10:34 pm, May 28, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 4

  • Life in the bullseye
    Just me
    It's the same as it ever was...since Ronald Wilson Reagan. Did anyone, seriously, expect that Feds would be immune to the "extraction" economy created by the right? An economy, based in consumption, where business extracts the wealth of a nation (rather than contributing to it) is simply unsustainable...and since no one in Congress is going to stop the "race to the bottom" caused by the offshoring of jobs, they have only one choice. That choice is to dismantle federal pay and benefits, so that the government can resume its position as the employer of last resort. It isn't about controlling the cost of government, and it never has been. It's about keeping corporate, Wall Street, and Bank profits high while distracting the peons. After all, if the peons weren't distracted then they might start asking embarrassing questions like: Didn't ALL companies provide the kind of benefits Feds get (now) to their employees?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Same Tired Story
    Beat up on Feds so they act like they actually got something done while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room - enTitlement spending. Of course anything they do ignores long term impact. Want federal employees to work cheap? You get what you pay for! Public service only goes so far when you got bills to pay and families to support.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "pay a bigger portion of their retirement benefits"
    What exactly does that mean? Is Mr. Causey referring again to an increase in the required contribution during the course of the individual's employment, or does it mean something else, e.g., a bite out of what current retirees are receiving? Is there anything in sight, save perhaps a change in the size of the government's share of FEHB premiums, that would affect retirees? And did Congress only vote to increase the contribution for those in FERS, while leaving the CSRS contribution alone?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • According to NARFE
    "On Feb. 17, Congress passed legislation that calls for a sharp increase in future federal employees' retirement contributions to help pay for an extension in unemployment benefits. It's part of a bill to extend the payroll tax holiday for most Americans." That is, Congress is using the federal pension fund as a piggy bank to pay for Congress's mishandling of the federal budget for a decade, rather than raising revenue from those who can afford to pay. Feds are not sharing the burden, they carry the burden.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }