Pay/Benefits Cuts Proposed by Senate Budget Committee

By on April 17, 2012 in News readers will no doubt remember last year’s budget plan from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (aka the Simpson-Bowles plan). It contained a number of cuts to help get the federal deficit under control, including some that would directly impact federal employees.

Even though the Fiscal Commission’s plan failed to get the votes needed to move forward in Congress, if you thought you’ve heard the last of this plan, think again. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced today that he’s using the Commission’s plan as a blueprint for the Senate budget plan.

Speaking on the plan, Conrad said, “I will begin a Budget Committee markup of a long-term budget for the nation. As my Chairman’s Mark, I will lay down the bipartisan Fiscal Commission plan, also known as the Bowles-Simpson plan. It is a plan which I believe represents the best blueprint from which to build a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement that can ultimately be adopted.”

So what does this mean if you’re a federal worker? Here’s a refresher on some of what the Simpson-Bowles plan contains:

  • Impose a three-year freeze on pay for members of Congress
  • Impose a three-year pay freeze on federal workers and Defense Department civilians
  • Reduce the size of the federal workforce 10% through attrition
  • Reduce federal travel, printing, and vehicle budgets
  • Use the highest five years of earnings to calculate civil service pension benefits for new retirees (CSRS and FERS), rather than the highest three years prescribed under current law, to bring the benefit calculation in line with the private sector standard

I wrote an article at the time the plan was originally released that offers some additional details.

Why this plan? Conrad said that he thinks it’s the best approach for achieving agreement on a long term budget plan: “I had considered presenting a budget that reflected the general consensus among the Democratic Members of the Committee. However, after considerable consultations with my colleagues, I have determined that would not be the most effective approach. The fact is that many plans have already been offered that lean right or lean left. Adding another to the stack would do little to move us closer to a bipartisan agreement that can actually be adopted. The Fiscal Commission Budget Plan provides a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction framework that we can build upon. It is not perfect, but it does represent a middleground, consensus solution to the country’s fiscal imbalance.”

© 2016 Ian Smith. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Ian Smith.

About the Author

Ian Smith is one of the co-founders of He enjoys writing about current topics that affect the federal workforce. Ian also has a background in web development and does the technical work for the web site and its sibling sites.

186 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. Tutu says:

    The rich do pay the same taxes as the middle class.  They pay the same tax on interest and dividends and capital gains. The fact that they get their income from money they have earned and saved and choose the above investments is simply their choice.   If you want to get more of their money, lower their cap on the  mortgage interest for their homes, cap their contributions to charities, etc., that are currently very large.  Also, close loopholes, subsidies, and reduced depreciation for equipment, vehicles, etc..  Of course, that will just make prices rise for food, and other consumer products to everyone, but it will take money from the rich and give to the govt to continue to spend as fast as they get it. Should we still be paying farmers not to grow crops, allow businesses to write off millions of dollars with tax credits for new equipment?   Taxing them more will only reduce hiring and growing of businesses.  The only way out of this mess is to grow the economy.  If more people work, they pay more taxes and make the businesses more profitable.  Govt workers do not produce any product or profits and do not hire anyone.  They provide services only.  They are necessary and many of them do wonderful work, but there is a lot of waste both in over hiring and buying things that are not needed.

  2. Randy says:

    I haven’t heard any Congressman or the President talk about reducing the money they are giving away to other countries to help with the budget.  It’s all about taking away from the Federal workers.

  3. Paralegirl says:

    When will they finally get the guts to just freeze the defined benefit plan once and for all? It’s outmoded, outdated, and simply too expensive to continue funding.

    • guestgov says:

      What is the “defined benefit plan”?

      • JG4 says:

        CSRS is a total defined benefit plan you contribute to a plan that pays you a pension for life, TSP is a defined contribution plan, the company matches contributions up to a specifed amount.

        Now it’s important to understand that in the private sector (based on experience) there are no laws or mandates that state that a company has to make any contribution and they can and will curtail their contribution. Example: Caesars Palace employee’s company contributions used to be up to 5% match, about 4 years ago they stopped matching contributions and recently they re-introduced the match but only up to 3%..


        • guestgov says:

          Soo why does paralegirl think defined benefit plans are “ outmoded, outdated, and simply too expensive to continue funding”….??????.

          • JG4 says:

            Because across they years defined benefit plans became a burden as they were not funded but became part of the yearly operating overhead as the liabilities grew it became a huge burden of their own making, so the next step was to offer a plan that didn’t expose their stupidity (or maybe not) of not funding retirements as needed…. It was easier on corporations to dump the defined benefit… but what could they offer… enter defined contributions “hey we will match you up to X% of your contributions” BUT and it’s a big one they don’t have too..

            flash forward to today and realize that the USPS has over funded their retirement system to the tune of 50-70 billion?

    • Harold says:

      It’s also being considered to transfer SS funds from the retiree fund to the disability fund. The solution to Medicare is to reduce payments to doctors to the point that 65 and older will not have access to medical care. Sounds like retirees whether they be SS,CERS, FERS have their income and benefits reduced to fund the overspending.

  4. lazycs says:

    Finally some Dems are willling to stand up to the fed workforce and let them know their sky high wages are ending

  5. Spanishrose21 says:

    Obviously DOD and GSA could use some cut backs, given their recent reported usage of funds.  Go after those who WASTE, not those who work!

    • Fatbak6441 says:

      Keep in mine, lazycs is not looking to save taxpayers money. lazycs wants the usage of funds to go towards contractors.

  6. Federaled Up says:

    Too bad.  Conrad is a good egg.  But on this point he has been buffaloed.

  7. kentjax says:

    Stick it to the Federal workers again, instead of tackling the problem head on just to satisfy the media and make the public think they are really solving our fiscal problems.


    Extremely simple no-brainer solution:
    Just offer Early-Outs to all eligible federal employees!
    Hundreds of thousands of eager volunteers who just want to help out! Stop all the bluffing and just start rolling out the Early-Out offers. All of this other silly old and tired misinformed nonsense is DOA in the Senate. Please let me do my part to help out! Where do I sign?

  9. Tired of being a scapegoat! says:

    Why should the federal government be required “to bring the benefit calculation in line with the private sector standard”?  This will directly impact federal employees’ lives of dedicated, long-term, loyal service.   Why does the current administration continue to send American funds out of this country and continue to support illegal aliens who gained entry into this country illegally – costing America billions of dollars?   The so-called “National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform” has its’ focus pointed in the wrong direction; let’s redirect economic reductions where they belong!!!  Federal employees and retirees are being used as scape goats and we are weary of being forced to live on less when we have dedicated our lives to America’s best interests!

    • Guest says:

      A cynic would say that the Congress serves its campaign contributors, not the citizenry.

      I’m a cynic.

    • lazycs says:

      Beacuse that’s what the TAXPAYERS who fund govt are demanding

      • tport2 says:

        Wrong again, only a small “rich” taxpayers and the “sheeple” that believe the rhetoric the rich feed them to follow.  Which are you?

  10. Fed Up Fed says:

    Do they really think downsizing through attrition will do the job?  I was in charge of a multi-million dollar grant program, with 35 states participating.  Of the millions in grant funds, we could use ZERO funds for compliance measures.  We had neither the funding nor the staffing to ensure the program was being run properly.  When I adopted some crosschecks and internal controls, some states actually gave money back; others told me they could get by with zero funding for the year.  As it turned out, some states were using the grant funds to pad their state budgets.  Still, we did not have the resources to dig into our suspicions more deeply.  These politicos cut budgets to the point that agencies cannot perform the duties for which they are responsible, then blame federal employees for not doing their jobs and use that as an excuse to cut funding even more.  Sometimes I think the politicos WANT federal agencies to be unable to function so they can promote their own agendas.  Pitiful.

    • lazycs says:

      Sounds like you fail to deploy your resources properly or even have any controls in place from the beginning

  11. gatsby says:

      I am about sick of both Republicans AND Democrats!  They all base their political agendas on the backs of the people.  It’s a political game for all of them…it’s all about getting reelected….they could care less about the people as long as they have their HUGE salaries and limos, trips, and all of the perks they gladly  take.  Look how much the President spends just on trips for him and his family!  It’s more than most federal workers make in year, not to mention the rest of the clown in Washington, which included ALL of them!!

  12. Barry says:

    How about they just figure out the annuity for new federal retirees, I retired on 12/31/11 and so far am only receiving 56% of my annuity- not the 80% that they claim! What a crock!
    I have no idea and have received no answer when I call OPM- for what is my money.

  13. Scubawomin says:

    Attrition….such a lovely word. All this means is that lower GS workers get to do the jobs of higher grades who retire. I see this in my own agency. People leave, higher paygrade then I make yet I am doing a lot of their job duties. The upper staff delegate all the dirty jobs they don’t want to us lowly grade workers.   How come if the work force is going to get smaller, why am I not being AT LEAST compensated fairly for my knowledge and skills??  How about bumping my grade up a notch or too? If I  am doing my job and a completely different higher position along side it ?Government is still saving money while I am still working hard and would at least feel appreciated!  Not ever employee is a career lateral employee, some are in excepted permanent positions with no perks and no real  opportunities to seek other government jobs on a competitive basis.

    • lazycs says:

      Do you make more than the minium wage?? If the answer is yes your being fairly compensated

  14. wildcardk says:

    I have an idea, how about reducing the number of senators and congressmen, we don’t need that many, lets say cut them by 15% what do you think of that, it would save a lot of money and just think of all the crooks that would be out of a job.

  15. Manage This! says:


    The B.S. will never stop as long as bleeding hearts keep paying people to stand on street corners and beg for money.  Everyone feels sorry for those who are homeless and pitty the ones with kids who cannot afford to feed them.
    Unfortunately, nearly everyone who helps them has forgotten the basic rule of life.

    ONLY THE FITTEST SURVIVE – that is how nature intended that the weak are weeded out to ensure the survival (and improvement) of the species.  Just keep fighting the force of nature and pretty soon – the whole of humanity (as equals) will join the dodo’s in extinction.  Then nature will start again with a better model.

    • Mad Hatter says:

      You present the strict Darwinian point of view. On the other hand, there was that Jesus guy who said “as you do to the least of these, you do unto me>”

      • Guest says:

        Agreed.  That being said, there’s also 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 : 

        For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

        Perhaps the key word here is “will”.

    • guest again says:

      ManageThis,   yes sad but true, this is part of our “animal” nature…and population control will eventually kick in…We do need to draw a line somewhere in all this rescue …especially when we (the USA) are and have sacrificed our own in order to “save the rest of the world”…there needs to be limits placed on sacrificing our own and limits place on who “we” save  because we do not have the resources to save everyone!!!

  16. charlessr says:

    us federal workers that make $40,500 a year schould not have a pay freeze on us at all.there are some federal worker that make less then $40,500 a year. it is very hard for us to pay our rent and other bills that we have. those that are married and have kids,this freeze makes it harder. why do e have to suffer when the PRES. PUTS A FREEZE ON ALL FEDERAL WORKERS MAKING LESS THEN $45,000 A YEAR. WHY????  THE PRES. SPENDS ALL HE WANT TO AND PUTS THE USA IN BAD PLACE. HE HAS SPENT MORE IN 3 YEARS THEN ANY OTHER PRES. HAS SPENT. THE PRES. SCHOULD FREEZE HIS OWN PAY AND DO WITHOUT THINGS THAT HE WANTS OR NEEDS FOR HIS FAMILY.  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO MR. PRES.?????

  17. N0TaLIB says:

    How about Obama cuts back his vacations and golf games to half as many? 
    That would still be more than Bush took in his entire eight years….

    • Guest says:

      I don’t think that’s fair.  I suspect that almost all President’s are under constant, heave stress.  They shoulder burdens on a daily basis that you and I can only imagine.

      I suspect that without the vacations they take, they’d be more likely to crack under the pressure and start making truly (even more) stupid mistakes.

      • lazycs says:

        Nah not this guy can you give me just 1 day that he worked 8 hours?

        • nonfednowfed says:

          Can you construct a paragraph using more than one sentence? Your posts consist of unsupported caustic accusations and nothing else. What do you or did you do for a living? Do you serve our country or simply take from it? What credentials do you have to pretend to be an expert in everyone’s business? I can continue to scold you and question everyone of your posts. However, I hope you get the idea that it is easy to accuse anyone of anything. Just as you go through each post to make a single sentence nasty comment, so could any of us do that to you. If you truly want to debate, I suggest that you use facts to explain your point of view instead of attacking people who serve this country. Each nasty comment that you make brings those who are already tired of the blame Congress puts on employees, closer to leaving to take a better paying private job. When, due to employee exodus, the government can longer administer your retirement nor your social security, protect you from terrorists, support the infrastructure of your city, insure that your next meal doesn’t maim or kill you, prevent your bank from illegally foreclosing on your house and so on, perhaps you will appreciate what federal employees once did. Then, it will be too late as you and others will have driven people from working for the country. Then, not to worry as you can apply for your monthly check at the self service line. Your check will arrive shortly, before the year ends, maybe. Thank you for your service. Good bye…..                  

          • lazycs says:

            My writing is based on the education level of the audience. So in your case i write at the 5th grade level so you don’t have to place your finger under every word to understand.

            I’m a taxpayer so I contribute far more to this country than you ever will.

            Credentials I have many which one are you questioning?

            the majority of my posts are based on facts and I am 99% accurate.

            Taking a better paying job in the private sector??? Doing what?? there isn’t a large market for surfing the web, playing video games or applying for OWCP. Besides the private sector requires you to work 40 hours a week twice what you currently do.

            Lets see the gov’t currently doesn’t protect me from terrorists only DOD does that, The Fed govt doesn’t build my roads the federal govt rules and regulations stated the housing debacle. As for protecting my next meal let’s see the death rate from poor oversight averages 200 people a year  

        • tport2 says:

          The day he gave the go ahead order to take out Osama bin Laden. Nuff said.

  18. Fed Up! says:

    I love the GOP!  I was planning to send part of my pension to Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch, Rush,  Sean, Mitch and John B. anyway. Now I don’t even have to find a stamp and envelope!  They so need more of my excessive earned income so they can employ more people as chauffeurs, garden workers, caddies, etc.  I just can’t understand why Warren Buffet doesn’t want more of my money.  : (   

    All my love GOP!

    • Ralph says:

      What are you harping about now?  This is a Senate proposal with Democrat sponsors.  The Senate is controlled by Democrats you dunce.

  19. Dsfasfas says:

    So let me get this right.  Don’t touch the tax code of millionaires but balance the budget on the backs of folks who make decidedly less.

    • lazycs says:

      and contribute a whole lot less

      • tport2 says:

        It’s about the percentage paid of one’s income.  “and contribute less”, less what?  Money, time, effort?  Your state degrades the 95% of middle and blue collar workers in this country that are trying to make and pay their fair share of taxes whether income, sales property, etc.  

  20. Knightofdecembre says:

    Reduce the number of congressional members by 10%  – that would leave only 80% of them that really don’t do anything.Reduce congressional budgets.  Have congressmen share offices – 4 cubes per officeEliminate pensions for Congressmen – Obama “asked” government employees to “sacrifice”.  Why aren’t congressional members also sacrificing (and, give me a break on freezing congressional pay. How many would REALLY hurt? – to get there, you generally have to have a war chest and have been well off to run).

  21. bragtime says:

    This Democrat is playing a dangerous game; to attack Federal employees in an election year seems ludicrus-the Rebulicans are doing a great job without the help of Democrats. This guy needs his head examined.

  22. Bob says:

    Can someone explain how people who don’t work and receive food stamps and all kinds of other assistance can receive thousands back from the IRS when they don’t make any money or pay taxes???
    I just found out that this person just returned from over two weeks’ vacation in Orlando and is planning to visit Hawaii on vacation with her $6,000 dollar tax return. 

  23. NCSandtiger says:

    Yes, let’s reduce pay for the federal employees that actually WORK for a living, while maintaing or increasing benefits for the layabouts on welfare.  Brilliant!  Does Sen. Conrad not know that if you tax something, you get less of it (productivity), but if you subsidize it (inactivity), you get MORE of it?

    • Guest says:

      I agree.  BUT… let’s also fire those federal employees who DON’T work for a living.

      A major, well-documented flaw in the CS rules is that firing bad workers very often takes an exorbitant amount of time and expense.  This demoralizes everyone, and brings the whole CS into disrepute.

  24. Mike Grubbs says:

    Instead of screwing the federal workforce why aren’t we eliminating welfare?  Paying people to lay on the couch waiting for the next government check is destroying this country.  I don’t care if people go hungry.  HUNGER is what motivates people to work not waiting for the next government check.

    • Guest says:

      I think when Liberals contemplate welfare, they think of children and other victims of circumstance.  I.e., cases that even most conservatives wouldn’t mind temporarily paying to help with.

      And when Conservatives contemplate welfare, they think of the people who abuse it, and who lose motivation to work, and of women getting pregnant on purpose knowing the Government will pay their bills, etc.

      I’m sure there are many welfare recipients who fall into each group.  But which of those groups comes to mind probably influences how ready one is to cut welfare.

    • IAmSamIAm says:

      KEEP them on the couch — I don’t want them competing for jobs, with some employer getting a tax break for hiring them to work 30 hours per week, minimum wage & no beneifts, and drive everyone’s standard of living down to a Dickens-style Republican utopia. 

      It’s sort of like our decision in Iraq & Afghanistan to pay the Taliban $10k a head not to shoot at us, anymore — a LOT cheaper than training new soldiers and paying to fix the wounded ones.

    • worker says:

      yeh, but the work they do might not be appreciated by you.  They might rob banks or others, sell drugs, etc.  I do agree that, if a person is capable of working, that person should be trained to work and get a job, even if it is picking up trash in the parks.

  25. Andy says:

    These people are idiots.  They are incapable of making real, substantive changes so they focus on trivial matters and attack federal employees.  If they really cared they would cut their own pay, put themselves on the FEHB and retirement systems that the real civil servants have to pay for, and they would cut all the billions in pork that really constitute unnecessary spending.  Unfortunately, politicians don’t really care about real work or change.

    • Guest says:

      Very constructive comment.  Might want to try toning down the “idiots” part and someone that doesn’t agree with you might, just might, actually hear what you have to say.

      • worker says:

        Not really.  They might listen if they do not get the services they want because there are too few federal employees for the work that needs to be done.  And Andy is writing about the radical right republicans, the heritage foundation, and cato.

      • guestwo says:

        You’re right. Who do those Repubs think they are!  Oh, my bad.  Conrad is a Democrat!!!Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) announced today that he’s using the Commission’s plan as a blueprint for the Senate budget plan.

    • Guest says:

      If the whole CS payroll is chump-change, then that’s doubly true of the cost of Congressional salaries and benefits.

      But I agree about the port and unnecessary spending.  The fact that Congress rarely touches big-ticket items like defense, entitlements, and overall tax code shows how corrupt and/or ineffective they are.

    • lazycs says:

      and eliminate 60% of the CS workforce that isn’t needed

  26. NJ-APG says:

    As a DoD civilian for 18 years, I have no issues with this plan and would like them to stop tricking the public with calling it a freeze when we still get steps.  It ‘s a joke and just adds to the public view of congress and civilian workers as crooks when the truth gets exposed.  They would get more savings if they took away the automatic steps and just gave a 1% COLA. 

    • me says:

      How about you zip your mouth for allowing the idea that all fed employees can afford an absolute freeze on pay and that stopping in steps is a great idea.  Step increases aren’t a gimme every year, granted I haven’t seen anybody get denied for a WSI but I also don’t think that hasn’t been anybody underserving of this either.  I understand your probably some GS-15 who can’t sore any higher on the payscale anyway so why would it matter to you that in steps cease to exist.  Besides the in step increases have already made light in the public and no there wasn’t any cry of outrage that this exist.  I was in the private sector for years and the benefits were quite comparable to ours and I was in retail so I’m tired of people saying we have so so much better.  If we do then why hasn’t everybody in the private sector jumped ship yet?  The grass is always greenier on the other side until you get there and realize it’s astro turf!

      • Guest says:

        So you’re basically telling NJ-APG that we shouldn’t pursue honesty in the public debate of CS pay, because it’s more important that you get a raise?

        • tport2 says:

          Why not look at it in a different way.  Perhaps what needs to be done is the private sector workers should be receiving higher pay from the owners of their business since the businesses don’t pay into pension funds anymore.  And why did private companies quit paying into employee pension funds?  You know why.  So instead of rushing everyone to the bottom, why don’t you try to climb to the top.

    • mbehr says:

      I saw one comment that says civilian government employees do not put their lives on the line.  How about the FBI, CIA, Border Patrol, and US Forest Service and National Park rangers? There have been guards in Federal Buildings that have lost their lives. So many make unsubstantiated declarations based on emotion rather than fact.  

      • Guest says:

        Fair enough.  I was actually thinking about DoD civilians when I posted that.  No disrespect meant to the civilians who do risk their lives.

      • lazycs says:

        what about the taxpayers who put their lives on the line dealing with those agencies

  27. RicknATL says:

    It would be outrageous, if not sickening that they would further penalize federal employees, but not make the rich pay the same income tax rates as those same middle class federal employees (Buffett Rule).  When are the rich going to share the pain?

    • Freedom says:

      Rick, I understand your frustration with freezing fed pay further, but since BHO thinks everything should be fair and the “rich” should pay their fair share. Have you looked at how much revenue the Buffet Rule would bring in? I heard it would pay for 11 HOURS of our national debt.

      Rich people who have earned their wealth HAVE been taxed on that money once and then the govt. wants to tax it AGAIN (capital gains) when they have risked it in the stock market to realize hopefully a positive return. Oh and then when they die, the govt. taxes their net worth once again!

      So I really believe the “rich” are paying MOR than their fair share. And by the way, you still have the freedom to go out and become “rich” yourself.

      • guest again says:

        My capital gain for 2011 was $97.00…my tax on this $97.00 was $28.00..which is almost 30%…soooo how does Warren Buffet et. al.   only pay 17% on his billions $$$$$$$$ of capital gains????  ps my pension and other  income is under 40K sooo ????????

        • Fed Up! says:

          You need to hire their tax lawyers to get you that other $10 bucks!

        • worker says:

          Probably a short term capital gain.  Long term would be taxed from 0 to a little less than $15

          • guestgov says:

            Nope Long TermCapital Gain!!…I still have not fiqured out why that small $97.00 is taxed at almost 30%…I follwed IRS instructions and read instructions more than a dozen times..

      • Guest says:

        It seems to me that we just don’t have a clear standard to which we can appeal when talking about the “right” amount of taxation for a given group.  

        Even intelligent men of good will seem to reach different conclusions about what the “fairest” tax code would be.

        So I think we should approach this discussion as one to reconcile / compromise opinions, rather than to assume that there’s any one right answer.

        • Fed Up! says:

          You know you’ve drunk too much red-Kool-aid when you don’t know the meaning of the word “fair”. 

          • Guest says:

            I’ll owe you a cup of coffee it you can come up with a definition of “fair”, in the context of a tax code, that 90% of adults would agree upon.

          • Fed Up! says:

            82% of adults think the rich should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us.  Thats dam close to your 90% and why the R-TP will be swept out of office in Nov. 

          • Ralph says:

            Please explain it to us uninformed masses.  Should multimillion dollar Unions still be tax exempt also in your definition of fair?

      • CivilUnrested says:

        Did you even pay any attention to the meeting yesterday or just watch the highlights on Fox news? Over the next 10 years that’s over $67 billion dollars. These cuts they want to make on civilian employees are not even close to being that high in savings. So tell me again why the Buffet Rule is a bad idea? What I found most interesting is how they tried to turn it into a no benefit to the government plan by saying it’d only pay for half a day of what the government spends but when it came to the plan parenthood discussion at $300 million a year; it’s cost was too high. So $6.7 billion a year in revenue is nothing but paying $300 million is way too much? Explain that reasoning.

        FYI, no they haven’t been taxed fairly and paid their fair share.  Romney paid 13.9% in taxes for 2010. That’s fair? Last I checked that’s far lower than the middle class pays.

        • Grumpy says:

          The Buffett Rule only applies to approx 400 taxpayers. If Buffett really wants to lend his name, I suggest he first pay his taxes. Secondly, It’s pure class warfare and won’t come close to attaining the savings projected by politicians. Check out Marylands “Tax the Wealthy” results.
          If you’re serious in wanting to square away the budget, then I have a suggestion: A 10% cut across the board. No pet pigs, No special Projects, No Obama Money…10% off each and every dollar every agency and department in government. When you’ve made the rounds, then look for another 10% and another and another…eventually the size and scope of government will be balanced. But no, we’ll play their class envy games until this great nation goes the way of Greece, all because the hard way isn’t easy and people have to take responsibility for their lives.

