Federal Workers’ Chief Hits Bush Budget : Labor: The leader of the government employees union tells Congress that the President, in calling for a cut in their pay, reneged on past promises.

The leader of a major federal employees union told Congress on Wednesday that President Bush’s new budget makes scapegoats of U.S. government workers by proposing to cut their pay and benefits to finance tax cuts for the rich.

John N. Sturdivant, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, accused Bush during testimony before the House Budget Committee, of reneging on past promises to federal employees.

In a signal that some of the President’s proposals aimed at government workers may be rejected, Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), chairman of the panel, agreed in large part with the union leader’s complaints.

“There seems very little in the President’s budget to benefit working people,” Panetta said. “Moreover, in order to help finance his skewed priorities, the President takes direct aim at the federal worker’s paycheck.”

The House budget panel has been hearing testimony in preparation for its alternative budget proposal, which is likely to be more favorable to federal workers.

Civilian federal workers traditionally have been easy targets for budget cutters because their numbers are relatively small and they lack strong political support. Typically, however, proposed cuts in their benefits ultimately are restored in budget negotiations.

Sturdivant said that the President’s call for a 90-day delay in the effective date of a federal pay raise breaks an agreement between his union, the Administration and Congress that was enacted into law in 1990.

Bush’s budget also wants to raise federal employees’ contributions to the Civil Service Retirement System from 7% to 9%, eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for all retired federal workers, both civilian and military and reduce retirees’ health insurance benefits, Sturdivant noted.

In addition, he testified, the President has proposed a 4% reduction in federal employment, including a reduction of 40,000 civilian jobs in the Department of Defense, without offering alternative government employment to those who would be affected.

“We have been singled out once again to bear the brunt of the spending cuts proposed in the President’s budget,” Sturdivant said.

“This year the cuts are not to avoid raising the deficit, and certainly not to pay for worthwhile social programs but merely to finance tax cuts for the rich.”

Sturdivant also protested a proposed cutback of 700 jobs in the Social Security Administration, noting that 17,000 jobs already have been eliminated in this agency since 1985.

“Waiting times in (Social Security) offices are too long and, with increasing workload and threatened decreases rather than the needed increases in staff, they will only get longer,” he said.

In related testimony, a top official of another government employees’ union proposed a $15-billion package of federal grants to states and cities to bolster their ability to pay for public safety, health, education, social services and environmental programs.

The proposal was made by William Lucy, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

“State and local governments are in the worst shape they have been in since the Great Depression,” Lucy said. “We will not get out of this recession without spending money and the federal government alone has the ability to provide the needed economic jolt.”