Pay Raises-A-Plenty In The White House!
It's got to be hard for a guy to be mindful of how fiscally screwed so many of the people of this country are when he's just gotten an 82 percent pay raise.
That's right.
Special assistant to the president for economic policy Matthew Vogel got an 82 percent raise ($59K) to an annual salary of $130,500. John Cook reports at Gawker:
The White House released its annual salary report last week, and as usual, it's nice to work for Barack Obama: Most staffers who were there for more than a year got a salary bump. A bigger one than you did.The last time we checked in on White House salaries, we found that an astonishing 75% of continuing staffers got raises from 2009 to 2010--a huge number given the fact that, according to compensation experts, most companies had skipped routine raises that year in reaction to the economic crisis that the White House was busy failing to solve. This time around--from 2010 to 2011--the ratio is a little less dramatic. Of the 270 White House staffers who have been there for more than a year, 146--or 54%--received raises. The average salary increase was 8%. If you look at only staffers who got raises, the average increase was twice that.
That's a much bigger raise than the average white-collar worker got. According to a survey conducted last year by the human resources consulting firm Mercer, most firms were projecting a 3% increase in base pay for executives. White House workers did nearly three times as well.
This is typical of what happens under socialism. Everybody is equal but some people are more equal than others.
Here in California, some prison doctors and nurses are doing a very good job off sucking off the public teat. Jack Dolan writes for the LA Times:
More than 1,400 state employees were paid in excess of $200,000 last year, according to compensation data made public for the first time Tuesday on Controller John Chiang's website.Of those, 790 were prison doctors, dentists or nurses. More than 300 others were psychiatrists and other medical professionals working for the Department of Mental Health.
One prison doctor collected $777,423 in 2010 and a dentist took home $599,403, according to the website. The president of the state's stem cell research agency received $482,234.
The database lists state positions by title and allows users to sort by department, salary range and total wages.
Chiang, a Democrat who has received millions in campaign contributions from state employee unions, did not include workers' names even though that information is public and has been provided upon request for years.
...Roper denied that the identities of employees were left out to avoid upsetting the politically powerful employee unions.
The omission frustrated open-government advocates who say taxpayers have a right to see exactly where their money is going.
"The name, the position and the amount of money being paid to public employees should not be concealed," said Robert Fellmeth, executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego.
Here's a voice from the real world, from the LAT's comments:
beecnul8r at 8:09 PM July 6, 2011
I worked in the real world...the one that actually contributes to our economy...unlike government employees. Never have I ever heard of a public or private company allowing workers to accumulate sick pay, vacation pay, et al. It is absurd. Vacations are meant to get employees out of the daily rut. By allowing workers to not take them and accumulate the pay (at higher future pay rates) means defeating the very purpose. It is ridiculous that state employees are hauling out this kind of taxpayer money. Hey, Brownie, time to yank in this absurd policy and start clamping down. You need to get a real cost cutter on board and let him/her cut away BIG TIME at all these frivilous policies and costs. No wonder we are in debt up to our elbows. Who creates this mess? What kind of idiots are there in Sacramento that they don't know how to rid this state of cronyism, unionism and all the other social "isms" that are bankrupting this state and the USA.
The quote from LAT is another example of them not bothering to do
any homework. California law says that, even in private industry,
vacation time belongs to the person who earned it. The company can
not make you forfeit the time under any circumstances. If you
don't use your full vacation allowance, it accumulates indefinitely.
Ron at July 7, 2011 4:24 AM
Get back to work, suckers--someone has to pay for all this! Guess who?
Spartee at July 7, 2011 5:50 AM
I'm not usually given to revolutionary, extremist rhetoric, but I can understand why this Chiang fellow left the names off the website - these people should fear for their safety. I don't live anywhere near California, but I'm tempted to hop in a car and drive out there with a big bucket of bar and a giant bag of feathers. This is insane.
Working citizens of California (and I'm not using "working" in the leftist doublespeak that substitutes for "union") should rightfully be furious and take direct action to end this situation. But of course you won't. You'll continue electing Democrats until you drag the rest of the country down with you. Bunch of idiots.
JDThompson at July 7, 2011 6:33 AM
Well, let's see. I've now been unemployed for 2-1/2 months. I've managed to pull in a little bit of income by tutoring school kids, but it is nowhere near what I was making. I've got a couple of potential job offers lurking out there, but they are contingent on contracts that haven't been signed or funded yet, and I'm anticipating that I won't be back to work until September or October. At the end of the year, I figure that I will have made about half of what I made last year.
Further, when I do get another job, my salary is likely to be about 25% lower than my salary at my previous job. Assuming that the economy begins to turn around as a result of the 2012 elections (which is far from a sure bet), I figure that it'll be 2014 or 2015 before my salary returns to what I was making in 2010. Meanwhile, my wife and I did some math last month and we figured that our daily living expenses -- gas, groceries, and utilities -- have gone up about 15% since the first of this year, and this is taking into account that we've made efforts to cut back.
Cousin Dave at July 7, 2011 7:30 AM
About 60 seconds with Google shows that the median salary for an ER physician in Los Angeles is about $270,000. The median for a cardiologist is a little more than $350,000. The reported salary data makes it a bit difficult to figure out the actual distribution of salaries. Of the roughly 1,100 medical professionals referred to in the article, it was not immediately clear if the $777K prison doctor was a huge outlier or more typical of the pay prison doctors can expect.
The State Controller's website lists the salary ranges for various types of state employees. The job title with the highest maximum salary in Los Angeles County is a Chief Physician, but even there, the range is from $106K all the way up to $446K.
For physicians, it may very well be that the state is paying at the very low range of market salaries.
Why is this shocking? at July 7, 2011 8:13 AM
Federal government employees do not get paid for leave unless they retire with it. In my agency, if you have more than 240 hours of leave in any fiscal year, you lose it. So, there is no way you can accumulate more than 240 hours a year. I use mine, so I never have more than 50 or 60 hours most of the year after my vacation in august.
While I'm at it, I am so sick of hearing everyone pile on government employees. Five years ago, when I wasn't making squat, noone was bitching and moaning about government employees. But now, since I have a good job with good benefits that I have been at for 11 years, everyone is whining about how much I have. I call bullshit...what a bunch of whiney, jealous, entitled people. All because I have something and you don't.
I love how I read people saying "well I don't want a government job". If you don't want one, shut up. If you would rather be happy with your bogus liberal arts degree or worthless gender studies degree, good for you. If you do want a govt. job, go through the year-long investigation process like I did and GET ONE.
mike at July 7, 2011 8:31 AM
Wow, Mike. Did your condescending attitude come with the government job or have you always been an ass hat? I have a liberal arts degree that qualifies me to teach English. What's bogus about that? And, I'd LOVE a government job. I apply all the time and am qualified for lots of the positions but nothing ever comes of it. Guess that means I'm just a bogus loser, eh?
Just sayin' at July 7, 2011 8:58 AM
I'm not envious of anyone with a government job- I think that most of those positions shouldn't exist.
ahw at July 7, 2011 9:05 AM
“Special assistant to the president for economic policy Matthew Vogel got an 82 percent raise ($59K) to an annual salary of $130,500.” – this doesn’t bother me at all. At those numbers, Vogel was likely working below-market for one year.
“More than 1,400 state employees were paid in excess of $200,000 last year, according to compensation data made public for the first time Tuesday on Controller John Chiang's website.”
- Seems reasonable for the medical profession.
“Never have I ever heard of a public or private company allowing workers to accumulate sick pay, vacation pay, et al.” – This is just false. It happens all the time in the private sphere.
