Feds spending cuts

[Shady]

I don't think that the government firing people during the beginnings of a recovery is a good idea.

I don't think that anyone getting fired during a recession or a recovery is a good thing either. But sometimes it's necessary. But I find it very disturbing that the federal government continues to expand its workforce during good times and bad times. Nobody seems to have to face the real world in which Joe Public lives and works in, and who pays their salaries.

It's simple math. If the money ain't there, you have to adjust. Because the money for government worker's salaries and pensions ultimately comes from the private sector. I'd like to see a law passed prohibiting public workers from getting pay raises and benefit raises during recessions. I think it's only fair.

[KeyStone]

Cutting wages, and benefits to new employees is one thing, but changing the deal for employees who have been working there for some time is just wrong.

Many of these people accepted a job that gave them very little in the way of skills training, or advancement so that they could enjoy a stable, risk-free career that offered a decent wage, and a solid pension. To reduce their salary now is an awful think to do, but to even consider touching their pension is unpardonable.

[DFCaper]

I've been employed by various federal dept's for over 20 years and in my experience it's common practice everywhere.

And that's maybe why private sector middle/upper management makes more... Although I'm not convinced that the newer middle management employees make as much as people here seem to believe. I work for a global company and the upper management where I work don't make nearly as much as people accuse them to make. They live in modest homes driving modest cars and have sacrificed there personal lives at a level that I am sure only few for the government(outside of military) would understand.

I just think most federal employees should have wage freezes and hiring freezes till the deficit is no longer as outrageous. Just as we that are amongst the lucky (and still employeed) private sector employees had endured. Except without the consent threat of layoffs and large benefit cuts. I also think that when it comes to pensions, that the federal government shouldn't touch current employees pensions, as I think it is wrong when private sector employees get screwed at the end of their career. However, new employees, after the hiring freeze is lifted, should have defined contribution and not a defined benefit.

The people I know who switched from Private to public sectors are now way richer than they would have been otherwise. And admit it freely...

[Shady]

risk-free career

There's no such thing as a "risk-free career."

[Smallc]

The government has no need to fire anyone. The rate of retirements and others simply leaving the public service means the government could easily downsize by simply imposing a hiring freeze.

And that's fine too. I'm no trying to attack the public service here.

[waldo]

Why should government workers be immune to recessions that private-sector workers have to deal with? Especially when it's the private-sector workers that pay for the government worker's salaries.

it would be helpful to gain the perspective of any active MLW members who currently work for the federal government - ideally, a prolific MLW member, one who is a most loyal advocate (lapdog) for the Harper Conservatives. Anyone... anyone...

Funny, I would have said it would be helpful to gain an intelligent perspective or at least opinion.

well, you certainly came through with a ton of posts - atta boy. However, I find it quite interesting (entertaining?) to see you avoid directing any comments toward the Harper Conservatives, particularly since federal spending cuts would likely affect you directly, given your civil servant status. Good on ya Argus - clearly, the embodiment of your intelligent perspective/opinion, is reflected in your willingness to bend over and take one for the Harper team! The only uncertainty is whether or not you're smiling at the same time...

[William Ashley]

Cutting wages, and benefits to new employees is one thing, but changing the deal for employees who have been working there for some time is just wrong.

I totally agree, with exception of "from then on". Changing the past shouldn't be allowed, it is like stealing. Changing the future situation is just what you are working for. Any money set aside for pensions whether government or not should be money in the bank, and untouchable.

Of course contracts and salaries can be revised, when the previous contract is expired. If it isn't good enough then it is clear they should be looking for a new work.

Of course they should be fully entitled to quit, or not vote conservative.

Edited February 19, 2010 by William Ashley

[Argus]

well, you certainly came through with a ton of posts - atta boy. However, I find it quite interesting (entertaining?) to see you avoid directing any comments toward the Harper Conservatives, particularly since federal spending cuts would likely affect you directly, given your civil servant status. Good on ya Argus - clearly, the embodiment of your intelligent perspective/opinion, is reflected in your willingness to bend over and take one for the Harper team! The only uncertainty is whether or not you're smiling at the same time...

As I said, "intelligent" postings are just not your forte.

I was replying on topic to other posts. You might try that some day, though it's unlikely your penchant for "haw haw haws" and other smarmy, blowhard comments would escape your moronic posts even then.

I think I did actually mention their breaking the last contract with PSAC, and that it was done, imho strictly for political purposes, to look good to their base, and that it would inevitably be reversed by the courts after much wasted legal costs. As in everything else, however, you see only what appeals to your ignorance.

