Republicans vow to cut federal retirement as budget solution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by newest Sort by date
N

NigelSt.Hubbins

New member
Friends,

Regardless of which side of the aisle you stand upon, today's Washington Post reported some very ominous developments. Its page one story [print edition] "On cusp of budget talks, a new tone" states:

"On the eve of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Biden, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) said Republicans remain convinced that reining in federal retirement programs is the key to stabilizing the nation’s finances over the long term. But he said Republicans recognize they may need to look elsewhere to achieve consensus after President Obama “excoriated us” for a proposal to privatize Medicare." [Editorial note: I realize that the second sentence doesn't really fit very well with the first, but I did accurately "cut and paste" it.]

The article goes on to say [on A5]: "[Ryan] has also suggested cutting contributions to federal worker pension plans . . . ."

If the article is accurate it seems that the leadership of the Republican party has declared "open season" upon federal workers. Even though I am a federal retiree I am very dismayed with what appears to me to be an extremely short-sighted budgetary approach which is very likely to undermine the ability of the federal government to recruit the most talented career employees.
 
It's those greedy unions! First it was the teachers now they're coming after you!

How does it feel?

If we can just bust those unions!

I bet they go to straight tsp retirement no pension for new hires and increase everyone's pension contributions and lower matching funds.

Nice!
 
clester said:
It's those greedy unions! First it was the teachers now they're coming after you!

How does it feel?

If we can just bust those unions!

I bet they go to straight tsp retirement no pension for new hires and increase everyone's pension contributions and lower matching funds.

Nice!
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, high 5 not high 3.

That should balance the budget.
 
clester said:
Oh yeah, high 5 not high 3.

That should balance the budget.
Click to expand...

A lot more than just that- Ryan's proposal eliminates the employer's contribution to FERS- and makes the EMPLOYEE pay the full amount. You would have to pay an addtional 6% of your salary into FERS, in order to collect a lower FERS (high 5 vs high 3) amount.

Thank you Congressman Ryan for saving America. (Shucks- perhaps we should NOT have saved his grand-pappy- you remember, Private Ryan?:o)
 
Ouch!

Why don't they just lay off half the Gov't workers or just reduce our pay to minimum wage?


James48843 said:
A lot more than just that- Ryan's proposal eliminates the employer's contribution to FERS- and makes the EMPLOYEE pay the full amount. You would have to pay an addtional 6% of your salary into FERS, in order to collect a lower FERS (high 5 vs high 3) amount.

Thank you Congressman Ryan for saving America. (Shucks- perhaps we should NOT have saved his grand-pappy- you remember, Private Ryan?:o)
Click to expand...
 
James48843 said:
A lot more than just that- Ryan's proposal eliminates the employer's contribution to FERS- and makes the EMPLOYEE pay the full amount. You would have to pay an addtional 6% of your salary into FERS, in order to collect a lower FERS (high 5 vs high 3) amount.

Thank you Congressman Ryan for saving America. (Shucks- perhaps we should NOT have saved his grand-pappy- you remember, Private Ryan?:o)
Click to expand...
And it's just SILLY to think that it's going to have a measurable impact on the federal debt. But it makes a great soundbite. So I think that all FERS employees should have to suffer so that Congressman Ryan can help his re-election campaign, don't you? <she says sarcastically>
 
Wait,

You pay government employees and contribute to their retirement that gets put into TSP and then withdraw money from that pot to pay off debt because they can't stop spending....

If they stop putting money into that pot, where they gonna get it from now? Employee pockets?

I wonder if they realize that a GS-5 can get more in unemployment for two years than they get paid in their check.

And you know this whole OUTSOURCING solution is working wonders with the bottom line!:suspicious:
 
Frixxxx said:
Wait,
You pay government employees and contribute to their retirement that gets put into TSP and then withdraw money from that pot to pay off debt because they can't stop spending.... :suspicious:
Click to expand...

If they actually do want, and intend to use our TSP Accts for our the debt situation, my opinion/idea is to roll my entire TSP Acct out to a Brokerage.

