Published: Sunday, April 1 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
" the federal government should begin now to reduce the size and scope of
the federal workforce to a more sustainable level."Fine. We
don't need a military budget that is three times higher than China's.
Start there. Trim the Pentagon by 40% so we only spend twice as on our military
much as China.When we see Mr.Chaffetz defend closing Hill Air Force
Base and trimming federal spending in Utah down to be less than, instead of
more than, the dollars that Utah sends to Washinton in taxes, then I'll
take him seriously.Until then, he's just another shallow,
cynical politician blowing the Tea Party dog whistle.
The best gauge of the number of federal employees is the ratio of workers per
1000 residents of the U.S. That figure peaked at 14.4 in 1970. Today it is down
to 8.4, lower than it was under Reagan, Bush Sr., or Bush Jr.
In other words, Chaffetz wants to make more people unemployed. Why am I not
surprized.Chaffetz is the one who should lose his job.
Many federal employees are college educated, engineers, lawyers, CPAs etc. Of
course they do deserve to be well compensated. WIth that in mind I do agree
their is room to make cuts. One issue I never hear debated is the number of
paid holidays for federal employees. I believe there are eleven. I can think
of five that need to go. How much would that save in tax dollars.
Chaffetz fails to mention that he is one of those federal employees making more
than $100,000 per year. Perhaps he should take his own medicine and slash his
own salary to bring it in line with the private sector.Chaffetz's plan is nonsense. Instead of indiscriminately eliminating
positions by salary, he should propose eliminating positions that do not relate
to the governments central purpose. As a start, all entitlement programs and
their positions should be eliminated.The elimination of entitlement
programs would balance the budget in an instant. The elimination of the jobs in
those programs will result in additional savings.We shall see
whether Chaffetz is all talk, or if he will take action. Unless he leads the
effort to abolish entitlement programs, we will know that he is simply just a
Another train of thought would be to eliminate overlapping agencies and/or
consdense departments.1) Combine Interior, Energy, & Agriculture
2) Meld VA & HHS 3) Merge Transportation & CommerceFinally,
Eliminate TSA & Homeleand Security.
Eliminate TSA and Homeland security. Great idea. Homeland Security includes
the Border Patrol.And why be concerned if the airline passenger in
the seat next to us has a bomb. Who needs TSA.
Know ye them by their deeds. And desires. When a businessman takes
a job with government you might think that his loyalties would change from the
business cult to the general welfare of the nation and it’s people. It ain’t necessarily so.Decreasing the federal
government, limiting it’s size and authority, removing the services it
performs take away freedom from the American people. Doing the
things Mr. Chaffetz desires will reduce the rules and regulations on business
which in turn will reduce the freedom of the consumer/workers rights and
freedoms.Freedom to purchase properly made products, healthy
products, and work safely and with proper rewards. If the 50 state
governments take responsibility for the lost services and regulations, it will
cost much more than the one source of the federal government and it just
won’t be done. The only government we have that is concerned
with the rights and freedoms of people is our federal government. It the
business world succeeds in the takeover of our federal government, as it has
with state and local governments, Americans will no longer have increased
freedom but will be enslaved by commercial interests.
"Federal government should reduce the size... of the federal
workforce"Perhaps the government could stop sending tax dollars
to other countries first... such as Egypt, etc.
Right on Mr Chaffetz! (But read on a little)1. I like Mr
Paul's choice of bureaucracies to eliminate. 2. I agree with
the poster who extended the discussion on money saving by asking to consider the
vast military complex and its near ubiquitous presence world wide.3.
Why mention "entitlements", Jason? When a Republican (or a
Democrat come to that) says "entitlements" he means Social Security.
Hands off that; it's not your money, it's paid for; your guys
(Congress) spent it and need to restore it.
Sounds great on pater but is the private sector ready to absorb these jobs?
Right now anyway? If not, this would certainly put more people out of work and
increase unemployment. To Chafetz and other like minded people, these are just
numbers but there are people behind these numbers and their families. If there
were jobs these people could go to I would feel better about it all I suppose
but I'm not sure this will improve the government or the economy in the
short term certainly.
