Republicans vow to cut federal retirement as budget solution

**NigelSt.Hubbins** · 05-05-2011, 12:51 PM

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.

**clester** · 05-05-2011, 12:58 PM

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** · 05-05-2011, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by clester

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!

Oh yeah, high 5 not high 3.

That should balance the budget.

**James48843** · 05-05-2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by clester

Oh yeah, high 5 not high 3.

That should balance the budget.

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?

)

**pmcint01** · 05-05-2011, 01:55 PM

Ouch!

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

Originally Posted by James48843

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?

)

**Steel_Magnolia** · 05-05-2011, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by James48843

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?

)

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>

**clester** · 05-05-2011, 02:05 PM

Shared sacrifice right?

**Silverbird** · 05-05-2011, 02:27 PM

Oookay. So FERS becomes a de facto savings account for retirement?

**Viva_La_Migra** · 05-05-2011, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by pmcint01

Ouch!

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

Don't think they haven't considered it.

**Frixxxx** · 05-05-2011, 03:21 PM

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!

**hessian** · 05-05-2011, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by Frixxxx

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 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!

What do you think??
It can easily be rolled out - in whole, or in part.