It's A Good Time To Work For Uncle Sam

By: Declan McCullagh
Topics: Employment

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

President Obama's call last year for "shared sacrifice" doesn't extend to federal employees, at least based on the details of his administration's 2010 budget released this week.

At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge.

Executive branch employment — 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department — is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year.

There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year.

Meanwhile, according to Forbes' layoff tracker, there have been 558,087 layoffs since November 2008 at large public companies; even local school districts aren't immune. That's just a sliver of the total unemployed, which government data estimate to be 8.6 percent of the workforce, or an alternate method of reckoning that counts discouraged workers puts at 20 percent.

Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.)

A 39-page "dimensions" document accompanying the White House's 1,380-page appendix offers justifications for each new hire. Homeland Security says its new employees will "increase border security." The Agency for International Development wants to improve "the management and stewardship of foreign assistance programs." The Smithsonian Institution wants "additional security guards." And so on.

The final evidence that it's a good time to have a .gov e-mail address? Civilian government employees are set to enjoy a 2 percent raise. Not only are private sector workers are struggling to keep their jobs, but their earnings are stagnating and pay cuts are no longer uncommon.

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.
Follow on Twitter »

94 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 94 Comments


by davec3487 February 21, 2010 2:31 PM EST: I USED to be a hardcore democrat, no more. Why, there is a 190,000 bounty on my head (my family's portion of the national debt). This debt emboldened China to dictate to the US who can and cannot visit the White House. President Obama, next time try a wig when whisking the Dalai Lama away. Remember, it wasn't too long ago we shed US blood saving China from rape and pillage. STOP putting our problems on my kids. The stimulus package claims 1 million jobs saved. At a cost of 393 billion, that's 393,000 per person. If the average person makes 45,000 it should have saved ten times more jobs. Pure BS. I also don't want to pay for obese people that smoke, 30% of healthcare costs. It is disgusting that the private sector average salary is less than the lazy incompetent government workers (not all but most). I don't want the US to become one of those European countries where the workers make 80% of their salaries by staying home while they drown in debt. Republicans, put in someone competent with integrity and I'm in. (Palin and I?m out again); Reply to this comment


by conservativeandproudofit December 16, 2009 11:40 PM EST: To JediRockk ? Our wages have been sucked out of our pocket by an increasing invasive GOVERNMENT. That Government invasiveness is increasing under BO like no other administration in the history of this country. If you don?t want to purchase a product or service from a private sector company that pays excessive wages and/or bonuses to its CEOs you don?t have to. However, last time I checked you don?t have the option to not pay your taxes if you are dissatisfied with a bloated government. That tax money goes to pay the salaries and benefits of some of the most incompetent employees in the country. I?ve worked for and with the Federal and county governments and the incompetency that is rampant in those sectors is embarrassing. Far too many government employees don?t work half as hard as the average private sector employee yet earn twice the money AND benefits and are nearly impervious to being fired. As an example, I have one relative that is currently working for the government and another working in the private sector. Both have a bachelor?s degree and yet the one in the private sector earns half the salary of the government employee even though the private sector employee has been at their job several years longer than the government employee. Additionally, this past year, the private sector worker?s company informed all employees they were going to have to take a 10% cut in pay. All the while, the federal government gives their employees a raise while retirees on fixed incomes aren?t even given a cost of living increase in their social security! While I don?t agree with those high salaries/bonuses given to CEOs that head failing companies (I have no problem with rewarding CEOs of successful companies)?I agree even less with the government telling us that more and more of our money should be taken away from those that HAVE actually earned it and given to those that haven?t earned it at all! And FYI, in regards to your comment about ?The top 1% owning 50 percent of the countries wealth.??the Wall street journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html) states that ?the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of ALL income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.? One last comment/question in regards to that top 1% that allegedly own 50% of the country?s wealth?how many of those individuals are currently serving in the United States Congress???; Reply to this comment


by smlong_123 June 26, 2009 3:19 PM EDT: There's a new site giving advice about getting Government Jobs:

http://www.governmentjobadvice.com/

It's powered by the job site www.governmentsupportjobs.com; Reply to this comment


by ThePRSF May 13, 2009 9:38 PM EDT: "If" government is the answer to our prayers (sorry, Leftists don't pray to God) but if government is the answrer, then more of it is better right? And if that is true, that means that the more the government grows and spends, the better it is for our naiton right? And since education, health care, welfare, housing, food, vehicles, etc. are all now "rights" that must be provided by the federal government, then why isn't every government on the planet as wealthy as we (once) were?

Why isn't Zimbabwe or Somali (or any other African country) as rich as the United States? What happened to Russia's big collapse at the end of the 80's? Not "enough" Barack Obama, big government "stimulus?"

Spending doesn't equal stimulus nor does it equal wealth, it's debt. Debt is not an asset on the balance sheet it's a liability.; Reply to this comment


by my-comments May 13, 2009 4:54 PM EDT: The only people I see who are retired with a good income seems to be those who worked for the government. Everyone else has seen their retirements shrink up or go away, leaving only social security and the need to return to the workplace in some capacity. We may have finally reached the point where there are more people who ride on the wagon than those who have to pull it.; Reply to this comment


by willcaine May 13, 2009 4:28 PM EDT: Can someone explain to me how/why we need or have had a 25% increase in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Based on what I know we haven't built a nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years. And as far as I know we haven't had a serious nuclear "incident" since the Love Canal.

In the real world where I live if responsibilities of a particular "job" haven't increased I just don't see hiring 25% more employees.

Please explain the logic.
Posted by minnkj at 12:44 PM : May 13, 2009

Love Canal was not a nuclear incident.; Reply to this comment


by minnkj May 13, 2009 3:44 PM EDT: Can someone explain to me how/why we need or have had a 25% increase in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Based on what I know we haven't built a nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years. And as far as I know we haven't had a serious nuclear "incident" since the Love Canal.

In the real world where I live if responsibilities of a particular "job" haven't increased I just don't see hiring 25% more employees.

Please explain the logic.; Reply to this comment


by kevintheelder May 13, 2009 9:07 AM EDT: The work force of the Federal Government comes from the US population. The pay of the federal workers are provided by We The People. Our average salary in private industry is $45,000 vs. the average salary of the government worker of $75,000. There is absolutely no reason that government shouldn't cut that average salary to LESS than $45,000. There are obviously more than enough qualified individuals working in private industry that would willing to take those jobs. It's grotesque that I have to pay someone $75,000 to perform a job that I myself perform in the private sector for which I'm paid only $45,000. And though that's a simplification, it's actually what is happening.; Reply to this comment


by delsigne May 13, 2009 8:09 AM EDT: Just a note on Federal pay....Census workers get $10.25 per hour and 55 cents per mile.....when you have to stop/start your vehicle 100-150 times per day or leave it running...and get in and out of your vehicle that many times....it isn't hard to understand how it is hard to get Census workers......and they don't pay any expenses for vehicle breakdowns, etc. that is included in the 55 cents per mile. Maybe the overpaid federal workers should share???; Reply to this comment


by mdrubush May 13, 2009 5:13 AM EDT: Welcome to the United States of Canada!!!; Reply to this comment