While average Americans have seen their wages and benefits stagnate, decrease, or even vanish altogether in recent years, federal workers have been doing very well for themselves. In August USA Today reported that “federal employees’ average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn” and that these same “workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row.

The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.”

Those salary increases for federal employees have really added up, according to a new USA Today analysis, which found that “the number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years” — rising from 7,420 in 2005 to 82,034 in 2010 — “and doubled since President Obama took office.” The percentage of the federal workforce earning over $150,000 increased from 0.4 percent to 3.9 percent during that same timeframe. “Since 2000,” says the paper, “federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”

Among the key findings of the analysis is that “top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency.” The report mentions specifically that “the Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June” — a pattern that hardly comports with neoconservatives’ portrayals of Obama as a defense-budget slasher.

Those who have been on Uncle Sam’s payroll for 15 to 24 years got the biggest raises. “Since 2005,” says USA Today, “average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.” Yes, you read that correctly: While civilians were struggling to make ends meet in a recession, many federal workers saw their salaries — not counting their extraordinarily generous benefits — increase by a quarter, with every penny coming out of the pockets of those same struggling taxpayers.

The analysis also found that “medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.” Though still a huge increase, this is, perhaps, more justifiable based on the salaries of private-sector physicians. However, if Washington would refrain from sending so many people into aggressive, unconstitutional wars and from criminalizing behavior outside the scope of its constitutional authority — activities that in themselves would save taxpayers countless dollars — most of the veterans’ hospital and prison doctors would not be needed.

The President has proposed a 1.4 percent raise for 2.1 million federal workers in the next fiscal year, a fairly modest increase compared to the increases documented by USA Today but still one that must be funded by taxpayers. National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley — who, of course, has a vested interest in obtaining higher salaries for federal employees — told the paper that the raise “‘should be implemented’ to help make salaries more comparable with those in the private sector.” This conveniently ignores the fact that federal compensation is, as mentioned above, more than twice that of the private sector for comparable jobs.

A better suggestion is the one offered by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who will lead a panel overseeing federal pay in the session of Congress beginning November 15. Chaffetz, writes USA Today, “says he wants a pay freeze and prefers a 10% pay cut. ‘It’s stunning when you see what’s happened to federal compensation,’ he says. ‘Every metric shows we’re heading in the wrong direction.’”

Better still would be to follow Great Britain’s lead and start eliminating government jobs altogether. The British government expects to drop almost half a million people from its payroll over the next four years. The U.S. government could easily afford to shed at least as many employees. If this means that fewer regulations are written and enforced, fewer taxes are collected, and fewer wars are fought, the savings in compensation for the laid-off workers will be the least of its benefits.

Photo: AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Eric said:

... I'm a conservative who works in the Defense industry and I don't know any Federal employee who makes over 150K per year. That's probably because only 4% make that much. This article doesn't disclose the fact that this percentage matches the private sector. Most Federal employees make only a fraction of that amount. It also fails to disclose that the average Federal employee is about two decades older than the average private sector employee and also has more than double the education and experience. I'm not downplaying the private sector, but the Federal government doesn't employ unskilled workers. Many Federal employees are veterans since they receive considerable preference and actually worked in the Federal government while in the military. Experience and hard work should be rewarded with higher salaries, whether you work for the Federal government or not. What this report also fails to disclose is that the average contractor costs the government over 200K. I know because I work in the Finance department. Most private sector contractors will not take government jobs because they know they make much more in the private sector for the same work. I know we're having a hard time attracting talent with the relatively low salaries offered in the Federal government. To dispel some other myths, the federal government's pension fund is well funded and only compensates about 25% pay and averages about $1500 a month. Pensions are so low because they were completely overhauled in the eighties under Reagan. The changes were not retroactive so Feds retiring now are among the first to be affected. The reason few Feds are retiring is that they can't afford it.

November 11, 2010

Eric said:

The real problem Why aren’t more people addressing the real reason wages are stagnant and benefits are eroding in the private sector? Private companies are being forced to lower costs in order to compete with world markets, such as China. The trade imbalance with China is destroying the living standard in America. American corporations can only compete by ultimately lowering salaries to the slave wages employed in emerging markets throughout the world. Instead of formulating legislation to tackle this problem, politicians are creating targets of distraction that will further accelerate the destruction of the American lifestyle as we know it. Cutting salaries and benefits for more American workers will only justify greater cuts ahead for all Americans in both private and public sectors. People need to wake up to the real problem or they will face a new world order where other countries will “level the playing field” for Americans by bringing them down to their standards.

November 11, 2010

kuudbe said:

... I would love to see a further breakdown. I bet the vast majority of those federal "workers" raking in over $150,000 per year are extracting exactly $199,999.99 per year which would explain why Obama and the democrats define rich as one earning over $200,000 per year.

November 14, 2010