[waldo]

Why should government workers be immune to recessions that private-sector workers have to deal with? Especially when it's the private-sector workers that pay for the government worker's salaries.

it would be helpful to gain the perspective of any active MLW members who currently work for the federal government - ideally, a prolific MLW member, one who is a most loyal advocate (lapdog) for the Harper Conservatives. Anyone... anyone...

Funny, I would have said it would be helpful to gain an intelligent perspective or at least opinion.

well, you certainly came through with a ton of posts - atta boy. However, I find it quite interesting (entertaining?) to see you avoid directing any comments toward the Harper Conservatives, particularly since federal spending cuts would likely affect you directly, given your civil servant status. Good on ya Argus - clearly, the embodiment of your intelligent perspective/opinion, is reflected in your willingness to bend over and take one for the Harper team! The only uncertainty is whether or not you're smiling at the same time...

I think I did actually mention their breaking the last contract with PSAC, and that it was done, imho strictly for political purposes, to look good to their base, and that it would inevitably be reversed by the courts after much wasted legal costs.

interesting... let us compare - shall we

The tories broke the contract they signed with our union during their previous budget, which included rolling back already signed and agreed upon wages. That is why the union is sueing them. The goverment did this even though precedent says that they will be overruled by the courts and they will have wasted a lot of legal money and time just so they could throw a bone to people like those posting on this topic.

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract with PSAC union - check

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract for political purposes... not seeing that in your initial statement Argus

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract to look good to their base... not seeing that in your initial statement Argus

but that was the first time Argus... that was the first time the Harper Conservatives went after federal employees wages & benefits. That was then - this is now! The now, where you go out of your way to flood the thread with numerous posts, while never directly commenting on the Harper Conservatives. Like I said, when you take one for the team, are you smiling?

[ToadBrother]

There's no such thing as a "risk-free career."

Certainly not for mere mortals. But apparently the moment you get on the taxpayer-funded payroll, apparently Jesus Christ or the Dalai Lama or somebody has decreed that thou shalt never be unemployed or have thine benefits modified in any way save to your permanent benefit.

[Topaz]

Why should government workers be immune to recessions that private-sector workers have to deal with? Especially when it's the private-sector workers that pay for the government worker's salaries.

Yes, I agree to a point but some some of these government workers put their live on the line and do easrn their money. It the politicans that make the polices and some of those rules make the average Canadian lives tough at times, like the unemployed, who got there because of government!! Why should this seating government get their pensions at 55 when the rest of us have to wait until 65???

[Argus]

interesting... let us compare - shall we

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract with PSAC union - check

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract for political purposes... not seeing that in your initial statement Argus

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract to look good to their base... not seeing that in your initial statement Argus

Your blindness and stupidity are not my issues.

but that was the first time Argus... that was the first time the Harper Conservatives went after federal employees wages & benefits. That was then - this is now!

They haven't done anything NOW.

[waldo]

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract with PSAC union - check

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract for political purposes... not seeing that in your initial statement Argus

- Harper Conservatives breaking contract to look good to their base... not seeing that in your initial statement Argus

but that was the first time Argus... that was the first time the Harper Conservatives went after federal employees wages & benefits. That was then - this is now! The now, where you go out of your way to flood the thread with numerous posts, while never directly commenting on the Harper Conservatives. Like I said, when you take one for the team, are you smiling?

They haven't done anything NOW.

interesting... your accounting of the THEN (the first time the Harper Conservatives went after the wages & benefits of federal employees), shows a very subdued acknowledgment on your part of the actions taken by the Harper Conservatives - sorry to point out that your latter posted reply of what you claimed to have said didn't line up to what you actually said about the THEN. In terms of the NOW (the premise of this threads OP), you have gone out of your way to post... what... a dozen plus times, without adding even the slightest hint of negative attachment to the Harper Conservatives because... wait for it... it actually hasn't occurred yet. Your liberal posting in the NOW appears quite selective

[Argus]

interesting... your accounting of the THEN (the first time the Harper Conservatives went after the wages & benefits of federal employees), shows a very subdued acknowledgment on your part of the actions taken by the Harper Conservatives - sorry to point out that your latter posted reply of what you claimed to have said didn't line up to what you actually said about the THEN.

Yes it did. Precisely and exactly. I'm sorry your grasp of written English is so incomplete you are baffled by the obvious.

In terms of the NOW (the premise of this threads OP), you have gone out of your way to post... what... a dozen plus times, without adding even the slightest hint of negative attachment to the Harper Conservatives because... wait for it... it actually hasn't occurred yet.

Fancy not complaining and bitching about something when nobody yet knows what it's going to be, or even IF it's going to happen. I guess I'm just odd that way.