Tempest in a teapot? Sure there are some outliers who game the system (cops and firefighters are notorious for back-loading their pre-retirement years to bump up their pension), but pension reform is a more worthy target if we really want to curb long-term public spending.
snakeman99 at July 7, 2011 9:30 AM
"While I'm at it, I am so sick of hearing everyone pile on government employees. Five years ago, when I wasn't making squat, noone was bitching and moaning about government employees. But now, since I have a good job with good benefits that I have been at for 11 years, everyone is whining about how much I have. I call bullshit...what a bunch of whiney, jealous, entitled people. All because I have something and you don't."
Since we are literally (literally literally, not figuratively literally) forced under pain of jail to pay for what you "have", you will, perhaps, fogive us if we occasionally feel entitled to think you "have" too much of what was ours, before you took it.
You are, sir, confusing the relationship between citizen and servant. You are paid to do our bidding at a price we are willing to pay and you are willing to accept. At present, your pay is too high, and you and your unions are trying very hard to avoid your bosses' proper adjustments.
But hey, you keep up with that "I got mine! Too bad for you!" attitude. It helps with recruitment for those of us keenly interested in firing scads of you and gutting the compensation of the rest.
Spartee at July 7, 2011 9:55 AM
"literally (literally literally, not figuratively literally) forced under pain of jail"
Really? "Pain of Jail?" How so?
snakeman99 at July 7, 2011 10:18 AM
The pay I can live with. It's there, you know what it costs.
It is all public pensions--civilian and military--that we have to phase out. Such pensions are open-ended time bombs.
A guy can retire after 20 years service, and you, the taxpayer, are liable for all of his medical care for decades and decades, and a full pension until he dies. Maybe his survivors get money too, even after he dies.
When the public funds pensions, they are saying yes to another 50 years of taxes, every time they hire someone.
BOTU at July 7, 2011 10:31 AM
"All because I have something and you don't."
You have what you take from others. You work for US, bud, not the other way around.
"Really? "Pain of Jail?" How so?"
Well, unless you work in gov't, not paying your taxes can get you sent to jail.
momof4 at July 7, 2011 12:03 PM
"literally (literally literally, not figuratively literally) forced under pain of jail"
Really? "Pain of Jail?" How so?
Don't pay your taxes. Let us know where you end up.
Not Sure at July 7, 2011 12:04 PM
"Well, unless you work in gov't, not paying your taxes can get you sent to jail."
"Don't pay your taxes. Let us know where you end up."
**Misconceptions. Believe it or not, we do not have a debtor's jail. Failure to pay ≠ crime. Failure to file a return = crime.
snakeman99 at July 7, 2011 1:11 PM
**Misconceptions. Believe it or not, we do not have a debtor's jail. Failure to pay ≠ crime. Failure to file a return = crime.
Wow. So, snakeman, you're claiming that as long as you file your return - even if you absolutely refuse to pay any owed taxes - you won't end up in jail? Are you insane, or just a government employee?
JDThompson at July 7, 2011 1:19 PM
Government employment should not be a lifetime career for most of its employees.
The military is bringing back the "up or out" process. Frankly we need to start cutting back across the government board.
States need to start restricting the number of employees that can exist total on the state payroll, then they need to start restricting salary and benefits across that board. For example government pay is just not feasibly sustainable if it is precisely comparable to the private sector. The private sector pays for itself, the government sucks out what it has to, and should suck out no more.
The Federal Government needs to do the same thing, even if it has to be imposed upon it by a collective of the states. Remember that while the Federal authority is strongest, the collective states can force through an amendment to the constitution to limit the total amount of money the federal government may collect from its citizens in the form of taxes and fees, and the means by which it could impose or raise new ones.
There is nothing stopping a bloc of states from presenting the federal authority with no choice but to start cutting back upon itself.
Robert at July 7, 2011 1:23 PM
A little education seems in order.
1. I don't belong to a union. I never have. As a federal employee, my agency does not have unions. Not that they don't exist somewhere, like the Postal Workers, but typically, DoD employees are not in unions.
2. I am not on a step program. I get pay for performance, just like everyone in the private sector. I have to write up my accomplishments every year and hope I did enough to get a minimal raise. Most State employees are on the "step" program.
