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.
Wow, a whole weekend of this. I don't think there are many people here who are saying we don't need to reduce federal spending, fraud, waste and abuse. I think the objections (mine anyway) are mainly coming due to the way in which some of the posters here are calling for it and the questionable information they are using to justify their calls; blindly lashing out with exaggerations and loosely related anecdotes that don't provide an honest representation of the federal workforce or their relation to challenges that face the country generally.
Some posters here are calling on federal civilian employees in DC to shoulder the weight of deficit reduction, when over 85% of them are outside of the DC metro area, have a payscale set below local comparable salaries, and consume less than 10% of federal expenditures. You can certainly argue to reduce benefits and reduce duplicative programs in a rational way, but DC federal employees absolutely make zero sense to single out either as a cause, or solution, to our deficit problems.
Requests to provide primary source information to quantify some of the fiery claims on here are simply met by dodging to another loosely related anecdote, as if it were the same thing. There is an absolute aversion to looking at the documents before they are dumbed down and filtered. Someone posted an article about a relevant GAO report, but read the reader comments instead of the report. Someone will post a Conservative thinktank's article about a CBO report, but not read the CBO report. People are ranking about 80k secretaries in the federal government, and producing a private sector ad as some sort of proof to that. I personally have never seen a Secretary position over GS-10, which falls well short of 80k, even with the highest locality pay adjustment. There may be Secretaries making over 80k in the federal government, but they are few and far between, so using that as a bellwether for government largess is flimsy.
I think the bar has been lowered so far in public discourse, that people actually think that type of conversation IS thoughtful and media sources with a mission-based bias are responsible primary sources of information. It's crazy.
You wrote a lot of words there but you failed to mention where you suggest cuts in the bloated federal bureaucracy.
You wrote a lot of words there but you failed to mention where you suggest cuts in the bloated federal bureaucracy.
Now's your chance...
A thread about the qualities of DC's workforce is 'my chance' to make broad recommendations for deficit reduction? That's a pretty big dodge of the points I've made about the federal workforce, but I think I can actually tie this in with the subject at hand.
I work in healthcare policy so I'll limit my recommendations to that sector and show how they would stack up next to the total cost of the civilian federal workforce over the 10 year budget window.
Eliminate PPACA expansion of Medicaid - $435B
Implement Medicare Part D multi stage price negotiation - $200B
Increase Medicare eligibility age to 67 - $125B
Place a part B surcharge on low/no cost sharing medigap plans - $53B
Freeze part A market basket - 50B
Validate physician orders for high-cost/fraud/risk services -$19.1B
Increase CMS anti-fraud authority - $9B
Dual eligible care coordination - $5B
Change utilization factor for advanced imaging services - $800m
Pre-payment review for power wheelchairs - $200m
Do not eliminate IPAB - No score; current law.
Transition Medicare from a FFS payment system to an outcomes-based payment system and redesign FMAP to incent states to follow suit with Medicaid - long term, falls outside 10 year budget window, but would be the source of tremendous savings (ex. $5b dual elgible savings is estimated to be $125b+ saving under such an evidence based coordinated care system).
These health policy changes alone (excluding the last two) would be roughly the equivalent savings of laying off the entire civilian federal workforce for two and a half years in the 10 year budget window.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by btsilver
Can't rep you enough, KStreetQB.
I'm with you man. I don't get this vitriol against federal workers.
Last edited by KStreetQB; 10-24-2011 at 01:23 PM..
A thread about the qualities of DC's workforce is 'my chance' to make broad recommendations for deficit reduction? That's a pretty big dodge of the points I've made about the federal workforce, but I think I can actually tie this in with the subject at hand.
I work in healthcare policy so I'll limit my recommendations to that sector and show how they would stack up next to the total cost of the civilian federal workforce over the 10 year budget window.
Eliminate PPACA expansion of Medicaid - $435B
Implement Medicare Part D multi stage price negotiation - $200B
Increase Medicare eligibility age to 67 - $125B
Place a part B surcharge on low/no cost sharing medigap plans - $53B
Freeze part A market basket - 50B
Validate physician orders for high-cost/fraud/risk services -$19.1B
Increase CMS anti-fraud authority - $9B
Dual eligible care coordination - $5B
Change utilization factor for advanced imaging services - $800m
Pre-payment review for power wheelchairs - $200m
Do not eliminate IPAB - No score; current law.
Transition Medicare from a FFS payment system to an outcomes-based payment system and redesign FMAP to incent states to follow suit with Medicaid - long term, falls outside 10 year budget window, but would be the source of tremendous savings (ex. $5b dual elgible savings is estimated to be $125b+ saving under such an evidence based coordinated care system).
These health policy changes alone (excluding the last two) would be roughly the equivalent savings of laying off the entire civilian federal workforce for two and a half years in the 10 year budget window.
Edit:
I'm with you man. I don't get this vitriol against federal workers.
Well you might if you understood what is going on out here.
Well you might if you understood what is going on out here.
My dad's business went under and he is unemployed, my mom is underemployed and the business she is working at is closing in a few months, neither have retirement assets, our family farm is being foreclosed upon despite never missing a payment on the loan due to new federal lending rules and I am the primary bread winner for my family before I turn 30, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I understand what's going on very personally, but I don't use that as an excuse to advocate for policies based on misinformation and spite. I think our first amendment rights deserve a reasonable amount of honest due diligence, but I'm seeing less and less of it. I think I've exhausted my opinion on this matter, and probably everyone's patience, so I'm out.
My dad's business went under and he is unemployed, my mom is underemployed and the business she is working at is closing in a few months, neither have retirement assets, our family farm is being foreclosed upon despite never missing a payment on the loan due to new federal lending rules and I am the primary bread winner for my family before I turn 30, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I understand what's going on very personally, but I don't use that as an excuse to advocate for policies based on misinformation and spite. I think our first amendment rights deserve a reasonable amount of honest due diligence, but I'm seeing less and less of it. I think I've exhausted my opinion on this matter, and probably everyone's patience, so I'm out.
God Bless the Federal Government and its extra-Constitutional "rules"!
Sorry to hear about your personal situation but the Federal government needs ever growing amounts of tax income so it can pay more feds to come up with more "rules".
Yeah I'm not sure why people hate federal workers either. About the only thing that's enviable is how difficult it is to get fired, and that really only matters if you're a slouch who doesn't want to work hard.
I mean christ, Janet Napolitano is the head of a cabinet department with 200,000 employees and a $55bn budget and she gets paid about $200,000 a year. Definitely a nice salary, but compared to a similar responsibility in the private sector it's peanuts. Still doesn't discourage me from wanting to work in the government.
I'll say it again. People who decide to work for the federal government are just being smart about the employment landscape. The government is probably one of the last bastions of job security and "company loyalty" that is left. This is what most work used to be like a long time ago, so I hear.
Nowadays, everywhere it's all about hire and fire. I don't know how most people live that way, to be honest. How do you have a family without job security? I'm clueless.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 10-24-2011 at 05:54 PM..
I agree. I think a lot of the development banks are also like that; my dad works at one, and I have friends whose parents work there, and they've all been there for several years or more.
About the only other thing I can think of would be partnerships like accounting and law firms, and even then it's tough to make partner or even a senior manager.
Well you might if you understood what is going on out here.
At this point in the discussion, it would behoove you to move beyond these broad talk radio platitudes and address substance. These types of lines are fine for an uncritical audience that's drunk the kool aid, but for analytical minds they mean nothing.
You're presuming that it's wise to make drastic cuts to government at a time when the economy is struggling due in large part to deregulation of the markets. That's a mighty big assumption that doesn't test well against history or recoveries around the world. Wait until the economy's humming, then shrink the government (including the 15% of which is in this region if that's what you think will save the day). That's the core mistake of your tea party ideology: a lot of emotion but not much context.
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.
