How Much Should a Government Employee Make?
Sen. Scott Brown is the latest to mount an attack on "lavish" federal wages. It's yet another version of the conservative attack on government.
Monica Potts | February 16, 2010
American Prospect
On his inaugural spin on the Sunday talk show circuit, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts called for a freeze on federal-employee pay, which he said was twice that of private-sector counterparts. It was an issue he campaigned on as a way to bring government spending under control. "Lavish pay and benefit packages have unfortunately become a way of life for public employees," he said at an event in January. "It's time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. I support a temporary freeze on federal wages until the Congress devises a plan to control spending and debt."
The obsession with government-employee pay is surfacing at the state and city levels as well. Colorado Springs is cutting services in the face of mounting budget deficits. Tax increases can only be approved by referendum, and residents recently voted one down. In November, a city councilman proposed reducing employee pay. A local business leader named Stephen Bartolin has criticized a city employee pay and benefits package that he said amounted to more than $80,000 a person, compared to the mere $24,000 Bartolin pays his employees. It's not clear if the positions are comparable -- he runs a resort and benefits from being able to hire seasonal and part-time employees. Now the idea that Colorado Springs pays its city employees too well has emerged as the "other side" in the debate. The vice mayor has stepped up to defend the city pay as in line with that of other municipalities.
(More here.)
Monica Potts | February 16, 2010
American Prospect
On his inaugural spin on the Sunday talk show circuit, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts called for a freeze on federal-employee pay, which he said was twice that of private-sector counterparts. It was an issue he campaigned on as a way to bring government spending under control. "Lavish pay and benefit packages have unfortunately become a way of life for public employees," he said at an event in January. "It's time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. I support a temporary freeze on federal wages until the Congress devises a plan to control spending and debt."
The obsession with government-employee pay is surfacing at the state and city levels as well. Colorado Springs is cutting services in the face of mounting budget deficits. Tax increases can only be approved by referendum, and residents recently voted one down. In November, a city councilman proposed reducing employee pay. A local business leader named Stephen Bartolin has criticized a city employee pay and benefits package that he said amounted to more than $80,000 a person, compared to the mere $24,000 Bartolin pays his employees. It's not clear if the positions are comparable -- he runs a resort and benefits from being able to hire seasonal and part-time employees. Now the idea that Colorado Springs pays its city employees too well has emerged as the "other side" in the debate. The vice mayor has stepped up to defend the city pay as in line with that of other municipalities.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
My memory is not the best, but I believe that Leigh wrote a piece in January 2007 about “fringe benefits” enjoyed by our elected officials.
With all the talk of healthcare costs and state budget problems, MinnPost reviewed the Minnesota situation :
Tim Pawlenty and his appointees, the state's constitutional officers, and legislators are among 50,000 state employees and their 70,000 dependents who receive relatively generous health benefits from SEGIP (State Employee Group Insurance Plan). The state picks up 100 percent of their premiums and 85 percent of their dependents' premiums. And no matter how many family members they have, officials and employees pay no more than $130 a month for their premiums.
Former legislators can continue either single and/or family coverage in SEGIP until they're eligible for Medicare — as long as they pick up 100 percent of the costs
Legislators also can opt in and out of SEGIP over their lifetimes, and they won't be denied coverage for any pre-existing conditions when they re-enroll.
Therefore, it would be possible for former legislators to let their premiums lapse and re-enroll when they or their families are sick.
The Colorado experience should be watched carefully by Minnesotans …as Pawlenty wants a Constitutional Amendment similar to Colorado --- that is what is causing street lights to be turned off and police staffing reduced.
Post a Comment
<< Home