.@jonallendc Might be that you're missing a huge CONTEXT point: Fed Emp Program has AMAZING HC benefits that Congress VOLUNTARILY gave up.
Amazed by level of outrage among friends and Tweeters at reporting on Boehner's premium spike. Same issue that has Dem staff upset on Hill.
-
-
-
.
@Only4RM agreed: they sabotaged themselves to make a political point -
.
@jonallendc That should be a main point in the article. Esp since it perfectly illustrates the short-sighted, rudderless GOP reax to#ACA. -
@Only4RM did a story last week on how older Hill aides were affected. Then I thought, I bet Boehner's finding the same thing. So I asked.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@jonallendc Boehner's rate spike, if true, puts him inline with REGULAR non-federally subsidized Americans. He had & gave up a sweet deal. -
@Only4RM but REGULAR just means Americans who don't have fedgov as employer-contributor. It's not a perk so much as function of size of pool -
.
@jonallendc True but it's a de facto perk. For many those benefits are THE reason they choose civil service instead of the private sector. -
@Only4RM If we have to offer perks to get people to perform public service, we will always get the wrong kind of people.@jonallendc -
.
@NefariousNewt@jonallendc Disagree. Without perks & adequate pay, we'd only get those who can afford not to make a decent living at work. -
@Only4RM Adequate pay is fine. But government service cannot be attractive solely because of goodies. We need earnest people.@jonallendc
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@jonallendc Don't federal employees still get an employer contributribution. Was that included in your calculations?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.