Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what attrtion means, right? It means not replacing people after they retire/quit. It doesn't mean layoffs/RIFs.
Since the feds haven't been hiring in 2 years, except in critical positions, it will be interesting when 25% (minimum) of the workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
That's when 54 percent of contracting officers will be eligible to retire, according to a recently released report by the Federal Acquisition Institute. That is a sharp jump from fiscal 2005, when only 13 percent were eligible.
Department of Homeland Security added over 200k to that number.
I did provide that information.
There were dozens of news stories in the past year about removing contractors and hiring federal employees.
Since the feds haven't been hiring in 2 years, except in critical positions, it will be interesting when 25% (minimum) of the workforce will be eligible to retire in the next 5 years.
That's when 54 percent of contracting officers will be eligible to retire, according to a recently released report by the Federal Acquisition Institute. That is a sharp jump from fiscal 2005, when only 13 percent were eligible.
"President Obama is presiding over the largest federal work force in decades. In the current fiscal year, the number of civilian workers will grow by 153,000, to 1.43 million. These are the only jobs Mr. Obama can legitimately claim to have created. Unfortunately, they are subsidized by deficit spending".
You know what attrtion means, right? It means not replacing people after they retire/quit. It doesn't mean layoffs/RIFs. I don't know the rate people are leaving on their own so my question is whether this is enough.
attrition is the least efficient way to reduce the size of government.
you should get rid of people who are not useful, rather than waiting on someone useful to retire and then letting that position go vacant.
Here's the first step. Get rid of military contractors. Gates has proposed eliminating 2,800 military and civilian positions supported by 3,000 contractors at an annual cost of $240 million at the Joint Forces Command, in Norfolk, Virginia. Gates previously said "the era of blank checks for national defense was ending."
Clip:
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Monday that he would close a major military command, restrict the use of outside contractors and reduce the number of generals and admirals across the armed forces to trim back on unaffordable defense spending.
Mr. Gates said he had ordered a 10 percent reduction in spending on contractors who provide support services to the military, including intelligence-related contracts, and placed a freeze on the number of workers in the office of the secretary of defense, other Pentagon supervisory agencies and the headquarters of the military’s combat commands. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/us...gewanted=print
Most federal agencies have been slashed by a lot over the past 2 years. The money goes to funds wars in the cost of over 1 trillion dollars.
Your choice, services or war.
I include the military budget in my 25% across the board budget cuts. Bring the troops home and line them up on our borders. Let the rest of the world solve their own problems- ring a bell? Ron Paul 2012.
Orrin Hatch introduced legislation to reduce the number of civilian federal workers to 2009 levels by attrition.
"Hatch said the numbers show why his legislation is needed. From 1981 through 2008, the senator noted, civilian workers numbered between 1.1 million and 1.2 million. The Obama administration is forecasting the government’s workforce this year will reach 2.15 million and serve 310 million Americans. 'That is almost a fifty percent increase since 2008,' Hatch said."
No, I do not. In the situation we're in, we do not need to be beating up on federal workers, who are part of the middle class.
If you want to talk a big game about "cutting federal spending" , the FIRST thing is to pull the financial industry off of life support. No more cheap subsidized loans for cars, houses, or college. No more mortgage interest deduction. No more Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to keep homes selling. No more special debt instruments for select institutions. No more swapping agency debt for treasury debt.
the SECOND thing would be to pull corporations off life support; cease subsidies for ag commodities like corn and sugar, cease tax breaks to energy companies, cease support for manufacturing.
the THIRD thing, is to close about half of our military bases, and end our foreign military engagements.
the FOURTH thing, is to cut social security and medicare, back to levels that represent the actual contributions paid into these "pay as you go" systems.
i'm not saying Mr. Hatch is wrong, but if he is really worried about the budget, maybe he'd better start with the big priorities first. Worrying about federal employment numbers while the country is screaming for more jobs, is out of touch with reality.
Federal employees are the very people who make all of this happen behind the scenes. It sounds like you actually do support Hatch's proposition, except that you'd rather make it happen through a reduction in government programs. It's a chicken-and-egg thing it sounds like.
Typical. Make a statement, get called on it, then change the parameters.
Your quote, "Do you know how many federal employees were lost during the Bush years to contracting?"
I supplied date to show that there was an INCREASE in Federal jobs.
I never said the fed did not increase the amount of contractors.
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
Your hatred for anything Bush has blinded you.
Garbage.
You need to look at both contractors and federal workers.
Yes, there was an increase in federal jobs with the Homeland Security, around 214k, IIRC.
What parameters did I change?
You need to look at the entire picture, not pick parts you want.
"President Obama is presiding over the largest federal work force in decades. In the current fiscal year, the number of civilian workers will grow by 153,000, to 1.43 million. These are the only jobs Mr. Obama can legitimately claim to have created. Unfortunately, they are subsidized by deficit spending".
And these are not all critical positions.
Where are they hiring? They've let contracts expire and those people (or others to fill the positions) are being hired because many of these jobs are inherently governmental and were contracted out during Bush.
Editorial piece.
Do these numbers count military?
You might want to take a little look at Rumsfeld's NSPS fiasco that cost the government millions over the General Schedule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
