On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

PostLeadership

Boehner's 'so be it' leadership

Seemingly everyone right, left and center is decrying President Obama's lack of leadership on the budget. He ignored entitlement reform, defaulting on the job of presidential leadership. His cuts hit the working poor hard, affecting the very groups he built his career helping.

And to varying extents, they're all right. But he's hardly the only one letting leadership slide as the political gamesmanship and histrionics that surround the budget-setting process plays out. Exhibit A: Speaker of the House John Boehner, who responded "so be it" to a reporter's question Tuesday about how the Republicans' proposed spending cuts could end up trimming some of the 200,000 government jobs that have been added since Obama took office.

This from the same man who, on Sunday's "Meet the Press," saidof the president that "he's going to present a budget tomorrow that will continue to destroy jobs by spending too much, borrowing too much, and taxing too much." Who asked, in a speech at the Conservative Policital Action Conference last week, "Mr. President, Where are the jobs?" And who issued a statement following the president's Chamber of Commerce speech on Feb. 7 saying, "President Obama has retooled his rhetoric, but not his job-destroying policies."

I get that the Speaker, along with many Republicans, has a disdain for expanded government. (Ezra Klein digs into the numbers, and not only has a hard time verifying Boehner's 200,000 number, but discovers that the ratio of federal employees to the total U.S. workforce has actually plummeted.) But these are still people's jobs, and to act nonchalant over their loss is not only insensitive but decidedly out of character for a leader. (It may be more than government jobs that are lost, too: Dana Milbank asked the left-leaning Center for American Progress and found estimates that some 650,000 government jobs and 325,000 other jobs could be cut due to the Republicans' proposal.)

Also questionable was Boehner's response when asked by the same reporter if he had any estimate of how many jobs would be lost through their proposal: He said he "did not." At a time of high unemployment and with an economy still staggering back to life--not to mention coming from a man who has professed such frustration over the president's "job-destroying policies"--it seems the Speaker should have been able to address such an obvious question.

Yes, hard times, high deficits and heavy spending mean there may be some necessary rollback in federal jobs. But Boehner's inability to answer the question of how many jobs his proposal will cut shows a lack of preparation--or a simple avoidance of the question--on a subject about which he has been extremely vocal. Moreover, his disregard for the people whose jobs could be lost through his proposal, even if necessary, makes him appear aloof and insensitive. The president may not be winning any leadership medals for his budget dealings, but the opposition's leader isn't either.

Related content:
Republicans and the budget: When to compromise?
Think you can balance the budget?

By Jena McGregor

 |  February 16, 2011; 1:08 PM ET |  Category:  Bad leadership , Economic crisis , Federal government leadership , Government leadership , Presidential leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Little excuse for the thin U.S. leadership bench in Afghanistan | Next: Think you can balance the budget?

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Republicans used to be about effective and efficient government. Now they are just antigovernment.

In a democratic country, this is anti-American.

Posted by: AxelDC | February 22, 2011 11:05 PM

How about an article on the leadership being demonstrated by the Wisconsin and Indiana Democrat legislators? When in the majority they vote the damage on their states and when in the minority, they leave town. I'm betting you will not see this article from the LIBERAL Pearlstein and whoever the heck this McGregor person is.

Posted by: hz9604 | February 22, 2011 12:33 PM

Boehner forgets that of the thousands left unemployed for extended periods of time, many are Republicans who voted this crowd in hoping to do better on the job front. To have such a dismissive attitude towards Americans and the need for jobs, I hope you fools who voted for these people are listening. He sure isn't.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 22, 2011 12:26 PM

Boehner forgets that of the thousands left unemployed for extended periods of time, many are Republicans who voted this crowd in hoping to do better on the job front. To have such a dismissive attitude towards Americans and the need for jobs, I hope you fools who voted for these people are listening. He doesn't care about you either.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 22, 2011 12:24 PM

For all of the folks out there who say that gee whiz, we don't need so many Federal workers, I say, what will you complain about next when unemployment claims go up? It isn't like these people have anywhere else to go. There are enough of us out there from the private sector who were laid off two years ago still struggling to find reasonable replacements for the jobs we lost and to crowd the market even more based on ideology -- I don't get it. If you aren't paying for their salaries, you'll be paying for them in the same way you are currently complaining about paying for the rest of us through increased unemployment benefits and for families, increased public aid in lieu of the jobs they'd rather have. Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | February 22, 2011 12:23 PM

Mr God John Boehner, go to the Middle East, they need a new God, we do not need you! Dirt bag...

lol

Posted by: billisnice | February 22, 2011 11:55 AM

Mr God John Boehner, go to the Middle East, they need a new God, we do not need you! Dirtbag...

lol

Posted by: billisnice | February 22, 2011 11:53 AM

Private or Federal workforce, its irrelevant and a calculated attempt at division. The GOP has declared war on the American middle class. They're not looking to their "sacred cow" entitlements or the moneyed class they represent to help pay our way out of this hole. Its those that can least afford it that they plan to make suffer...then blame it all on the Obama administration next fall. We're poised to become the model of a "New Third World"; a nation of corporate-economic elite and wage-slaves...."So Be It".

Posted by: nonsensical2001 | February 22, 2011 11:53 AM

"so be it" This is America where we all have different ideas and thought...isn't it? I guess he has declared himself, "GOD."

One thing i know certain is things in life changes moment to moment. Nothing certain.

The tea party did not have as much influence in the last election. I voted differently cuz i was sick of the last congressman. Million of us did.

Posted by: billisnice | February 22, 2011 11:26 AM

The only thing John Boehner can address is a bottle of Scotch and a pack of cigaretts.

Did you know John Boehner can sleep with his eyes open.

Posted by: bigmac1810 | February 22, 2011 10:34 AM

From the Mall to Madison (WI)-- for those of you who voted for this group of liars, cheats, and "give me mine before you get yours" group (Republicans), you got what you deserve--nobody told you to vote the B--- into office. Just wait, Gov Walker and Speaker Boehner have much more in store--all for the rich.

Posted by: fairness3 | February 22, 2011 9:55 AM

For those of you defending Obama by pointing to Bush and the Republicans, just give us conservatives credit. We complained about the spending under Bush as well. What do you think lead to the Tea Party? As an African American I was hoping Obama would indeed offer serious spending cuts, increase the retirement age, AND increase tax revenue by eliminating many deductions. I readily admit that I want him to be successful because he is Black. But I do not give him a pass because he is Black. And I did not give Bush a pass because he was a Republican. We cannot sustain this current path!

Posted by: ajeffrey | February 22, 2011 6:50 AM

Leadership requires times when the answer is "So be it". Government workers are not like private sector workers. Government workers get paid by confiscating other peoples money to pay their wages and benefits. Private sector jobs are paid usually through the demand for services. Government workers also provide services for which tax payers are willing to pay. The military, tax collection, education, etc. However, there is no built in demand for efficiency. The demand for efficiency in the private sector is profit and solvency. When times are tough some workers lose their jobs until demand increases. Leadership demands such action.

Posted by: ajeffrey | February 22, 2011 6:45 AM

Many of us still remember how little "disdain for expanded government" Republicans had when George W was in charge. Now it's just an excuse to oppose the Democratic-lead government, and its black leader who provokes such racist paranoia in their followers. If they actually find someone who has a chance of defeating Obama next year, one suspects that it would be back to boot-licking, as usual. Are there any Republican "principles" that aren't phony and self-serving? It remains to be seen.

Posted by: DaveHarris | February 21, 2011 9:07 PM

Boehner's "so be it" can be translated as "tough luck."

So we reduce the deficit at the expense of the (retired on limited incomes) elderly, the lower (working) middle class, the poor, children, students.

Tough luck, crybabies. My (wealthy) friends and I have ours. Too bad for you. Tough luck. So be it.

Boehner shows his true colors. If you voted for his crowd, live with it. Tough luck for all of us.

Posted by: castleb | February 21, 2011 9:04 PM

Boehner's "so be it" can be translated as "tough luck." So we reduce the deficit at the expense of the (retired on limitd incomes) elderly, the lower (working) middle class, the poor, children, students.

Tough luck, crybabies. My (wealthy) friends and I have ours. Too bad for you. Tough luck. So be it.

Boehner shows his true colors. If you voted for his crowd, live with it. Tough luck.

Posted by: castleb | February 21, 2011 9:03 PM

AP:
ABBEVILLE, La. -- Unofficial election returns show that Republican Jonathan Perry has narrowly defeated Democrat Nathan Granger in the race to fill a vacant state Senate seat, possibly giving the GOP control of the Senate.
LMAO
Posted by: Straightline

***
What does GOP control of the Louisiana State Senate have to do with this story?

Posted by: Rachelva | February 21, 2011 5:16 PM

Oh weepy Boehner doesn't care about other people. All he cares about is his huge paycheck.

Really, the Party of No is now the Party of No-Nothings.

Posted by: homer4 | February 21, 2011 3:58 PM

Clinton gave us a surplus because he repudiated the Republicans' bleating for more tax cuts.

Once he left office GW Bush put tax cuts on steroids & with 2 wars kept on separate books & inept policies the Republicans ate it up; then came the crash.

We also have Gramm, Leach, and Bliley, all Republicans, for the crash.

This is what the Republicans gave us during the Clinton Administration:

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, formed by Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).

What did their legislation do? It (a) allowed banks to consolidate with mortgage brokers & investment firms and (b) allowed the newly-merged banks to take on riskier investments while at the same time removing any requirements to maintain enough equity, exposing the assets of its banking customers.

That is why the teachers in Wisconsin have every right to strike. They aren't the ones who made the scorched earth policies that ripped them off of their retirement benefits & pay.