3. There is no such thing as an automatic bonus. I have not gotten a bonus in 4 years.
4. I don't get a full pension. I get 1% for every year I am in federal service. Older employees on the CSRS get a full pension, but they quit offering that in 1985. I get FIRS, what I can save in my 401k, and social security.
5. Taxpayers don't pay my health care when I retire after 30 years of federal service, I do.
I say again Spartee, anyone and everyone can apply for a government position. I took advantage of that opportunity. So you go ahead and work hard to see that I get my pay and my benefits cut. Maybe you should save that energy and apply yourself.
mike at July 7, 2011 1:27 PM
mike - You don't seem to get it. We understand that we could apply for government jobs if we wanted to. That's not the issue.
We pay your salary, and the salaries of your coworkers, supposedly for services rendered on our behalf. We don't want those services. We no longer wish to pay your salary, or those of your coworkers. At the very least, we think that you and your coworkers should get significant pay cuts and lose some of your benefits.
The solution is not to rub it in our faces/encourage us to get in on the scam with you.
JDThompson at July 7, 2011 1:45 PM
mike - Upon reflection, maybe I should amend my last comment: We do still want some of the services government employees provide. Very few. But even in those few cases, we firmly believe that there are tons of people who would gladly do your jobs, probably better than you, definitely for a lot less money than you make. There is zero reason for us to continue to pay you what we do. The only reason government employees continue to get paid what they do is because politicians allow it. It's not because of any value you provide, or because of supply and demand, or any other economic principle.
JDThompson at July 7, 2011 1:59 PM
California law does allow for a vacation accrual cap. In other words, a company can have a policy stating that after accruing so many hours, you can't get any more. However, once you have accrued the hours, in most states, including California, you can't be forced to surrender them without compensation.
Joe at July 7, 2011 2:45 PM
High public sector salaries are fine as long as private sector salaries are higher.
The high private sector salaries are what support big public sector salaries.
If the private sector suffers serious job losses, then there are fewer taxpayers supporting the public sector.
And those who do continue to support it, have their burden increased significantly.
When the private sector gets no pay increases, and the public sector does, where do the public sector workers think that money comes from? Increasing the tax burden on private sector workers and businesses.
There is a choice to be made for would be workers:
Enter the private sector, and accept the risk of unemployment and the burden of competition and the cost of keeping your skill set up to date, in return the possibility of high wages and greater career mobility.
OR
Enter the public sector, and accept LOW wages but high job security.
If the public sector gets firm job security and wages that are higher than the private workers who support it, how is this system sustainable?
The cost of long term retirement for public workers was bearable in an era of increasing private sector employment and increasing wages. The cost of increasing public sector wages was similarly bearable for the same reason.
But we are not in that world anymore. Private sector workers face higher risks than before, and have fewer opportunities for a variety of reasons some of which are related to the over empowered public sector they support. Private sector workers are not getting the wage increases they used to, and in more than one industry, starting salaries are lower and the time to increase them is greater.
The public sector does not want to accept that the costs of these changes to the economy MUST impact them as well. The "I got mine" attitude only serves to enrage the private sector workers that the public sector forgets that they exist to serve.
When the private sector shrinks, so too must the public sector, in wages, in benefits, in retirement potential, and in NUMBERS.
I've been a soldier for 12 years. I am a public sector employee by definition. I have NOT forgotten that I am a public servant. I must bear the burdens that this entails. So do the rest of my cohorts.
Some public worker employment is genuinely useful to have. But useful is not the same thing as necessary. And in a time of economic shortfalls, the work that is not necessary, must be eliminated, while what is necessary, must likely still suffer a cut.
Robert at July 7, 2011 5:49 PM
In defense of public sector employees...
For the record, I'm a government employee. I work for the city government as a paralibrarian; a paraprofessional position. I make a pretty scanty salary - my retail working husband makes about my salary after working at his job and accruing raises of about five years. I haven't received a raise in four years. I haven't received a bonus in two years and when I did get a bonus, it was a whopping half of a percent.
