Despite High Unemployment, GOP Senators Plan To Slash 300,000 Government Jobs

Although the nation’s unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and 14.1 million Americans are out of work, two GOP senators think what the economy needs right now is to lay off another 300,000 workers. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced legislation this week that takes aim at federal workers, ostensibly to save $600 billion by cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their bill would also freeze federal salaries and bonuses, eliminate 15 percent of contract workers, and slash the federal travel budget by an astonishing 75 percent:
Under the bill, S. 1476, salaries and bonuses would be frozen for three years, which Hatch said amounts to $140 billion in reduced spending over 10 years.
It would also require the administration to cut the size of the federal workforce by 15 percent over 10 years, amounting to 300,000 fewer workers. “This could easily be accomplished through attrition and would save taxpayers over $225 billion over that time,” Hatch said.

Sick & Tired wrote:

Although the nation’s unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and 14.1 million Americans are out of work, two GOP senators think what the economy needs right now is to lay off another 300,000 workers. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced legislation this week that takes aim at federal workers, ostensibly to save $600 billion by cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their bill would also freeze federal salaries and bonuses, eliminate 15 percent of contract workers, and slash the federal travel budget by an astonishing 75 percent:
Under the bill, S. 1476, salaries and bonuses would be frozen for three years, which Hatch said amounts to $140 billion in reduced spending over 10 years.
It would also require the administration to cut the size of the federal workforce by 15 percent over 10 years, amounting to 300,000 fewer workers. “This could easily be accomplished through attrition and would save taxpayers over $225 billion over that time,” Hatch said.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/04/287606/gop-senators-cut-jobs/

TOO OLD TO HIRE IN PA wrote:

Sick & Tired wrote:

Although the nation’s unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and 14.1 million Americans are out of work, two GOP senators think what the economy needs right now is to lay off another 300,000 workers. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced legislation this week that takes aim at federal workers, ostensibly to save $600 billion by cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their bill would also freeze federal salaries and bonuses, eliminate 15 percent of contract workers, and slash the federal travel budget by an astonishing 75 percent:
Under the bill, S. 1476, salaries and bonuses would be frozen for three years, which Hatch said amounts to $140 billion in reduced spending over 10 years.
It would also require the administration to cut the size of the federal workforce by 15 percent over 10 years, amounting to 300,000 fewer workers. “This could easily be accomplished through attrition and would save taxpayers over $225 billion over that time,” Hatch said.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/04/287606/gop-senators-cut-jobs/

And the CUTS just keep on coming! Keep it up Repukelicans! Kick the middle class when we are down. Where are the Jobs? We don't need cuts!

TOO OLD TO HIRE IN PA wrote:

Sick & Tired wrote:

Although the nation’s unemployment rate remains above 9 percent and 14.1 million Americans are out of work, two GOP senators think what the economy needs right now is to lay off another 300,000 workers. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) introduced legislation this week that takes aim at federal workers, ostensibly to save $600 billion by cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Their bill would also freeze federal salaries and bonuses, eliminate 15 percent of contract workers, and slash the federal travel budget by an astonishing 75 percent:
Under the bill, S. 1476, salaries and bonuses would be frozen for three years, which Hatch said amounts to $140 billion in reduced spending over 10 years.
It would also require the administration to cut the size of the federal workforce by 15 percent over 10 years, amounting to 300,000 fewer workers. “This could easily be accomplished through attrition and would save taxpayers over $225 billion over that time,” Hatch said.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/04/287606/gop-senators-cut-jobs/

And the CUTS just keep on coming! Keep it up Repukelicans! Kick the middle class when we are down. Where are the Jobs? We don't need cuts!

lendmeflight2 wrote:Oh really?!!?!?


Have you heard of a man named Franklin Roosevelt? He was the 32nd president of the United States. He took over from a republican named Herbert Hoover. Hoover tried to balance the budget during the great depression and the depression only got worse. Roosevelt, the democrat, SPENT money and turned it around in two years for a significant improvement.

It took Reagan 7 years to get the unemployment rate down to 6% but if Obama can't do it in two then he should get the boot right?

The economy was also pretty good under Clinton too. And Kennedy actually as well. During Eisenhower's republican presidency the Gross Domestic Product of the USA fell by one percent but in Kennedy's term, from Early 1961 to late 1963, the GDP grew by 5.5%.

The economy tanked under Eisnehower, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2.

JoanB wrote:JobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicansjobkillingRepublicans

lendmeflight2 wrote:Oh really?!!?!?


Have you heard of a man named Franklin Roosevelt? He was the 32nd president of the United States. He took over from a republican named Herbert Hoover. Hoover tried to balance the budget during the great depression and the depression only got worse. Roosevelt, the democrat, SPENT money and turned it around in two years for a significant improvement.

It took Reagan 7 years to get the unemployment rate down to 6% but if Obama can't do it in two then he should get the boot right?

The economy was also pretty good under Clinton too. And Kennedy actually as well. During Eisenhower's republican presidency the Gross Domestic Product of the USA fell by one percent but in Kennedy's term, from Early 1961 to late 1963, the GDP grew by 5.5%.

The economy tanked under Eisnehower, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2.

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:His plans over the years has NEVER worked by any other dem. president. Matter of fact, hasn't been a dem. president that has ever kicked a economy into a gear good enough for a recovery!

exhaustedandtired/1208 wrote:

lendmeflight2 wrote:Oh really?!!?!?


Have you heard of a man named Franklin Roosevelt? He was the 32nd president of the United States. He took over from a republican named Herbert Hoover. Hoover tried to balance the budget during the great depression and the depression only got worse. Roosevelt, the democrat, SPENT money and turned it around in two years for a significant improvement.

It took Reagan 7 years to get the unemployment rate down to 6% but if Obama can't do it in two then he should get the boot right?

The economy was also pretty good under Clinton too. And Kennedy actually as well. During Eisenhower's republican presidency the Gross Domestic Product of the USA fell by one percent but in Kennedy's term, from Early 1961 to late 1963, the GDP grew by 5.5%.

The economy tanked under Eisnehower, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2.

OMG!! We have new presidents!!!

tristen303 wrote:Dem Presidents have been better at stimulating the economy through spending (with the exception of Reagan who it could be said was the best). Lastly this spending issue has my party’s hands all over it. Remember our boy Cheney “Deficits don't matter"? Under Reagan we started borrowing to get out of the Carter mess, it worked but continued under Bush. Then Clinton brought back growth which covered the bets the previous two presidents made. Now it can be argued that the Clinton growth was the start of the financial mess we are in now but nonetheless the man and his admin created a surplus. Then comes Bush Jr which does what? Creates another entitlement the presc drug benefit with no way to pay for it but borrow, and then the wars and good bye surplus. However, Medicare by growth alone of the baby boomer generation was always going to exced revenue but only for that generation and Social Security which had real money has been raided to given IOUs. Now the US cannot technically go broke..We can print money that is worthless. But the argument that it’s the Dems fault is not accurate. But the Dems argument that it s the Repubs fault does carry more weight when considering the above however Dems spend so they helped drive drunk too. The problem were facing is the fallacy that one side is better; we need a plan not ideology.