Here is the Republican strategy: Treat President Obama as if he's their janitor, and make the middle class poor.

What does the prospect of less jobs bring us? A shoulder shrug and a "so be it" from the Republican majority leader.

They strongarmed the president, using ceasing unemployment benefits as their threat while they demanded 10 more years of Bush Tax Cuts and further losses in revenue. The president granted them a 2-year extension so middle-class families wouldn't find themselves with no money to buy groceries or make mortgage payments during Christmas.

They spent a ridiculous amount of time with their sideshow on how much they despise government healthcare - even though each and every one of them enjoys it on our dime and not one has cancelled out and bought his/her own private health insurance from the free market, which is what they expect us to do.

They threatened to shut down the government because apparently the only thing they have demonstrated they are any good at.

John Boehner actually helped write the first stimulus package that 169 Republicans voted for, with only 25 opposed - the stimulus bill that was so poorly written it enabled Wall Street executives to award bonuses.

At least the second one was written with some foresight and brought us revenues back.

The John Birch Society lunatics in the Republican party are a bunch of dishonest frauds.

The economy improved when President Obama took office, and there has been job growth over the disaster we experienced in the last quarter of 2008.

The Republicans would think most of America is too stupid to catch on.

But what do Republicans care about revenue, or the truth - this is their theme song as they turn the middle class into the poor:

Tax Cuts Tax Cuts Uber Alles
Uber Alles-shut up, you're poor;

Tax Cuts Tax Cuts Uber Alles
Uber Alles-the rich need yet more.

The Republicans have been treating Pres. Obama like he's their janitor.

Throw them out in 2012.

Posted by: jKO2010 | February 21, 2011 12:41 PM

How, by any stretch of the imagination, can this clown, Congressman Boner, be called a leader?

Posted by: sameolddoc | February 21, 2011 12:23 PM

The claims by Republicans that they can reduce government spending by cutting government jobs should be examined more fully. For example, when the Bush administration decided to privatize the jobs at Walter Reed Medical center, the costs didn't go down federal workers were transferred out and the company that was hired to provide workers was only willing to pay low wages. They kept the profit for themselves. This led to a dangerous cut in hospital services to our veterans. Vets who were patients were houses in apartments which were in terrible condition and sometimes dangerous. When this scandal broke, the management said they were unable to hire workers or afford to fix the housing situation.
Another example of reducing government jobs and privatizing those functions came during the Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld argued that fewer soldiers were needed to fight that war. For this reason, food services and security services were contracted out. VP Dick Cheney was formerly CEO and Chairman of the board of Haliburton. The no bid multi billion dollar contract was awarded to this company by the Bush administration while Cheney had considerable holdings in stock and stock options in Halliburton The food service provided by KBR a subsidiary of Halliburton were substandard and the costs skyrocketed because this company was not held accountable by the Bush administration. Halliburton itself was caught overcharging for oil delivered to our troops.
Security services were provided by Blackwater, now Xe, with disastrous results. These services were all paid for by the American tax payer. We did not pay less because private companies were hired to provide these services.
Our government needs services to run the country. It is foolish for the Tea Party politicians to assume that in cutting budgets and eliminating federal jobs the costs of these services will be cheaper. In hiring our own workers it is possible to control expenses and to control the quality of the workers. This is not possible when jobs are outsourced.
In addition if we have a strong federal workforce which is not subject to the whims of the political climate, some of the abuses described above are prevented because of the oversight such a system provides.

Posted by: OhMy | February 21, 2011 8:59 AM

Boehner is useless. His so be it attitude should be kicked backed all the way to Ohio. He is no leader, and has proven it many times. His fake crying jags were just a mask to hide what he truly has done and continues to do. In 2 months Parties and Retreats have paved the way of his future which started when he was in the Minority.
His slurring of words, continuous drooling when making speeches, losing his train of thought during those speeches are not signs of a Leader who actually cares about his fellow Americans. The agenda he has put forward only repays back the folks who propelled him to power. He has declared war against the poor and middleclass all the while praising his rich business friends and promising more riches for them.
Boehner will never be an effective leader as long as the wine glass is full.

Posted by: sumo1 | February 21, 2011 7:48 AM

A lot of bull. Make some money. This president does have that power. At the rate the unemployed is increasing, this deficit will never be paid, it is not logical to continue to borrow money from China. The government has the ability to create jobs and establish the economy to benefit all. This Congress has definitely established itself on confusion as a means of presenting it self as a body of power. If there was a sense of progress it could also be seen as a lot of these people could be taken off the pay-roll. The rhetoric, propaganda, bull is magnified daily as a manner of ego stroking if nothing else. AS it stands politics have established itself in all aspects of living... from the birth certificate, social security number, professions we choose, even who we marry.. a poor credit score is a bad thing. Politics is purely social- economics. The government need to strengthen itself on a common ground before it destroys this country. What is happening in Wisconsin may be just a beginnning of rallies, that someday may become violent. America is like a bear, it has no true friends, it has a record of creating confusion, there may be no place of exile for Congress or any other public official, not even in Mexico. The number of people who have nothing to lose is growing and things may someday be as countries that crying for freedom/their rights, . This government offers no free rides, Food banks, the generosity of neighbors are coming to the rescue of the needy, too many have lost their homes, the hositily will increase. And to hear Boehner pushy words of "read My lips" adds little to a troubled government. In America all things are possible, the statue has offered a promise and she still stands.

Posted by: alwaysAlabama | February 21, 2011 12:55 AM

People are so misinformed about what actually goes on and they just make things up.

First, although the Federal government is the largest employer in the country it employs less than 3 million people (not 14 million as one person tried to claim.

Second, it has already been shown that Boehner misspoke when he talked about 200,000 jobs created under Obama. 150,000 temporary jobs were created for the decennial Census count--but that happens ever ten years and those jobs were temporary. Furthermore, many people were hired under ARRA, but again, the vast majority of those jobs were term (up to 3 year) positions and not permanent.

Third, the belief that Federal employees make more than their private sector counterparts is idiotic. While it is true that lower grade Federal employees may fare better than counterparts, mid-level and senior level employees make significantly less than their counterparts. My husband and I are both Federal employees. We work with contractors who do very similar work and make twice as much as we do and in some cases more--trust me--we're not in it for the money.

I'm not against fighting government waste. I'm all for letting go of employees not carrying their weight and ending duplicative programs. But to say that none of our jobs are meaningful is just ignorant.

Posted by: mrsT_912 | February 20, 2011 6:34 PM

AP:

ABBEVILLE, La. -- Unofficial election returns show that Republican Jonathan Perry has narrowly defeated Democrat Nathan Granger in the race to fill a vacant state Senate seat, possibly giving the GOP control of the Senate.

LMAO

Posted by: Straightline | February 20, 2011 5:39 PM

So be it, indeed. Government isn't a jobs program. Cut government jobs and prevent public unions from collective bargaining. How does it make any sense to allow politicians to "negotiate" with employees with whom they curry favor?

Typical politician in a negotiating session with a public union: "how much more do we need to raise taxes to cover your generous salaries and benefits?"

Posted by: dknight12345 | February 20, 2011 4:31 PM

This is what you get when you hire lawyers. They do not solve problems. They work very hard to "win," and, as politicians, to get re-elected. Solving the problems we have are not a priority.

Listen to them. Have you ever heard any of them really define the problem, and work together to identify what the problem really is? Do any of them then argue about what solution will really solve the problem? No - they posture and bluster and avoid saying anything that could be considered controversial.

If you want to fix these problems, hire apolitical engineers, technicians, or scientists. Hire people who don't care about getting re-elected, who just want to solve the problems of the country, and know how to solve problems. Most of these people we have elected have never solved a problem more complicated than what to have for breakfast.

We get exactly what we deserve. We don't critically examine candidates' ability, just their position on social issues and their personal shortcomings. Is it any wonder that the government can't fix anything when we hire people whose only concern is the size of their campaign fund?

I care less what you're cutting or whether you're increasing or decreasing taxes than how what you're proposing is going to solve some problem. None of these clowns ever do that, because we don't require it of them. We keep re-electing the same incompetent political hacks, and do so in a way that makes competent people want nothing to do with the job.

Posted by: IndianaStevenJ | February 20, 2011 9:09 AM

Some of you are either not educated enough in civics to be commenting, or are so dumb you can't spot obvious lies whe you see them.

Federal civian employees number slightly more than 2 million.

That "government jobs" number you thrown areound includes all federal and STATE employees, AND municiple employees. So the guys who pick up your trash, your state police officers, the game warden...

200,000 federal emplyees is cutting 10% of the federal workforce. And not "non-essential" (as if there is such a thing - al of them do jobs that are consequential, but whose jobs are really "life and death" for the most part? Isn't YOUR job "non-essential?" Wouldn't the world continue spinning if you were laid off or replaced by some H2 visa immigrant for half the cost? And wouldn't there be real consequences down the road if that happened?) Anyway - the cuts are to things like food inspectors, EPA inspectors, park rangers, department of ed staff. All jobs with enormous importance. If you think for a second that food producers will not be poisoning people en mass with fewer inspectors just take a look at the bush years. Ditto SEC. Ditto chemical pollutants. Ditto FDA drug inspections...Industry knew full well that the regulators were told to not regulate, and so we had a rash of poison drugs, foodbourn illness epidemics, a market crash, coal mine disasters...

