He stood before the mics and the crowds and was televised to the nation....there will be a two year freeze on government payrolls....really?
Of course not. Those were the usual hollow, shallow, meaningless, non- commital WORDS.
The reality is:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/.../12060301/1001

A far cry from the WORDS and the business as usual crowd, both parties, go merrily on their way.

Pay no attention to what he says...watch what he does!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

He stood before the mics and the crowds and was televised to the nation....there will be a two year freeze on government payrolls....really?
Of course not. Those were the usual hollow, shallow, meaningless, non- commital WORDS.
The reality is:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/.../12060301/1001

A far cry from the WORDS and the business as usual crowd, both parties, go merrily on their way.

Pay no attention to what he says...watch what he does!!

btk

This quote from you....

"Pay no attention to what he says...watch what he does!!"

This is the issue. If you read throughout his career, this is exactly what he stands for...nothing new.

I wondered when this would make news.

The fact is, the President is limited in what he can do. Now, there was a proposal for a 1.4% increase in pay for the various government grades. Because it hadn't yet passed, it was comparatively easy to eliminate that line from the funding proposal that was working it's way through Congress. The 'step increases' are another matter and would likely require legislation that would be a lot tougher to create and pass - especially with so little time before 1/1/11.

Full disclosure: I'm hit with the salary freeze and I'm not scheduled for a step increase for a few years. Also, I took a *cut* in pay to take this job which has comparable benefits as when I was employed in the private sector but *does* offer more time off. I have no problem with the freeze given the country's circumstances.

Originally Posted by djplong

I wondered when this would make news.

The fact is, the President is limited in what he can do. Now, there was a proposal for a 1.4% increase in pay for the various government grades. Because it hadn't yet passed, it was comparatively easy to eliminate that line from the funding proposal that was working it's way through Congress. The 'step increases' are another matter and would likely require legislation that would be a lot tougher to create and pass - especially with so little time before 1/1/11.

Full disclosure: I'm hit with the salary freeze and I'm not scheduled for a step increase for a few years. Also, I took a *cut* in pay to take this job which has comparable benefits as when I was employed in the private sector but *does* offer more time off. I have no problem with the freeze given the country's circumstances.

Again, when it comes to this President, DJPLONG finds a way to divert what the essence of the thread is in order to offer some defense of him.

The point is this President is a man of WORDS......the point is you cannot trust what he says because that does not mean that is what he will do. The point is that throughout his career, this has been the case.

Read BOTH of his autobiographies...read the archives of the Chicago newspaper...investigate and you will find this is NOT a leader, nor a man of his WORD !

What Bucco and a few others do not realize is that the step increases for the General Schedule (GS) grades of the Federal Government employees is locked in by law. It is the Classification Act of 1949 and is written into Federal law. A president (no matter which party) can undo that.

What Pres. Obama did was no different that other presidents have done about freezing Federal pay (no Cost of Living Adjustment or COLA). Other presidents have done this (both Republican and Democrat) as well as freezing the hiring of new employees (except for political appointees - again, both parties have done this).

There was no Cost of Living Adjustment or COLA for Federal retirees this year.

Step increases - or within grade increases - take place on a periodic basis of satisfactory work by an employee. There are 10 steps within each grade. These steps range from 1 year apart for the first 3 to 2 years apart for the next 3 and 3 years apart for the steps 8, 9, and 10.

An employee can also get a promotion to the next higher grade based on Merit Promotion where they compete with other employees or by an accretion of duties to their present job.

This quick course in Federal Human Resources was provided by me (a former HR Officer at the Dept of Veterans Affairs) at no cost. You are welcome.

This was not meant for either a defense of what Obama said nor as a slur in any way on what else was posted. Please do not take it that way. I just wanted to clear up what seemed to be confusing information. Hope it helped.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Again, when it comes to this President, DJPLONG finds a way to divert what the essence of the thread is in order to offer some defense of him.

The point is this President is a man of WORDS......the point is you cannot trust what he says because that does not mean that is what he will do. The point is that throughout his career, this has been the case.

Read BOTH of his autobiographies...read the archives of the Chicago newspaper...investigate and you will find this is NOT a leader, nor a man of his WORD !

Say WHAT?

I was merely EXPLAINING things - the fact that there isn't much a President CAN do in the span of a couple of weeks. I was hardly defending him!

Tell me, Bucco, on this subject what would YOU have done? I'm willing to bet that, no matter what you propose, there'd be some federal regulation that would get in your way that would prevent you from being able to do it between now and 1/1/2011. This freeze is what CAN be done and you don't see me complaining about it even though it DOES affect me.

Originally Posted by djplong

Say WHAT?

I was merely EXPLAINING things - the fact that there isn't much a President CAN do in the span of a couple of weeks. I was hardly defending him!

