and the HITS just keep on coming!

[OBGibby]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Today- Senator Kent Conrad, (D-North Dakota) , Senate Budget Committee head, announced his proposals for federal budget will incorporate many of the cuts previously proposed.

Included in Conrad's Democratic Proposal--many of the pay and compensation cuts of the Bowles-Simpson proposal:



More details:
News Articles: Pay/Benefits Cuts Proposed by Senate Budget Committee

Dang! And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING!

Sounds good to me.

 

[James48843]

And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING:

Seantor Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposes mega-cuts to the Postal Service, including MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF ALL USPS RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE WORKERS, AND AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR POSTAL WORKERS.

The Senate will resume debate on postal reform Tuesday, considering several amendments to its bill that would affect workers’ pay and benefits.

Measures that would prohibit collective bargaining at the U.S. Postal Service, require retirement-eligible employees to retire, and increase the amount workers contribute to their health benefits and life insurance are among the 39 amendments the Senate plans to vote on as part of the 21st Century Postal Service Act (S. 1789). Other amendments would limit executive pay at USPS, remove language scaling back workers’ compensation benefits, and curtail the amount agencies can spend on government conferences.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is shepherding a few amendments to S. 1789, including one that would force the Postal Service to dismiss workers who are eligible for retirement to reduce expenses. The legislation in its current form allows USPS to offer buyouts to eligible employees to reduce personnel costs, but Coburn believes requiring eligible workers to retire is a smarter and more cost-effective downsizing strategy. “S. 1789 would provide buyouts -- essentially cash bonuses or years of service credits -- to encourage postal employees to decide to retire,” said a summary of the amendment from Coburn’s office. “But there is a real risk that these buyouts will go to workers who would already be planning to retire anyway. That is, these buyouts may essentially be retirement gifts to already retiring workers.”

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....

MORE:
Pay and benefits feature prominently in postal reform bill - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com

 

[FAAM]

Seantor Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposes mega-cuts to the Postal Service, including MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF ALL USPS RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE WORKERS, AND AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR POSTAL WORKERS.

... Thanks James for keeping the drumbeat and us informed. Thankful I'm not working for the Postal Service, yet it is increasingly difficult to work when they've placed us in the sewer, trying to flush us down to the cesspool, while trying to hold my brown umbrella over my head each day of public service to fend off the brown stuff that keeps rolling down the hill (trickle-down), all while trying to dodge the arrows being aimed at the targets somebody pasted to my back and chest. Ho- Hum.

 

[James48843]

and the HITS Just KEEP ON COMING:

Take a look at today's Govexec.com top story:

Romney rips 'unfairness' of federal pay, benefits - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

 

[jkenjohnson]

and the HITS Just KEEP ON COMING:

Take a look at today's Govexec.com top story:

Romney rips 'unfairness' of federal pay, benefits - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

Yet most of the people on this board would vote for Romney today. As I look at the fact that I am a Fed, am I better off with Romney or Obama?

 

[Frixxxx]

Yet most of the people on this board would vote for Romney today. As I look at the fact that I am a Fed, am I better off with Romney or Obama?

Romney stated unfairness, President Obama froze our pay.... I make 35% less pay than my contractor counterparts, but get a better retirement plan....Health benefits are about the same. I say right now, my perspective is that I took an oath to do my job and I never had to when I was in the private sector.

 

[James48843]

I am trying to simply post factual data without comment. But yes, that was the lead story on govexec.com today.


And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.........


(I imagine we're going to hear a lot this campaign about federal employees.)

 

[Frixxxx]

I am trying to simply post factual data without comment. But yes, that was the lead story on govexec.com today.


And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.........


(I imagine we're going to hear a lot this campaign about federal employees.)

I haven't seen anything but facts pointed out here (except a rhetorical question from jk). This thread has been nothing but fair.

 

[konakathy]

And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING:

Seantor Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposes mega-cuts to the Postal Service, including MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF ALL USPS RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE WORKERS, AND AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR POSTAL WORKERS.



and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....

MORE:
Pay and benefits feature prominently in postal reform bill - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com

 

[KevinD]

S. 1789 just passed 62-37

 

[uscfanhawaii]

S. 1789 just passed 62-37

Kevin,
I see that you are still counting down the days to 8-25-17!! Are you sure you can wait 5 years when all these 'hits just keep on coming'?!?

 

[KevinD]

Kevin,
I see that you are still counting down the days to 8-25-17!! Are you sure you can wait 5 years when all these 'hits just keep on coming'?!?

I'm gonna have to. I don't have my house paid off yet... :embarrest:

 

[KevinD]

Here's a thread on federalsoup of the breakdown of today's voting on the amendments to S. 1789

S1789 Votes Happening Now - FederalSoup.com

Roll Call Vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_112_2.htm

 

[ILoveTDs]

Interesting. Notice Rubio Nay voted. Romney blast the federal employee on the same day his VP front runner stands up for them. It's going to make for an interesting ticket.

 

[James48843]

Thank you Kevin for that listing of which amendments were considered and passed.

This one is one that caught my eye- it's an amendment which limits Agency conference spending to no more than $500,000, and creates all kinds of new rules and reporting requirements. You might call this the "GSA does VEGAS " Coburn amendment. (snicker).

Here is what it says, and yes, it passed the Senate, so the chances are high it will become law:

(a) Travel Expenses of Federal Agencies Relating to Conferences.-- (1) LIMITATIONS AND REPORTS ON TRAVEL EXPENSES TO CONFERENCES.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 5711 the following:`` 5712. Limitations and reports on travel expenses to conferences
``(a) In this section, the term--
``(1) `conference' means a meeting that--
``(A) is held for consultation, education, or discussion;
``(B) is not held entirely at an agency facility;
``(C) involves costs associated with travel and lodging for some participants; and
``(D) is sponsored by 1 or more agencies, 1 or more organizations that are not agencies, or a combination of such agencies or organizations; and
``(2) `international conference' means a conference attended by representatives of --

[Page: S2513] ``(A) the United States Government; and
``(B) any foreign government, international organization, or foreign nongovernmental organization.
``(b) No agency may pay the travel expenses for more than 50 employees of that agency who are stationed in the United States, for any international conference occurring outside the United States, unless the Secretary of State determines that attendance for such employees is in the national interest.
``(c) At the beginning of each quarter of each fiscal year, each agency shall post on the public Internet website of that agency a report on each conference for which the agency paid travel expenses during the preceding 3 months that includes--
``(1) the itemized expenses paid by the agency, including travel expenses, the cost of scouting for and selecting the location of the conference, and any agency expenditures to otherwise support the conference;
``(2) the primary sponsor of the conference;
``(3) the location of the conference;
``(4) in the case of a conference for which that agency was the primary sponsor, a statement that--
``(A) justifies the location selected;
``(B) demonstrates the cost efficiency of the location; and
``(C) provides a cost benefit analysis of holding a conference rather than conducting a teleconference;
``(5) the date of the conference;
``(6) a brief explanation how the conference advanced the mission of the agency;
``(7) the title of any Federal employee or any individual who is not a Federal employee whose travel expenses or other conference expenses were paid by the agency; and
``(8) the total number of individuals whose travel expenses or other conference expenses were paid by the agency.
``(d) Each report posted on the public Internet website under subsection (c) shall--
``(1) be in a searchable electronic format; and
``(2) remain on that website for at least 5 years after the date of posting.''.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5711 the following:

``5712. Limitations and reports on travel expenses to conferences.''.

