« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

So, Gibbs has a “modest” salary

So says Obama, but one wonders.  Is it only sycophants who are starving on a “modest” $172K a year?  What about the carpet layer in Sheboygan who employs his brother-in-law and son and who splits his $200K gross earnings with two relatives and gubmint at all levels?  Is HE, then, the “rich” slacker lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills?  (And what about the avg family income in the U.S. — $55K per year.  Man, they must really be in poverty by the “O’s” standards.) 

And yet, The Won stated very recently that earning $200K per year meant one was a member of the hated “rich.”  Which is it Oh Great One?  The carpet layer?  His job certainly is as difficult as is that of the sweaty pool boy Gibbs.  And, in addition, he provides a needed service, employs two other people, supports three families AND contributes to the “modest” salary of the ever-truthful Gibbs (and thousands of others like him.)  I’m sorry.  It doesn’t wash with me.  I’ve got far more education and have been in my field far longer than Gibbs and I don’t make an eighth what he makes.  And pressure?  Let’s not talk pressure.  My job has at least as much pressure as being official mouth-piece for the One.

No, I’m afraid Obama’s Freudian slip is an excellent clue into the mind of the average Federal worker.  They believe they don’t make near enough while the rest of us slobs should get used to starving.  We OWE them, don’t you see.  Yes, yes, I know the avg fed worker has a more specialized skill set than the avg private sector employee, but that is only because the private sector employs a much wider range of occupations.  However, even after allowing for that anomaly, fed “workers” bring home nearly twice, in salary and benefits, what the avg Joe (in a comparable private sector job) makes. 

And, due to public employee unions, this is a trend that will be very hard to break.  Now, the left will respond with, well, conservatives are not serious about cutting salaries in particular or budget cuts in general “until Defense is on the table.”  Nonesense.  Defense is one of the few Constitutionally mandated perogatives of the Federal gubmint.  We NEED Defense.  So, I have a more accurate proposition.  The Dems are not serious about cutting the budget until all non-Constitutional programs have been wiped out.  Then we can worry about cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” from Defense.  Besides, I really don’t mind paying Defense people well.  We don’t want the lowest common “civil service” denominators and shiftless time-servers working on advanced missle systems, for instance, do we? 

No, I’m afraid the welfare mentality has seeped into the thnking of otherwise mature and responsible people working for the gubmint.  The old deal was, you got a job for life, more or less, but you will not make as much as the risk-takers.  (Which is another reason Omama wants to bail companies out and another good reason to oppose such shenanigans, but I digress…)  I think everyone was willing to live with that.  Now, however, we have a gynormous force of gubmint people at all levels who believe, not only should they make more than us, they are better than us as well and so are ENTITLED to as much of our earnings as they want.  And we better not forget it or our streets will not get plowed.  When the federal gubmint starts bailing out states overextended by golden retirement and health programs, we will truly begin to see the error of our ways.  I hope.

Get Alerts