I think the main reason for taxing federal employees has to do with bookkeeping. Its alot easier to have everyone use the same system then to create a seperate system just for federal employees. If our pay was simply reduced the amount of the federal taxes, a new way would have to be made to deal with deductions. Would you want to loose the money you would normally get back by claiming your home morgage interest or any other deductions you may claim now? It's alot easier just to have everyone do it the same way.
President Bush Refuses to Give Civilian Workers Full Raise
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
Just to stir the pot a bit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11160-2002Dec4.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11160-2002Dec4.html
Well, there ya have it. If someone can give me a good excuse for Bush/Card/whoever authorizing cash bonuses for political appointees, I'm all ears. I like to stick up for Bush because I genuinely like him but some of these political maneuvers he's doing are making me raise my eyebrows.
The first thing he did to make me wonder was that food drop over Afghanistan. Since then there have been several others. But I still like him better than Gore so I'm not sorry he's President.
The first thing he did to make me wonder was that food drop over Afghanistan. Since then there have been several others. But I still like him better than Gore so I'm not sorry he's President.
Re: Re: Re: Didn't Bush
Congress gave the President the authority to “adjust” the locality portion of the raise (5 USC 5304a). So, unless Congress declares that it is a flat 4.1% across the board increase with none being allocated for locality, the President can adjust that amount for a variety of reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Didn't Bush
I understand this, but the authority to adjust the locality portion is differnent from the authority to not use it at all. The Impoundment Act of 1974 requires money appropriated by congress to be expended and the Antideficiency Act requires appropriated money to be used only for its intended purpose. So, if congress appropriates money for a 4.1% raise, with 1% being for locality pay, the president can divide up the 1% for for locality pay raises as he sees fit, but he has to divide it up. The 1% has to be spent and it has to be spent for locality pay raises. The only exceptions are deferrals (postponement of budget authority) and recissions (cancelation of budget authority requiring legislation).
Possibly, 5 USC 5304a acts as a budget recission in some way I don't understand. I didn't see anything in 5 USC 5304a that discusses how congress can respond to its use by the president. But if congress were to enact a 4.1% raise despite the presidents enactment of 5 USC 5304a and his call for a flat 3.1% raise, that would indicated to me that the presidents action was not supported by congress. The only question is, would the more recent action of congress preempt the presidents action?
If congress had already passed the 2003 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, as in most years, this would not be an issue (since the presidents action would be the more recent). But considering congress's action is still up in the air, I'm curious to see how it will go.
I understand this, but the authority to adjust the locality portion is differnent from the authority to not use it at all. The Impoundment Act of 1974 requires money appropriated by congress to be expended and the Antideficiency Act requires appropriated money to be used only for its intended purpose. So, if congress appropriates money for a 4.1% raise, with 1% being for locality pay, the president can divide up the 1% for for locality pay raises as he sees fit, but he has to divide it up. The 1% has to be spent and it has to be spent for locality pay raises. The only exceptions are deferrals (postponement of budget authority) and recissions (cancelation of budget authority requiring legislation).
Possibly, 5 USC 5304a acts as a budget recission in some way I don't understand. I didn't see anything in 5 USC 5304a that discusses how congress can respond to its use by the president. But if congress were to enact a 4.1% raise despite the presidents enactment of 5 USC 5304a and his call for a flat 3.1% raise, that would indicated to me that the presidents action was not supported by congress. The only question is, would the more recent action of congress preempt the presidents action?
If congress had already passed the 2003 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, as in most years, this would not be an issue (since the presidents action would be the more recent). But considering congress's action is still up in the air, I'm curious to see how it will go.
yakky doodle
New Member
As a GS-er, I can say, IMHO, that I can see the bonuses as okay. Reason being: currently, the politicals who do something above and beyond (i.e., showing up
) don't have a way to receive a bonus for stellar performance as I currently do. Now, if they said, "let's give politicals a 6% raise, and GS-ers only 3.1%, I'd have a beef with that because it's not fair, but in my opinion, authorizing the performance bonuses is simply leveling the playing field in that respect. It's saying, "Okay, Jane got an outstanding and a bonus for that; and, Joe (political), you got an outstanding, so you get a bonus, too, instead of another mug from Uncle Sam."
F
Flo
Guest
If my recollection serves me right, I remember for 8 years with Clinton and Gore that the Federal Pay Raise never went much over 3.5 percent. In fact, I believe the first or 2nd year of Clinton it was a 2. something raise. Can anyone remember that? If so, what was Mr. Clinton's reason?
Back from Vacation
Hi guys, I just got back from Miami. Whole hell lotta fun. First vacation I've had with my wife without the kids since we were in our twenties.
Anyway, I am glad that you guys have jumped on this issue and develop the dialogue to taxes. Now, I didn't have the attention span to read all the posts, so don't crucify me for neglecting something. (My attention span is about as long as George W. Bush's lol jp. Mine's longer.)
I noticed someone say that they liked the idea of a flat tax. This idea does sound really good. Everyone equal, that's great. (Almost sounds socialist if you ask me.) The Revolution Republicans, led by Dick Army, proposed a flat tax after their 1994 victories. This plan however increased taxes for all people whose income was under $100,000 on an average of $4,000 while those who made over that would receive a tax reduction of above $80,000. This occurs because the Republicans, while advocating a flat tax, also reduce personal income tax credits. Is the flat tax really better for us? No, unless you make a lotta money. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice)
Here are the effects of Republican tax policy that started under Ronald Reagan. Prior to the "great communicator's" tenure, the family income for all tax divisions grew. All of America grew together, with the middle class leading the way. Then President Reagan came into office and his predecessor George Bush. Under them, the family income of the middle and working classes declined on an avergae of 8% over twelve years. Meanwhile the upper two brackets grew by an average of 11%. Under Clinton, the gap between rich and poor began to close but the damage from the prior administrations could not completely be reversed due to the hositility of the Republicans in Congress. Our society is becoming increasingly stratified and our President still feels that reducing the raise of average federal employees is wiser than holding back corporate tax breaks and tax reductions for millionaires. That is the point that I want to make...President Bush is still helping his elitest friends while average Americans as us continue to see our money values decline.
Just to note, today the unemployment rate was reported to be at 6%, the highest since 1993 and the White House made Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil resign. Where is Preident Bush in his cowboy hat leading us?
Hi guys, I just got back from Miami. Whole hell lotta fun. First vacation I've had with my wife without the kids since we were in our twenties.
Anyway, I am glad that you guys have jumped on this issue and develop the dialogue to taxes. Now, I didn't have the attention span to read all the posts, so don't crucify me for neglecting something. (My attention span is about as long as George W. Bush's lol jp. Mine's longer.)
I noticed someone say that they liked the idea of a flat tax. This idea does sound really good. Everyone equal, that's great. (Almost sounds socialist if you ask me.) The Revolution Republicans, led by Dick Army, proposed a flat tax after their 1994 victories. This plan however increased taxes for all people whose income was under $100,000 on an average of $4,000 while those who made over that would receive a tax reduction of above $80,000. This occurs because the Republicans, while advocating a flat tax, also reduce personal income tax credits. Is the flat tax really better for us? No, unless you make a lotta money. (Source: Citizens for Tax Justice)
Here are the effects of Republican tax policy that started under Ronald Reagan. Prior to the "great communicator's" tenure, the family income for all tax divisions grew. All of America grew together, with the middle class leading the way. Then President Reagan came into office and his predecessor George Bush. Under them, the family income of the middle and working classes declined on an avergae of 8% over twelve years. Meanwhile the upper two brackets grew by an average of 11%. Under Clinton, the gap between rich and poor began to close but the damage from the prior administrations could not completely be reversed due to the hositility of the Republicans in Congress. Our society is becoming increasingly stratified and our President still feels that reducing the raise of average federal employees is wiser than holding back corporate tax breaks and tax reductions for millionaires. That is the point that I want to make...President Bush is still helping his elitest friends while average Americans as us continue to see our money values decline.
Just to note, today the unemployment rate was reported to be at 6%, the highest since 1993 and the White House made Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil resign. Where is Preident Bush in his cowboy hat leading us?
H
Heretic
Guest
Re: Back from Vacation
Its 1994 not 1993 btw.
Its 1994 not 1993 btw.
It's good to see that this has come out in us Government employee's favor. Although, whether we deserve it is another argument.
Bush signs 4.1 percent pay raise into law
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/022103t1.htm
Bush signs 4.1 percent pay raise into law
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/022103t1.htm
Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that he only accepted the 4.1% due to the fact that he would have had to veto the entire fiscal 2003 omnibus spending bill to prevent it. An action which would have made the government look even more wonderful considering it's almost march and the fiscal year started on October 1st of last year.