        • Guest says:

          Planned Parenthood’s true cost isn’t measured dollars spent, but in infants murdered.

          • IAmSamIAm says:

            Dang right!  We wants to keep all them unwanted children alive so we can use them for targets when we Stand Our Ground,
            or when we cut school funding to lower our taxes, or when we cut after school
            programs to lower our taxes, or when we cut school lunch programs to lower our
            taxes, or just so we can give more tax breaks to rich people who will
            maybe hire them uneducated slackers to mow their lawns and clean their gutters
            (before we put their ignorant selves in jail or shoot them, that is).

          • little taxpayer says:

            Wish I was allowed to get rid of “unwanted” people.

          • Pro Choice says:

            You can if they are in your body.

          • lazycs says:

            yea that way we can bring in millions of illegals every year because we need workers

          • Ralph says:

            We have millions of uneducated slackers now even after paying for schools and lunches, etc.  More money to our public education system is just throwing good money after bad.

          • Pro Choice says:

            Planned parenthood allows women to choose what to do with their bodies.  You have no right to tell a woman that she cannot have the fetus in her body removed.  Women are not your slaves.  If your wife does not want an abortion, that is between you and her.  But leave the other women alone.

          • Ralph says:

            But taxpayers should not have to fund abortion.  If you want to have the child, feed and clothe it at your own expense.  If you choose to abort it, do that at your own expense also.

          • guestgov says:

            Taxpayers do NOT Fund abortion!!..The abortion Funds in PPhood used to be and I think still is funded only with private contributions and only to those who do not have their own money to pay for abortion and to pay to raise a child!!!

          • lazycs says:

            Murder is still murder

          • guestgov says:

            @lazycs:disqus …If you want to pay your own money for the medical expenses, food , shelter, education, etc for the “unwanted children” then do so..NOBODY WILL STOP YOU!!..Have you been doing so???  BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSIST THAT MY MONEY BE SPENT RAISING UNWANTED CHILDREN!!
              I do agree that abortions should only be done in the first 7 weeks!!! and for incest and life threatening to the Mother!!
            Taxpayers do NOT Fund abortion!!..The abortion Funds in PPhood used to be and I think still is funded only with “private contributions NoT TAX FUNDS” and only to those who do not have their own money to pay for abortion and to pay to raise a child!!!..It used to be that TAX funds paid for pap smears, STDS testing and treatment, birth control education, condoms, birth control pills via PPhood and County health departments!!!

          • lazycs says:

            and you don’t have the right to committ murder

          • guest says:

            You also do NOT have the right to commit murder!!!

          • bbf says:


            You are able to post here at this site because your mother chose life.

          • guestgov says:

            okay Christian…What about the people who are murdered by “unwanted children”?????  What is that True cost??

          • lazycs says:


        • worker says:

          Although I can understand your position and agree with some of it, you cannot set 30% as a minimum.  First, you cannot tax non federal bonds.  Second, you must give some incentive (capital gains rates) for investors.  I think raising the marginal tax rates for the wealthy would be a better approach.  And let them take advantage of the tax system as long as it is legal.

        • lazycs says:

          Exactly that’s why Conrad is going after the $100B that we are currently spending on premium wages for CS

        • Ralph says:

          It is very unlikely that most middle class workers actually pay 14% in taxes.  Your rate before deductions may be higher but you pay far less than the published rate.

        • guestwo says:

          He invested in municipal funds and other lower taxed investments.  Just like J Kerry.  But when a  Dem does it it’s okay!

        • Guest says:

          $67 billion over ten years? That is .017% of spending over that same ten years, if spending does not increase without any effects of inflation taken into consideration.

          It is also .024% of revenue during that same period of time, sure go ahead and pass this legislation but there will be zero effect

          Romney did pay 13.9% in taxes, is that fair…the current legislature and administration extended the Bush tax cuts. Those are taxes on savings which we should not be taxing anway, especially for the middle class. The income tax is a much “fairer” tax and the majority of Romney’s taxes is on capital gains and interest not income taxes.

        • Tutu says:

           Romney paid the same rate of taxes on dividends and capital gains as someone who earned less dividends and capital gains.  He paid millions of dollars to the govt.  He paid what the IRS requires of each of us.  I am middle class and paid the same rate as he did for the dividends and capital gains I earned.  Millions of folks do the same. Only folks who have no investments or do not sell anything for a capital gain do not pay.

      • Athud says:

         BHO – Code for something beside calling him by name or title? 

        “BHO” isn’t the only one with that thought.  72% of Americans also think the same.  While I agree that the “Buffet Rule” is whimpy and catchy, that doesn’t change that most Americans agree with “BHO”.  Our tax codes have been written over time to support political agendas instead of just supporting government expenditures.

        A “fair” tax without carving out exemptions for special political interests would, in effect, make for lower taxes across the board.  Yes, it would still have to have some progressive elements to it but even that can be minimized to some extent. 

        • Bowie_63 says:

          Please look at the facts about the Divide and COncur Campaign.  The game is to divide again and again until the control group is at “One”.  Then everyone is against and afraid of everyone else, no nation, no common values, no common goals.  Socialism and Nationalisms, both employed these tools quite effectively under Stalin and Hitler.  Change and Hope were quite catchy terms in 2008, but the end result has not been beneficial to the groups who idolize the one you mention as BHO.  Inner city unemployment is far worse now and this summer will continue the trend.  Some of the other comments concerning scaling down the size and scope of Government were good, but I suspect the Spoon Fed Masses are more excited by the phony Sound Bites than by the truth.  Plans rarely stay the same after the first skirmish and I can Hope for real Change all I want, but until we all get together and force change that the country needs there will be less hope for our future.

        • lazycs says:

          lets see 75% of americans are opposed to BHO care, 75% of americans favor voter ID, 75% of americans agree that CS are over paid and under worked, 75% of americans say that BHO is a 1 trm president

        • Ralph says:

          You support giving up your deduction for mortgage interest, state and propery taxes?  I doubt it.

      • DJP says:

        People are not taxed twice on the same dollar. Income from capital gains is new money – when someone receives $1,000 in capital gains, that is $1,000 more than they had before; it has not been taxed. For hedgefund managers, substitute $100,000,000 that is classified as uneraned income classified as capital gains, and taxed at 15%. Contrast that to a plumber, who has earned income, and if successful enough to make $100.000 in a year has the top half of income taxed at 25%.  Doesn’t appear fair and balanced to me.