When you dig on "government employees", please keep in mind that most are people like me. We make decent (not excessive) salaries at boring, menial jobs. When you're angry at government employees, you're usually mad at the weird shit (like the lifeguards mentioned a few weeks ago) or what I like to call "the mucky-mucks". We had a hiring freeze in the library system for two years, but our mayor has increased the number of appointed positions ridiculously. Each City Council person has a personal assistant, when ten years ago, it was expected that they share. And of course, never mind all the giving out of "gimme" jobs to nephews, buddies, and former elected officials that is never questioned. These guys make the ridiculous salaries. Those assistants I mentioned? Each of them makes upwards of 55 grand a year. That's a little under double my salary.
"Enter the public sector, and accept LOW wages but high job security."
Sadly, for the last two budget sessions, my job personally has been in jeopardy. I don't get to know whether or not I'll be employed October 1st until late September. I could lose my job in a few months. Or be demoted. And I'll probably go through this whole stressful process again next year. Job security, at least in my city, isn't exactly what it used to be.
That's not to say that I don't agree with a lot of what people are saying. There *are* positions that I know my library could cut. "Vanity" positions that pad our library resume, so to speak, for very little actual payoff. And I have fantasies about going through and cutting vast amounts of bullshit appointed positions. Anyone who has played "musical elected official", basically never *not* getting a gov't paycheck).
So for those who say "we don't want any government employees", I assume your using hyperbole. Because I think that most people value libraries, parks, the DMV, public utilities, and so on and so forth. If you're like me, what you want is less actual government, and cutting fatty, expensive "vanity" positions, and thinning the ranks of the upper echelon as much as the day-to-day schlubs.
I realize I may get flamed for defending my job, but I do hope you understand that I'm a government employee making the same as a retail employee. I haven't gotten a raise in years, and I don't get a bonus. Please don't lump me in with the mucky-mucks who are going to get paid twice their salary when they retire right after they get a big ol' raise for a glorified secretarial job.
cornerdemon at July 7, 2011 6:26 PM
I'd like to know where in the U.S. Constition that libraries, parks, the DMV, public utilities, and so on and so forth are actually mentioned?
Some of it may be in your individual nation's Constitution. But that is your government's choice. It is not at the federal level.
There are some things that should be controlled at the Federal level, or by a federation of interested entities. The FCC is an example -- the agency is needed to deconflict the bandwidth used by an in individual radio/TV station in a given region. That will cross state lines. They should have no say over content. The same with the EPA -- a company dumping toxic waste in the Cuyahoga river will effect those downstream. But some of the super fund sites are a colossal waste of money.
And the local government should be questioned about its involvement in public utilities. Trash removal should be by private companies -- never the city. Another example is the monopolies given to cable companies. Why should I be screwed by Time-Warner Cable when Comcast could do it for $10 less a month.
The whole point of this little essay is that any government involvement in the free market is putting a 150 lb. orangutan to a 1000 lb. gorilla in the room when a private deal is made between John Q. Public and Acme Corp.
Jim P. at July 7, 2011 8:25 PM
A paralibrarian? It sounds like you make about $30k from your post, and I assure you that's what you deserve if not over. If a high schooler can be taught to do your job, you should be lucky you get anything at all.
momof4 at July 8, 2011 6:52 AM
JD,
Got any facts, data, analysis, research, or statistics to back up your two posts? You seem to use "we" and "us" alot---got a mouse in your pocket?
Yeah, I thought so.
Everyone has choices in life, and our lives are dictated by those choices. I made a choice to work for the Government and I accept it. Other people made different choices, and they must accept them as well.
mike at July 8, 2011 8:35 AM
mike - Got any facts, data, analysis, research, or statistics to back up your two posts?