(b) Limitations on Annual Travel Expenses.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, an agency (as defined under section 5701(1) of title 5, United States Code) may not make, or obligate to make, expenditures for travel expenses, in an aggregate amount greater than 80 percent of the aggregate amount of such expenses for fiscal year 2010.
(2) IDENTIFICATION OF TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Not later than September 1, 2012 and after consultation with the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish guidelines for the determination of what expenses constitute travel expenses for purposes of this subsection. The guidelines shall identify specific expenses, and classes of expenses, that are to be treated as travel expenses.
(c) Conference Transparency and Limitations.--
(1) DEFINITIONS.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given under section 5701(1) of title 5, United States Code; and
(B) the term ``conference'' has the meaning given under section 5712(a)(1) of that title (as added by subsection (a)).
(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF CONFERENCE MATERIALS.--Each agency shall post on the public Internet website of that agency a detailed information on any presentation made by any employee of that agency at a conference, including--
(A) any minutes relating to the presentation;
(B) any speech delivered;
(C) any visual exhibit, including photographs or slides;
(D) any video, digital, or audio recordings of the conference; and
(E) information regarding any financial support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-Federal source used to pay or defray the costs of the conference, which shall include a certification by the head of the agency that there is no conflict of interest resulting from the support received from each such source.
(3) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT EXPENDED ON A CONFERENCE.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--No agency may expend more than $500,000 to support a single conference.
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude an agency from receiving financial support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-Federal source to pay or defray the costs of a conference the total cost of which exceeds $500,000.
(4) LIMITATION ON THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF CONFERENCES AN AGENCY MAY SUPPORT.--No agency may expend funds on more than a single conference sponsored or organized by an organization during any fiscal year, unless the agency is the primary sponsor and organizer of the conference.

Interesting- I think that just shot down a whole lot of manager's future meetings in my agency.

 

[James48843]

From FEDSMITH today-

...
A bill that is going before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday would require federal employees to have to pay 5 percent more of their salaries towards their retirement benefits beginning in 2013 and phased in over five years.

Current federal workers would pay 1.5 percent more next year, an additional 0.5 percent in 2014 and then another 1 percent per year from 2015-2017.

New hires would see the full 5 percent increase starting in 2013 if they have less than five years of prior federal service.

Members of Congress and their staff members would not be exempt from the legislation either should it pass. Members of Congress would have to contribute an additional 8.5 percent from their salaries, and Congressional staffers under CSRS would pay 8.5 percent while staffers under FERS would be required to contribute an additional 7.5 percent.

Speaking on the legislation, committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said, "Like Social Security, the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is not a store of wealth, it’s a line on the Treasury’s ledger. If the federal government’s out of control spending is not curbed, these accounts will prove just how empty they really are — we need to secure these earned employee benefits and reduce the deficit at the same time."

...

Good article outlining this bill.

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

More- News Articles: Feds Would Pay 5% More for Retirement Benefits

 

[Valkyrie]

From FEDSMITH today-



Good article outlining this bill.

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

More- News Articles: Feds Would Pay 5% More for Retirement Benefits

and even President Obama has proposed some benefits cuts as well as being the original architect of the current pay freeze on the federal workforce.

 

[James48843]

and THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....

Feds would pay more for pensions under House bill

• By Kellie Lunney
• 8:14 P.M.
  
• GOVEXEC.COM

The House Budget Committee Monday approved a measure on a party-line vote that would increase the amount government employees contribute to their pensions.
The legislation, shepherded by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., incorporates measures approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in late April requiring current federal employees to pay 5 percent more toward their retirement over the next five years, beginning in 2013. Members of Congress would have to contribute an additional 8.5 percent to their defined benefit plan during the same time period. Employees hired after 2012 would begin contributing the additional 5 percent immediately.


In addition, the bill eliminates a current provision in the law that supplements the benefits of feds not subject to mandatory retirement who are covered under the Federal Employees Retirement System and retire before age 62, or the age at which their Social Security benefits can kick in.

Man...that Paul Ryan really has it out for feds.

MORE IN TODAY'S GOVEXEC.COM
Feds would pay more for pensions under House bill - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com

 

[jkenjohnson]

Man...that Paul Ryan really has it out for feds.

Most Republicans do. And to think I have been voting Republican for 25+ years. I am to the point that I despise the Repukes and the Dummycrats. I think we need a new party. What to name it?

 

[nnuut]

The IGMPKI "I've Got Mine and Plan to Keep It's"