If you think it is "non-essential" to inspect coal mines, or oil rigs, or food plants you are out of your mind. if you think destroying our national heritage by firing park rangers to save a few dollars - and it really is peanuts - we spend more in the time it takes to read this article than it costs to run the park service - then you are a troll.
And bottom line is this. The budget was balanced just fine 12 years ago. A fine and forward thinking man named Bill Clinton forced through a tax increase that particularly focused on those benefiting the most from the greatness of the United States. And while you might argue that their taxes were not really high enough under Clinton since they continued to rake in dough hand over fist and at a much faster rate than everyone else, at least that kind of a fair and progressive system had both vast prosperity AND a balanced budget. The government HAS NOT grown in any significant way since Clinton - or in fact since Eisenhower. What has changed over time was the tax code. Reagan cut taxes so far in his first year that his subsequent tax increses were never enough to get the balance back. And bush also raised taxes, but not far enough. It took a responsible Democrat and a congress with the courage to do what was good for the country instead of putting a finger to the wind and trying to read the tea bags to get the nation on track. And Clinton stood his ground when republicons tried to s krew it up under gingrich which gave us those gov shutdowns in the late 1990s.

Posted by: John1263 | February 19, 2011 4:14 PM

If you look at the FACTS and not some phony gop talking point sheet - federal employment today is slightly more than 2 million, the same level it hit in --- 1951. There was a slight bump up in federal employment between 1965 and 1980 when we were actually making some serious headway against poverty and inequality, then under the reaganistas federal employment went back down modestly where it is today - right where it was 60 years ago. In 1951 the population of the United States was around 145 millions. In 2011 it is 309 millions. So as a matter of simple math the federal employment level is actually half of what it was 60 years ago. Those employees certainly are vastly more productive, and have to be since the world in 2011 is so much more vastly complex and fast paced than the world of 1951.

And then there are the republcon lies about the federal workforce - or state workforce, being the reason the budget is out of kilter. The exact same (within a few thousands) of workers work in the federal government today as did 10 years ago. 10 years ago the budget was in surplus and we were paying down the debt accumulated by reagan and bush. (When reagan took office the national debt was about 1 trillion - when he left it was over 4.5 trillion -- and bush added another 2 trillion) The difference between now and then is the tax code. republcons pushed the revenue side of the equation out of kilter with reality.

The TRUTH is that we cannot do away with schools, universities, hospitals, roads, breatable air, drinkable water, forests, health care for our citizens, safe food, energy infrastructure changes simply because one political party refuses to face the TRUTH that rich people do not pay their share in taxes. Until that happens - and from all indications that will NEVER happen in todays radical reactionary republicon party, the only chance we have as a nation to survive is to get rid of them from our political system. And that requires sane good intelligent Americans to get off the couch and demonstrate from now until January 5 2013 when Speaker Pelosi regains the gavel and we can end this nonsense and get back to repairing the violence that republicons have done to the United States

Posted by: John1263 | February 19, 2011 4:00 PM

Really sad that the ship appears to be so rudderless and Republicans are less than helpful.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 19, 2011 8:07 AM

The Republicans' only objective is to keep the rich rich (or better yet, make them even WEALTHIER) and keep the poor poor (and pound as many of the middle class into poverty as possible). They don't give a damn about the United States of America and continue to lie, cheat, and steal to support their dispicable addictions to money and power. And by the way, Boner is a treasonous idiot and Ohio should be ashamed of ever having elected this monumental, self-serving putz.

Posted by: Bushwhacked1 | February 19, 2011 7:32 AM

Typical Republican response: make an ultimatum to the President to produce jobs, then provide the framework for eliminating jobs. These people that have been trying to have it both ways will eventually hang themselves. People are going to have to figure it out eventually that no matter how good a President is or isn't, with people like Boehner and present-day Republicans, there is no way to come out ahead. To try to prevent the President from succeeding, they do everything in their power to set up the structure for guaranteed failure. No wonder that Republicans cannot lead when they get in leadership roles. They only know how to set up programs for failure. Isn't Rummy's book great?!

Posted by: EarlC | February 18, 2011 7:47 PM

So whose the job killer now????

Posted by: ruffyy | February 18, 2011 7:11 PM

What the Repblicans often forget is that a lot of the private sector jobs they claim to want to protect are actually government jobs wrapped in different paper. The money still goes out the door, just in a different way. And quite a few of the private contractors are caught cheating the gov and overcharging for their services. I am not sure the so called savings for contractors is really there. I agree with the author, a job is a job no matter where in the nation it sits. Throwing 200,00o people out of work is not just a loss of 200,000 jobs. All those people will now not have money to put back into the economy through purchases in the private sector. And this idea that government workers across the board make more money is just plain ignorant. While it is true that those at the bottom make more than their counterparts in the private sector, once you get to the middle the firgures are skewed strongly in the other direction. Stop using averages. Anyone with a slight knowldge of statistics knows that using an average in this situaion does not work. Look at the real numbers.

Posted by: lisashap | February 18, 2011 5:21 PM

Linus12, the problem with compromise is that neither the Dem nor the GOP proposal cuts 1/10th what is required to keep the US from going bankrupt, one way or another. Here are the choices:

1. Cut federal spending by 40%, and soon.
2. Go banana republic pay the debt with extreme inflation.
3. Go banana republic and default outright.

No amount of tax-rate increases could help. Stone-bleeding is futile. Choosing number 1 means government employees must leave DC, and the military bases in 130 foreign countries, and the War On Drugs prisons. They must return to the factory. The factory is rust? (Thanks Federal Reserve!) Then re-build the factory.

Number 2, would require even more fraudulent accounting of COL entitlement increases, but the government is quite practiced at that. Politicians, bankers, and the WAPO prefer number 2.

Number 3 will be the choice of young people when the big crisis inevitably comes down. Why should they pay the debt? They did not run it up. If they cannot effect number 3 through the voting booth, they will find another way. Things could get very ugly.

This is serious @#$% people. Chipping around the edges will not help, other than maybe to buy some politicians another round of "leadership."

Posted by: jdadson | February 18, 2011 1:13 PM

We would be better off paying most government workers to stay home, rather than doing their jobs. Here is an idea: Offer every non-essential government worker - (is there any other kind?) - six months pay to quit, paid in full immediately, tax-free, with no conditions other than staying away from the public feed trough forever.

Posted by: jdadson | February 18, 2011 12:36 PM

There are roughly 14,000,000 government jobs. Cutting 200,000, 1.4% of them, is not nearly enough.

Posted by: jdadson | February 18, 2011 12:27 PM

John Boehnner is a poor example of leadership as speaker. His idea of leadership is to be as ambiguous as possible.

In any organization the easiest way to save money is to cut heads. It is usually not the best way just the easiest.

Republican governors like Perry in Texas or Schwarzenegger in Calif among others,(Perry has been governor for 14 years) run up huge budget deficits.
Yet Republican voters still believe the supply side trickle down line.

When in boot camp I was told what rolls down hill and Republican economic failures, still prove that s*** is the only thing that trickles down.

Posted by: jobenf | February 18, 2011 11:50 AM

Please do not think that a cut in spending will benefit you. No way. Cuts will make your life more expensive and difficult;not cheaper and easier. Interest rates are very low, and will not be made lower by spending cuts. It will benefit your children, but in a small way. Don't think the US will turn around and prosper right away because some spending was cut. PB in DC.

Posted by: PB-in-DC | February 18, 2011 11:06 AM

They can put on all they want to but i'm getting real tired of running out of food 2 weeks before the end of the month.
Somethings got to be done now.
We are closer to a real revolution in this country than ever in our past.
Just keep on playing games.
Posted by: CPB1 | February 18, 2011 3:15 AM
_______

So... the Civil War was a fake revolution?

Posted by: tricia8 | February 18, 2011 10:53 AM

BLARSEN1 is correct: Republicans are about power...not about leadership. Then we have this silliness: "If cutting $60 billion loses 1 billion jobs, then WHY did it take $787 billion to "save or create" 1.7 - 2 million jobs?

If that is the level of government efficiency .... "so be it"

Posted by: vmidurk"

So that means that the TARP bailout initiated by BushCorp is the Stimulus? Please! Get some facts on your side before you type anything.

The simple truth is that if you put money into the economy directly, it gets spent.

If you give rich people more money to sock away in the Caymans, it doesn't. Want proof? Look at Wilpon and the Mets: They took investments and made more investments. They didn't MAKE anything. They put the same number of overpriced ballplayers to work and charged even more for a beer. (That the investments were a Ponzi scheme changes nothing...it just illustrates cash movement.)

Posted by: BobfromLI | February 18, 2011 10:49 AM

"Federal government workers make more money than their private counterparts doing the same job. Their ranks have expanded during this recession. So if the few find themselves laid off, as the many in the private sector has, SO BE IT.:"
Posted by: bbwk80a | February

I'm only including one of the many assinine comments that you've made here, bbwk80a, but based on the totality of them, you are most assuredly a horse's a**.

Posted by: dstreet208 | February 18, 2011 10:08 AM

If cutting $60 billion loses 1 billion jobs, then WHY did it take $787 billion to "save or create" 1.7 - 2 million jobs?

If that is the level of government efficiency .... "so be it"

Posted by: vmidurk | February 18, 2011 9:56 AM

Bottom line is Boehner doesn't even have a handle on his own caucus let alone the rest of the country. The guy is completely incompetent. No wonder he is leading the GOP.

Posted by: sjp879 | February 18, 2011 9:55 AM

For Congress, it is simple. Make every Congressional representative get the same salary and job benefits as an Army Colonel. Let every Senator get the same wage and benefits as a Brigadier General. There is no increase in benefits for either because of seniority- both will always be paid at the same step 1 level.