I haven't desired to do this, as yet, because I thought it'd be safer with the Gov., rather than a firm that could feasibly declare bankrupcy - but it would offer more investing flexibility additionally - as well as now perhaps stability for our CP! :sick:
What do you think??
It can easily be rolled out - in whole, or in part.
 
SkyPilot said:
It cannot happen unless the Senate and the President agree... :worried:
Click to expand...
If they actually do want, and intend to use our TSP Accts for our the debt situation, my opinion/idea is to roll my entire TSP Acct out to a Brokerage.

I thought it'd be safer with the Gov., rather than a firm that could feasibly declare bankrupcy - but it would offer more investing flexibility additionally - as well as now perhaps stability for our CP! :sick:
What do you think?? It can easily be rolled out - in whole, or in part.
Click to expand...
Is that meant to make us feel better? / Confident it won't happen? :suspicious::sick:
 
Re(1):

Here is the article...

As far as contributing 6% of my salary to the FERS pension plan (we currently contibute a whopping 0.8%), I'm not for it. I would NOT contribute to something with cr@ppy 'G Fund' returns at my age. I'll gladly take the salary bump - which I could use to increase my TSP contributions. In funds of MY choice.;)

I would gladly offer the gubmint the following deal.
  • Place my current 'holdings' in my TSP account.
  • DO NOT fund the pension
  • I WILL NOT take the pension.
Sounds fair. I get a bump in TSP holdings and the Feds are off the hook for 20 years of pension funding and any pension liability. I bet we both come out ahead:)
 
I would think the only fund that the government could get their hands on is the G fund and I think that would be difficult at best. The other funds are invested in various stock portfolios and if the government tried to grab the other funds it could have a pretty good impact on the market.
 
I really don't think they will do crap. When they take the surveys they will find they are getting a deal, paying the WORKING government workers what they get. The experience and quality of their work cannot be replaced by contractors without costing much more in the end. As far as benefits look at GM, what they are getting will be the least that Government workers will get. I don't think they will change a damn thing, they have already screwed us enough with FERS!:cool:
 
NASA,

My read is that they are talking about the pension portion of our retirement - not the 401(k) we call TSP. The scary thing is that the pension is merely a line item in the budget. It is not stored in a custodial account like TSP. Thus, it is in play for politicians. My guess is that they will jigger the formulas a bit. Yowser.

And, NASA, the Treasury can perform machinations and 'borrow' off our 'G Fund' holdings. That ability has nothing to do with market impact - it has to do with the fact that the 'G Fund' bonds are Social Security bonds.
 
There is a good summary of the Republican plan at:http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20110415/BENEFITS01/104150301/ (I'm not sure whether it has evolved any since when the article was written.)

I agree with Boghie that the plan appears to be dealing with the pension rather than the match to the TSP (though why would anybody think that is safe either?). So between social security and the federal pension, current federal workers would pay 12% of their salary towards retirement. By 2017, after 5 years with no salary increases and no step increases, I think people might be feeling it! But that seems to me an integral part of the plan -- make federal employment so financially unpalatable that current workers move on and, more importantly, the government has difficulty attracting competent new workers, will continue to decline in public respect and thus can be more easily downsized where it can finally be "drown in the bath tub."

It seems to me that short of "town hall" rebellions such as occurred with respect to the more broadly felt cuts to Medicare, Republicans will be deaf to protestations of unfairness. I see that as a possibility in only a few districts. Does anyone have thoughts about how to influence Republicans in a more positive direction?

Probably the more profitable approach is to encourage the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama to show some backbone on this issue. Is there any reason to be optimistic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

uscfanhawaii
2019 Federal Budget
Replies
5
Views
6K
badgerland
badgerland
James48843
House passes massive Federal Employee Retirement Cuts
Replies
15
Views
15K
Warrenlm
Warrenlm
James48843
GOP Budget cuts Federal employee pay, retirement, and TSP
Replies
2
Views
4K
spantzer
S
S
I'm retiring as soon as I can: Senate passes budget slashing civilian agency funding
Replies
3
Views
2K
Boghie
Boghie
James48843
TARGET ON YOUR BACK
Replies
16
Views
3K
Buster
Buster
Back
Top