Skip to main content

House Committee Votes to Cut 1 in 10 U.S. Border Patrol Agents, Food Safety Inspectors, Missile Defense Analysts, Disease Control Specialists and Nuclear Regulators By 2015

November 3, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 3, 2011
CONTACT:
Legislative Department
703-838-7760, leg@narfe.org

NARFE: Arbitrarily cutting federal jobs is not a responsible solution to the national debt.

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to the advancement of legislation in the House of Representatives that would arbitrarily slash 1 in 10 federal jobs from the federal government in the next three years, Joseph A. Beaudoin, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) released the following statement:

“During a hurricane, the National Weather Service would never send out a memo telling 1 in 10 federal meteorologists to go home. The next time America’s spinach supply is contaminated, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would never ask 1 in 10 federal food safety inspectors to turn in their badges. On Christmas Eve, the Transportation Security Administration would never tell 1 in 10 federal security officers scheduled for duty to take the night off. And when the Drug Enforcement Agency informs U.S. Customs and Border Protection it expects a drug cartel to smuggle a truckload of narcotics and weapons across the Arizona border soon, the agency would never turn to 1 in 10 of its border patrol agents and say, ‘You can sit this one out.’

“So why is Chairman Issa proposing that our nation arbitrarily lose 1 in 10 of our federal workers who perform these vital jobs every day? And why did a majority of the members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today support his plan that singles out federal workers in our collective struggle to lower the national debt?

“Is it because the current federal workforce is bloated? Hardly. In the last 20 years, we have lost 200,000 federal employees. In fact, our nation employs virtually the same number of federal workers today as we did under President Truman even though our population has nearly doubled since then.

“Is it because someone in the private sector can do these jobs for less money? Not according to a new study by the Project on Government Oversight that discovered the U.S. government already pays billions more annually in taxpayer dollars to hire contractors than it would to hire federal employees to perform the same services. Limiting federal jobs will lead to paying more contractors and cost taxpayers more money.

“If Congress thinks the federal government should reduce spending by discontinuing a specific program or policy, it should vote to discontinue the program or policy.  But it must not arbitrarily reduce the entire workforce and call it a solution. This approach threatens the services and security that our federal workers provide Americans in every state. We must not allow this irresponsible bill to progress any further than it already has to becoming law.”

                                     ###