logo
Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service

Opinion - The ‘big, beautiful bill' would secretly dismantle the civil service

Yahoo2 days ago

The House-passed budget reconciliation bill contains a troubling provision so dangerous and corrosive to the integrity of the federal government that it demands immediate scrutiny and swift rejection by the Senate.
Buried in more than 1,000 pages of legislative text is Section 90002, a provision that strikes at the heart of the professional, nonpartisan civil service. It proposes a 9.4 percent salary surcharge on newly hired federal employees who wish to retain their civil service protections, ostensibly to pay for their retirement benefits.
Those who cannot afford this effective tax on the rights that federal employees currently enjoy would be forced into permanent at-will employment. Although they would then qualify for a lower retirement deduction of 4.4 percent, as purely at-will employees they could be fired at any time, for any reason — or for no reason at all — with no legal recourse.
This is not just bad policy — it is a direct attack on more than 140 years of bipartisan civil service tradition.
Our professional civil service was born out of the rampant corruption of the 19th-century 'spoils system,' in which federal jobs were handed out as political favors by victorious candidates. That system came to a halt with the Pendleton Act of 1883, passed after President James Garfield was assassinated by a disgruntled office-seeker who believed he had been improperly denied a patronage job. The Pendleton Act established a competitive, merit-based hiring system and laid the foundation for the modern professional civil service that serves the nation — not the party in power.
This commitment was reaffirmed and modernized by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, signed by President Jimmy Carter. That law improved efficiency and accountability and codified labor rights while protecting employees from arbitrary or politically motivated firings. It also created federal bodies — the Office of Personnel Management, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and the Merit Systems Protection Board — to safeguard merit principles and the integrity of public service.
Now, with a single provision rolled out with little debate and no hearing record, the House reconciliation bill threatens to undo all this hard-won progress. If enacted, it would create a two-tier federal workforce: one class protected by civil service laws, and another completely vulnerable to the whims of political appointees. Worse still, the measure is designed to coerce new hires into giving up their rights for the rest of their careers.
Faced with a 9.4 percent pay cut, most new federal employees — already earning salaries that are an estimated 25 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts — will feel they have no real choice. Many early-career workers live paycheck to paycheck; this surcharge would be an impossible burden. According to the Congressional Budget Office, three-quarters of new hires would likely be driven into at-will status. Among the 800,000 federal workers I represent as president of the American Federation of Government Employees, few if any could afford to pay the surcharge.
That inability to pay is one reason why the provision raises so little money — less than $500 million annually according to the CBO — or just 0.1 percent of the cost of the bill's accompanying tax cuts.
Clearly, revenue is not the point. The point is to erode labor rights and weaken the civil service.
This provision is also a political time bomb. If passed, it sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future administration. Imagine a newly inaugurated Democratic president firing every at-will federal employee hired during the previous Republican administration — no hearings, no cause, no appeal. If Republicans are willing to set this precedent, they must be prepared to live under it.
But the real danger is institutional. How can federal scientists, doctors, safety inspectors or law enforcement officers operate with independence and integrity if they can be dismissed on a whim? These protections are what enable civil servants to speak truth to power — even when that truth is inconvenient.
This proposal is also a direct attack on organized labor. Without civil service protections, unions are hamstrung in their ability to represent their members. Workers afraid of being summarily fired are unlikely to file grievances, assert their rights or even speak candidly in meetings. Only those who can afford the surcharge would retain access to effective representation. Section 90002 isn't just misguided — it's union-busting by design.
Imagine the outcry if a Democratic Congress imposed a 5 percent income tax on corporations to preserve their rights to challenge unions under the National Labor Relations Act. Republicans would rightly decry this as the weaponization of tax policy. Yet that's precisely what this bill does to federal workers — using financial coercion to undermine their legal protections.
The civil service exists to provide stability, expertise and continuity regardless of the party holding office. It is one of the bedrock institutions that has sustained American democracy through wars, crises and peaceful transitions of power. The Trump administration may not like the idea of a government that can resist political manipulation — but that is exactly what democracy requires.
Section 90002 is not reform. It is sabotage. Congress must reject it and reaffirm its commitment to the principles that have guided our civil service since 1883. Our institutions — and the American people they serve — deserve no less.
Dr. Everett B. Kelley is national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions

San Francisco Chronicle​

time38 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions

A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. The road to a settlement Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. Roster limits held things up The deal looked ready to go since last fall, but Wilken put a halt to it after listening to a number of players who had lost their spots because of newly imposed roster limits being placed on teams. The limits were part of a trade-off that allowed the schools to offer scholarships to everyone on the roster, instead of only a fraction, as has been the case for decades. Schools started cutting walk-ons in anticipation of the deal being approved. Wilken asked for a solution and, after weeks, the parties decided to let anyone cut from a roster — now termed a 'Designated Student-Athlete' — return to their old school or play for a new one without counting against the new limit. Wilken ultimately agreed, going point-by-point through the objectors' arguments to explain why they didn't hold up. 'The modifications provide Designated Student-Athletes with what they had prior to the roster limits provisions being implemented, which was the opportunity to be on a roster at the discretion of a Division I school,' Wilken wrote. Winners and losers The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers, despite Wilken's ruling, figure to be at least some of the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.

153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know
153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

153 NCAA rules had to be eliminated to clear the way for the House settlement. Numbers to know

FILE - TCU's Sedona Prince celebrates after her team's win over Louisville in the second round of the NCAA college basketball tournament in Fort Worth, Texas, Sunday, March 23, 2025. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez, File) The groundbreaking case leading to the transformation of college sports in the United States comes nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House and Oregon basketball player Sedona Prince filed a complaint against the NCAA and the five most powerful conferences alleging they were unfairly being denied of pay for use of their name, image and likeness. The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken resolved three antitrust cases — House vs. NCAA, Carter vs. NCAA and Hubbard vs. NCAA — that became known collectively as the 'House case.' Advertisement The class-action lawsuits contended the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC violated antitrust law by not providing benefits and compensation to athletes and restraining athletes' ability to make money for endorsements and sponsorships. Incremental gains won by athletes in previous lawsuits against the NCAA set the stage for the House settlement and the all-out professionalization of college sports. A look at key numbers associated with the case: 389,700 Athletes who played an NCAA sport between 2016-24 and could be eligible for back payments 101,935 Class members who submitted a claim form or updated their payment information, which represents approximately 26.2% of the 389,700. Advertisement 357 Athletes who opted out of the settlement and could pursue their own remedies. $2.8 billion Back damages to be paid to current and former college athletes who were denied the opportunity to profit from the use of their NIL rights. The amount will be paid in $280 million installments over 10 years. The NCAA will use reserves and insurance to cover about 40% of the payments. The rest will be covered by the NCAA reducing its annual distributions to Division I schools. 95% Estimated amount of the $2.8 billion that will be paid in back damages to football and men's and women's basketball players in the power conferences. Advertisement $20.5 million The 2025-26 pool of money each Division I school can distribute in direct payments to athletes beginning July 1. The amount represents 22% of the average revenue generated by each school from the five defendant conferences and Notre Dame. 153 NCAA rules that had to be eliminated to allow schools to provide additional benefits to athletes under the settlement. $600 All Division I athletes will be required to report to their schools and the Deloitte clearinghouse any and all third-party NIL contracts with a total value of $600 or more, if payment occurs after July 1, 2025. The clearinghouse will determine whether the amount is commensurate with the athlete's fair market value. Advertisement $20 billion The widely accepted estimate by University of San Francisco sports economist Daniel Rascher of additional direct compensation athletes will receive over the next 10 years. $10 billion The estimated amount of damages faced by the NCAA and the five conferences if they avoided a settlement and lost at trial. $475 million Plaintiffs attorneys' request for legal fees. The figure is based on attorneys receiving 20% of the NIL settlement fund and 10% of the additional compensation settlement fund as well as an injunction relief award of $20 million paid by the defendants. That does not included about $9 million in expenses attorneys are claiming. ___ AP college sports:

