Silverbird
Well-known member
Imagine the fistfights to figure out which districts don't get representation and which Senator has to quit. I don't see this flying. Staff and other cuts however....
-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
Republican plan to cut Federal Workers, Pay, Retirement
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
- Status
Buster
Well-known member
Something to consider!
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and the board of directors gives upper corporate management big bonuses
..
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$437,100,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).
The remaining representatives would need to worksmarter and improveefficiencies.It might even be intheir best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators thatwere not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress.
Summary ofopportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Corporate America does thesetypes of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it. "Downsizing."
------------------------------
Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.
Wall street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and the board of directors gives upper corporate management big bonuses
..
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore:
Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Then, reduce their remaining staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)
$437,100,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$108,350,000 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000reduction in pork barrel earmarks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr).
The remaining representatives would need to worksmarter and improveefficiencies.It might even be intheir best interests to work together for the good of our country!
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress does not hesitate to head home for extended weekends, holidays and recesses, when what the nation needs is a real fix for economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators thatwere not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all accepted full pay. Minnesota survived very well with only one senator for the first half of this year These facts alone support a reduction in senators and congress.
Summary ofopportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$70,850,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,084,558,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Corporate America does thesetypes of cuts all the time.
There's even a name for it. "Downsizing."
------------------------------
Also, if Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, taxpayers could save a bundle.
Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
Frixxxx
Moderator
Depends on Agency and their structure Silverbird, I'm a GS-12, but so is my boss.
In the Beltway, there are higher structures.
At the Reserve Base I used to work @, the General was a GS-15, Vice- GS-14, the Group Commanders were GS-13, Squadron Commanders GS-12, Vice GS-11, Workers GS-9.
Those were all ART (Air Reseve Technician) positions!
In the Beltway, there are higher structures.
At the Reserve Base I used to work @, the General was a GS-15, Vice- GS-14, the Group Commanders were GS-13, Squadron Commanders GS-12, Vice GS-11, Workers GS-9.
Those were all ART (Air Reseve Technician) positions!
James48843
Well-known member
Very few managers are SES. SES is SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE.
I may be off somewhat in my numbers, but in my agency, I think there are around 8,000 managers, and perhaps no more than 200 SES executives.
James48843
Well-known member
Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) is the CHAIRMAN OF the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
That makes him THE guy who is able to introduce and pass stuff he wants.
All the other 434 members of Congress just get to give their ideas to Mr. Issa. Then Mr. Issa gets to choose which ones will get to be voted on.
It's not like the Chairman of the committee has the same powers as every one else. The chairman has THE power to make things happen.
Yes, this is THE official House Republican plan.
Silverbird
Well-known member
Aren't most managers on SES and not GS?
alevin
Well-known member
was surprised that proposal didnt show up sooner than it did. been expecting it.
FAB1
Well-known member
FAB1
Well-known member
Silverbird
Well-known member
Literally hundreds of amendments out there so we can't this one a "Republican plan". More like the "Issa Plan" (and coming from him, I'm not surprised). Not that I think this is a good idea - it pretty much stinks.
James48843
Well-known member
Republicans at it some more. This time, they want to cut any bonuses AND STEP INCREASES.
From Govexec.com:
More from govexec: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=47133&oref=todaysnews
From Govexec.com:
More from govexec: http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=47133&oref=todaysnews
McDuck
Well-known member
No, I posted a link to instructions from Tom.
McDuck
Well-known member
James48843
Well-known member
The parenthasis are how much LESS the agency would be getting under the proposal from the republicans. That's how much LESS in 2011-
If there are two numbers- the first is how much would be cut, IN MILLION, compared to 2010's full year enacted budget number, and the second is how much would be cut in total from the 2011 budget request.
EPA Research: Global change (7.0) (8.2)
EPA EISA/Renewable Fuels Rule (4.0) -
EPA Climate change grants to local governments (10.0) -
EPA ENERGY STAR (10.5) (12.4)
EPA Methane to markets - (0.02)
EPA GHG reporting registry (5.0) (9.1)
EPA Climate protection program (automotive technologies) (1.9) -
EPA Cap and trade technical assistance (5.0) (5.0)
EPA Carbon capture and storage - (2.0)
EPA Other climate protection program activities (16.0) (16.1)
EPA Federal vehicle fuels standards & certification: L/D and large
transportation sources - (6.1)
EPA Federal stationary source regulations: GHG new source
performance standards - (7.6)
EPA Federal support for air quality management: GHG permitting - (4.9)
EPA State and local air quality management: GHG permitting - (25.0)
EPA Research: Carbon sequestration (drinking water) (0.9) -
EPA EISA Enforcement - (0.2)
EPA Drinking water permits - carbon sequestration - (1.1)
EPA Homeland Security (14.0) -
EPA Rent, Operations, and Administration (2.4) -
EPA Research: Clean Water (3.0) (13.0)
EPA: Human Health and Ecosystems (14.0) (23.5)
EPA Research: Sustainability (2.0) -
EPA Air Toxics and Quality (8.0) (26.7)
EPA Enforcement and Compliance (20.0) (35.9)
EPA Great Lakes Initiative (250.0) (75.0)
EPA Puget Sound (30.0) –
EPA Chesapeake Bay (10.0) (23.0)
EPA San Francisco Bay(2.0) -
EPA Long Island Sound (4.0) -
EPA Gulf of Mexico (1.5) -
EPA Lake Champlain (2.6) -
EPA Geographic Other (2.1) -
EPA Homeland Security (8.4) -
EPA Information Exchange (4.0) (16.4)
EPA Regulatory review (8.7) (15.5)
EPA National Estuary Program (5.6) (0.3)
EPA Water Quality Protection (10.0) (28.0)
EPA Superfund (32.8) (19.3)
EPA Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (7.0) (7.1)
EPA Clean Water SRF (1410.0) (1310.0)
EPA Drinking Water SRF (557.0) (457.0)
EPA Alaska Native Villages (3.0) -
EPA Brownfields (30.0) (68.3)
EPA Diesel Emissions grants (10.0) (10.0)
EPA Targeted Airshed Grants (20.0) -
EPA Mexico Border (7.0) -
EPA Rescission (260.0) (290.0)
EPA Categorical Grants (60.0) (220.2)
FAB1
Well-known member
Looks like some things are getting more money than planned in 2010?
Can you explain the columns so I know what iam looking at? Unless Im mistaken looks like EPA is just getting more money not less. No I dont work there but EPA should be getting cut IMO.
- Status