Posted by: LeeH1 | February 18, 2011 9:54 AM

So be it is the correct response. Why were there 200K more federal worker hired during the first 2 years of this regime? Incompetence follows incompetence. And the chief clown in charge, BHO, says we have to stand by the state workers. It's time that people realized that public school teachers are state workers. And, it's also time for those state worker math teachers to teach their colleagues and students that when there is no money to pay for their lucrative medical and retirement benefits, raising taxes on their employers (the students' parents) is not the answer. Demonstrations, bolstered moveon.org and the DNC, does not help their baseless cause.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | February 18, 2011 9:19 AM

I'm tired of it. All the politicians on both sides are cowards. If they and the Pres. had any guts they would compromise a little on the current year budget instead of all this posturing. For next year, they should start following the recommendations of the President's own deficit reduction commission which would give both sides cover. And to those libs who worry about people losing their jobs, did you not know you can now collect unemployment for 2 whole years?

Posted by: linus12 | February 18, 2011 8:07 AM

In just a few weeks Boehner has proved to be an incompetent Speaker.

The sooner the Republicans replace him the better off the GOP and the country will be.

Posted by: WESHS49 | February 18, 2011 6:57 AM

In just a few weeks Boehner has proved to be an incompetent Speaker.

The sooner the Republicans replace him the better off the GOP and the country will be.

Posted by: WESHS49 | February 18, 2011 6:56 AM

We are where we are because of two back to back administrations (Bush & Obama) destroying the economic health of the nation, but the current administration has done more to destroy our economy than the eight years of Bush. As for government jobs, the first thing that gets cut are those positions that are vacant; then there are those who are encouraged to retire; and, then there is forced retirement. After World War II, many government workers were released from civilian jobs - Why? No longer needed. Bottom line is that 'shared sacrifice' is the only way we can get back on our economic feet. I would like to see Congress and the President share in this sacrifice by going home.

Posted by: igor1610 | February 18, 2011 6:42 AM

Shut your piehole, you whiny no ideas lefty.

What did you want him to do, cry like a baby? Would that change the facts? The ELECTION (remember that?) was about reducing government spending. If you have fewer programs, you need fewer employees (in a rational world, that is...).

Where were you demanding Obama show some "sensitivity" toward all the oil workers who've been displaced not by the BP spill, but by the administration's ridiculous mortatorium on drilling in deep water. But wait --- don't take my word for it, ask DEMOCRATIC Senator Mary Landrieu.

If you socialists weren't fueld by hypocrisy, your clown car would be out of gas.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | February 18, 2011 6:14 AM

They can put on all they want to but i'm getting real tired of running out of food 2 weeks before the end of the month.

Somethings got to be done now.

We are closer to a real revolution in this country than ever in our past.

Just keep on playing games.

Posted by: CPB1 | February 18, 2011 3:15 AM

When Boehner starts getting grief from those of us who helped him become speaker, and put the GOP in the majority in the House, and put the Obama agenda in the back of the bus, then he has reason to worry. Until then, he should forge straight ahead, and continue to give the Democrat party the boner.

Posted by: hared | February 17, 2011 9:10 PM
***********
Boehnner is a weak, ineffectual leader and man. His crying jags always seem to appear after his five martini luncheons. That he should be so callous about the citizenry losing their jobs, when his own state of Ohio is on life support. Some of those Ohio towns have everyone out of jobs and on welfare and no food even in the food banks. Let the bums like Boehnner continue to abuse this citizenry and we will have a revolution.

That you should champion this worthless man says more about your level of education and callousness than it does about him. You should be ashamed that you think so little of your fellow Americans. The Republicans have fattened their bank accounts with the money given to them by the wealthy people that have gained the most from Republican control. It wasn't Obama that made them rich, it was Reagan, the Bushes and every pipsqueak in the Republican congress.

They closed their eyes and mouths to Cheney's fraud and morons like you never said a word about that.
Has Cheney told you how much his war for oil has cost the taxpayers and which communist and muslim countries he borrowed that money from? Has he told you how much he paid that mercenary Army his friend owns? When are the Republicans going to give us Americans the answers to those questions? Never! fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | February 18, 2011 12:43 AM

When Boehner starts getting grief from those of us who helped him become speaker, and put the GOP in the majority in the House, and put the Obama agenda in the back of the bus, then he has reason to worry. Until then, he should forge straight ahead, and continue to give the Democrat party the boner.

Posted by: hared | February 17, 2011 9:10 PM
***********
Boehnner is a weak, ineffectual leader and man. His crying jags always seem to appear after his five martini luncheons. That he should be so callous about the citizenry losing their jobs, when his own state of Ohio is on life support. Some of those Ohio towns have everyone out of jobs and on welfare and no food even in the food banks. Let the bums like Boehnner continue to abuse this citizenry and we will have a revolution.

That you should champion this worthless man says more about your level of education and callousness than it does about him. You should be ashamed that you think so little of your fellow Americans. The Republicans have fattened their bank accounts with the money given to them by the wealthy people that have gained the most from Republican control. It wasn't Obama that made them rich, it was Reagan, the Bushes and every pipsqueak in the Republican congress.

They closed their eyes and mouths to Cheney's fraud and morons like you never said a word about that.
Has Cheney told you how much his war for oil has cost the taxpayers and which communist and muslim countries he borrowed that money from? Has he told you how much he paid that mercenary Army his friend owns? When are the Republicans going to give us Americans the answers to those questions? Never! fritz

Posted by: papafritz571 | February 18, 2011 12:43 AM

Jena, why are you repeating Republican fabrications about 200,000 new jobs as truth? Not surprising, the Republicans are really good at framing debates dishonetly, and the media like yourself just parrot their talking points. You refer to "200,000 government jobs that have been added since Obama took office." That's not true. As your colleague Ed O'Keefe points out: "... most of the new hires were to replace employees who left the government. And when hires in both fiscal years are combined, it's safe to say the federal government added about 107,057 new positions -- not the 200,000 Boehner claims...also note that the federal workforce is actually smaller relative to the population of the United States than in previous decades. Most of the growth in recent years has occurred at the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs -- in security or defense-related programs the GOP is unlikely to touch with the budget ax."

Posted by: Poster3 | February 18, 2011 12:38 AM

this fiscal insanity is the result of the years of republican't family inbreeding that's given birth to the worst president ever boy george, daddy ghw, and vapid granddaddy raygun.

four wars - three for oil - and zillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthy, breaks that never ever seem to "trickle down". well, maybe only a trickle...

the majority in congress are angry ineffectual old white men and what we're seeing - oh yes, we're witnessing history here in the u.s., too, folks - is the scrambling of rats as the ship of states begins to sink. this group of 535 has been ruining the country for decades, saluting the military industrial complex, the federal reserve system, wall street and big brother oil, while stuffing money down their pockets with one hand and pointing fingers with their other.

the santorum is just about to hit the fan.

btw, you'd never make it in the street's, mr. boehner. you're clueless...

see you there!


Posted by: live_free_or_die | February 18, 2011 12:05 AM

"So be it", Cheney did it with just "so".

Posted by: Billy1932 | February 17, 2011 10:44 PM


★★★★★Something unexpected surprise

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

3 free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

jordan shoes $ 32

nike shox $ 32

Christan Audigier bikini $ 23

Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23

Sm ful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16

Sandal $ 32

christian louboutin $ 80

Sunglass $ 15

COACH_Necklace $ 27

handbag $ 33

AF tank woman $ 17

puma slipper woman $ 30

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

Believe you will love it.

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

Posted by: zhengaak | February 17, 2011 9:45 PM

Boehner is a total disaster-no plan,no jobs nothing Boehner offers nothing but disaster for the working class which is the history of the say no to everything republican party--they are useless and worthless

Posted by: LDTRPT25 | February 17, 2011 9:22 PM

Folks are aware that if tax rates were to return to the levels they were under Bill Clinton, the federal budget deficit would be pretty much eliminated.

Everyone's clear on that, right?

POSTED BY: 37THANDQSTREET | FEBRUARY 16, 2011 9:29 PM
--------
Is this true? Do you have a source you could direct me to, 37THANDQSTREET? Because this is one of the most interesting things I've heard in this whole budget debate. Because the economy was booming under Clinton, so clearly it wasn't a bad climate for business.

Can we please get over these stereotypes about lazy government workers? It's a red herring. Everyone has known someone who didn't do anything at work and they exist in both the public and private sector. It may help you sleep at night to feel like only lazy, inept workers are being laid-off from the government, but who will really leave are the best qualified people who can easily find (better paying) jobs elsewhere. If we really want to change things, how about looking at the system as a whole? In my experience, government employees DO waste a lot of time - working within an inefficient system with insufficient resources, outdated technology and leadership at the top of the agencies (generally political appointees!) that hold things up indefinitely because they don't want to be held accountable for making a decision or implementing a change. Cutting employees won't create the dramatic culture change we need to have a more efficient government- and choking off the government of its resources will only make things worse by increasing the volume of work that doesn't get done (which hurts people and businesses!) and chasing out the top-notch people we need to improve things.

Posted by: NatinFallsChurch | February 17, 2011 9:20 PM

If we tax the oil that is exported, we can quickly solve our problems.
We can reduce our deficit.
We can finally honor our commitments to our vets.
We can increase our domestic supply, and reduce the cost of oil, by taking it off the world market.
Of course, Americans will no longer have to foot the bill for the worldwide demand of oil.
They will be free of price gouging.
Oil companies, and other Boehner friends, will not like it.
They may even cry.
Clifford Spencer

Posted by: yankeefan1925 | February 17, 2011 9:19 PM

When Boehner starts getting grief from those of us who helped him become speaker, and put the GOP in the majority in the House, and put the Obama agenda in the back of the bus, then he has reason to worry. Until then, he should forge straight ahead, and continue to give the Democrat party the boner.

Posted by: hared | February 17, 2011 9:10 PM

So be it! What a mean spirited comment from boehmer, a federal employee himself. So, when are you going to feel some of the pain yourself by good example and lay off some of your employees. In fact, the know it all tea partyers should also lead by examples, but of course not, it is easy to blame someone else, a republican trademark!! Has everyone forgotten that president Clinton had a balanced budget when he left office. We have been in a unnecessary war for the past eight years that Bush II invented in Iraq to revenge his papa. That war is bleeding our country dried and a Bush tax cut for the rich to boot. Wake up, if we truly want to balance the budget we the people, including republicans need to pay more taxes.

By the way, my husband is a federal employee and unlike congress, he does not get a pensions but has to contribute into a 403b similar to the private sector. He also has to pay for health insurance and it does not continue in his retirement until death unlike our esteemed congressional folks. Perhaps they should start feeling the pain of healthcare by paying up. Hasn't anyone heard that the Feds changed their retirement system in the last 1980??

Posted by: cwbussetti | February 17, 2011 9:03 PM

So be it! What a mean spirited comment from boehmer, a federal employee himself. So, when are you going to feel some of the pain yourself by good example and lay off some of your employees. In fact, the know it all tea partyers should also lead by examples, but of course not, it is easy to blame someone else, a republican trademark!! Has everyone forgotten that president Clinton had a balanced budget when he left office. We have been in a unnecessary war for the past eight years that Bush II invented in Iraq to revenge his papa. That war is bleeding our country dried and a Bush tax cut for the rich to boot. Wake up, if we truly want to balance the budget we the people, including republicans need to pay more taxes.

By the way, my husband is a federal employee and unlike congress, he does not get a pensions but has to contribute into a 403b similar to the private sector. He also has to pay for health insurance and it does not continue in his retirement until death unlike our esteemed congressional folks. Perhaps they should start feeling the pain of healthcare by paying up. Hasn't anyone heard that the Feds changed their retirement system in the last 1980??

Posted by: cwbussetti | February 17, 2011 9:02 PM

Want to save taxpayer money? Why aren't you looking at all the money spent on outsourcing and contractors who are, despite GOP rhetoric, a big scheme to enrich the contractor buddies and themselves.

All government contracts should follow the German government's model of road building. Go over budget? Contractor pay us. Project not completed on time? Contractor pay us. Roads don't live up to the standards and requires repairs? Fix it, then Contractor pay us. Their roads are FABULOUS.

Posted by: blackmask | February 17, 2011 7:26 PM

This is a column and discussion about LEADERSHIP.
And, we are including boehner (no caps purposely) in the discussion?
As a retired Marine Officer, I see no, I say again, NO leadership qualities in this man.
One more time ... NONE ! ! !

Posted by: loretoguy | February 17, 2011 5:46 PM

To BBWK80A:
The claim that federal workers make more than their private counterparts overlooks the experience level of the people in the job. One reason that average federal pay looks better than it otherwise might is that the less-experienced workers have all already been laid off or outsourced, leaving only a smaller group of more experienced, higher qualified workers. The comparisons are not apples to apples.
Nobody takes a federal government job to make high pay.

Posted by: Lamentations | February 17, 2011 5:10 PM

@Airborne82

Where the heck did you come up with 125 Billion for Billionares?

Billionaires are not getting a huge tax break. Yes their tax bracket got moved from 39.5% to 35%, but that rate only counts for their first 5 Million. A billiionaire, any billionaire is garaunteed to be making at least $80 million a year just in intrest paid on assets. $75 Million of that is still taxed at 39.5% so the net break they are getting is only about $200,000. I am sorry but there aren't 625,000 billionaires in the U.S. The number that would be required to reach $125B in savings for billionaires.

The savings in the biggest tax cut only really benefits those making between $1M and $5M. This group is incredible important for the economy. This group includes a bunch of small business owners that file as individuals to avoid having to hire a accountant to navigate the waters of corporate tax law. They take huge salaries to pay personal income tax but invest that money right back into the company. People in this group are typically at the apex where their company either falters or starts growing at a faster pace. Hitting them with an extra tax buden right now will most definately negatively impact the recovery. This group more than any other will have an impact on the job market over the next two years.

Posted by: akmzrazor | February 17, 2011 3:04 PM

@DESETAZDOG

Really? I've been to Phoenix and Tucson and in my opinion their roads are much better than ours both in design and quality.

Posted by: akmzrazor | February 17, 2011 2:38 PM

The idea is that a government job (the job itself and not person filling it) in general cost more than the tax revenue it generates (that statement has nothing to do with worker quality). The impact of thse recently hired government worker collecting severance and then unemployement is not that much more of financial burden than You also can't cancel all those positions overnight. Nothing in government happens that fast so the overall impact is going to be spread out over 2-4 years. At least 1/2 of those jobs slots are yet to be filled so the real number of affected people is about 100,000. At least 1/2 of those employees will likely get transfered into other positions replacing retiring workers. The net effect will come down to about 50,000 over the next 2-4 years losing their job. During that time the private sector will likely rebound enough to gire most of those people, so the net impact to the economy is not much. That's why he can say, "So be it". It sounds callous, but in the end doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of the economy. It does however mean a whole lot in future budget savings.

Posted by: akmzrazor | February 17, 2011 2:33 PM

The more federal jobs the GOP can cut, the more their buddies in the Beltway Bandit contractor world will get those same jobs at higher pay, and the more lobbyist money pours into GOP coffers. Too bad it's bad for government and wasteful spending. Lobbyists always win.

Posted by: AdventurerVA | February 17, 2011 2:17 PM

If all who support the small-government right-wingers want a picture of what would happen if their fiscal policies were totally adopted, look no further than my state-Arizona.
Far right-wing Republicans have total control of the government here. Guess what? The tax cuts are so deep that the state does not own the state capitol building, but rents it out. The educational system is number 25 in funding for students, yet people who send their kids to private parochial schools get a tax break.
Funding for police, fire departments, libraries, etc. have been cut to the bone. The governor's answer? Promote business with more tax breaks.
The state's government bond ratings are abysmally low, and intrastructure such as roads, etc. are decrepit.
Is this what you want throughout the US? Then follow Arizona's Republican financial model.

Posted by: desertazdog | February 17, 2011 2:10 PM

Yes they are someones jobs so what they are paid for by tax payers and the tax revenue is not covering costs so costs have to be cut.

Look it worked for the UK. They cut half a million government jobs and the majority of the voting public were happy. They have started bouncing back and have a balanced budget.

Posted by: flonzy1 | February 17, 2011 1:52 PM

Cloths going up, Food going up, Gas going up,taxes going up how much more do you think the middle class can take on? Yet you take our tax money and still pay for all illegals healthcare, schooling etc. It's cosing this country over a billion a year to support them. I'm sick and tired of being the working poor. I go to work every day, pay my bills with nothing left over. Yet, the illegals are getting paid cash, plus we pay for them and their familes. I think I will denouce citizenship in the US, move to another country and get citizenship there, then sneak back to the US and I could live like a Queen!

Posted by: bailey50 | February 17, 2011 12:50 PM

It is unfortunate that the GOP’ lack of responsible leadership only cares about conserving the income of Billionaires and nothing about America’s infrastructure, jobs, education, public safety and energy independence. McConnell, Boehner and Tea “Oil & Coal” Party Bachmann care nothing about middle and lower income families. GOP job number #1 is make sure Billionaires do not contribute more to paying for national defense and public safety. They get $125 Billion in extra tax breaks over two years while the military borrows $895 Billion/year from China and others for 2011 expenses (make that $1.4 Trillion for 2011 & 2012, which is roughly $12,000 for each and every American wage earner). Exclaiming “we’re Broke” while giving Billions in tax subsidies to the already filthy rich is more…to quote congressman Boehner….”Chicken crap”.

Boehner wants to cut 650,000 Public Safety federal American jobs, and 325,000 support jobs and waste $3 Billion taxpayer dollars for an alternative F-35 engine which the Pentagon does not want or need to save 7,000 jobs in Ohio. Typical GOP bang-for-the-buck scenario: kill 975,000 jobs to save 7,000 in their home coal polluting district.

If the GOP cared about defense, they would raise taxes to pay for it and stop looking for a free ride on deficit spending, especially since Southern GOP states are getting the most money from defense spending.

Posted by: Airborne82 | February 17, 2011 12:48 PM

The Republicans in Congress have NO incentive to create jobs, even though that's the platform they ran on.

Why? Simple. If they create jobs now, the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate can't be presented as the savior of the economy.

On another note, everybody is in favor of cutting the budget until it is their favorite program (or Congressional district) that is affected.

Posted by: ceebee2 | February 17, 2011 12:30 PM

The more borrowed money Obama throws away buying union votes the more jobs we lose.

Since Obama took office, the nation has shed 3.5 million jobs despite a series of unprecedented attempts to stimulate the economy with $1 trillion deficit spending.

btw – the IRS and SSA claim that 8.5 million illegal aliens are working at jobs that required them to supply their employers with bogus SSNs. Obama demands that there will be no arrests or deporting unless they are violent criminals.

Posted by: fury60 | February 17, 2011 12:30 PM

I cannot stand the guy and his followers. Those types of comments are disrespectful and irritate more than anything else.

