Military BEWARE: Romney’s BIG Economic Plan? CUTTING MILITARY PAY AND BENEFITS

[Segami]

In the classic GOP maneuver of pitting the 99% against itself, Mitt Romney might be taking a page out of Wisconsin’s playbook by focusing on what he calls overpaid government employees.



Don't say you weren't warned about the Republican Trojan Horse Agenda.



From USA Today:

" Mitt Romney’s spending plan includes a pledge to “align federal employee compensation with the private sector,” and it cites studies showing that “federal compensation exceeds private sector levels by as much as 30 to 40 percent when benefits are taken into account. This must be corrected.”

As far as President Obama’s campaign is concerned, that means Romney is talking about a federal pay cut of up to 40%.

“To pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, (Romney) drastically cuts pay for the men and women who secure our borders and skies, enforce our laws, inspect our food and search for better treatments and cures,” said Obama spokesman Adam Fetcher.


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-team-romney-wants-major-federal-pay-cut/1#.UBK6h6nWT09

Do federal employees really earn up to 40% more than the private sector?



The short answer is yes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal employees average only about 2% more in actual pay, but they have better benefits, about 48% better on average.

The wage and benefits discrepancies are not across the board, however. Both wages and benefits are significantly better for those without a college education who choose a life in civil service. For those with graduate degrees, they are taking a cut in benefits, when compared to the private sector.


Here’s the chart:






Who are these federal employees?


For Romney to implement this plan with any significant savings, it would mean that much of that money would be coming out of the pockets of those serving in the military.


The vast majority (63%) are employed by the Department of Defense. The second largest agency is the post office, at just 15%. Of the 3.2 million DOD employees, nearly half are active duty military personnel.


The implementation of Romney’s plan would be especially hard on military personnel and their families. It would also have a lasting negative impact on the military’s ability to recruit. Benefit cuts to military personnel would presumably include cuts to the GI Bill, a program which helps veterans obtain an education, making them more valuable to the workforce.





cont'



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/27/romneys-big-economic-plan-cutting-military-pay-and-benefits/

.

[msongs]

1. medicare for all would take care of the health benefits costs part of this system nt

[patrice]

7. 1++++++

[mike_c]

2. any military budget cut is a good budget cut...

...although I realize that's not the full intent of your post-- however, it's the headline you chose and the primary conclusion you reached at the end of your post, i.e. a major share of Rmoney's budget cuts would fall on the military. You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not.

Unfortunately, I don't believe for a minute that any republican would actually do that.

[Scuba]

3. There's no budget cut, just shifting. Romney endorsed the Paul Ryan budget with $2Trillion more ...

defense spending. The money is to go to already-wealthy industrialists, not the expendable lives of those who serve.

[patrice]

6. That $2Trillion is probably to go to Machine-Wars owned & operated by private Wars 'r' U.S.

I fear Americans will be fatally attracted to this idea that all we need is enough drones, some perhaps eventually even to carry smaller "more usable" little nuclear weapons, because that won't have the high political costs of troops dying.

Gone is the moral integrity of saying, TTE, "_____________ is so important that I choose freely to put my own blood on the line for it, to face other free individuals making the same choice."

[The Magistrate]

4. Cuts Should Be In Force Size And Deployment, Sir

Cuts which amount to reneging on contacts with serving personnel and veterans are not good cuts, in my view.

"Romney loves America like a tick loves a dog."

[mike_c]

15. oh I totally agree...

eom

[patrice]

5. K&R

[toddwv]

8. It's almost funny how everybodys' pay needs to be corrected

except for the ones at the very top.

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VoTMOdI9adk/TDSyFMpVASI/AAAAAAAAIGw/vFYfjfT-JKs/s1600/ceo-pay+graph.png[/img]

[grantcart]

9. Thanks for the thread but

Federal Employees DO NOT make 48% better on average.

I could detail the difference but I don't have to.

Look at the chart cited.

It shows that for the vast majority 'some college' or more pay is at parity and benefits are are marginally better.

At best it is a 10% total package difference BUT and this is the most important part, its not that the Fed employees have a largesse but modest benefits while the private sector has benefits way below what they should be.

[Segami]

11. From the Congressional Budget Office

"..On average, the benefits earned by federal civilian employees cost 48 percent more than the benefits earned by private-sector employees with certain similar observable characteristics..."

[grantcart]

14. It is misleading at best

If the benefits account for about 25% of the total compensation package then using those figures that would mean that the total difference would be 12% between the total compensation package and almost nobody is going to understand that.

Beyond that the Congressional Budget Office is using ALL private sector jobs, including agricultural, service and rural sectors where most federal employees work in urban and professional categories.

For example the largest single employer in Southern California is the Veterans Hospitals and I do one on one consultations with federal employees and I know what they make. It is very common for a medical support professional with post graduate certification from some kind to be a Grade 8 or 9 and make $ 40,000 in LA or San Diego, far below the private sector, even if include benefits. Federal jobs are not evenly spread out over the map and there are more jobs in expensive urban areas than there are in rural areas, generally speaking.

Statistics only can be relied upon if you know all of the assumptions that go into the calculation.

In this case the CBO is not talking to what percentage the total compensation is in compared to the private sector and when you look at the assumptions that went into the CBO numbers you will find that they are making assumptions that don't corespond to reality. In expensive urban areas, like LA, Chicago, San Diego federal employees are paid much less than the private sector. I did a conference last year at El Paso and met with over 30 VHA employees. Most of them were making less than $ 30,000 per year, which I found quite shocking.

[Live and Learn]

10. Some more great information from the article:

Why do federal employees have better benefits?

30 years ago, the types of benefits enjoyed by the public sector were pretty much the norm. However, as people have lost the ability to represent their own interests at work, through unionization, both wages and benefits have taken a dramatic hit. On the other end of the spectrum, CEO compensation has dramatically risen.

The average CEO makes 142 times the average employee. In 1980, they made “just” 40 times the average worker.

[Live and Learn]

12. Sending this article to my Mittwit brother who thinks

that public pensions and "entitlements" are ruining the country but sees no problem with having his son enroll in the ROTC to help pay for college.

[freshwest]

13. Perhaps they'll go straight to private contracting, and they'll make more money.

I don't support it, that's what Romney's solution might be.