__________________
(See the Avatar above)
(OR, Click below)
It's the NEW CONSERVATIVE Body Modification Craze...
.....
I find the best news to be ones where for any debate or subject matter they have both sides. By doing this you can see what each side is thinking and then you can come to a reasonable decision on the topic at hand. PBS does this, Meet the Press does this, Fox news Sunday does not, its all one sided. You know its the right news source when you cant tell which side they are for on any given issue, with Fox there is never a doubt, this is not news but opinion or entertainment.
River
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke
This whole thread brings to mind Twains dictum (which he attributed to Disraeli),
Particularly as here where the intent is not to inform but to deceive."There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Transward
nil humanum a me alienum est
Re-read post #1 - the USA Today article - and you'll see that it includes part of the BEA's explanation of why Federal employees make more: "Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union."
So both sides of the debate were reported by the paper.
Now let's look at what the BEA actually said - (http://faq.bea.gov/cgi-bin/bea.cfg/p...ted=1156971364 ) "There are a number of factors that explain why average compensation for federal government non-postal civilian employees is higher than average compensation for private-sector employees.
* The mix of occupations held by federal government civilian employees is different from that of occupations held by the entire private-sector workforce. The private-sector workforce are in a wider range of jobs than federal government employees -- from minimum-wage positions to highly paid CEOs. According to studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), jobs in the federal government civilian workforce are concentrated in professional (e.g., lawyers, accountants, and economists), administrative, and technical occupations.1 In addition, skill levels and educational attainment tend to be higher, on average, for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees because of the occupational requirements in the federal government.2
* Over the past several years, there has been a shift in federal employment toward higher-skilled, higher-paid positions because lower-skilled (and lower-paid) positions have been contracted out to private industries.1 This trend has contributed to higher average pay for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees.
* On average, federal government employees receive higher benefits in the form of pensions and health insurance contributions than private-sector employees; some private-sector employees receive no benefits.
* Moreover, federal compensation estimates include sizable payments for unfunded liabilities that distort comparisons with private-sector compensation. For 2006, for example, the value of these payments for unfunded liability was $28.6 billion or 10.7 percent of total federal civilian compensation. Please see the FAQ "How does BEA treat federal payments to the Military and Civil Service Retirement Funds?" for more information on payments for unfunded liabilities."
So the Federal workforce has been moving toward more highly educated professional and technical occupations - just like the private sector. This has been the trend for the entire US economy for many years. Hundreds of posts at EA have complained bitterly about the export of lower-skilled jobs, how it's harder and harder for ordinary working people to earn enough to sustain a middle-class lifestyle, etc. So what the BEA is actually saying is that Federal employees are among the chief beneficiaries of this economic/demographic shift, that they are part of the new ruling class - exactly what the article suggested.
Then the BEA says "On average, federal government employees receive higher benefits in the form of pensions and health insurance contributions than private-sector employees; some private-sector employees receive no benefits." Exactly. Including benefits as part of total compensation, Federal employees make much more than ordinary workers. That's just the point. Government employees receive extraordinary benefits, unavailable to most people.
The BEA goes on to say "Moreover, federal compensation estimates include sizable payments for unfunded liabilities that distort comparisons with private-sector compensation. For 2006, for example, the value of these payments for unfunded liability was $28.6 billion or 10.7 percent of total federal civilian compensation." What are these "unfunded liabilities"? Benefits - pensions, insurance, etc. So the Federal government is going into debt to pay the extraordinary benefits received by Federal employees.
Finally, USA Today reports that "Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers." So not only do Federal workers make more, but the difference has been growing every year.
The question remains - at a time when real unemployment hovers around 16%, when tens of thousands of families continue to lose their homes, when most signs point to economic distress lasting for years to come, when most people no longer enjoy generous retirement benefits, etc., is it right or fair that a people in pain should be heavily taxed to pay for the benefits of an elite, even an educated elite?
Some of you will predictably denounce other social inequities, but that's evasive. We're talking about the people's government, supported by tax dollars. This is a matter of public policy.
So instead of acting like the fed workers are getting too much how come we don't say the private sector workers are getting too little? Seems a shame for anyone to work their butts off all their life, getting a few holidays and two weeks a year off and then retire to nothing and die. Life should be better than that and everyone deserves more in the way of benefits and retirement. I say give the working class more, don't take it away.
P.S. I am a state worker and I get about 50,000 a year before taxes which is a great income if you ask me, and very good benefits. I worked most of my life in the private sector and got shit, only the last 5 years for the state. Most of the people I know who work for the state are in the 30 to 50K range, so we are not getting rich.
Re: Federal Civilian Workers Make Twice What Private Workers Do
Gee Dave,Try read the upload. Bush Sr. in on the list of poor economic performers who all were picking up the tab for the previous war.
http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/show...34&postcount=9
"...all got stuck with the "tab" for the previously started wars as effected their 'evaluation' as good administrations with the, economy. . ."
Picking up the tab, not war mongering.
Moi
Courtesy, Please read my uploads before,
calling me out! Avoid loose synonyms & logic if referencing, Moi.
Reagan didn't have a war other than Granada. The only war before that was Viet Nam and that was paid for by Carter and then Reagan's bargain with the Dems to fix the budget in 1982 or 3. I forget which year it was.