      • Richard Jefferson says:

        Freedom- “the govt. wants to tax it AGAIN (capital gains)”

        This is a tired old statement that nobody, or most, know is true anymore. They are NOT double taxed. You are taxed on your initial funds (think paycheck), then taxed on the capital gains (think interest earned on your savings). The capital gain is NEW money that you have received but NOT paid a tax on.

        But you want to make money and not pay taxes on it. But if you lose money, you get to take a tax credit for it (or at least part of it).

        • little taxpayer says:

          Aren’t taxes paid on capital gains before they are distributed, then taxed again when the investor receives them? 

          I’m not sure why congress wants to discourage investments.  Seems like a sure way to slow the economy even more.

        • lazycs says:

          Have you ever taken an economics course?? A company makes a profit and pays taxes on that amount and then issues a dividend and the recipient has to declare it as income and pays taxes on that.====double taxation

      • tport2 says:

        It would be nice if you could explain how capital gains tax is taxing anyone’s income a second time when the tax only taxes the gains on the money invested and not the original basis.  Not not going to mention how the rich lobby for exemptions only they can qualify for since they have so much money like Romney receiving pay from a company and only venture capitalists were able to lobby and receive an exemption for income to be classified as capital gains to pay instead of 35% only 15%.

        • lazycs says:

          The corp and the recipient BOTH pay taxes on the amount hence DOUBLE taxation

          • tport2 says:

            Corps don’t have to pay dividends on profits and many don’t therefore the shareholder receives no money and pays no tax.  If the shareholder gets paid a dividend on aftertax profits because the management decides to give out dividends then the shareholder receives new income they didn’t have and pay tax.  Using your logic, if I put money into a savings account or CD then I shouldn’t pay capital gains tax on the interest I earn, which would be great, but that’s not the law and nobody says that’s double taxation.  I would think a better example of your so called double taxation would be the selling of a used car over and over and sales tax is paid every time it’s sold on the same item.

        • Ralph says:

          They can lobby for exemptions but they can’t give them to themselves.  Only Congress can do that.

      • worker says:

        First the Rich get many tax breaks that the average person does not get.  Their tax rates were lowered much more than other people’s tax rates during Bush 2.  Additionally, who do you think owns most of the stock?  The poor?  Dividend tax rates were lowered from the normal tax rates to 15%.  I will give you capital gains at 15% because they are long term.
        What about the person who pays capital gains rates on earned income because he gets a piece of the action in a start up business for services rendered?  There are many other items in the tax code that the wealthy get, but the rest of the people cannot afford it.  I think the wealthy should be taxed at a higher marginal rate.

    • steve5656546346 says:

      For good reason, or for bad, Federal workers do–in fact–average more money than your average private sector employee.  Now, that may be because we don’t have nearly as many lower level jobs (e.g., McDonalds, retail) as the private sector.

      But if envy is an appropriate basis for setting taxes, then why not for setting pay and benefits?  And if “fairness” is determined by envy, how could we complain about receiving no more than anybody else?

      • cmd says:

        Are you envious of federal workers? Did you know you can apply for fed jobs too?

      • Grumpy says:

        Whether we do or not, whether we’re better trained or educated or whatever yard stick you want applied…its still pitting one worker against another. Its a distraction technique used to keep us morons fighting amongst ourselves instead of holding our elected representatives accountable. Wise up…while we’re bickering, they’re playing around trying to find a way to keep from getting caught when the door slams. When this economy tanks, and we enter the next stage of depression, do you think Buffett, or Obama or the Koch bros are joining us in the bread lines? They’ll move to wherever and continue to live the good life. Stop the infighting….you lose…you have no meat in the game if all you do is point fingers. VOTE THEM ALL OUT THIS NOVEMBER

      • William Junk says:

        I’m a Federal Employee. I’m a tax payer. I’m a college Graduate. I’m a person who pays my bills. I’m a person on a pay freeze. I’m a person who believes in “FAIRNESS”; however, I’m also a person who knows when I’m getting treated unfairly.
        “STOP GIVING AWAY MY TAX DOLLARS AND NOT ALLOWING ME TO ENHANCE MY CAREER!!” Oh yeah, I’m also a Veteran who is losing those benefits also.
        Now, let’s talk about fair

        • lazycs says:

          and that makes you different than the avg taxpayer HOW???

          • Public Servant says:

            That’s the point, lazycs - we aren’t different than the average taxpayer. 

            The debate about average pay is a smoke screen.  Focus instead on the fact that we have citizens working full time who don’t make a living wage (who may not make enough to pay taxes or afford a place to live), while $ that should be spent on our citizens is being spent elsewhere (though those dollars may be making many of the 1% in this country even richer). 

            [I doubt you’ve ever been a civil servant – though I suppose you could be a current or former political appointee – I’ve heard your sort of rhetoric coming from a few political appointees.] 

          • lazycs says:

            Then why are the taxpayers paying $100B a year in premium wages for CS. I know for sure your a CS because your only point is give me give me give me. Im entitled

          • guestgov says:

            @lazycs…I do agree with at least half of what you say…there are some lazy cs and some lazy FERS and some waste and some abuse etc…and there is way way too much…Sometimes IMO is overstated in that all cs are NOT lazy, wasting, abusing etc…there are some who do a great job everyday and are NOT given recognition or even fair compensation for their service….

          • JG4 says:

            and he posts all day long so how is he gainfully employed?

          • jp61 says:

            You sure do seem to know everything lazycs – so happy for you.  Just a note – after 17 years of service I bring home 24,000.00 in my pocket as a GS9-5 – is that too much money in your eyes….guess I will appologize now so you don’t come unglued on me like you have the majority of posters on here.

          • lazycs says:

            That’s what happens when your pay is garnished and you have to pay the victims for your crimes

      • Scubawomin says:

        Gee, last time I checked, the only thing Mc Donald
         does is give you a drug test, they don’t investigate you for three months and put you under a microscope? I  have to  have a higher standard of conduct where I work and I resent being told over and over about how over paid we are. Yes some salaries are ridiculous but what this author here has never addressed to my knowledge  is how MANY GS 10 and under employees are part of the workforce????????????? Because this group is not rolling in dole. We are just hard working honest Americans.

