Rep. Gerry E. Connolly, a Northern Virginia Democrat facing a tough re-election challenge, has come out against letting the Bush tax cuts expire — even for the top brackets. This puts him right up in the teeth of the Obama administration and Nancy Pelosi. Why would a Democrat resist ORP’s (ORP = Obama-Reid-Pelosi) soak-the-rich agenda? Have a look at Connolly’s district: Fairfax County, part of the vast, soulless suburbs of Washington, D.C., is pretty high-income.
As our Battleground blogger Andrew Stiles reports today, the average household income in Connolly’s district is more than $100,000 a year. And there are a lot of families with incomes over $200,000 a year and over $250,000 a year. In Washington, it’s not that hard to end up with a family income over $250,000 a year: Mr. $130,000 Bureaucrat marries Miss $130,000 Bureaucrat, and they join the ranks of “the rich.”
And under Obama, official Washington is getting a lot richer, with average federal compensation packages now worth about $120,000 a year — more than twice the going rate in the private sector. And it’s not just high salaries, pensions, and generous benefits: It’s private-sector-level bonuses, too:
Under the Obama administration, the government is doing such a good job that it’s decided to reward itself. Last year, Uncle Sam paid out $408 million in bonuses to 1.3 million federal workers, according to the Asbury Park Press, which obtained the information through a Freedom of Information Act request. That’s about $80 million more than the previous year. About one in four federal workers received a bonus, and awards ranged from $25 to, in the case of one lucky State Department worker, $94,500. . . .
Federal bonuses are being doled out liberally, even as federal salaries are exploding. From December 2007 through June 2009, the number of federal workers earning six figures increased from 14 to 19 percent. In 2008, average federal compensation, including pay and benefits, was $119,982 — considerably more than the $59,909 average in the private sector, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the midst of a brutal economic downturn that saw millions of jobs lost and unemployment soar above 10 percent, the Office of Personnel Management data shows the federal workforce actually added nearly 100,000 jobs from December 2008 to December 2009.
This is how Obamaism eats itself: Fattening the federal workers who are his natural constituency, Obama has helped to create a lobby for tax breaks for “the rich,” now defined as those who earn about the same income as a married couple consisting of two federal middle managers. Federal workers already receive a big piece of their compensation tax free (through extraordinarily generous benefits that are not taxed as income) and they are not eager to pay the taxes that fund their own inflated salaries and those of their colleagues. Taxes are for you serfs in the private sector, and Rep. Connolly is one Democrat who can be counted on to defend the tax preferences of the new ruling class in the Washington suburbs.
Quite a bitter person who finds a reason to complain and criticize when they support tax increases as well as when they don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Snooki, I am concerned about tax rates, but I am also concerned about being pillaged by rapacious federal employees. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI propose a 15% across the board cut in all Federal salaries in excess of $150,000.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI find the subtext of another Democrat bailing on the Presidents proposals to spend more and tax the rich to pay for it the interesting subtext of this article. Reading through recent ABC news polls I am beginning to believe that American's don't really support the "tax the rich till there are no rich no more" (apologies to Ten Years After) agenda and it appears that a few Democrats interested in staying on the elected gravy train are learning.
Let us hope they also learn that if they cease spending they reduce the need to continue raising taxes - but that may be a leap of reason too far.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry federal employees, you shouldn't make more money then me. Since you have better job security, benefits etc a federal job should pay at least 20% LESS then the private sector. Always!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst of all, not every employee earns $120K in salary and benefits. I don't see anywhere near that, so it's a little unfair to base opinion on overinflated COLA adjustments in DC, California, and other high cost areas, then demand an immediate across the board wage cut (we have bills and mortgages too). Second: It's all about taking advantage of opportunities. You need to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. Take me. I spent 20 years enlisted in the Air Force in a highly technical career field. I had the opportunity to finish a Bachelor of Science Degree before I retired and did so (with a lot of out of pocket costs). I struggled through 16 hour days for four years. When I retired, I was offered a civil service position in my career field that was left open because no one else was qualified for it. I even went on and spent the next 3 years of 16 hour days to complete a Master of Science Degree. I have worked long and hard to get where I am, took advantage of my opportunities to better myself and get promoted. There are many like me. I did everything my mentors told me I needed to do and went the extra mile to become who I am. Now I'm the bad guy? I don't think so. So rich_b and others, unless you put forth the effort, other people do deserve to make more than you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat’s wrong with these simple ideas? Pass a law that cuts federal salaries by 10% per year until the federal budget (including ALL entitlements) are is no longer in deficit.
Then if the previous year’s annual deficit drops by more than 10% in a given year, the salary cut is reduced by 1% for 1% over 10% the deficit is reduced. For example, in the next year the deficit is reduced by 14% so for the 4% over 10% reduces the federal salary cut by 4% to 6%.
The law ought to include an overall cross-the-board cut in spending.
Let’s suppose that there are majority of conservatives in both houses (some might even be Republicans!) that want to do things like this. Presuming the conservatives in the senate number less than 60, how does one get around the cloture provision?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoorell, the problem with your analysis is precisely the problem we always see in the public sector: You expect that output is a function of input.
Its not.
Output should be a function of what you PRODUCE. In the real world, no one cares about your degrees, or how hard you worked, or how many hours you put in. What matters is your ability to produce profits for your company.
What you are describing is common in the public sector, since the public sector (lacking any meaningful measure of true accountability) tends to think in terms of credentials. So we have lots of bureaucrats festooned with lots of credentials.
So what.
Its production that matters, not credentials.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK Omaha, producing products in the private sector is what it's all about for you. Government work is a service, not a producer (unless you count GM right now). Unfortunately in my type of job (nuclear physics) it is all about the credentials. If you don't have the right credentials, you don't have the qualifications, then you CAN'T get the work (I am in an incredibly important line of work for government service, but I produce no tangible product the public can touch). I took the road less traveled from my peers and spent my time, effort and money to get to where I am. I could have been at home collecting my retirement, but I choose to spend my time and effort working to protect you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuite the spectacle.
The average private sector American earns about $60,000/yr.
The average government sector American earns about $120,000/yr.
The average private sector American has the vast majority if not all of his federal income tax payroll deductions returned to him at the end of the year.
The wealthy private sector and wealthy government sector guys are fighting it out over who is going to pay whom or not pay whom,....
This is rich entertainment,....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse[1] Farifax County has the highest per capita income of any county in the US.
[2] I don't think that punishing all for the sins of a few is a good policy. Examination of the wages of Federal employees is an excellent idea, but do you want to lower the Border Patrol's salaries just because the State Dept likes over paying? Or the Border Patrol officer in uniform's because the management is overpaid? This is a situation where scalpels are necessary, not axes.
[3] No, I am not employed by the Fed govt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no issue with not just taking an axe - but to Moorell and rlaWTX (I know you aren't a fed employee) - here is the problem - your performance as a service is not providing a service. It is in debt and overspending. In the private sector we cut employees and cut wages until we can afford them again. Only the printing press allows the action of the government as employer to continue without regard for the small amount of government we can measure.
So Moorell your job might be quite technical and necessary. Maybe I cannot cut your salary for competitive reasons - but I can cut your benefits - and I can realize that to protect your salary and the function you provide, somewhere else will need to cut more. These decisions need to be made. The fact that these decisions do not appear to be happening right now suggests that every manager level employee in the federal govt should be fired for gross negligence. That ought to cut some fat right off the bat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMoorell might give consideration to the fact that we also have secretaries working in the Rural Electrification Administration (now known as the Rural Utilities Service) who think their contributions to the government, and hence their wages and benefits, are not only essential but well-earned as well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
your "facts" are off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse