FatCratz

More Protections and Benefits for Federal Employees

Things have been a little quiet here at FatCratz (more on that later), but this article in the post jolted us out of our slumbers:

Congress is returning to work today with a full plate of measures important to federal workers, including several that would expand the protections and benefits offered to current and former government employees. The House is scheduled to vote this week on a bill that would grant federal employees four weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of a child. Another House measure ... would change the benefits structure for federal workers. The Senate will consider a bill that would expand federal workers' telework benefits... And both chambers will soon work on a bipartisan effort to extend health and retirement benefits to the partners of gay federal employees.

Recent reports suggest that public sector employees already far outstrip their private sector counterparts. And we know the average annual salary is $75,419--not bad, for government work (It's actually much higher in urban centers such as Washington, DC, where "locality pay" boosts it well above $80K a year).

What's wrong with this picture? Aside from the merits of any of these proposals, where in the private sector are benefits and job security INCREASING?! What rational organization in a time of rampant deficit spending chooses to make its labor costs more expensive?

But of course, the government isn't a rational organization. It is a political one. And the people making the decisions--Congress--aren't paying the bills. In fact, the people paying the bills--the re-election tabs for the decision makers--are increasingly the public sector unions who benefit the most from these benefit expansions.

And the real bill is stuck with you, the taxpayer.

Congressman Conyers on Reading Legislation

Conyers admits what we all know. Congress doesn't even read the bills they vote on and pass. This means they haven't even bothered to read something that citizens are required to understand and obey.

Speed Reading Legislation--No Joke!

You know the radio commercials that make a joke about fine print by having a speed reader breathlessly read through the required material?

That's how our current majority in Congress views the legislation they pass.

One of the few tactics open to a legislative minority in the U.S. Congress is to demand that the full text of any law be read before a vote. Given the size and utterly incoherent complexity of virtually all legislation these days, this is an onerous and time-consuming task.

Democrats have come up with a response. They've hired a speed reader:

Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have taken a novel precaution to head off Republican efforts to slow action this week on a sweeping climate bill. They are hiring a speed reader. Republicans on the committee have said they may force the reading of the entire 946-page bill -- as well as major amendments that measure several hundred pages -- all aloud. This is a procedure lawmakers have a right to invoke.

Legislators have become so accustomed to not actually reading the bills they vote on, that they're willing to publicly flaunt a procedural requirement to do just that. That they are not embarrassed by this fact reveals their utter contempt for the citizens who have to abide by the reckless laws they pass, under threat of prosecution.

FatCratz are on the Hill

For those of you outside the beltway, it is a very bad thing for a FatCrat to come in under budget. Money left unspent is not "saved," in the sense that the FatCrat can spend it next year. If it's left on the table, it's lost, or, in some instances, if it can be carried over, it still moves your budget baseline lower for the following year. Whoever sets the budget--Congress, OMB, agency or division heads--will presume you don't need as much money the following year to do the same work.

As a result, one of the rites of fall is end-of-fiscal-year budget blowout. If you got it, spend it.

I of course have many, but one I remember is at the end of the fiscal year when we had a lot of left over money in our budget the Congressman I was working for had us buy new T.V.'s, new DVD players, ridiculous amounts of office supplies, and office decor just to use up the money. None of this was needed and in fact we had just bought new t.v.'s the year before!

This is bad enough, but I'd love some better examples of this. I'm sure they exist. Or perhaps you know some tricks of the trade for funneling these dollars around so they can be spent later. That would be both entertaining, and helpful for other budget officers come the end of this fiscal year. FatCratz will face some major challenges spending all their appropriated money this year.

Note, importantly, that this example comes from the Hill. Hill staffers like to think of themselves as the watchdogs, but whose watching them? We are.