        • lazycs says:

          They do hold their employees accountable something that CS will never experience once in their careers

          • nonfednowfed says:

            Remember, Lazy, that it was your accountable fast food industry that killed and maimed for life numerous children with their contaminated burgers because they failed to cook them properly. If it weren’t for federal workers, they would still be serving you the same risky food. Perhaps, you would be bed ridden by now if federal workers did not protect you from dangerous food. Thank a federal worker every day that you are on your feet. However, surely you will find fault with a federal employee and continue to bad mouth him as long as you are healthy enough to write.

          • guestwo says:

            What are you talking about?  Numerous children!!!Remember, Lazy, that it was your accountable fast food industry that killed and maimed for life numerous children with their contaminated burgers because they failed to cook them properly.

          • lazycs says:

            The food ALLLLL had the stamp of approval from the FDA, you know the highly educated hard working CS work force

          • lazycs says:

            Hmm wasn’t that the same meat that had the approval of the FDA??? Or the last outbreak of salmonella from sprouts and lettuce?? Or pink slime all with govt employees approval??

      • Stu C Charney says:

        Envy is not the basis for setting tax rates.  We are supposed to have a progressive tax system.  However, with all the tax cuts for the wealthy during Bush 2, we need corrections since the budget deficit is so bad.  Or would you prefer to stick to the middle class and the unemployed.

        • Ralph says:

          Or the extravagant spending could stop like families do when they go over budget.  But our Senate has not passed a budget in four years to even guide their spending.  They have acted like a teenage girl with a stolen credit card so now everyone will have to pay for it.

        • lazycs says:

          allowing 47% of the populace to pay no taxes isn’t how the system is supposed to work either. No skin in the game = no vote

          • tport2 says:

            47% pay no taxes?  What country do you live in?  I think everyone has plenty of “skin in the game”.  It’s time elected officials start addressing the hard issues, both sides.  I think all “pledges” should be ripped up and let the elected officials start thinking on their own instead of having a local lobby group having 99% of one party scared to death they may lose their next election if they think on their own.

    • Ken says:

      A lot of people are jumping on the Buffett Rule train without considering the unintended consequence. These rates exist for people to invest. For instance if you invest in Ford or Chevy etc or some hedge fund the  money you make on that investment is taxed at a lower rate because the Govt has shown in the past that the country benefits from free people investing in business. The next thing is investing in local munipacilities (bonds). These are generally tax free so if a millionaire or billionaire invest in a local muni bond then a lot of times there is no tax at all on the profit. If a millionaire or billionaire does not invest their money at all then it’s stagnet and does not move through the economy at all. This helps no one. So the unintended consequence that no one is talking about is where would the “rich” take their investment dollars with these new rules in effect? Mitt Romney made $25 million last year on investments alone which means he had to put at risk a substaincial amount of money (and then paid tax on that profit). In the future if he does not invest that money or does so elsewhere then American business would not benefit from the capitol flowing in as investment dollars and no taxes taken on the profit. Lose lose. Hey, but it might make some people feel better.

      • tport2 says:

        And just how does investing your money in the Cayman’s help the US?

        • Ralph says:

          There are legitimate investments in the Caymans.  If Romney had hidden investments in the Caymans the Dems would be all over it.  All that was said was that he had investments there, just like a lot of other people.  Since he was a Republican you assumed that they were not legal and that he paid no tax on them. That is not the case.  Unlike the credibility of our President I have no reason to believe that Romney is dishonest.  Wealth did not seem to matter when Kennedy or Kerry were running for office.  Kennedy inherited his while Kerry married his.  At least Romney earned it.  Now that a proven successful businessman is running for office, being successful is something to scorn by Democrats.  We have a current President who does not even understand business or finance and look at where that has gotten us.

          • tport2 says:

            Again, how does American investment money parked in the Caymans help the US? I said nothing about being illegal or hidden, you did.  But Romney is running for President and the other owners of accounts in the Cayman’s are not. So how does that look to the 98%, I’ll tell you, it looks bad.  Oh, and he earned it by destroying US jobs and selling company assets.

      • worker says:

        He will still invest here because the money will still be taxed minus a foreign tax credit here.

    • lazycs says:

      Gee Barak doesn’t pat what his secretary pays either maybe we can call it the barak hypocrite rule

      • tport2 says:

        How is Obama a hypocrite if he is the one trying to get Congress to change the tax code so he and the other rich people living off capital gains pays their “fair” percentage of tax?  I guess you were just trying to be “funny”.

    • Ralph says:

      The rich actually pay far more by percentage of income than a middle class Federal employee unless all of their income is from dividends because it is taxed at a lower rate.  That rate is set by Congress.  Very few people get more than $1 million a year from dividends.

      • tport2 says:

        The rich do pay more if their income is just that income and they should pay more under our country’s progressive tax code.  However, the 1% pay a lower percentage than the middle class and the 1% like it that way.  Romney paid 13.9% on what, 2+ million in income and stated “not one penny more” which is far less than the middle class.  Ralph, you probably paid a higher percentage in federal income tax than Romney.  How is this not class warfare against the middle class who’s income has not increased anywhere near what the top 1% has enjoyed over the last 12 years while our economy tanked.  

  28. Fed Peasant says:

    This just an apppetizer.  The tea party still expects to feast on a main course of fed cuts.  The recent Federal Times reports that DOD needs 4 more years to do a head count of contractor employees.  It is estimated that there is at least two of them for each fed.

    • lazycs says:

      That’s because Gates and his predecessor realized that they couldn’t increase the uniform numbers and CS don’t work contractors was their only option

  29. lazycs says:

    The plan was never going to get the required votes because the Dem’s staffed it with union goons who would never OK a cut in spending. Conrad must be feeling guilty as he leaves office since his vote was the reason the balanced budget amendment to the constitution failed. looks like he’s trying to make amends to the taxpayers

    • RicknATL says:

      When you denigrate unions, you denigrate freedom from tyranny. You would have made a good Tory.

      • steve5656546346 says:

        Unions work tirelessly to IMPOSE tyranny by supporting ever larger–and more intrusive–government…for their personal gain.

      • lazycs says:

        Gee what union was it that started the war afl cio, Age?? I’ve never seen that in any history books so I welcome your input

        • tport2 says:

          I’m sure he meant tyranny from sweat shop owners like Carnegie, Rockefeller, mine and garment factory owners that had people like you working for scraps.

