12:36 pm, April 24, 2014

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.

  • 14
       

  • "The House has already passed legislation to increase feds' pension contributions..."
    FERS Fed
    ...by 5 percent as part of a sequestration package." That would be the REPUBLICAN-controlled House. I hope that EVERY federal employee eligible to vote in Virginia keeps this in mind come November when its time to choose between George Allen (R) and Tim Kaine (D). Feds can't make much of a difference in most state-wide elections, but we sure as heck can in this one.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Vote Democratic
    Moderate
    I will not be materially affected by this as I will leave the government in not too great a period of time, but I agree with you 100%. That 5% item will not pass the senate this year, but hopefully, the Dems will control Congress and the presidency next year. otherwise the radical right will really stick it to the federal people.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Red Meat for Simpletons
    Goshkruse
    Republicans obviously believe tormenting Federal employees is nothing but win, win, and win in their race for re-election. If such legislation fails, Republicans will run negative advertisements proclaiming Democrats would rather give away money to Federal employees for cushy retirements then build highways or reduce student loan interest rates. If the legislation passes, Republicans deliver red meat to their tea-bag simpletons – BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY are applauded by their corporate sponsors for helping lower labor costs. Anytime federal pay or benefits are reduced, it encourages corporate America to do likewise. Soon a ripple in the economy turns into a wave as companies try to increase the almighty profit margin. Greedy CEOs however fail to learn from history that such events reduces overall consumer buying power, which in turn will actually lower profit margins in the long term and lead to a deeper recession. This is why economists preach that a country must spend its way out of a recession and do not cut your way out. Obviously greed makes people stupid.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • If I have to pay. I want a highway named after us
    Lisa Lisa
    I think its only fitting that if federal workers have to pay for roads, then we should have them named after us..or something like this in a road sign: "Paid for by federal workers everywhere"
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • A change is coming!
    Rogers Rangers
    My federal employee friends. Have you ever heard of a full day's work for a full day's pay. You folks are like school teachers. I do not mean to demonize teachers or federal employees but you just don't understand how hard it is having a real job with real responsibilities. Let's face it - the number federal employees could be reduced by 50% and no one would care. I hear derogatory comments made about Governor Romney and his Bain Capital management style. We could use some of that management approach applied to the federal agencies. Less federal employees doing badly what need not be done at all. 130 more days - stand by.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "...the number federal employees could be reduced by 50% and no one would care"?
    FERS Fed
    Suuuure, Mr. Rogers. Adding 1.1 million people to the nation's unemployment wouldn't matter, would it? And no one would care that those 1.1 million people were no longer paying their mortgages, or buying cars or groceries or anything for that matter, right? Well, at least, not Gov. Rob-me.......Look, here's a brief civics lesson for you, Mr Rogers. Federal employees can only do what Congress authorizes, and provides funding for, feds to do. If you've got a beef with that, take it up Congress and get off our backs. We're busy protecting your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • More on 'Rogers Rangers'
    FERS Fed
    Wikipedia - Rogers' Rangers were a North American colonial militia that fought during what was called the French and Indian War for the Kingdom of Great Britain (aka the 1%ers of the time). Guess that old saying holds some truth -- the more things change, the more they stay the same.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Your change is for the worse.
    Jerry A.
    Rogers Rangers says: "I do not mean to demonize teachers or federal employees but..." then he goes on to do just that. Why is it that the GOP'ers who bash teachers always sound like they slept through class? At least Rogers in exceptional for that group because he can spell and write in full sentences, but he still fails at logic and compassion. People like him agree with Romney (R-Money) about cutting government except when they need government (like firefighters in Colorado). Romney, Boehner, Ryan et al. are trying to prove government is bad by making it bad. A bad place to work (unless you're in Congress), a bad place for services (by cutting services), and a bad place for anyone not in the 1%.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You are clueless Rogers
    Moderate
    First, your comments about teachers are stupid. Have you ever taught? Do you even have a clue as to how difficult it is to teach 30 children who are different in abilities. Some or more may not want to learn. Some or more parents do not care if the children misbehave. And yes, teachers work more than in the classroom, but you have no clue about that.------ Ypu want to reduce fed employees by 50%. IRS already does not have enough auditors and collections people. The tax gap is horrendous. So have a huge budget deficit. So, make it worse by cutting in half the number of collection people and auditors. That will increase the deficit. I cannot speak for other agencies but the IRS needs more people to do its job. You are definitely clueless.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Would love to hear more about part time retirement.....
    cayenneblue
    Such an enticing option to full retirement.... Why it's part of this bill, I haven't figured out. Will agencies be required to offer this option? Or is it up to the individual agencies?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Good questions; I have a few more
    UmbratilisFed
    (1) This provision saves the Government between $ 500 and $800 million over a decade, depending on who is counting. I understand the benefits to the Government; could someone explain how or if the employees benefit? (2) If a CSRS employee eligible for an immediate 50% pension and a high three of $100k instead elects to go to phased retirement, he or she will waive $25k of their pension (during the period of part time work) and collect $25k from retirement plus 1/2 of their current salary. In other words he or she will get paid $75k in exchange for working a 20 hour week. So, instead of $100k in current salary they will be paid $75k and will accrue benefits at 1/2 their previous rate. Would it be fair to say that the person will work 1/2 of their regular hours for 1/4 of their salary? And that the ratio will get progressively get worse if their pension exceeds 50%?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Also
    UmbratilisFed
    (3) Currently an employee can work part time after retirement and earn 100% of their current salary (with no accruals) for the hours they work. Why is this not a better arrangement? (4) Or, an employee could retire and be hired back as a consultant under the same terms as (3) above. Again, why is this not a better deal? (5) My first reading of this provision indicated the phased retirement was up to the employee to elect. Later, I see it is the option of the Agency. If so, won’t the same favoritism exist that now exists in (3) and (4) above? (6) If the Agency elects to offer this to an employee, does it eliminate an FTE? If not, what is the benefit to the Government?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Finally
    UmbratilisFed
    (7) Will other employees promotions to back fill this slot be deferred until the retiree actually finally retires? (8) This appears to be a viable option for FERs employees but not so good for CSRS. If so, wasn’t the point of the exercise to clear out the oldest employees (CSRS) and train up the younger employees (FERS)?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • work at home  (Flagged as Abuse)
    PittmanKen
    Show/Hide Message
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }