and the HITS just keep on coming!

[James48843]

Republican House member introduces bill to freeze all Step increases too:



Bill would prohibit step increases for feds through 2012



GOP lawmakers seek to freeze bonuses, step increases (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2011/02/gop-lawmakers-seek-to-freeze-bonuses-step-increases/33344/)

February 16, 2011



http://cdn.govexec.com/media/img/upload/2012/02/03/020312roby2GE/medium.jpg

Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., sponsored the legislation.


A House lawmaker has introduced a bill that would prohibit step increases for federal employees who currently are subject to a pay freeze.
The provision, tucked into larger legislation aimed at improving transparency within the appropriations process, would prevent federal workers from receiving within-grade step increases through the end of 2012.

If enacted, it would mean extra pain for federal employees during the second year of the federal pay freeze; the current salary freeze does not affect pay boosts as a result of within-grade step increases or promotions.


The pay bump associated with a step increase varies according to the employee’s specific pay system. For example, there are 10 steps within each grade of the General Schedule, which covers much of the federal workforce, and the pay increase between most steps within those grades is roughly $2,000. In 2012, the base pay for a GS-12, Step 1 is $60,274; for a GS-12, Step 2 it is $62,283.
The 2012 Honest Budget Act (H.R. 3844 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3844ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr3844ih.pdf)), sponsored by Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala.



Man, they just keep at the anti-Federal employee pounding, don't they?

More:
http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/02/bill-would-prohibit-step-increases-feds-through-2012/41087/

[SteelSaving]

Wait, I thought I read that the reason the COLA freeze was ok because there were still step increases.

Meh, what's the point of arguing. I am now a full believer and a more-and-more practitioner of ERE. May not get to be as extreme as Jacob but screw the idea of working through the prime of my life. Get out of the system as soon as you can, friends.

[CrabClaw]

. May not get to be as extreme as Jacob but screw the idea of working through the prime of my life. Get out of the system as soon as you can, friends.

AMEN!!!

[Silverbird]

Federal Workers Face ‘Assault’ in Budget War [Bloomberg]

Federal Workers Face (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-17/federal-workers-face-unprecedented-assault-in-u-s-budget-war.html)

[If you've all wondered where I've been, it's crazy down here. The FY 2013 budget for where I work is bizzare stuff. The division I am in will take a head count cut and a budget increase. A whole slew of us took early retirement in August 2011 (and December 2010). Of course they are counting the head count from October 1, 2011. Gives a whole new meaning to "throw money at it" while cutting those government workers. Then they increased the head count in another division working on stuff only perpherally related to what we work on, and no one wants to talk about how this is going to happen. Everyone's currently scrambling to justify their job so they don't get bumped into the other division. And I suspect I am going to see another slew of retirements at the end of the year, and the hiring freeze still in place - and the division with the theoretical head count increase is going to expect to be able to "transfer" enough of the remaining staff in our division into theirs. So bigger budget and hiring freeze, move people around like checkers and expect them to function - how does this lead to a more effective Federal Government again??]

[Mapper]

Don't make the mistake of thinking reality will have any influence on the more provocative news sound bite.

I went through this a few years ago as a state employee in WI. My job wasn't affected but I left because the writing was on the wall. One of best, brightest and hardest working employees got transferred twice and ultimately moved across the state before she decided it was time to throw in towel and go for a Ph D. I may be doing the same thing here. I'm getting sick of staring at "Dead End" signs on my career path. Guess I best keep saving for another round of schooling :rolleyes:

[Bronco07]

Hey Tom ..... this is neat ..... I like the technology :-)

[Scout333]

Here we go again!
Senate amendment would extend pay freeze through 2013 - FederalNewsRadio.com (http://www.federalnewsradio.com/117/2782484/Senate-amendment-extends-pay-freeze-through-2013)

[James48843]

Not to be outdone- the House republicans today unveil their new 2013 slash-and-burn-federal-employees budget proposal.



from: http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/1026.cfm



House Budget Plan Extends Federal Pay Freeze to 2015,
Increases Retirement
Contributions
March 20, 2012 - updated 3:53 pm ET


The GOP House Budget Committee's fiscal 2013 budget plan proposes
extending the federal pay freeze through 2015, cutting the federal workforce by 10
percent, and increasing federal retirement contributions of employees. The plan, released this morning by Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), gave the following specifics that are of particular interest to federal
employees:

"The federal government has added 147,000 new workers since the President
took office. It is no coincidence that private-*-sector employment
continues to grow only sluggishly while the government expands: To pay for the
public-*- sector's growth, Washington must immediately tax the private
sector or else borrow and impose taxes later to pay down the debt.

The federal government's responsibilities require a strong federal
workforce. Federal workers deserve to be compensated equitably for their important
work, but their pay levels, pay increases and fringe benefits should be
reformed to better align with those of their private-*-sector
counterparts.

Compensation for federal workers continues to outpace pay for their
private-*-sector counterparts. The non-*-partisan CBO recently released a
study saying that federal workers are, on average, compensated 16 percent
higher than comparable private-*-sector employees.21 Immune from the
effects of the recession, federal workers have received regular salary bumps
regardless of productivity or economic realities. The reforms called for in this budget aim to slow the federal government's unsustainable growth and reflect the growing frustration of workers across
the country at the privileged rules enjoyed by government employees. They
reduce the public-*-sector bureaucracy, not through layoffs, but via a
gradual, sensible attrition policy. By 2015, this reform would result in a
10 percent reduction in the federal workforce. Additionally, this budget
freezes federal pay through 2015 and asks federal employees to make a more
equitable contribution to their retirement plans.


More: http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/1026.cfm



Sooo...freeze federal pay through the end of 2015. Then jack up retirement contributions, and, oh yea- eliminate more than 100,000 positions.

Nice proposal there Paul Ryan. Thanks.

He calls it..."The Path to Prosperity".

For whom? Not federal workers, that's for sure.


AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

[jkenjohnson]

Not to be outdone- the House republicans today unveil their new 2013 slash-and-burn-federal-employees budget proposal.


More: House Budget Plan Extends Federal Pay Freeze to 2015, Increases Retirement Contributions (http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/1026.cfm)




Sooo...freeze federal pay through the end of 2015. Then jack up retirement contributions, and, oh yea- eliminate more than 100,000 positions.

Nice proposal there Paul Ryan. Thanks.

He calls it..."The Path to Prosperity".

For whom? Not federal workers, that's for sure.


AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....


It won't make it past the Senate.

[Kaufmanrider]

It won't make it past the Senate.

The whole budget, yes. Cuts, deductions, reductions to Feds? Probably will make it in some form or fashion in the near future. Remember, it was the President
who started the pay freeze on us. And it was the President that twisted the Dem's arms to pass the payroll tax and allow increased FER's contributions by future Feds to pay for it. In fact, I believe the President even proposed the increased contributions first, as part of his budget, phased in over three years.

No, when it comes down to it, we (Fed's) are going to take a hit. The question is when and how much.

[nnuut]

Not to be outdone- the House republicans today unveil their new 2013 slash-and-burn-federal-employees budget proposal.


More: House Budget Plan Extends Federal Pay Freeze to 2015, Increases Retirement Contributions (http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/1026.cfm)



Sooo...freeze federal pay through the end of 2015. Then jack up retirement contributions, and, oh yea- eliminate more than 100,000 positions.

Nice proposal there Paul Ryan. Thanks.

He calls it..."The Path to Prosperity".

For whom? Not federal workers, that's for sure.


AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....
Vote Romney and he will keep our military strong and the Feds along with it!

[nasa1974]

Tough being a fed with only 5-10 years under your belt.

[ILoveTDs]

Tough being a fed with only 5-10 years under your belt.

I hear yeah Nasa. I'm working on my CPA right now just in case I need to leave federal service.

[nasa1974]

I hear yeah Nasa. I'm working on my CPA right now just in case I need to leave federal service.

My son-in-law works for DFAS and he was a contractor until two years ago when he was converted to a federally. I still think he is better off but not by much.

[Mapper]

Tough being a fed with only 5-10 years under your belt.

How about 2 years! :o

[ILoveTDs]

How about 2 years! :o

God bless you mapper

[Mapper]

I just keep living as if I was a student. That way, when I have to become a student again, the adjustment won't be so tough. Also makes it easier to max my TSP contribution :D

[Kaufmanrider]

How about 2 years! :o

Good for you. I can go in 14 months. Will I? That's the question.

Depends on what HITS we start to take.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Not to be outdone- the House republicans today unveil their new 2013 slash-and-burn-federal-employees budget proposal.


More: House Budget Plan Extends Federal Pay Freeze to 2015, Increases Retirement Contributions (http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/1026.cfm)



Sooo...freeze federal pay through the end of 2015. Then jack up retirement contributions, and, oh yea- eliminate more than 100,000 positions.