Posted by: laurelight | February 17, 2011 12:25 PM

How does it help the economy - less deficit spending and less government employess hindering private business with their endless regulations and rules. As they produce nothing but red ink it doesn't hurt inflation. Any questions?
Posted by: wildbill925 | February 17, 2011 10:40 AM
_________

I love statements like this. No doubt this person has never once tried to do business in a country with an ineffective underfunded government. Without a robust, well functioning government business can't do their business. They can't get their goods to market becuase no one is responsible for the transportation infrastructure. They can't be sure they're reliably be able to even run their businesses because no one's responsible for the power infrastructure. They can't be sure a deal is a deal because no one is responsible for the enforcement of contracts. They can't be sure their employees will show up to work (infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc...). If you want to live in a world with a minimal, understaffed governement, go right ahead. I'm pretty sure you can pick up a nice piece of property in the Congo or Moldova (not to pick on those countries in particular, they're just two handy examples). If you want to continue to be able to do the kind of business we do in the USA, you need a well funded, well staffed, well run government.

Posted by: DCLocal20 | February 17, 2011 11:21 AM

As per usual, gov't pay is greatly underestimated. Pay is based on job size, not education. Comparable job for job, government employees are paid around 20 to 25 per cent more than private sector employees. This is based on total compensation - pay, benefits, retirement, and health care - until death. Actuarial statistics come from pay consultants.
Posted by: Buffs | February 17, 2011 11:01 AM


Do you have a reference to support your claims? fyi - I am not a government employee or government contractor. But I would be interested in seeing a real reference to this.

Posted by: cmpgm | February 17, 2011 11:21 AM

We often hear about the self-made man. No one in this country is "self-made." Everyone in this country benefits from what this country supplies. Whether it's going to a public college or drinking clean water or eating food inspected by the FDA, or having employees educated in the public school system. But when the wealth starts to roll in, suddenly they forget all of that if they ever thought about it in the first place. And they think they're overburdened with taxes. I feel bad for the people who voted to extend tax breaks for the very wealthy. the only way we're going to get out of this mess is by increasing taxes and getting rid of all subsidies which are draining out economy.

Posted by: palmer1619 | February 17, 2011 11:06 AM

As per usual, gov't pay is greatly underestimated. Pay is based on job size, not education. Comparable job for job, government employees are paid around 20 to 25 per cent more than private sector employees. This is based on total compensation - pay, benefits, retirement, and health care - until death. Actuarial statistics come from pay consultants.

Posted by: Buffs | February 17, 2011 11:01 AM

How about a change to the way the government elected officials get their retirement - 1 year for 1year they are an elected official. Same for bureaucrats - no indefinite retirement - you work for the gov for 30 years you get 30 years retirement no more - and raise the age to also meet the social security age - if you are a gov employee then you cannot retire until you are 66.5 years old.

Posted by: wildbill925 | February 17, 2011 10:59 AM

"So be it" may not be in the same historical league as "Let them eat cake", but its at least an inspired amateur effort.

I thought the Republican'ts were always reminding us that the voters clammored in November 2010 for fiscal responsibility AND JOBS. How convenient to jetison the mandate for job creation.

I can face it. The R's are corporatist money grubbing frauds on the same power grab as the Dems were. World without end. Amen

Posted by: roboturkey | February 17, 2011 10:56 AM

Perhaps leaders could be more effective by providing examples. If government workers should be laid off, then each elected representative could chose one staff member to cut from their offices. If health insurance kills jobs, then each representative could give up their federal health coverage and pay for private insurance out of their own pocket, as many American do now. And what about spending money in Iraq? Can we still afford that or does part of the federal job reduction include cutting military personnel deployed in this 8 year old war?

Yes, a balanced budget is desirable. But why is firing people necessary while a tax increase on the top 2% income bracket cannot be allowed. Is it really all able the money? What about the diverse needs of a wide-range of citizens? This is not leadership I wish to follow.

Posted by: MIndfulPerson | February 17, 2011 10:50 AM

How does it help the economy - less deficit spending and less government employess hindering private business with their endless regulations and rules. As they produce nothing but red ink it doesn't hurt inflation. Any questions?

Posted by: wildbill925 | February 17, 2011 10:40 AM

SO BE IT! Brings tears to my eyes. Not!

Posted by: wesatch | February 17, 2011 10:39 AM

Yesif more GOVERNMENT employees are riffed then yes it is a good thing. Over 200,000 new government employess since the OBAMA admin has been in office. Yes these need to be cut and very heavily. Eveyone one of the bills proposed by this admin has more and more government employess. Where is the money to pay for these and their benefits? Yes I say start there and keep working to get even less government employess. That is one of the main problems with this country and our economy.TOO MANY BUREAUCRATS. Many life hard for everyone else. More regulations and regulators is not the answer.

Posted by: wildbill925 | February 17, 2011 10:32 AM

So if the few find themselves laid off, as the many in the private sector has, SO BE IT.
-----------------------------

And adding more people to the unemployment rolls will helpo the economy how again?

Posted by: jjj141 | February 17, 2011 10:23 AM

Federal government workers make more money than their private counterparts doing the same job. Their ranks have expanded during this recession. So if the few find themselves laid off, as the many in the private sector has, SO BE IT.
----------------------------------

And how does that help the economy?

Posted by: jjj141 | February 17, 2011 10:19 AM

Federal government workers make more money than their private counterparts doing the same job. Their ranks have expanded during this recession. So if the few find themselves laid off, as the many in the private sector has, SO BE IT.
------------------------------------

That has been proven untrue. In positions that have similar tenure, education level, job type...then federal workers earn on average 7% less than their private sector counterparts.

Posted by: jjj141 | February 17, 2011 10:11 AM

If anyone ever wanted proof that John Boehner is an elitist and detached from the reality of American life, his "So be it" comment proves it.
Finally, with that slip of the tongue, he revealed what he truly thinks about the rest of America who isn't in the billion dollar tax bracket; Boehner views working poor Americans as people to be stepped on.
John Boehner, with his in progress attack on Women's Health, also proves he hates women and wants them to become second class citizens.
So where is Boehner adopting this attitude from?
John Boehner only listens to millionaires and billionaires; when he says he serves the will of the American People, he lies.
John Boehner is only concerned with the will and whims of millionaires and billionaires.
John Boehner says he wants smaller government? Why isn't he cutting some of his staff then? Because they're under Boehner's protection and are excluded from his 'budgetary ax.'
Now if Boehner really wanted to solve the issues facing America, he would've let the rich get hit with a tax hike. And not those wimpy Reagan rates but the ones that were in place under Jimmy Carter. This is why the Republicans went after Carter so hard; Carter didn't cave into the wealthy's demands.
But Reagan did as soon as he got in office.
Republicans are totally against rights for American workers, against unions, against anything that would humble their corporate financial backers.
Make no mistake; the Republican leadership, under John Boehner, wants to create a two class system in America; the Very Rich versus the Very Poor.
This is so Republican corruption and corporate corruption, which runs hand in hand, will be left unchecked.
The Republican party leadership wants to destroy American workers rights, rights to a safe place of employment, rights to a fair wage, and the right to bargain for fair wages. Look no further than what's happening in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin voters let the Republican lies become the truth, blaming the Democrats for the state of the economy when it's those eight years under Bush that broke our economy.
Smarten up America, before it's too late.
Kick the Republicans out in 2012.

Posted by: the1magician | February 17, 2011 10:10 AM

It is always fun to read these posts and find so many that can't do math. Gov't employees will usually claim they are underpaid compared to private sector. That is not even close to true. When considering all compensation (includes retirement and health care) up to death, gov't employees are about 1/4 higher paid than private sector, like job for like job. Yet, the public continues to believe the malarkey spouted that gov't work is underpaid. When you want to see the facts, look up the actuarial statistics. It is scary that our state and federal gov'ts apparently have not heard about this kind of work because they don't use it to determine pay. Yes! I have seen the numbers done by professional consultants in the actuarial field.
---------------------------------------

That is actually not true, and has been disproven. If you compare workers with similar tenure, job type, eductaion level...then federal workers actually earn about 7% less than the priate sector.

Posted by: jjj141 | February 17, 2011 10:09 AM

Boehner is out for himself...he and Cantor are two politicians that I detest seeing their mugs anywhere.
They rob from the American people for the rich. End of story. They both belong right up there with Bush and Cheney and want more of that dictatorship.

Posted by: mac7 | February 17, 2011 10:02 AM

It is always fun to read these posts and find so many that can't do math. Gov't employees will usually claim they are underpaid compared to private sector. That is not even close to true. When considering all compensation (includes retirement and health care) up to death, gov't employees are about 1/4 higher paid than private sector, like job for like job. Yet, the public continues to believe the malarkey spouted that gov't work is underpaid. When you want to see the facts, look up the actuarial statistics. It is scary that our state and federal gov'ts apparently have not heard about this kind of work because they don't use it to determine pay. Yes! I have seen the numbers done by professional consultants in the actuarial field.

Posted by: Buffs | February 17, 2011 10:01 AM

If Boehner thinks that cutting government jobs is OK, I would agree with him....we do not need all those government positions just to create work....we need more private sector jobs...that is the only thing that will improve the economy...!

Posted by: SeniorVet | February 17, 2011 9:35 AM

The "them vs us" attitude is just more political manipulation. For every lazy government bureaucrat I've ever met, I've met a useless private sector employee whose income is 100% derived from government contracts.
Posted by: exco | February 16, 2011 10:17 PM
_____________

This is an excellent point. An enormous amount of federal spending (be it medicare, defense spending or energy or technology incentive programs) are really payments by government to private sector firms. So cutting government spending will result in the direct loss of PRIVATE SECTOR Jobs, and lots of them. The thinking that government sector spending is all on government jobs is just a huge fallacy -- payroll is less than 5% of the budget. When the GOP wants to cut government spending, they want to destroy PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS made possible by government payments.

Posted by: DCLocal20 | February 17, 2011 9:31 AM

The GOP is letting tea party tactics rub off on it, speaking in rhetoric and sound bites without actually thinking it through first. There are probably good people in that party, but they've let themselves be silenced "for the good of the party." It's time they put "the good of the country" first again. Get rid of the empty shells with a talent for platitudes but no substance. If they refuse to take charge and continue letting the cardboard cutouts run things, then the GOP will deserve every bit of bad rep it is earning.

Posted by: cb11 | February 17, 2011 9:30 AM

Call me paranoid, I think this is a strategy of the Right Wing political machine. Big business wants smaller government so that there will be less regulation. Big Business wants to destroy unions so they can do what they will to the people. Big Business wants the tax burden on the middle class and not shared with them. I also think that this Right Wing Political machine has reached as far as the highest court in the nation. I have no trust in the Supreme Court, I think some are sold out to the political machine and are not impartial. And the Right Wing Political machine is splitting out garbage via FOX "NOT" NEWS. The Supreme court allowing Big Business to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns destroys the whole Government for the People principal! Wake up America and get MAD!

Posted by: noneckmd | February 17, 2011 8:29 AM

@jpfred: Please realize the president did not "ignore" the recommendations of the debt commission, because the debt commission failed to get the votes it needed to forward the recommendation to the president. Therefore, there WAS no debt commission recommendation to be ignored.

@bbwk80a: Actually, when you compare government workers to civilian workers based on education and training, you find that government workers actually make less than their civilian counterparts. Comparing the two cohorts without taking qualifications into account is meaningless.

Posted by: nitpicker | February 17, 2011 8:13 AM

What a flop the Bonehead is! Can't speak the truth, doesn't know the facts, doesn't know the numbers, promised jobs and now wants to cut them, doesn't care that Republicans in Congress still doubt President Obama's birth! The Bonehead tried to get this bill passed giving GE the contract on an aircraft engine even the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT says they didn't want. Why? Because it affects OHIO, Bonehead's state, wnere the engine would be made! How is THAT for hypocricy?

The Bonehead has failed over and over again. His stupidity has been exposed many times. No wonder he cries all the time and is referred to as "Weeper of the House!"

Another poster here called him "Blubbering Boehner the Budget Buffoon". Very fitting!

Posted by: cashmere1 | February 17, 2011 8:07 AM

The GOP can not afford to be cynical about the loss of jobs.Boehner's comment "so be it" when asked about the loss of Federal worker's jobs could be the political disaster that continues to haunt the Republican party for years to come. This is on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy after the GOP candidates all raised the specter of the growing deficit.
The message the GOP is giving is we only care about the economic well being of the citizens of this country when it affects our "base" of wealthy supporters. This is hardly the attitude that America needs from those who govern.

Posted by: OhMy | February 17, 2011 8:01 AM

If Boehner loses his job so be it...the man has only a casual relationship with the truth.

Posted by: DLN1 | February 17, 2011 6:46 AM

The promise of jobs for a vote to win the Speakership and we see he lied. Boehner never intented to help the people and used the speeches of hate Obama to hood wink the voters. The Media helped spread the lies and it worked. Boehner now has the extra taxpayers money, the tan and the title as he is out on the town in West Hollywood with several pretty young ladies. Back on the Hill the GOP is working on redefining rape to loosen the laws and deny medical coverage to victims. Senator Scott Brown supports his fellow Republicans effords but is releasing his book about his rape. Yes men/boys get raped too, but the GOP only speak of woman/girls. Boehner will do nothing for two years and that was the plan. Boehner and his fellow GOP members are laughing at how easy it was to fool the voters.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | February 17, 2011 1:14 AM

Well if Obozo didn't have to borrow trillions from the Chinese, these clowns would have never been hired. Pandering to the UNIONS will sink OHB in 12.
Posted by: frankn1 | February 16, 2011 6:38 PM Franky baby , you are a real genius . Easy to see why the Republicans still have supporters who are not billionaires and multimillionaires . Fox and Limbaugh will never have a shortage of ignorant fools to parrot them , that is for sure .

Posted by: Koom | February 17, 2011 12:25 AM

The Boner has been on the sidelines second guessing for a long time. Sort of like being in the minor leagues. Now that he is suited up and playing in the majors he now knows what it feels like to be on the front lines with everyone second guessing him. Not easy is it. Maybe the Boner needs to sent back down to the minors for more seasoning!!!!

Posted by: rmk351951 | February 16, 2011 11:49 PM

I am a government worker and I;m sick of the BS stereotypes of the lazy inefficient government worker. If I charged the US Government for everytime I answer the Blackberry on a weekend or at 3AM, or never taking my vacation to the extent that I lose the time, well...it would cost a bunch more. I am sick of these no nothings placing us as the newest political pinata. All this is about is union busting and making war on the middle class. We need to fight against the corporations who would create the permnanent underclass in this country. You sheep who follow them....your job is next. I hope you can learn to speak Chinese or Hindi danr quick sheep. We need to stage a revolution, against all these jerks who are going not after my job but YOURS as well.

Posted by: jacquie1 | February 16, 2011 10:58 PM

bbwk80a | February 16, 2011 2:54 PM

Your comment ignores the fact that there are ripple effects every time an American loses his/her job. If I own the restaurant on the corner, it doesn't matter to me if the people who regularly eat lunch at my restaurant work for public sector or the private sector. When they lose their jobs, they drag my business down with them.

The "them vs us" attitude is just more political manipulation. For every lazy government bureaucrat I've ever met, I've met a useless private sector employee whose income is 100% derived from government contracts.

Posted by: exco | February 16, 2011 10:17 PM

BBWK80A Wrote:
Your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims to the contrary are tiring, "idiots" and all "you who are full of it".

Your time on the bread line is coming government types. SO BE IT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
USA Today? Really? No it is substantiated by well known fact.
I'm really beside myself that so MANY of you WANT people with families (Kids) to lose their jobs. What kinds of animals are you? You ought to be ashamed! Most of you are probably,.... or claim to be Christians. Yep,.... that's what Jesus would want.

Posted by: westghentwitch | February 16, 2011 10:11 PM

I disagree with the statement that Boehner's "disregard for the people whose jobs could be lost through his proposal, even if necessary, makes him appear aloof and insensitive."

His statements do not imply that he is aloof and insensitive. They show that he is, in fact, aloof and insensitive. The only open question is whether the Speaker of the House knowingly overstated the number of federal employees or is, in fact, clueless about how many people the federal government employs.

Posted by: exco | February 16, 2011 9:57 PM

JOBS,JOBS,JOBS That was the GOP mantra, but now is more like ABORTION BAN,ABORTION BAN, ABORTION BAN, JOBS, YOU SAY? We don't care about federal employee's jobs, they seem to be in the eyes of the republicans as worst as terrorist or the scum of the earth, the disdain in which Mr. Boehner says "so be it" out to tell people with good conscience, that the man and the GOP are nothing short pure EVIL!

Posted by: corintonic | February 16, 2011 9:48 PM

★★★★★Something unexpected surprise

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.

3 free shipping

competitive price

any size available

accept the paypal

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

jordan shoes $ 32

nike shox $ 32

Christan Audigier bikini $ 23

Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23

Sm ful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16

Sandal $ 32

christian louboutin $ 80

Sunglass $ 15

COACH_Necklace $ 27

handbag $ 33

AF tank woman $ 17

puma slipper woman $ 30

90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$

Believe you will love it.

welcome to: http://www.shoesforking.com/

Posted by: zhenge225 | February 16, 2011 9:42 PM

There is a federal job that needs to be eliminated and that is Sun Tan Boehner's job, he seems to forget that he is federal employee, that gets socialized medical care and most everything for him and his family thanks to taxpayers monies,and by the way will be enjoying a nice salary increase, plus works hardly ever, take weeks in a row of vacation and every single Holidays, and we should not forget, that wonderful pension, can you say hypocrites :)

Posted by: corintonic | February 16, 2011 9:39 PM

So boner has his priorities straight. Firing workers to create jobs, and his highest number one priority -- making sure that no federal funds are used for abortion - even though he missed the memo that that prohibition, forcing low income women to have children who then end up on public assistance --- has been in place for about 35 years now. boner has been partying a little for the last several decades and missed that part.

republicons have no serious plans other than attacking unions, because unions support Democrats, and sticking it to the middle class. In other words doing what republicon have done since the 1880s. TR and Ike are the only exceptions in the last 130 years.

Posted by: John1263 | February 16, 2011 9:36 PM

Folks are aware that if tax rates were to return to the levels they were under Bill Clinton, the federal budget deficit would be pretty much eliminated.

Everyone's clear on that, right?

Posted by: 37thandQstreet | February 16, 2011 9:29 PM

The Republican majority has taken the position that all government employment is bad for the economy. To them, any dollar spend on a government worker's salary is money that could be spent elsewhere. However, their logic........

*******************************

To attempt to diffuse disagreement by exagerating it is fun, even though lost in intelligent discourse. The government employs 2.15 million people. We have a national debt of $14.2 trillion, or 96% of GDP. We have a projected budget deficit with Obama's new budget proposal of $1.65 trillion.

Obama ran up $3.2 trillion of that debt in his first two years, without his healthcare bill running up expense. Next year Obama will have added as much in three years to the national debt as the Bush administration added to it in eight years. WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN AMERICA, or at least those of us who care about the country do.