Tell me, Bucco, on this subject what would YOU have done? I'm willing to bet that, no matter what you propose, there'd be some federal regulation that would get in your way that would prevent you from being able to do it between now and 1/1/2011. This freeze is what CAN be done and you don't see me complaining about it even though it DOES affect me.

To me the subject was the shallowness of the President. The wage freeze was simply used as an example. If I misinterpeted the subject I am sorry !

Accepted.

Personally I think Obama has put a grenade in his re-election plans. If he tries to show that he was 'holding the line' on deficit spending or trying to rein in spending with the freeeze, people are going to ask why he "caved" on extending the tax cuts for the top 2% instead of doing what the Republicans do so well, taking an issue with a clear division and staying ON that message repeatedly.

Originally Posted by djplong

Accepted.

Personally I think Obama has put a grenade in his re-election plans. If he tries to show that he was 'holding the line' on deficit spending or trying to rein in spending with the freeeze, people are going to ask why he "caved" on extending the tax cuts for the top 2% instead of doing what the Republicans do so well, taking an issue with a clear division and staying ON that message repeatedly.

Howard Fineman in todays Huffington Post...

"By staking his next two years on hundreds of billions of dollars of new or renewed tax cuts -- none of them tied directly to compensating cuts in government spending -- Obama is alienating his own Democratic base in a way that could make him what Carter was: a one-term, ineffective "outsider" president."

From todays New York Times....

"President Obama’s compromise with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the wealthy, which his self-described progressive critics see as a profound betrayal, is bound to intensify a debate that has been bubbling up on liberal blogs and e-mail lists in recent weeks — whether or not the president who embodied “hope and change” in 2008 should face a primary challenge in 2012. "

All talk at this point...2 years is a lifetime in politics, but he is and has been in way over his head. During the primary many people saw it....an elitist with an attitude of always being right and always getting his way.

To speak the speak of compromise and then when it happens call the other side "hostage takers" is just plain nuts. BUT I think he believes that...I think he thinks that HE knows the way and nobody else. He has been like this his entire life

tasked many times to doing what had to be done to save a company...I expected from what he so proudly stated that federal pays were frozen. A more responsible LEADER, would have said "except for". But that destroys the illusion does it not.

If he wanted to be an effective executive he would have included all wage increases for every person on the planet on the federal payroll....he would have directed that whatever rules/laws/excuses/etc that were in place that needed to be changed or legislated or dismissed to be done so.

To identify one or twenty one reasons why any cost cutting measures can not be done is nothing more than an excuse to maintain the status quo. The very reason so many companies do not perform at their best and the very reason NOTHING gets done at the political level...Executive leaders do what has to be done whether it is popular or liked or not.....to accomplish the objective. And there we have the dilema, eh? The objective? Politicians have a conflict of interest. Self preservation. No business acumen.

The above is the very reason why companies bring expert consultants to do the brutal cost cutting needed to be done to survive. Unlike corporate incumbents or politicians, the consultants have a real objective and they are un-involved and don't have the blinding problem of knowing why things are like they are. And they certainly are not bound by the familiar and devastating...."you can't do that because". One does what has to be done and changes whatever has to be changed to get it done. NO COMPROMISE!.

btk

Bill: Do you realize how that sounds if you change the subject and phrasing from the deficit and government salaries to healthcare and all the issues surrounding it?

What would you have done if Obama used Executive Orders and "Any Means Necessary" to nationalize health care (as so many conservatives said he was trying to do)?

Would you look at it as an effort to at least improve our health care system to the "middle of the pack" of industrialized nations or to cut costs (since we pay more than anyone)? Or would you scream about it infringing on your rights?

I don't mean to sound snide and I realize it will, but I think we know the answer to that.

So "you can't do that because there's a law against it" is ok to run roughshod over when it comes to laws governing salaries, but not ok when it's *your* axe being gored?

That's a double standard.

lack of emphasis to make real cuts as well as respond to an earlier posting that had a primer on how government pay raises work.
It had nothing to do with health care what so ever. And you can't just apply a course of action to any action one pleases and use it as a go-n-go gage.

The salary decreases and cuts in spending are needed, necessary to curtail the rampant federal spending.
The health care issue is not of the same necessity. Nor is it at the moment clear how it works, how much it costs and the long term effect on the deficit other than the fact it will raise costs and increase the deficit.

To categorize no nonsense actions to freeze wages as "running rough shod" is an inaccurate characterization of a methodology. And perhaps reflects ones lack of understanding where and when to apply what kind of executive aggressive actions.

The same aggressive actions (not running rough shod) applied to the health care fiasco would/could go something like do not pass the bill until such time as it can be explained to the American people just exactly what is in the bill, how much it costs and exactly what is the plan to pay for it. Get it done....what ever it takes. But as we all know it was a back room, ram it through and by the way ignore the masses of the we the people who said they do not want it. That to me fits your misplaced assignation of running rough shod. It also fits the category of running amok!!!!

btk