|
Post by Pixie on Mar 12, 2015 8:10:20 GMT -5
This does not bode well for those of us in that category. If passed, it would also adversely affect those who are approaching retirement and are looking at keeping their high 3 (maybe high 5 in the future?) stable and as high as they can get it.
"Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) has introduced the Promoting Accountability In Decisions (PAID) for Progress Act (H.R. 1137). This legislation would reduce the salaries of federal workers making more than $100,000 by 8.7 percent until the economy recovers to pre-recession levels. This pay cut would also apply to Members of Congress and the president."
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Mar 12, 2015 8:15:13 GMT -5
it won't go anywhere. Congress would never cut their own salaries. there's already a lawsuit out for people whose pay was just delayed because of the furlough. can you imagine, the uproar that would result from passage of this Act? It's just a publicity stunt.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Mar 12, 2015 9:06:27 GMT -5
And what would be the measure of wether the "economy recovers to pre-recession levels"? When would Congress ever agree about that? Never. IMHO, it's a political device to argue that the improved unemployment rates haven't affected the economy positively - in short, there is an election coming up...
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 12, 2015 9:40:01 GMT -5
I agree about the publicity and the upcoming elections. He is just pandering to public opinion. But there are congressmen with these ideas. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by ba on Mar 12, 2015 9:41:15 GMT -5
it won't go anywhere. Congress would never cut their own salaries. there's already a lawsuit out for people whose pay was just delayed because of the furlough. can you imagine, the uproar that would result from passage of this Act? It's just a publicity stunt. In fact, Congress can't cut their own salaries, at least for the present Congress: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." And, since Congress has linked their salaries to Article III judges, there is a huge institutional inertia that would have to be undone in order to make something like this happen. I agree. The only thing this does is put Tom Rice's name in the paper.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Mar 12, 2015 11:23:03 GMT -5
I agree about the publicity and the upcoming elections. He is just pandering to public opinion. But there are congressmen with these ideas. Pixie Pix, we always have to worry when congresspeople have ideas...
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 12, 2015 11:37:39 GMT -5
very true miss!
|
|
|
Post by keepsake on Mar 12, 2015 11:43:34 GMT -5
I am not going to get too worked up over this, as it does appear to be political bluster. But below is a quote from Rep. Rice:
"The PAID for Progress Act would cut regulators’ salaries until the economy recovers, giving them an incentive to get government out of the way so the free market system can work,” Rice continued. “When take-home pay for everyday Americans returns to pre-2007 levels, so will federal government salaries.”
Of particular note for the Discussion Board I would argue that such proposals treat all such Federal employees as having monolithic duties and responsibilities. However, ALJs are not "regulators" as contemplated by this quote and a pay cut would not "incentivize" them to get government "out of the way". Furthermore, in particularly high cost locality areas, many ALJs are already suffering an adverse pay limitation related to their maximum salary when accounting for locality pay, due to the Executive Schedule cap on total compensation for ALJs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2015 12:27:03 GMT -5
Update on Rep. Rice federal paycut proposal: this comes directly from the tips of the fingers which type this so it is accurate insofar as can be spellchecked. The Republican paycut proposal is a go and has been duly put in letter form and mailed to the Congress of Iran for their review, consideration and vote.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 13, 2015 6:26:07 GMT -5
I am not going to get too worked up over this, as it does appear to be political bluster. But below is a quote from Rep. Rice: "The PAID for Progress Act would cut regulators’ salaries until the economy recovers, giving them an incentive to get government out of the way so the free market system can work,” Rice continued. “When take-home pay for everyday Americans returns to pre-2007 levels, so will federal government salaries.” Of particular note for the Discussion Board I would argue that such proposals treat all such Federal employees as having monolithic duties and responsibilities. However, ALJs are not "regulators" as contemplated by this quote and a pay cut would not "incentivize" them to get government "out of the way". Furthermore, in particularly high cost locality areas, many ALJs are already suffering an adverse pay limitation related to their maximum salary when accounting for locality pay, due to the Executive Schedule cap on total compensation for ALJs. keepsake makes a good point. Our AL-3 top salary with locality pay would insulate us to the current maximum as many don't appreciate the locality pay "cushion".
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Mar 13, 2015 6:38:22 GMT -5
So maybe the Congressman's proposal is limited to just policy wonks... I hope everyone's PD is up to date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2015 9:31:30 GMT -5
"send it to my business email at deadbroke@theyllneverfindthisone.com"
Hillary? Hillary is that you? Hillary?
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Mar 13, 2015 9:53:09 GMT -5
"send it to my business email at deadbroke@theyllneverfindthisone.com"
Hillary? Hillary is that you? Hillary? SORRY. YOUR EMAIL CANNOT BE PROCESSED. THE SERVER IS CURRENTLY DOWN
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Mar 21, 2015 20:41:29 GMT -5
I read the initial post to my wife, who generally frets about the finances in our household. She just laughed and said, no politician, particularly a senator or congressional representative, is going to vote a pay cut for him or herself. After some reflection, I can't help but agree with her. The proposed bill is all political bluster and will never become law.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Mar 26, 2015 0:39:05 GMT -5
Yeah, except congressional pay is not federal pay. They vote their own pay and benefits separately. Congress has felt very free to rearrange the federal pay scale without touching their own in the past.
|
|
|
Post by jonsprag1 on Mar 26, 2015 12:39:36 GMT -5
Yeah, except congressional pay is not federal pay. They vote their own pay and benefits separately. Congress has felt very free to rearrange the federal pay scale without touching their own in the past. . The proposed bill includes congressional salaries also. I'm pretty sure it won't pass, even if it makes it out of commitee
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Mar 26, 2015 14:11:44 GMT -5
It is part of the House's budget proposal for 2015-2016. Even if it passes the House, it will never pass the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Mar 26, 2015 15:22:01 GMT -5
Yeah, except congressional pay is not federal pay. They vote their own pay and benefits separately. Congress has felt very free to rearrange the federal pay scale without touching their own in the past. . The proposed bill includes congressional salaries also. I'm pretty sure it won't pass, even if it makes it out of commitee Wow - that IS a kill-me-now bill!
|
|