9:27 am, April 18, 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.

  • 32
       

  • Sequestration Has Hurt Some Feds
    FederalEmployee
    Last week, all vacancies at my agency were frozen, including those which had already closed and the list of "best qualified" employees had been handed to the selecting official. I was on one of those lists. I had a chance for a promotion - but not now. Yesterday we were notified that all performance awards have been cancelled. This came a day after a wasteful training video was exposed on the news. I really wish that the agencies would take a serious look at all of their programs and all of their positions, and make intelligent decisions as to which add little to nothing to such agencies' core functions. This is where the cuts need to be made. Personnel cutbacks could be made through attrition and placing affected employees in other positions. We also need grade parity, which is sorely lacking in my agency. We have a plethora of high-graded positions for which the required skills, abilities, experience and education levels do not warrant the high grade. How can my agency justify the same GS grade for an experienced litigating attorney (law degree requirement, sucessful passage of the bar exam) and for an employee in a "communications" position whose job is to post information on an internal website (no college education requirement)? Sadly, I really doubt the bureaucrats' abilities to do what is needed to cut unnecessary spending. Each program is a little kingdom. Everyone wants to protect their turf. Rather than using a surgical scapel approach, we are seeing a bullet-spray approach.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Parity?  (Flagged as Abuse)
    MDBBALL02
    Show/Hide Message
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • And the Reason...
    penney
    ..they are called "introverts" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their communication ability. That is a gross misconception of what introversion and extroversion mean. I suggest you google the terms. And skip wikipedia, they don't know what they're talking about on this. I speak as an introvert who has been recognized on the job for public speaking and teaching ability (not to blow my own horn, only to point out that introverts are NOT necessarily shy people who don't know how to interact with others). And I certainly am NOT hugely inadequate in expressing myself. Ask anyone who knows me. Ask my boss, he can tell you. An introvert is more energized by having time alone, while extroverts are energized by being around other people (in general). That doesn't mean introverts never like being at parties and it doesn't mean all people with poor communications skills are introverts. Johnny Carson and David Letterman - famous introverts who I would not say lack the ability to communicate. There are many more, to save space, I'm not listing more, but there are plenty of introverted people who are highly successful in fields requiring excellent communications (Diane Sawyer is another). Introvert does NOT mean shy or awkward; naturally, some shy awkward people are introverts, but the terms do not mean the same thing. Generally I agree with your comments, but have to set the record straight on introversion. And I also have to say too often the "leaders" in federal organizations don't have good public communications skills. Or, at any rate, are too concerned about doing the CYA dance than in presenting their agency's employees and the work those employees do in a positive light.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • YES, PARITY MDBBALL02  (Flagged as Abuse)
    FederalEmployee
    Show/Hide Message
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • One Size Does Not Fit All
    marine69
    ...but that's the route they've taken...haven't seen any results yet, it's still too early to tell. But leaving the cuts up to each agency is expecting too much from those desiring to protect their programs that really may need cutting. Wait until next fiscal year and see what else gets whacked. This long line at airports by TSA stuff was enacted before their furloughs were to start...just another ploy from the Executive Branch to try and whip up public support for their policies! Didn't work and it won't work! The House should hang tough and stick it to this arrogant tax and spend Administration!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Gotta have recovery first
    Moderate
    Yeh. Who knows We can actually do what Hoover did and have the second Great Depression.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Start with USDA
    bewildered
    One commenter asked what cuts should be made and where? HOw about starting with USDA? A recent story came out with USDA purchasing 400,000 tons of sugar to keep the price high. They then donated it to ethanol producers (already subsidized). Will you see your price of gas go down any?--NO!!! USDA will loose $80 million. USDA bought $23 million dollars of peaches (can't find out what they did with them on their website) and how many other commodities to keep the prices up. HEre is a place we can start making cuts. These were suppose to help small farmers but the lions share go to large farm corperations. USDA is subisdizing large agricutlure. These sugar growers spent $2 million in lobbying and got $80 million in return-what a racket. A lot of grants are for duplicative projects, for things that don't make sense from a scientific standpoint. These are the things that need to be cut. Many SES positions ignore travel restrictions and go whereever they want whenever they want all over the world-cuts could be made here. I'm all willing to make sacrifices but not when I see all my hard work and sacrifices being blown by projects and programs which are worthless.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Good one, but we need $85 Billion.
    contrarian
    But when the Dems control the Senate and White House, if they were really our friends, we shouldn't be getting slashed and cut. Just proves that they sold us all out for a measly $85 Billion. Where's the peace dividend? Where's the cheap oil? Where are cheap loans? At least the stock market is up so the big donors can get ready for the next election cycle. Doesn't this prove that FedEmps do better with a GOP president?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Yes
    Rob
    If you're looking strictly at what's best for the federal employee then yes, we're better off with the GOP in the White House and a split or Dem controlled Congress. The Dems are much more likely to back feds when a Repub is in the White House. Once the Dems have the White House they get amnesia. No way would a democrat controlled congress accept a pay freeze by a Repub president nor would they go along with a repub president that didn't recommend pay parity with the military. We didn't get pay parity with the military for the only raise we got under Obama back in 2010 (despite total control by the Dems). No way would the Dems have allowed that if a Repub was in the White House. Fed employees who do as the unions say when it comes to voting need to wake up.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • You need to post your reply again and again
    contrarian
    Rob: exactly.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Nice monologue/dialogue with 2 extreme rightists
    Moderate
    The peace dividend was eaten up up the Bush and the Republicans Depression which reduced tax revenues. And look at what the GOP wants to do to us. Cuts in funding as to what it should be through 2020 or 2023 or something like that ala Ryan. More sequestrations thanks to him and his ilk.---- Cheap oil? Where does that come from? You can get cheap loans. Interest rates are very low.----And no we are not better with a Ryan type for president. I commented about Rob's comments in the Thursday column.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }