PDA

View Full Version : Cutting Federal Spending. Dept of Ed & Fed Wages.



Sev
04-15-2010, 09:28 PM
2 ways to cut the federal deficit and wasteful spending.

The average federal salary is 70,000 a year plus benefits averaging about 40,000 a year. The national American citizen median household income is 50,000.00 with benefits of 9000.00

The question is why should federal wages exceed median of the private sector? It is not demand driven and every salary is a deficit to the nation.
Also when private sector salaries increase federal salaries increase automatically.
The next question is why should elected officials receive salaries in the first place? They should be donating their time to serve the public good.

We are now approaching 2 million federal Employee's.
No federal employee should receive a wage higher than the national household median.
Or have benefits that exceed the national average.

So we have a difference of 51,000.00 dollars a year on average. If the numbers work correctly that is about 110,000,000,000.00

Next.

The Department of Education.

In 1973 there was no Department of education. The Department of the Interior handled educational needs.

In 1973 the Dept of the Interior spent 12 billion on education.
In 1979 the Dept of Education was formed by Pres Carter.
In May of 1980 operations began.
In fiscal year 2009 the department of education spent 103,000,000,000.00 dollars.

Its interesting to note that since the formation the of the Dept of Education, Math scores have only risen 2 points and reading has only risen 1 point.
12 billion a year to 103 billion a year to achieve 2 and 1 increase respectively.
Not a very inspiring achievement.
Test scores for the United States vs other countries have fallen substantially.

Canada for instance has no department of education or any centralization of their educational system and consistently scores higher than the USA.
Could it be that having a decentralized school system generates more innovation?

Abolish the Dept of Education and save another 103,000,000,000.00 a year.

Thus far we have saved 213,000,000,000.00 billion a year in government spending.
No new taxes.
No cuts to Medicaid or Medicare.

Hmmm. We could be onto something.

Perhaps we should look at educational waste.

NY state has what is called "Rubber Rooms" where teachers have to go if they are accused of a criminal charge. They have to show up to receive their salaries. They do not teach.

NYS has over 600 of these rooms. In fiscal year 2009 NYS paid 40,000,000.00 in salaries to teachers in rubber rooms.
Imagine what the institutional waste in public schools is nation wide.

Perhaps we should also consider abolishing the teachers unions and collective bargaining in the public sector as well. After all the teachers unions are all about the receiving and spending of money and not educational innovation.

cushioncrawler
04-16-2010, 05:53 AM
USA Today has been doing some excellent anaysis on the federal workforce. But the headline "Federal pay ahead of private industry" really understates things:

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

But that's just part of the picture. Throw in benefits and you see a huge gap between federal and private pay:

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Throw in benefits, and the average federal worker makes $38,000+ more than the average private sector worker -- the very same one who's ultimately paying his salary.

In December, USA Today was also responsible for reporting "federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 month
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...l#ixzz0lGNk5TIC (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/USA-Today-Average-federal-employee-makes-38000-more-than-private-sector-worker-86633182.html#ixzz0lGNk5TIC)

cushioncrawler
04-16-2010, 05:56 AM
Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs over 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs now exceeds $79,197. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force and the workforce is expanding significantly under the Obama administration. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation in 2008, including pay plus benefits, was $119,982 compared to just $59,909 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Sev
04-16-2010, 06:04 AM
Its part of the problem with government excess. Every government employee is a deficit to the government and do not contribute to GDP.
The more gov't employee's there are the more tax payer money that has to go to the gov't to sustain them. Therefore there is less money for the private citizen to save or put back into the market place.

We could go a long way to cutting the deficit by firing 1 million gov't employee's and closing redundant departments.

cushioncrawler
04-16-2010, 06:19 AM
But if u axe one job (a) u looz one job (b) ie someone who pays (a) and (b), and u looz one job (c) ie someone who collects the tax to pay (a) and (b) and (c) and u looz one job (d) ie someone who hires (a) and (b) and (c) and (d) and u looz one job (e) ie someone who ......... etc etc.

Sev
04-16-2010, 07:11 AM
Govt workers are paid by the tax payers dollars. Therefore a deficit.
Eliminate 1,000,000 government workers and benifit packages and send them into the private sector. This will relieve the tax burden and a major government expense.
The government would be forced to either combine or eliminate redundancy.

Try 1,000,000 x 110,000.00.

If you include the full amount of the benefits packages.
Limited government is the key.

pooltchr
04-16-2010, 08:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Limited government is the key. </div></div>

Such a simple concept that seems to escape so many!!!

Steve

sack316
04-16-2010, 08:07 AM
Since when does spend less=save more? Silly righties.

Sack

Sev
04-17-2010, 05:31 PM
There is a theoretical mathematician out there somewhere crunching numbers.

LWW
04-18-2010, 05:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Limited government is the key. </div></div>

Such a simple concept that seems to escape so many!!!

Steve </div></div>

Visit a zoo.

Many animals, after a certain time of living in captivity, will not leave the cage even with the gate left wide open.

Exchanging one's liberty for a few crumbs off of the master's table is enticing enough that many are terrified to breath the fresh air of freedom.

LWW