G HW Bush didn't have to raise taxes to pay for a war since he got other countries to pay for the Kuwait war. He raised taxes to pay for the profilgate spending of Reagan who increased spending on everything that wasn't a social program. Federal Employees cheered Reagan for his amazing ability to increase the size of government. That's why I know things about nuclear and defense issues. Black projects were funneled through
Dept of Energy and hid from congressional oversight. We had employees devoted to nuclear non-proliferation that were hidden for nearly two decades.
The Republican base didn;t forgive GHW Bush and neither did Ross (my enemies want to spoil my daughter's wedding) Perot, the goofy-assed, ugly-eared loon. GHW Bush showed a modicum of financial responsibility and the Republican base just hates him for it. To this day they hate him for it.
Skifreak, I agree with you in principle. It would be nice if everyone got paid more. It would be nice if there were abundance, and even luxury, for us all. Sadly, there's not the money to pay for it. The traditional solution to this difficulty is for people to organize into pressure groups, which try to get more for themselves by cutting their neighbors' throats. This is on full display now in New Jersey and New York. Both states are essentially broke and have to slash their budgets. The public employee unions in both states are running TV, radio, and print ads extolling the value of their services, and suggesting that only pure evil could lead anyone to cut their budgets. What the ads never say is whose benefits should be cut, if one union's members refuse to take on an equal share of the burden.
>>It's easier to scream and yell that government employees are overpaid.
>>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8...ng-Blame-a-CEO
Insurance premiums rising? Blame a CEO
by Joan McCarter
Insurance premiums rising? Blame a CEO
Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:46:04 PM PDT
There's no denying that administrative costs for insurance companies are out of control, and that ends up driving up premium costs. But it's not just those rising (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-in...+-+Top+News%29) administrative costs that behind the still-increasing premium rates.
The top executives at the nation's five largest for-profit health insurance companies pulled in nearly $200 million in compensation last year — while their businesses prepared to hit ratepayers with double-digit premium increases, according to a new analysis conducted by healthcare activists.
The leaders of Cigna Corp., Humana Inc., UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint Inc. each in effect received raises in 2009, the report concluded, based on an analysis of company reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission.
The study was conducted by HCAN, which laid out the solution in the press release accompanying the story.
State and federal insurance regulators are currently considering guidelines to induce health plans to spend a greater share of their premium revenue on patient care and less on executive compensation, administration and profit. The proposal revolves around a closely-watched financial indicator known to Wall Street investors as the medical-loss ratio (MLR). The new health reform law includes a provision that requires insurers to spend on patient care at least 80 percent of health plan premiums collected from individuals and small employers and 85 percent of premiums paid by large employers.
Crucial recommendations on implementation of these guidelines will be made soon to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Most of the plans reviewed in the HCAN report continued in the second quarter of 2010 to spend lavishly on non-medical activities while reducing the share of premium dollars used for members' actual health care.
The health insurance industry wants to expand the definition of allowable medical expenses to include costs that are not directly related to the delivery of care and have not historically been classified as medical. Instead of reducing costs and improving the efficiency of their operations, they simply want to change how certain expenses are classified. This approach would encourage CEOs to gouge consumers even more than they already do in order to jack up corporate profits and share prices, thereby increasing bonuses and grants of stock and stock options to them....
Strong standards for insurance company spending are needed to ensure that premiums are not jacked up merely to perpetuate bloated executive compensation. The MLR standards in the Affordable Care Act are critical to curbing the worst of the health insurance industry's consumer abuses, controlling rising premium costs, increasing the value of premiums paid by private and public customers, and reining in the profiteering of health insurance companies.
To enforce the MLR standards and fulfill the promise of quality, affordable health care for all, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must reject the insurance industry's sophisticated efforts to undercut the law. If the rules governing medical-loss ratios, rate review and other consumer protections are implemented as intended, the health reform law will hold accountable an industry that abuses millions of customers when they need health benefits the most.
We knew that the legislative battle was just the first one, and the regulatory fight to make the Affordable Care Act actually have teeth was going to be just as tough, but a lot less public. Out-of-control compensation for CEOs and rising premium rates will hopefully make the insurance commissioners a little less amenable to the insurance company lobbying.
### end
Re: Federal Civilian Workers Make Twice What Private Workers Do
Well, Bobover, if the cheap-assed managers running the government agencies had not tried to screw over the workers then they probably would not have unionized.
You see it time after time. Management thinking that it is a higher class and better than the workers and trying to prove it by being stingy and nasty.
Mark my words, and mark them well. All of the assholes moving manufacturing over seas will eventually ave to put up with unions wherever they go because they have no respect for humanity and sooner or later humanity bans against them unless they get a little humanity.
Unions are not the problem. Managerial attitudes toward the working classes are the problem and greed is the problems symptom.
__________________
(See the Avatar above)
(OR, Click below)
It's the NEW CONSERVATIVE Body Modification Craze...
A-1, everyone is greedy. Some people (CEOs) have the power to act alone. Other people (Unions) have to band together. In both cases, it's people wielding power to get what they want. Morality doesn't enter into it, except as a club to bludgeon the opposition. This only becomes a problem when the combination of greed and power grows so great that it threatens to upend society. Many people feel that Federal employees, collectively, have grown so rich and powerful (and greedy) that they threaten the wellbeing of the country. We don't want to turn into Greece.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