Nice proposal there Paul Ryan. Thanks.

He calls it..."The Path to Prosperity".

For whom? Not federal workers, that's for sure.


AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

That's funny. With the exception of security guards, bounty hunters, and private investigators, all of law enforcement is in the public sector. Maybe they'll offer to pay me like a bounty hunter and pay me per person I remove from the country. Actually, this administration would probably prefer to pay me like they pay farmers NOT to grow crops!;)

[James48843]

AND THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING......

Govexec.com is reporting this today- I haven't found the exact langauge in the bill yet, but I'm looking:



Last night, House Republicans began debating provisions in the Transportation Highway Bill. They are expected to vote on it today. Among the language is a section to raise Federal employee FERS retirement contributions by 1.5% over the next three years. It's in a "must pass" bill they have to do in the House either today or tomorrow. If they fail to bring the bill to a vote, then the Highway spending will lapse. The House plans to bring it to a vote, and then leave town, so the Senate will have no choice but to either pass the House version with the Federal Employee hits, or the whole highway spending bill will collapse, authorizations will expire, and highway funds will cease to go out.

Fate of federal employee provisions in highway bill up in the air - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/03/fate-federal-employee-provisions-highway-bill-air/41605/)



Thanks guys. We Federal employees really appreciate that.

....and....The hits just keep on coming.

[Mapper]

Of course, since this is "must pass" legislation, they could pass the Senate bill which is focused on actual highway funding and extends the funding for 2 years rather than a 90 day extension w/ unrelated provisions...but that wouldn't be dramatic enough for the attention seeking, self-important, underhanded House.

[James48843]

OK- I found the offending passages. There are several pieces to the puzzle-

H.R. 3813 is the offensive FERS cut/boost employee provisions.

That has been tacked on to H.R. 7, which is the Transportation bill.

It looks like the House MAY OR MAY NOT vote on H.R. 7. If they do, then they should do a separate vote on H>R. 3813.

It is possible they may do a short term extension instead. That is what appears to be cued up right now, and it being debated this morning on the House floor.

I'll try and keep my eye on it, but it is not looking good.

Just so you know- the H.R. 3813 bill that

1. increases employee contributions by 1.5%
2. changes from a High Three to a High Five,
3. LOWERS the calculation from 1% for each year of government service, to 0.7% for each year of government service
4. and, by the way, ELIMINATES THE FERS SUPPLEMENT for those retiring before age 62.

The sponsor of this wonderful piece of ...piece of legislation, is Representative Dennis Ross, of Florida.

[James48843]

For the record- Representative Dennis Ross, the sponsor of that fine piece of ...legislation, appears to be the leader in fund raising members of the 15-member TEA PARTY CAUCUS, having been newly elected in Florida, and was the biggest reporter of special interest money after election.

The Center for Public Integrity: 15 Tea Party Caucus freshmen rake in $3.5 million in first 9 months in Washington (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/15-tea-party-caucus-fresh_b_1101194.html)

[Mapper]

If they pass it the Pres should veto.

If the house doesn't want to pay transportation workers then they should take the medicine.

If the House wants to break it's contractual pension obligations to the civilian work force they should do it in a straightforward manner and take that medicine too. If they want to be "bold and courageous" they should quit hiding.

For what it's worth the Senate bill already caves on the high 3 to high 5 provision. So again, compromise (in the Senate bill) is flouted for the sake of unbending ideology (in the House bill) at the expense of American workers (one way or another).

[nasa1974]

James, My understanding is that this is for new hires. Correct or not?

[nasa1974]

Come November we just have to remember WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR!!! Make sure you talk to family and friends as well.

[Mapper]

My understanding is that the high 3 to high 5 provision is for new employees (Senate bill) but the pension rate increases etc. (House bill) are for all FERS. I could be, and hope, I'm wrong.

[James48843]

No- not just new hires. MOST but not all of the provisions effect everyone.

The higher deduction from your paycheck affects everyone.

The reduction from FERS being 1.1% to 1% (for those retiring over age 62) is for everyone.

The elimination of the FERS supplement for those less than age 62 is for everyone.

only some provisions affect newly hired employees. Many of the provisions adversely affect everybody.

Go to THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov) and type in H.R. 3813 , and you can read the bill for yourself.

[dhstdog]

No- not just new hires. MOST but not all of the provisions effect everyone.

The higher deduction from your paycheck affects everyone.

