Civil service cuts not worth risk

For example, how much would the American taxpayer save by undermining the present civil service pay system if several of the more likely Republican proposals were enacted? Well, for fiscal year 2012, about $500 million, which is about the cost of 1½ of our now coming-into-limited-production, mid-1990s vintage F-35 air-superiority fighters, of which we are ordering about 1,800 at last count. But then, who needs all of the civil servants we have today (likely who we would then replace with contract employees, costing on average somewhere around twice that which a government employee costs)?

From a dollars and cents perspective, to me the current frontal attack by the congressional Republicans and the media has very little to do with federal salaries. The key is: Just who do civil servants work for? Answer: Generally they serve the public —from social security, air safety, public health, law enforcement, etc. So when the various cost-cutting proposals are discussed, the question is not so much how much will it “save” the taxpayer (which, or course, is a genuine consideration); the real question is, what are going to be the consequences to the general public if this or that proposal is enacted? If the object is merely to save money — no problem. Let’s just pay our civil servants, say, what Mexico pays its civil servants, and in return, of course, expect a similar level of corrupt “service.”

The Republicans in Congress (along with Clinton) trashed the American private sector worker to benefit large corporations. Now, it appears, they have their sights set on continuing this process by compromising services to the general public through disruption/dismemberment of the government’s civil service system. So, when the various “cost-saving proposals” come out of Washington, along with costs, evaluate their possible adverse impact on services to the public.

Jeff Stewart