Maryland must tackle interconnected land use, housing, transportation, economic challenges
Maryland must tackle interconnected land use, housing, transportation, economic challenges

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Maryland must tackle interconnected land use, housing, transportation, economic challenges

Traffic on the Capital Beltway near the American Legion Bridge. Surveys show Marylanders want housing near jobs, but state policy doesn't always make that easy. (Photo by Dave Dildine/WTOP) Maryland is well-known for innovative state policies and reforms, including smart growth, but the state missed key opportunities this year to build on that legacy. While approving a half-billion-dollar package to close a major transportation funding gap, the legislature (primarily the Senate) failed to adopt bills that would ensure the funds shift the state in a new direction toward abundant and affordable housing and transportation choices. Maryland's land use, high housing costs, transportation challenges and economic doldrums are interconnected. They require new approaches, not just patching budget holes to fix. Homes are expensive in part because Maryland communities allow too little housing near transit, services and jobs. This contributes to sprawling, car-dependent development, further fueled by too much public spending on oversized roads and highways. The result is long commutes, more driving to reach stores and services, and higher transportation costs for families. The average new car in the U.S. costs almost $50,000, and last year 17% of American drivers said they had to take on a second job to help pay for their car. Instead of funding more of this status quo, Maryland needs to help families stay here, with affordable access to opportunity. Fostering walkable, vibrant activity centers with good transit and a range of housing types and prices near jobs will help current residents and also attract the next generation of skilled workers and industries. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates. Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines. Views of writers are their own. The House of Delegates passed several valuable smart growth bills: Transit-oriented development (House Bill 80) to remove obstacles to building housing and mixed-use development near rail stations; Transportation and Climate Alignment Act (House Bill 84), ensuring the state's transportation investments support its climate change goals while giving residents more travel options; Metro Funding Modification Act (House Bill 467), fixing dedicated state capital funding for the D.C.-area Metro system to account for inflation; and Gov. Wes Moore's Housing for Jobs Act (House Bill 503), which would have required the state's job centers to address housing needs, although it was watered down into largely a study bill. Unfortunately, the Maryland Senate did not advance any of these bills to a vote. The Senate, to its credit, did pass: Split-rate property tax enabling legislation (Senate Bill 472) that would allow local governments to create tax structures that capture the value of land near assets like rail stations while incentivizing new development, though the House did not pass it; and Accessory dwelling unit bill (House Bill 1466) that will require local governments to allow construction of a smaller independent home on a lot with a single-family detached house. The House concurred with the final bill and the governor signed it. We know that legislators had a lot on their plates, with a sizable budget gap and chaotic federal backdrop. However, most of the smart-growth bills that didn't pass would have cost little or nothing to government coffers – and would actually save the state money over time through reduced infrastructure and service costs. Realizing this vision provides interconnected benefits. For example: Smart growth has been key to attracting and retaining Fortune 500 firms like Marriott and Choice Hotels in transit-oriented locations. Maryland families on average would save over $3,000 per year in transportation costs if the state provided more opportunities for transit, walking, biking and accessible living. State-owned transit-oriented development sites could support 5,000 new housing units in the Baltimore region and 2,600 new housing units along the MARC Penn Line. These Penn Line sites could generate $800 million in new state and local revenue. Marylanders want these opportunities; 76% support more homes in job-rich areas. Before the next General Assembly session, the Moore administration can make progress: The Maryland Department of Transportation can adopt changes to its Chapter 30 project prioritization process to better maintain existing infrastructure, recognize good land use planning as a transportation solution, and ensure affordable and sustainable travel choices for residents. The Department of Housing and Community Development can provide further analysis on the state's housing shortage and the benefits of new homes in accessible locations. It could also work with local governments to improve land use review to reduce time and complexity, allowing more new homes to be built faster in transit-accessible locations. During the 2026 session, the General Assembly will have the opportunity to pass legacy-making legislation ahead of the elections. Gov. Moore, with the support of state senators and delegates, can help Marylanders address the everyday needs of housing and transportation in lasting ways, which also help the state's finances, climate resilience, and economic opportunity.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store