The reduction from FERS being 1.1% to 1% (for those retiring over age 62) is for everyone.

The supplement
The elimination of the FERS supplement for those less than age 62 is for everyone.

only some provisions affect newly hired employees. Many of the provisions adversely affect everybody.

Go to THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov) and type in H.R. 3813 , and you can read the bill for yourself.

the FERS supplement doesnt change for those of us that are LEOs etc and have early retirement.

[Rifleman]

Their shameless on their budget cuts.... we've already bailed them out quite a bit, guess we're in for more...

[PessOptimist]

No- not just new hires. MOST but not all of the provisions effect everyone.

The higher deduction from your paycheck affects everyone.

The reduction from FERS being 1.1% to 1% (for those retiring over age 62) is for everyone.

The elimination of the FERS supplement for those less than age 62 is for everyone.

only some provisions affect newly hired employees. Many of the provisions adversely affect everybody.

Go to THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and type in H.R. 3813 , and you can read the bill for yourself.

I did that and James I think you may be wrong about some of the provisions. I hope so.

Before I get to that, there was an article in govexec yesterday that says the house passed pay freezes, increased contributions and downsizing. Of course it never mentions what was passed and what it said. It does mention it is not a law yet. What was passed in the house only was H.CON.RES.112 which is just IMHO more BS by a congresscritter. More BS and hype by the media too.

Go to thomas.loc and read it. I was unable to sleep last night so turned on the TV and found CSPAN was televising debate on H.R.7 which is where those tricky people stuffed H.R.3813 so it sounds like they are fixing pot holes and by the way, screwing .gov employees. All of the speakers were busy brokering their time, down to 15 seconds, to others and dissing others and claiming it was screwing the "worker". no one said which worker. It did cure the insomnia.

I did a little digging about what changes to Title 5 USC Section 84 chapters 01, 15, 21, and 22 this legislation would make. It's not easy as the legislation only mentions striking and changing paragraphs without showing the actual words. So you have to reference your own copy of those sections to make sense of it. All you feds have a copy of 5 USC Section 84 so you understand how and why you get paid, right?

A lot of it seems to depend on what the definition of "is you a 'Secure Annuity Employee' is" to paraphrase a former POTUS.

This is what my digging found:

Sec. 8401. Definitions For the purpose of this chapter--
(1) * * * * * * * * * *
(3)(A) the term `average pay' means the largest annual rate resulting from averaging an employee's or Member's rates of basic pay in effect over any 3 consecutive years of service or, in the case of an annuity under this chapter based on service of less than 3 years, over the total service, with each rate weighted by the period it was in effect; except that
(B) in the case of a secure annuity employee, the term `average pay' has the meaning determined applying subparagraph (A)--
(i) by substituting `5 consecutive years' for `3 consecutive years'; and
(ii) by substituting `5 years' for `3 years'.

(37) the term `secure annuity employee' means an employee or Member who--
(A) first becomes subject to this chapter after December 31, 2012; and
(B) at the time of first becoming subject to this chapter, does not have at least 5 years of civilian service creditable under the Civil Service Retirement System or any other retirement system for Government employees.

Those asterisks appear to mean they are going to leave it as it is or possibly leave it as some previous legislation hidden elsewhere would change it. This does appear to be the proposed definition of "secure annuity employee". This is important in reading the proposed changes to Section 8415.

Sec. 8415. Computation of basic annuity
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the annuity of an employee retiring under this subchapter is--
(1) in the case of an employee other than a secure annuity employee, 1 percent of that individual's average pay multiplied by such individual's total service; and
(2) in the case of an employee who is a secure annuity employee, 0.7 percent of that individual's average pay multiplied by such individual's total service.

The above information came from House Report 112-394 which you can find on thomas.loc. If you want to look up proposed Sec 8415 (h)(1) it has language about those over 62 when they retire.

As far as Section 8422 Deductions from Pay, it does appear we will see a .5% increase in the deduction for retirement in 2013, 14 and 15.

I must confess I have not found where in the existing code we pay the approximately .7% we do.

As my SO pointed out, with the magic language in the changes to Sec 8401 "first becomes subject to this chapter after December 31, 2012" perhaps all of us will become "secure annuity employees" on January 1st 2013.

I am not trying to start any shite here. As we both know, trying to figure out exactly what the bill under conderation or being voted on says is not easy.

Maybe the former Speaker of the House wasn't kidding when she said something like "we need to pass this so we can see what's in it".

What did you all do with your weekend?

[James48843]

Pessoptimist- the "Secure Annuity Employee" is the new, reduced FERS for employees first hired after Dec 2012.

All of the reductions apply to them.

The reduction of FERS supplement affects EVERYONE WHO IS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE except, as dhstdog points out, not LEO early retirement folks.

The rest of us normal FERS retirement people take it in the shorts.

For me, for example- I'm still at least seven years away from normal retirement at the earliest retirement age, and this change of eliminating FERS supplement would mean a cut of roughly $1,600 a month from age 58 to age 62, or roughly $96,000 in retirement money that I would be eligible for if I made it to retirement today.

That is not chump change.

I don't mind helping, but that--$96,000 is a bit much from ONE GUY, especially when you refuse to ask the millionaires to contribute one thin dime in bringing taxes back to pre=Bush levels. Don't expect to take all of your blood from this turnip.

[James48843]

..
I must confess I have not found where in the existing code we pay the approximately .7% we do.



It's at:
5 USC § 8422(a)(3)http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8422





(a)(1) The employing agency shall deduct and withhold from basic pay of each employee and Member a percentage of basic pay determined in accordance with paragraph (2). (2) The percentage to be deducted and withheld from basic pay for any pay period shall be equal to - (A) the applicable percentage under paragraph (3), minus (B) the percentage then in effect under section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rate of tax for old- age, survivors, and disability insurance). (3) The applicable percentage under this paragraph for civilian service shall be as follows: Employee 7 January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998. 7.25 January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999. 7.4 January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000. 7 After December 31, 2000.


I'll leave it at that.

[PessOptimist]

Pessoptimist- the "Secure Annuity Employee" is the new, reduced FERS for employees first hired after Dec 2012.

All of the reductions apply to them.

The reduction of FERS supplement affects EVERYONE WHO IS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE except, as dhstdog points out, not LEO early retirement folks.

The rest of us normal FERS retirement people take it in the shorts.

For me, for example- I'm still at least seven years away from normal retirement at the earliest retirement age, and this change of eliminating FERS supplement would mean a cut of roughly $1,600 a month from age 58 to age 62, or roughly $96,000 in retirement money that I would be eligible for if I made it to retirement today.

That is not chump change.

I don't mind helping, but that--$96,000 is a bit much from ONE GUY, especially when you refuse to ask the millionaires to contribute one thin dime in bringing taxes back to pre=Bush levels. Don't expect to take all of your blood from this turnip.

I still don't follow where you read that about current FERS employees concerning the annuity amount either for those under or over 62.

You will need to point this turnip to the specific wording.

I am past my MRA but really need to work five or so more years to meet my goals about income.

I have no doubt there is a lot going on to reduce the deficit on the backs of current federal employees, no matter what we are currently making. The republicans are doing it but the democrats are just making noise for political purposes. They all want to take money from us due to our "lucrative pension plan"

[James48843]

I still don't follow where you read that about current FERS employees concerning the annuity amount either for those under or over 62.

You will need to point this turnip to the specific wording.



The FERS supplement is eliminated:

Here:


SEC. 4. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.



Section 8421(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--





(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `paragraph (3)' and inserting `paragraphs (3) and (4)';







(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `paragraph (3)' and inserting `paragraphs (3) and (4)'; and







(3) by adding at the end the following:





`(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no annuity supplement under this section shall be payable in the case of an individual whose entitlement to annuity is based on such individual's separation from service after December 31, 2012.



`(B) Nothing in this paragraph applies in the case of an individual separating under subsection (d) or (e) of section 8412.'.

That totally does away with the FERS supplement leg of my planned retirement income.
The FERS supplement is an amount equal to roughly the amount you'll receive in Social Security payments, IF you retire prior to age 62, and being able to collect Social Security. That language effectively wipes out $96,000 worth of retirement income I was planning on, in one short paragraph.

(B) does away with it. PERIOD, for about 90% of federal employees. LEO's and Air Traffic Control still will get it, but the rest of us regular employees will not.

Apparently, Congessional folks seem to think that's a gravy train we don't deserve, after we made a career's worth of decisions about whether to work for the federal government or the private sector. NOW it seems to be that the sponsor of H.R. 3813, and the ones who voted in favor of the Ryan Budget, are happy to blow that $96,000 income that I have been counting on for the last 25 years- they plan to destroy that.

Not nice.