    • CH77 says:

      It must take a lot of effort to be so disingenuous over the course of 3,000+ posts.  The Bowles-Simpson plan had five “no” votes. On of the “no” votes was from a Union rep. Two were from Democrats. However, two of the five “no” votes were from Republicans (a single additional “yes” would have passed the plan), including Paul Ryan. And the balanced budget amendment failed in the Republican-controlled House.

    • AFGEpres says:

       Perhaps some of the the so called “union goons” would be willing to vote for a plan that treats all Americans equally. How about freezing the pay and reducing the retirement for “DoD non civilians”?. Civilians in DoD work side by side with military, even deploying with military to support them in the field. Perhaps you did not know that because of your propensity to regurgitate rhetoric based in talk show flapdoodle.
       How about addressing the facts, rather than carry “the party line”. I know WHICH party thats is, by the way.

      • steve5656546346 says:

        OK, so if you want to treat everybody equally, then everybody should get paid the same.  Since, in general, Federal employees receive better compensation than most Americans, then it is right that our compensation should be cut.  Right?

        • Lipan says:

          Compensation is about taking on the responsibilities of the position.  A cash register clerk, truck driver, police officer, purchasing agent, tax accountant, analyst, program manager, senior VP, or CEO all have different levels of responsibility which require different levels of education and skill sets to be considered competent for the position.  We who serve in CS capacities also have different levels of responsibility within the organizations that we work for.  I am responsible for the management of two national level portfolios for my agency.  I would not even consider taking on the responsibilities of managing the programs required of the position for the salary of let’s say a UPS driver.  To even be considered for the position you have to have at least a post graduate degree.  This involved dedication and suffering on my part to even meet the qualifications for the position.  We are all paid equally for the level of responsibility that we take on and for the hard work we incurred in order to be considered qualified to take on the responsibility.  I work long hours, expected to think on my feet and handle issues related to my responsibilities without having to be told to do so and without having to be managed in the process.  The work that I do and the level of responsibility is not equal to that of the average American, so compensation should be commensurate with the requirements of the position.  Sorry Steve but it’s not one size fits all.

          • lazycs says:

            A GS 11-14 of toady has the same duties and job difficulties of the GS 3-5 of the 1970’s

          • Lipan says:

            maybe in your dream world, but not here.  We don’t live in the 70’s anymore Dorothy.  Time to wake up!!

      • hbbear says:

        why don’t we freeze pay and bonuses of oil executives, maybe gas prices would drop. While we are at it lets do the same for health care executives and drop health care costs. maybe then the lower graded federal employees living at the poverty line could afford the unfair pay freeze from those who target government employees. 

        • guest again says:

          hbbear…you are very very very correct…what is wrong with our greedy congress??????

        • little taxpayer says:

          Actually, oil and health care execs earn their pay and bonuses by providing me products and services that greatly improve my productivity, lifestyle, and quality of life.  The pay I begrudge is the exorbitant money given to actors and professional athletes.  They do nothing but provide a mental diversion.

      • Guest says:

        Some DoD civilians work side-by-side with uniformed military, but the vast majority sit at a desk in the U.S.

        Military members and their families often go through hell.  It’s the rare civil servant who’s asked to put his life in jeopardy on a daily basis.  But that happens daily for deployed soldiers.

        I have absolutely no problem with giving deployed soldiers a raise when civil servants don’t get one.

        • DaveTheBrave says:

          What about civil servant’s who risk their lives daily as covert operatives for the CIA, FBI, DIA, DSA, etc., etc, etc.  What about the civil servant’s who man dangerous posts infiltrating and interdicting illegal drug cartels and dangerous border crossings. 

          What about the Forrest Service’s Smoke Jumpers, who parachute directly into giant out-of-control forest fires to save the lives and property of strangers.  There are many diseased smoke jumpers who’s families can attest to how dangerous that civil service job is. 

          What about the NOAA weather pilots who fly into the eyes of giant hurricanes just to measure the temperature, humidity, and air pressure inside to feed the prediction models to generate forecasts for coastal communities evacuation plans. 

          Then there are a plethora of other federal organizations with dangerous law enforcement  duties that are not picnic “desk jobs”, such as the U.S. Secret Service, Park Police, etc., etc.  I could list 15 to 20 more, but you get the idea.

          Conversely, since it takes about 7 support troops (at desk jobs and similar) to support 1 combat troop/pilot/etc., the vast majority of military positions are desk jobs, just as are the civilians.  People in these positions are frequently only distinguished from the civilians they work side-by-side with by the uniforms they wear. 

          So, does all this hair-splitting as to who deserves a raise and who doesn’t in the federal service as civilian/military really amount to a serious analysis for pay policy determination purposes?  Combat troops already get combat pay, as inadequate as it is – but other than that, everyone is paid by their rank and time in grade.

          The important point is that the recent panic to reduce federal spending only came about after the current administration and Senate went on their spending spree and ramped up the debt and deficit to unimaginable proportions – the deficit increase in the past 3 years exceeds the total for all administrations from Washington through the last Bush presidency!

           I contend that if this multi-trillion dollar spending increase had not happened, the current undeserved focus on federal employee pay and benefits would not be nearly as intense, if occurring at all!  The cowardly Congress, realizing that they cannot make major cuts in the 95% of the budget containing the vast overspending without taking heat from constituents, campaign contributors, special interest groups, etc., can only focus on the defenseless remaining 5% – the federal employee’s pay and benefits!    

          • guest again says:

            The debt has been accruing for a long time before Obama administration…The Stealing from the retirement Trust funds of fed employees and the stealing from SS Trust fund by CONGRESS (both parties} which created substantial debt…has been happening for more than 25 years!!!! long before OBama

          • lazycs says:

            What about the taxpayers who risk their lives dealing with DEA FBI, DIA CIA IRS etc. More taxpayers have lost their lives to them than the other way around

          • nonfednowfed says:

            Prove it. Show us your statistical analysis and references.

          • lazycs says:

            Hmmm lts see Waco, Ruby Ridge, Wounded Knee, Fast and Furious need some more???

      • lazycs says:

        A CS can’t carry the jock strap of a uniformed GI

      • Ralph says:

        Should the AFGE be tax exempt?  If so, why?  If all Americans should be treated equally, your millions of dollars should be taxed just like any other business.

      • lazycs says:

        CS can’t carry the carry the socks of the guys in DOD. Better they take from their memebers no different than alquida