As usual, Mr. Chaffetz gives absolutely no specifics on which agencies, which
department, and which workers will take the brunt of his cuts. Is he going to
cut across the board? Is he going to target specific career fields? Is he
going to target certain agencies? Is he going to target the DoD, NSA, and VA?
Is he only going to target agencies who don't have employees in his
district? So he wants to move away from the GS system for pay.
Great. What is his alternative? What specific measures does he propose to
evaluate and pay employees? He's been on the Subcommittee on Federal
Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy for five years, and yet no
formal plan has been put forth. As a federal employee, I love my
work and believe the work I do on behalf of our great country is of value. I
would like to know what his exact plans are, rather than just spewing the same
tired figures year after year and not accomplishing anything.
The proper and logical way to reduce government, isn't to just say we need
to cut by 'x' percent. People need to decide what they want to
eliminate or reduce.Perhaps enforcement of workplace laws that
dis-allow hazardous conditions at the work place? Perhaps social security?
Perhaps we could cease fighting all the wars we insist in fighting all over the
world, thinking that everybody elses conflict has to be our own.I
have a suggestion, get rid of the ... Do Not Call ... federal workers. I put my
cell phone on the do not call list and a telemarketer insists on calling me
every day. I have gone to the do not call website and complained, but the
bureaucracy has done nothing. Here are some government workers I wouldn't
mind getting rid of.
start by eliminating federal employees' and legislators' health care
packages. Here's a suggestion that would reduce taxpayers' obligation:
give each federal legislator and staff member a $12,000 per year raise, but then
take them all off the health care plan they enjoy. they can each take their $12k
and just try to find private healthcare insurance for themselves and their
families. Then they would know what the rest of us go through and we would soon
see some workable healthcare reform.
Typical Republican speak. Rep Chaffetz could hold the federal government as an
example. He could point out that in the federal government every employee gets
decent health care coverage and work to see to it that every American gets
decent health care coverage. Instead he wants to drag everyone down to the
lowest level.Also he got his facts wrong. The reason federal
employees are higher paid than those in the private sector is that federal
employees have higher levels of education than people in the private sector.If spending is still too high, how is it that this spending is getting
past the republican house of representatives? The most conservative house of
representatives in decades? No one is putting a gun to their head to vote for
this spending are they? It must be that wars are expensive. Yet republicans
complain that president Obama has set a deadline to get out of Afghanistan.
Re: "As a federal employee, I love my work and believe the work I do on
behalf of our great country is of value."No doubt.But the real question is how do the American people value your work?And they've not yet been asked.
@procuradorfiscal"And they've not yet been asked."Um, yes they have. Since most federal employees work for the Executive
branch and their authority derives from Cabinet-level appointees who are
approved by the Legislative branch, the American public has given their approval
through their votes. I'm guessing you'd like to have an
election over every clerk, doctor, computer programmer, air traffic controller,
and truck driver employed by the federal government?
JCS "As a start, all entitlement programs and their positions should be
eliminated.The elimination of entitlement programs would balance the
budget in an instant. The elimination of the jobs in those programs will result
in additional savings." ....Agreed. This would balance the budget and bring
vast savings..but what else would happen if you instantly did away with the
social wlefare net, medicare, medicaid, and social security? You never broach
this..please tell us what your vision of the world is if you could wave a wand
and instantly do away with all entitlements..please explain.
So, if the IRS knows what federal workers haven't paid their taxes are they
imposing penalties etc? If the IRS knows of people not paying their taxes
they usually go after them, and can't they garnish wages?From
the Washington Post: "Federal Employees owe $1.03 billion in unpaid
taxes." "Civilian employees of the Defense Department
— the federal government’s largest employer — fared the worst.
More than 25,600 workers at the departments of the Army, Air Force and Navy owed
a combined $225.7 million, while another 4,600 civilian Pentagon employees owed
$39.4 million.""Five staffers at the U.S. Tax Court owed a
combined $62,508 and another five at the Office of Government Ethics owed
$22,160. Fewer than 1 percent of Treasury Department employees, including the
IRS, owed $9.3 million, the agency said. "
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments