Written by Jerry Riley
Wednesday, 16 October 2013 00:00
I saw in the newspaper that Congress is considering back pay for furloughed workers. My first thought was business as usual, using our tax money to pay someone for doing nothing. Then I thought, maybe this is why we are so far in debt. First our elected employees, who are getting paid, voted not to pay some employees who are not considered essential. Then they decide to pay them, but still not let them come back to work. Do we still wonder why we are in debt?
Someone in the government, probably someone deemed essential, made a list of 800,000 government jobs that were non-essential. What definition was used? When I looked up non-essential I read it meant not absolutely necessary. The example given was” during the strike nonessential hospital services were halted”
Now, it seems, we taxpayers are going to pay them for NOT working. I’m not advocating firing necessary employees, but, if the government is able to continue without them, is there any unnecessary expense? Maybe this number of employees had been necessary, but with increased use of technology, can we trim the number by not replacing nonessential personnel as they retire?
If the National Parks are closed, due to the government shut down, who is paying the park rangers to put up barricades to keep taxpayers from even seeing the parks from a distance?
I’ve got a unique idea; if we are paying them, let them return to the work they are usually paid for.
I started this column Saturday morning about 8:30. I was again somewhat gratified when I turned on FOX News at 11:00 that some people in Washington already agree with not filling non essential positions, as people retire.
Are they actually thinking, or is the NSA interloping on my computer? - and what a revoltin’ development this is!
Jerry Riley comments for the News Bulletin. He is a retired telecommunications supervisor.
Last Updated on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 13:49