« Latest theory: Bush didn't lie, he was tricked | Main | A need for unity even while in competition »

August 28, 2003

Please explain this

This is an exceprt from a letter send today by President Bush to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, in which he seeks to reduce the percentage rate of raises Federal employees will be eligible for, due to the "National Emergency" that has existed since the 9/11 attacks.

I am transmitting an alternative plan for across-the-board and locality pay increases payable to civilian Federal employees covered by the General Schedule (GS) and certain other pay systems in January 2004.

Under title 5, United States Code, civilian Federal employees covered by the GS and certain other pay systems would receive a two-part pay increase in January 2004: (1) a 2.7 percent across-the-board increase in scheduled rates of basic pay derived from Employment Cost Index data on changes in the wages and salaries of private industry workers, and (2) a locality pay increase based on Bureau of Labor Statistics' salary surveys of non-Federal employers in each locality pay area, which would cost about 10 percent of payroll for the calendar year. Including increases for blue-collar and other workers, the total Federal employee pay increase would cost about 13 percent of payroll in calendar year 2004. For Federal employees covered by the locality pay system, the overall average pay increase would be about 15.1 percent.

For each part of the two-part pay increase, title 5, United States Code, authorizes me to implement an alternative pay plan if I view the adjustment that would otherwise take effect as inappropriate due to "national emergency or serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare." For the reasons described below, I have determined that it would be appropriate to exercise my statutory alternative plan authority to limit the January 2004 GS pay increases.

A national emergency has existed since September 11, 2001, that now includes Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Full statutory civilian pay increases costing 13 percent of payroll in 2004 would interfere with our Nation's ability to pursue the war on terrorism. Such increases would cost about $13 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone -- $11 billion more than the 2 percent overall Federal civilian pay increase I proposed in my 2004 Budget -- and would build in later years.

Such cost increases would threaten our efforts against terrorism or force deep cuts in discretionary spending or Federal employ-ment to stay within budget. Neither outcome is acceptable. Therefore, I have determined that a total pay increase of 2 percent would be appropriate for GS and certain other employees in January 2004.

In other words, $11 billion in 2004 for pay raises to Federal Employees would cost too much an impede our ability to fight the nebulous "War on Terror™", but $350 billion over the next 10 years in tax cuts for rich people is just fine.

Link via Atrios

Posted by thorswitch at August 28, 2003 01:12 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.differentstrings.info/mt/mt-tb-ds.cgi/1116

Comments

The problem, of course, is that IF the tax cuts have urged them to spend and invest more, it sure hasn't trickled-down into creating more jobs for Americans. Bush is presiding over the first administration to lose jobs since the Depression, and his tax cuts to the wealthy have done NOTHING to change that.

The point of this article, however, is less whether giving tax cuts to the rich is of any value, and more about the fact that Bush insisted that we couldn't afford NOT to give $350 billion dollars over 10 years in tax cuts to the rich (averaging out to $35 billion each year of the program), and then says that the "War on Terror™" is costing us so much that we can't afford $11 billion to give Federal Employees a decent raise.

The Federal Employees are working for their money, too, and contribute to the strength of the economy when they have enough money to be able to spend it on new expenditures. But when they're not able to get any kind of a decent raise, they're not going to be able to contribute much more to the economy, are they?

It's exceedingly unfair to give ALL of the breaks to the wealthy and then PENALIZE the working class by saying the country can't afford to give them more than a 2% wage increase. THAT'S what I was complaining about more than anything.

But you know something? This whole concept of "give the rich all the breaks we can" with the expectation that they will invest and spend it, thus creating new jobs and making the economy better didn't work very well during Reagan's administration and its not working now.

Posted by: Kriselda Jarnsaxa at August 29, 2003 09:17 PM