See: 2010 elections.
cornerdemon - So for those who say "we don't want any government employees", I assume your using hyperbole. Because I think that most people value libraries, parks, the DMV, public utilities, and so on and so forth. If you're like me, what you want is less actual government, and cutting fatty, expensive "vanity" positions, and thinning the ranks of the upper echelon as much as the day-to-day schlubs.
Sure, I'll agree with your second point - cut all government employees, upper echelon and the day-to-day schlubs. But to your first point - yes, I value parks and libraries, etc. But I have absolutely no use for the overpaid, overpensioned, often rude, lazy, incompetent "schlubs" who work for these entities.
In an age when there are literally millions of skilled and unskilled people out of work in this country, why is it that we should be paying people tax dollars to do work (often badly) that other people would happily do for much, much less?
JDThompson at July 8, 2011 10:33 AM
Good one JD. Really got me there. Yawn.
mike at July 8, 2011 12:15 PM
Ok, mike, sorry reality is unappealing to you. Instead, how about you answer the question I asked of cornerdemon:
In an age when there are literally millions of skilled and unskilled people out of work in this country, why is it that we should be paying people tax dollars to do work (often badly) that other people would happily do for much, much less?
JDThompson at July 8, 2011 1:14 PM
"literally millions of skilled and unskilled people out of work in this country..." Evidence? Data? Facts?
"(often badly)" Once again, do you have anything to back this statement up?
"that other people would happily do for much, much less" Wow, you can't really present any facts to support this one either can you?
JD, if it is your opinion, please state so, instead of acting like these are all factual statements.
Are you in high school or something?
And, actually, I love my reality.
mike at July 8, 2011 7:53 PM
""literally millions of skilled and unskilled people out of work in this country..." Evidence? Data? Facts?"
It's in the news every goddam day, Mike. Unemployment went up this month to 9.2%. This is the longest stretch of above-8%-unemployment we've had for as long as the government has been keeping statistics. Underemployment is estimated to be northwards of 15%. If you really are ignorant of this, you're either too ignorant to have an opinion on it, or you're being deliberately obtuse.
BTW, the "sucks to be you" attitude you exhibit towards private sector employees is one reason that everyone's down on government employees.
Cousin Dave at July 8, 2011 8:15 PM
I am unemployed now, so one less prom to pay mike's salary, owe wait. China pays mike's salary
ron at July 8, 2011 8:55 PM
As far as unemployment I am sure it is still dubyas fault
ron at July 8, 2011 10:24 PM
"literally millions of skilled and unskilled people out of work in this country..." Evidence? Data? Facts?
Cousin Dave already grabbed this one, but, yeah - mike - this is one of those things you really should know as a (presumed) adult. But since you insist, I'll show my work:
Unemployment is at 9.2%. Real unemployment is somewhere around 15%. But let's use the lower, Obama-approved number.
The US population, per the latest census (according to a quick Google search) is more than 307 million people. But again, let's round down to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Therefore, consistently rounding down, using the lowest possible numbers, there are somewhere around 28 million unemployed people in the US right now. It's quite possible that the actual number is closer to 45 million.
Is that enough data for you on that one?
"(often badly)" Once again, do you have anything to back this statement up?
Personal experience and the generally poor state of our nation's public schools, the post office, city, state and federal government?
"that other people would happily do for much, much less" Wow, you can't really present any facts to support this one either can you?
No, you're right, there's no data to support this statement. There is, however, a rudimentary understanding of human nature, which tells me that someone who's unemployed would be happy to do some work to earn some money, even if it's less than another person has been getting paid to do the same job.
And, actually, I love my reality.
I'm sure you do. Ignorance is bliss.
I've taken the time to respond to your insults and provide some basic facts where appropriate, facts I'm sure you already knew but were just trying to ignore. All I ask is that you answer a single question for me:
Why, in a time when millions of Americans are unemployed (see my work above), should we continue to pay government employees to do menial, low-skilled and highly-skilled jobs that other Americans are willing to do for less money?
JDThompson at July 9, 2011 6:36 AM
Leave a comment