On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:08:07 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 10:52:01 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 23:07:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:32:20 -0800, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:52:08 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:07:20 -0800, wrote:

Cato Institute? Do you know who they are?
That is a Libertarian group saying what the government SHOULD DO.
That has nothing to do with what they actually do.

"Vice-President Gore leads the Administration’'S efforts to reinvent
government, making it work better, cost less, and get results that
Americans care about. Under his leadership, the size of the federal
[civilian] workforce has been reduced by about 350,000 people, and
common sense changes have been made in the way government works
that have saved the taxpayers $ 137 billion."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3973816/Re...ral-Downsizing


That was a great PR stunt but nobody was laid off. There was an
incentive for people to take what was essentially a buyout into early
retirement. I know a guy who took it.
The overall government workforce stayed about the same anyway.


So, you're claiming that U of Missouri was lying??? But, you believe
everything the Heritage Foundation says...

No, you are claiming these people were fired ... remember what this
was about?
I am saying they simply allowed people to retire without replacing all
of them. This was not a layoff and they moved others around to fill
the slots.
There is a CBO report on H.R.3218 that lays out one of these programs
and explains all of this.

Later in your article you notice they ended up promoting people from
lower grades to higher grades and the payroll actually went up.
It also shifted a lot of the burden from the payroll to the unfunded
pension system, something that corporate America was doing

You said that the federal worker is basically immune from downsizing.
This is not correct. Seems to me you want it both ways. You want
"permanent" jobs, but then complain when people have that.

I said a federal worker is virtually impossible to fire and will not
get laid off. You have only reinforced that statement. The article you
posted said the people who left were rolled into the retirement
system, either because they were of age or because they got an
incentive. I know a guy who took the incentive (basically full
retirement at an earlier age). The only decline in headcount was in
not hiring new people to replace them That was a temporary situation.

Yeah... really hard....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcno...ilibuster.html