If you work in the government, where do you sleep at night, in Canada? Isn't the United States your country? Scaling back government employment is part of the solution. Not your ox, huh?

My neighbor works as a GS 8, who ofter finds her boss playing Solitaire or Bridge on her computer during the day when she enters her superervisors's office for a signature. She is spending taxpayer dollars to play. Bureaucrats spend time on the phone in the morning lining up their lunch plans or afternoon tennis and golf matches. Some even sneak off in the afternoon to get them in, while co workers cover for them.

Not all bureaucrats do this, but enough derelict behaviour exists so that some are caught. What do you do bureaucrats during the work day when you find yourselves with nothing to do? Do you go ask your boss for more work, or do you throw spit balls?

We need government. We don't need wasteful, inefficient, overpaid, over employed under worked government, which is what we have today.

Posted by: bbwk80a | February 16, 2011 7:57 PM

Boehner's an alchy and everyone knows it.

Posted by: Bronski | February 16, 2011 7:37 PM

The Republican majority has taken the position that all government employment is bad for the economy. To them, any dollar spend on a government worker's salary is money that could be spent elsewhere. However, their logic involves giant leaps. Before they can be callous about the loss of government employment, they need to explain where those government workers are exercising a drag on the economy and how not having them will help the economy. The problem is that they can't do it.

The current U.S. government does not employ that many people relative to the size of the entire population. Further, those employees add value to the economy by ensuring the necessary rule of law that allows for proper flow of capital and commerce. While a janitor may be making too much, and there may be too many protections for inefficient workers, government employment is not a bad thing.

Posted by: AndrewS2 | February 16, 2011 7:26 PM

So let’s get to the bottom of the issue.
On the Republican side all they have for show is a list of clowns:
Sarah B.S.
Weeper Boner
Mitch McPhony
Newtered Gingrich (and his four wives and six mistresses)
Witch O’Donnell
Wrong Angle
Nick Phantorum (nobody knows what he does)
Charlatan Phu.ckabee

And these clowns are the best of the Republican Troglodytes trying to challenge Obama?

Posted by: analyst72 | February 16, 2011 7:21 PM

Once again the question begs to to asked:
Has anyone, ever, seen or heard of an intelligent, right-wing Republican?
Besides being a Dumb Weeper, Boner has never shown a grain of brains...SO BE IT!

Posted by: analyst72 | February 16, 2011 7:14 PM

March 8, 2010, USA Today Headline

Federal Pay Ahead of Private Industry

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims to the contrary are tiring, "idiots" and all "you who are full of it".

Your time on the bread line is coming government types. SO BE IT.

Posted by: bbwk80a | February 16, 2011 7:14 PM

Time to declare war on federal government employment programs. It is out of control.

SEC lawyers getting paid $200K per year viewing and downloading pornography on taxpayer time using taxpayer computers. We don't need to be paying our tax dollars for this. SO BE IT.

Posted by: bbwk80a | February 16, 2011 7:05 PM

Boehner is doing a great job. Let's give him more than 4-5 weeks though-- do ya think?

Posted by: hz9604 | February 16, 2011 7:03 PM

Well it seems Boehner's plan would destroy at least 200,000 jobs, mostly in the DC area. SO he can get bent from my perspective.

I mean it's all fun to talk about eliminating Federal jobs, but those jobs employ, y'know, actual people. So when he says cut 200,00 fed jobs he wants to increase unemployment by 200,000 people who pay state, local and Federal taxes and otherwise feed the economy.

Posted by: shadow27 | February 16, 2011 5:33 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++

Well if Obozo didn't have to borrow trillions from the Chinese, these clowns would have never been hired. Pandering to the UNIONS will sink OHB in 12.

Posted by: frankn1 | February 16, 2011 6:38 PM

"Federal government workers make more money than their private counterparts doing the same job. "

Yeah, I have to jump on that too. I'm a contract software engineer, there isn't a chance in hell I'd work for the government or subcontract for a company working for the government.

Why? Because at best they pay about %60 of what I can make in the private sector. They have limits on what someone can make for any particular skillset etc.

I don't know why anybody would work for the government. But I sure as hell know your statement is full of it.

Posted by: eezmamata | February 16, 2011 6:25 PM

Hey I got a safe seat and a $200K salary with health care. A few million unemployed government workers- so be it. What me worry.

Posted by: george30 | February 16, 2011 6:09 PM

Well it seems Boehner's plan would destroy at least 200,000 jobs, mostly in the DC area. SO he can get bent from my perspective.

I mean it's all fun to talk about eliminating Federal jobs, but those jobs employ, y'know, actual people. So when he says cut 200,00 fed jobs he wants to increase unemployment by 200,000 people who pay state, local and Federal taxes and otherwise feed the economy.

Posted by: shadow27 | February 16, 2011 5:33 PM

mavajuan:

What would I have the president do? How about proposing a budget that deals with the major cause of long term debt problems? He appointed a debt commission and asked for their recommendations on how to reduce spending. He ignored their recommendations and proposed cutting maybe 1/4 of what the commission proposed. Leadership is persuading that what needs to be done can be done; instead he ducked what needs to be done and misrepresented what he proposed in his budget to avoid admitting that he ducked it.

Posted by: jpfred | February 16, 2011 4:30 PM

What would the writer have President Obama do to show leadership? The President, in accordance with the duties of his office has submitted a budget for the Congress' consideration. This is how the process works. Would he have President Obama doing cartwheels in front of the White House touting his budget after his press conference? On the other hand, Speaker Boehner demonstrates a total lack of sincerity and compassion for the unemployed or those who may lose their jobs due to proposed budget cuts. My believe is the Speaker is incorrect about the growth of civil service jobs under this administration as most of the growth statistical data arised from census takers, who were temporary in nature. The writer should do his homework.

Posted by: mavajuan | February 16, 2011 4:18 PM

Maybe a conservative can explain how giving a 100 billion to the rich, 740 billion (more than stimulus less infrastructure) is reducing the deficit? In power since Jan. 3, not one bill to create jobs and many cuts that will lose them. We got repeal from the house, where is the replace? Our first priority is jobs, then why all the religious/moral stuff to appease the religious base? Looks to me conservatives have drank too much kool aid.

Posted by: jameschirico | February 16, 2011 4:13 PM

westghentwitch:

If so many employees leave the public sector for better paying jobs in the private sector, then we don't need to worry about those whose jobs will be cut, do we.

If having so many federal employees is good, then why don't we just have the federal government hire 1 million more employees? Wouldn't that help unemployment? Oh, yeah--where would the $$ come from to pay them? From the rest of us.

Posted by: jpfred | February 16, 2011 4:12 PM

BBWK80A Wrote:
"Federal government workers make more money than their private counterparts doing the same job. Their ranks have expanded during this recession. So if the few find themselves laid off, as the many in the private sector has, SO BE IT."
This person is obviously an idiot,.... EVERYONE knows that public sector employees and officials FREQUENTLY leave their public sector jobs for private sector jobs that pay MUCH more. No wonder you vote Republican,.... can't help it.

Posted by: westghentwitch | February 16, 2011 3:53 PM

So here we have someone equivalent to the one of the leaders on the Board of Directors of a Fortune 500 firm saying he doesn't really care, even a little bit, about the employees of his company; after all, they're nothing more than an expense dragging down the balance sheet.

And in a couple of years we'll be reading about how the Federal Government can't recruit/retain engineers, scientists, medical doctors, air traffic controllers, and the other myriad of highly specialized, well-educated/traineds workers we all depend on.

I won't even pretend to be surprised, not even a little bit, when that occurs.

Posted by: FLTransplant | February 16, 2011 3:39 PM

Republicans aren't about leadership. They're about power. They have no interest in the common man. They only exist to serve their corporate masters. When they talk about cutting their own salaries and paying for their own health care, only then will I take them seriously.

Posted by: blarsen1 | February 16, 2011 3:24 PM

@ bbwk80a -- Wow. Sour grapes much? It's that kind of selfish "if I can't have it, no one should" attitude that really makes so-called 'dialogue' difficult in this country.

Posted by: broode | February 16, 2011 3:23 PM

This man is a complete and total jerk! That's right,... cost even more people their jobs,.... you're callous disregard for the worker will be the cause of the Socialist Revolution. When we start we will be granting citizenship to all the productive brown people here illegally in the largest amnesty program in US History. As we start to redistribute the wealth to the people whose sweat actually earned it,.... we will start with Republican public officials. I HOPE YOU ENJOY THE REVOLUTION OF YOUR MAKING!

Posted by: westghentwitch | February 16, 2011 3:00 PM

I apologize to "Annie" -

We'd like to thank you: Johnny Boehner
For really showing us the way
We'd like to thank you: Johnny Boehner
You made us what we are today

Prosperity was 'round the corner
The cozy cottage built for two
In this blue heaven
That you
Gave us
Yes!

We're turning blue!
They offered us Nancy P and Boehner
We paid attention and we chose
Not only did we pay attention
We paid through the nose.

In ev'ry pt he said "a chicken"
But Johnny Boehner he forgot
Not only don't we have the chicken
We ain't got the pot!

Posted by: DavidinDallas | February 16, 2011 2:55 PM

Considering there are 15 million plus Americans out of work, almost all from the private sector, there is no crying for government workers who are forced to share in the austerity our nation is undergoing.

Federal government workers make more money than their private counterparts doing the same job. Their ranks have expanded during this recession. So if the few find themselves laid off, as the many in the private sector has, SO BE IT.

Posted by: bbwk80a | February 16, 2011 2:54 PM

Post a Comment




characters remaining

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company