[William Ashley]

Nothing will happen with federal pensions - if it gets put into the budget then as far as I can tell it will be a poison pill - and will cause an election (after 3 months of no parliament) - so 4 months no parliament minimum.

This is likely exactly what harper is looking for as the pension is a "divided issue" most of the public would likely gladly sacrifice other peoples pensions over a tax hike that is badly needed. It is exactly what harper is looking for a contraversial issue that may have public appeal to force the opposition as the ones causing the election trigger by voting down the budget.

The CPC's low polling which could be lower as the money stops flowing (martin's surplus has run dry now) - and the unpopularity of heavy deficit spending (that is prebudgeted to last for the next few years - up until 2014 in reducing cost overrides )(20 billion this year 15 billion next 10 billion the year after and finally 5 billion etc.. just in time for the baby boomer retirement to kick in to burden the budget as retirement cheques start pouring out.

It seems the CPC's plan is to do nothing - except sell off income earning government assets (the last thing that should be done is selling off income earners)

None the less - there

really are no places to cut--- even the military budget is projected to grow by 5% after increasing by 50% over the last couple years. (and a 50% increase to a military budget is a lot for a short period of time)

They are locked into the 1 or 2 billion for keeping troops in for another year and bringing them home.

not to mention the write offs of equipment that are going to happen ( more wasted money)

The 35+ billion in paying interest on the debt (charges) aren't likely to be erased) (this currently accounts to over 10% of the budget...)

Interest rates can't be dropped much lower sitting at 0.25%

Last years liabilities were 824.2 billion with less than 300 billion revenue leaving 463.7 billion in debt

revenue ratio has been steadily declining under the CPC - while this does equate less taxation (since the government only accounts a small portion of revenue from funds raised through enterprise, it does mean there is a dramatic loss in government revenues and the fact that deficits are budgeted with close to a trillion dollars of debt on the books doesn't sit well witho anyone able to look 10 years down the road.. when a quarter of the population will be children or retired.

Corporate revenue dropped from 40 billion to less than 30 billion while personal income taxes increased by 3 billion while the GST went down around 4 billion (so if you take into account corporations buy goods.. than it is clear that taxes havn't gone down under the Conservatives -- they have gone UP!!! The only winners are corporations who have saved a few billion dollars while the debt has increased to half a trillion dollars debt.

Transfers account to 20% of the budget - and Harper promised money to Ontario for agreeing to the HST (bad deal for ontario as it will see a tax increase (Wow ontarians loose a few percent on gst and get taxed 7% more on most everything else.)

This technically should "increase" when HST comes into effect

Subsidies account to about 12% - moves here are going to be unpopular --- so which subsidies will be cut?

national defence is about 8%.. and was projected to increase by alteast 5% of its budget

crown corporations are sitting at about 3% of the budget.. and selling off the income earners ain't going to be good for the budget. however selling off the CBC would be contraversial should anyone buy it.. and make a very monopolistic media with only 2 or 3 companies owning pretty much the whole of media in the country.

what is left? 26%

federal payments to seniors would be contraversial (and this will be increasingly difficult - MAJOR and continuing powerful voting block

EI (contravesial.. as the costs here are going up

Childrens aid etc... what is the alternative?

Finally the staffing issue

Operations 18%

Technically subsidies are the only place that can be cut marginally... operations can be slightly reduced

government waste and procurement is horrible in cost ratio..

bad crown corps could be shut down.. but the effects would need to be ratiolized, and selling off income earners would be a bad fiscal move.

IMO

it is better to deliver the least harmful poison pill to escape an unpopular budget that could have worse effects..

5:1 the conservatives will poison pill the budget..

HOWEVER.. what we already know is that this budget only has 1 cure ----

oddly the NDP's raise to corporate taxes ... doesn't seem to be too much but it seems likely that revenue needs to be generated and costs reduced.

Here is my proposal.

1. Scrap HST kill transfers (boo)

2. Pull out of Afghanistan immediately

3. majorly cut operational costs, and allocate travel budgets only to emergency situations

4. cut all subsidies.

my unique moves:

1. have the DND procure assets (this by generating revenue) example set up private contractors, deploy troops to resource harvesting and transport, etc..

2. divulge the debt with my distribution and deceased payback method

3. withdrawl or revise nafta and raise certain tarrifs to raise income

4. restructure companies such as the CBC and gear it to "new media"

5. reinstate the militia

6. invest in profit earning crown corps

They are going to rack up the debt and do nothing.. just watch it happen. It is either that or an election in april

KILL THE BLOODY 100 BILLION MORTGAGE BUYOUT ALREADY!!!

Edited February 20, 2010 by William Ashley