LOL, welcome to what it feels like to be in the private sector, Feds: buttf#$@&%

[CountDeMoney]

House Republicans revive obscure rule that could allow them to slash the pay of individual federal workers to $1
By Jenna Portnoy and Lisa Rein
Washington Post
January 5 at 6:00 AM

House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker - down to a $1 - a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.

The Holman rule, named after a Indiana congressman who devised it in 1876, empowers any member of Congress to offer an amendment to an appropriations bill that targets a specific government employee or program.

A majority of the House and the Senate would still have to approve any such amendment but opponents and supporters agree it puts agencies and the public on notice that their work is now vulnerable to the whims of elected officials.

Democrats and federal employee unions say the provision, which one called "the Armageddon rule," could prove disastrous to the federal workforce, when combined with president-elect Donald Trump's criticism of the Washington bureaucracy, his call for a freeze on government hiring and his nomination of secretaries who seem to be at odds with the mission of the agencies they will lead.

"This is part of a very chilling theme that federal workers are seeing right now," said Maureen Gilman, legislative director for the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal employees.

The rule is particularly troubling to Virginia and Maryland lawmakers and the District's non-voting delegate, who represent large numbers of federal workers in the national capital region.

The Holman provision was approvedTuesday as part of a larger rules package but received little attention amid the chaos of Republicans' failed effort to decimate the House ethics office on the first day of the new Congress.

Republican leaders say the rule increases accountability in government and downplayed concerns — some within their own party — that it will usher in sweeping changes to the appropriations process.

As a concession to Republicans opposed to the rule, leaders designed it to expire in one year unless lawmakers vote to keep it in place.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in so far as voters elected Trump in hopes of fundamentally changing the way government works, the Holman rule gives Congress a chance to do just that.

"This is a big rule change inside there that allows people to get at places they hadn't before," he told reporters this week.

Asked which agencies would be targeted, he said that "all agencies should be held accountable and tested in a manner and this is an avenue to allow them to do it."

The rule was the first thing House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Tuesday in a floor speech objecting to an overarching rules package, which includes the Holman provision.

"Republicans have consistently made our hardworking federal employees scapegoats in my opinion for lack of performance of the federal government itself," he said. "And this rule change will allow them to make shortsighted and ideologically driven changes to our civil service."

The rule changes the process of passing spending bills by allowing any rank-and-file House member to propose an amendment that would cut a specific federal program or the jobs of specific federal employees, by slashing their salaries or eliminating their jobs altogether.

Before this rule change, an agency's budget could be cut broadly, but a specific program, employee or groups of employees could not be targeted because of civil service protections.

Republicans and Trump advisers have been quietly drawing up plans since the election to erode some of the job protections and benefits that federal workers have received for a generation, starting with a hiring freeze Trump has pledged to put in place in his first 100 days in office.

An end to automatic raises, a green light to fire poor performers, less generous pensions and a ban on union business on the government 's dime—these changes are all on the table now under unified Republican rule in Washington.

Conservatives were thwarted from making these changes under President Obama, but with Trump pledging to shrink big government and shake up a system he told voters on the campaign trail was awash in "waste, fraud and abuse," they are more emboldened than ever.

Federal unions and their advocates in Congress – and even the Republican behind the rule himself – scrambled Wednesday to understand how the rule would work.

"Now any back-bencher can make an amendment to hear his voice heard on a particular program or group of employees," said Max Stier, president and chief executive of the non-profit Partnership for Public Service, which advocates for the federal workforce. "We'll see how it's used, if it's used."

In light of recent inquiries by the Trump transition team for a list of Energy Department scientists who have worked on climate change, advocates for federal workers say they worry that bureaucrats could be targeted for political reasons.

Jeffrey Neal, former personnel chief at the Department of Homeland Security and now a senior vice president for ICF International, said the rule "creates a lot of opportunity for mischief" because lawmakers could act to reduce the salary or eliminate the job of government officials they don't like.

For example, the House could have voted to drastically reduce the salary of Lois Lerner, the senior executive at the center of the IRS scandal that gave extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Lawmakers could, in theory, even vote to roll back the 1.6 percent pay raise President Obama gave federal employees starting Jan. 1, he said.

Early in its history, the rule was used to eliminate patronage jobs, particularly customs agents, in the late 19th century before the federal workforce shifted to a non-political civil service.

The rule was dropped in 1983, when then-Speaker Tip O'Neill objected to spending cuts devised by Republicans and conservative Democrats.

The revival of the Holman rule was the brainchild of Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), who is intent on increasing the powers of individual members of Congress to reassign workers as policy demands.

Known as the unofficial parliamentarian in the hardline conservative Freedom Caucus, the four-term congressman sought the rule change out of frustration with an $80 million federal program that pays for the care of wild horses on federal land in the West, which he considers wasteful.

He favors a strategic application of the law, likening it to a bullet from a sniper rifle rather than a shotgun. It's unlikely — but not impossible — that members will "go crazy" and cut huge swaths of the workforce, he said.

"I can't tell you it won't happen," he said in an interview in his office. "The power is there. But isn't that appropriate? Who runs this country, the people of the United States or the people on the people's payroll?"

Although Griffith has few federal workers in his poor and rural southwest, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) noted many of Griffith's constituents rely on federal programs.

"It's a backdoor way of furthering your desire to dismantle that part of the federal operation," Connolly said.

Connolly and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who each represent thousands of government employees in their northern Virginia districts, said the rule heralds a new era of granular governing, giving the party in power the ability to mess with federal agencies at the microscopic level.

Several House Republicans did try to block revival of the Holman rule in a closed-door meeting Monday evening.

Rep. Barbara Comstock, the only Republican member of Congress in northern Virginia, voted for an amendment sponsored by Rep. Tom Cole (R- Okla.) and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) to strip the rule from the package.

The rule "diminishes the roles of the authorizing committees in the House, and will make it more difficult to pass appropriations bills in the new Congress," her spokesman, Jeff Marschner, said in a statement.

However, when the rules package, including the Holman measure, came to the floor Tuesday she voted for it, as did every member of her party. All the Democrats voted 'no.'

[The Brain]

Government no longer Cal-approved?

[Eddie Teach]

she voted for it, as did every member of her party. All the Democrats voted 'no.'

[/quote]

What ever happened to all the "mavericks"?

[Tamas]

Nobody will get screwed over as long as they get with the program and make super-sure to be ideologically correct in their daily work and decisions.

[CountDeMoney]

Nobody will get screwed over as long as they get with the program and make super-sure to be ideologically correct in their daily work and decisions.

You don't get it.  Being ideologically correct in their daily work and decisions isn't going to be enough; eliminating federal jobs and reducing their pay and benefits is an official plank in the Republican Party's platform from the convention.

The federal workforce is larger and more highly paid than ever. The taxpayers spend an average of $35,000 a year per employee on non-cash benefits, triple the average non-cash compensation of the average worker in the private sector. Federal employees receive extraordinary pension benefits and vacation time wildly out of line with those of the private sector. We urge Congress to bring federal compensation and benefits in line with the standards of most American employees. A Republican administration should streamline personnel procedures to expedite the firing of bad workers, tax cheats, and scammers.
The unionization of the federal workforce, first permitted by Democrat presidents in the 1960s, should be reviewed by the appropriate congressional committees to examine its effects on the cost, quality, and performance of the civil service. Union representatives in the federal workforce should not be paid to conduct union business on the public's time.

https://www.gop.com/the-2016-republican-party-platform/

[Berkut]

WTF.

This really sucks - because I mostly agree with the intent behind all this.

Federal employees are in fact over-paid. There are too many of them, doing work that can and should be done by fewer people, or not be done at all.

I have exactly zero faith that this administration can in fact oversee the rational cuts and restructuring needed, however. Congress should in fact have VERY broad power to manage the federal workforce.

The Tea Party morons, however, should not have any power to do anything, since they are, as a group, ideological radicals and political idiots. As DG put it, they are basically suicide bombers in government.

[CountDeMoney]

I have exactly zero faith that this administration can in fact oversee the rational cuts and restructuring needed, however. Congress should in fact have VERY broad power to manage the federal workforce.

Oh, there'll be rational cuts and restructuring, alright.  Just not where you think it would be.  Public health?  Pfft.  Environment?  Ha!  Food chain safety?  Teh market!

Enjoy your new drinking water arsenic levels, America.  Oh wait, you'll never know because there'll be nobody to test for it, LOLZ. #DTS

[garbon]

I have exactly zero faith that this administration can in fact oversee the rational cuts and restructuring needed, however. Congress should in fact have VERY broad power to manage the federal workforce.

Oh, there'll be rational cuts and restructuring, alright.  Just not where you think it would be.  Public health?  Pfft.  Environment?  Ha!  Food chain safety?  Teh market!

Enjoy your new drinking water arsenic levels, America.  Oh wait, you'll never know because there'll be nobody to test for it, LOLZ. #DTS

https://www.amazon.com/ITS-Arsenic-Quick-Test-Kit/dp/B001SIMQW8

[CountDeMoney]

You and your home tests.

[Valmy]

Taxpayer value!

[garbon]

You and your home tests.

Now, now, I never actually used that other test. I only just took a survey about it for $20 on Amazon.

[Valmy]

Man I hope no similar provision exists in the Texas Constitution.

[Ed Anger]

Man I hope no similar provision exists in the Texas Constitution.

They just shoot you and dump your body in El Paso.

[FunkMonk]

They need to make it much, much easier to fire people, no doubt about that. 

[FunkMonk]

But yeah, this is all a sham. They'll just fire and cut salaries of programs they hate and dump all the money into agencies they love while farming out contracts to their friends and relatives in business. Just like the private sector LMAOOZZZ