[James48843]

I did a little digging about what changes to Title 5 USC Section 84 chapters 01, 15, 21, and 22 this legislation would make. It's not easy as the legislation only mentions striking and changing paragraphs without showing the actual words. So you have to reference your own copy of those sections to make sense of it. All you feds have a copy of 5 USC Section 84 so you understand how and why you get paid, right?

Have my own copy of Title 5 and have read it? Yes, I do. You better believe it.

and Yes, I looked it up BEFORE I TOOK THE JOB IN 1991, because I carefully always consume all the information I think I need before making such a life-long decision such as whether or not to change careers.

Are you saying that you are only now looking at what your pay in retirement is going to be? Wow. You are already past your minimum retirement age, then...well, I'll leave that up to you. Some of us actually took the time to understand what we were getting into, and did the math, and made our life-long career decisions decades ago.

No, eliminating FERS supplement means either that I will have to work 5 years longer, or lower my estimates considerably in lifestyle into retirement.

Not fun either way.

[PessOptimist]

It's at:
5 USC § 8422(a)(3)

5 USC § 8422 - Deductions from pay; contributions for other service; deposits | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8422)





I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, that's where I left it too.

Section 3101(a) doesn't seem to have anything applicable to deductions for regular annuity and sub paragraph (3) seems to say 7% should be deducted. Strange.

Right now I need to get my past MRA butt in to bed so I can go to work to earn my exorbitant salary and contribute to my xtremely lucrative retirement annuity.

[James48843]

Yeah, that's where I left it too.

Section 3101(a) doesn't seem to have anything applicable to deductions for regular annuity and sub paragraph (3) seems to say 7% should be deducted. Strange.

Right now I need to get my past MRA butt in to bed so I can go to work to earn my exorbitant salary and contribute to my xtremely lucrative retirement annuity.

it says:


(A) the applicable percentage under paragraph (3), minus (B) the percentage then in effect under section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rate of tax for old-age, survivors, and disability insurance).

That means 7% MINUS the amount contributed to Social Security for old-age, survivors, and disability.

Social Security rate in 26 USC 3101(a) is 6.2%.
26 USC § 3101 - Rate of tax | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3101)

So....the difference is 7% - 6.2% = 0.8%.

That is why you pay 0.8% of your salary in FERS retirement.

[PessOptimist]

That means 7% MINUS the amount contributed to Social Security for old-age, survivors, and disability.

Social Security rate in 26 USC 3101(a) is 6.2%.
26 USC § 3101 - Rate of tax | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3101)

So....the difference is 7% - 6.2% = 0.8%.

That is why you pay 0.8% of your salary in FERS retirement.

Thanks for clearing that up. I looked up 3101 yesterday at the same url but for whatever reason OASDI did not click and I did not read the whole thing. Chalk it up to being long past MRA. Now, as we used to say where i grew up "dawn breaks over Marblehead". I never questioned why we contribute what we do toward the FERS annuity.

It looks like they are trying to remove one leg of our three legged FERS stool. Maybe not remove but significantly increase the cost to us.


Have my own copy of Title 5 and have read it? Yes, I do. You better believe it.

and Yes, I looked it up BEFORE I TOOK THE JOB IN 1991, because I carefully always consume all the information I think I need before making such a life-long decision such as whether or not to change careers.

Are you saying that you are only now looking at what your pay in retirement is going to be? Wow. You are already past your minimum retirement age, then...well, I'll leave that up to you. Some of us actually took the time to understand what we were getting into, and did the math, and made our life-long career decisions decades ago.

No, eliminating FERS supplement means either that I will have to work 5 years longer, or lower my estimates considerably in lifestyle into retirement.

Not fun either way.

That comment about having a copy of the USC was aimed at everyone. Sarcasm is my way sometimes. It has to do with where I grew up.

I have a PDF copy and have read some of it but obviously not all of it in depth. When I took this job in '97 I did read all the stuff I received about benefits but the main factor was the hourly wage which looked pretty good compared to my former military career and current temp job at minimum wage plus $.50.

I was 45 when I began this job and have always been well aware of when I could retire and how much I would get. That is the main reason I will be sticking around for 65 and 20 years time. Maybe. It all depends on how much the rules get changed.

Changing the rules mid game does suck and even if this attempt fails I'm sure the same language will pop up somewhere else. Some of it all ready exists in various other bills.

Maybe the next attempt will be called "To State that Clubbing Baby Seals to Death is Bad, and for other purposes".

There goes that warped sense of humor again.

Thanks for your help in deciphering this and for keeping an eye on what congress is up to. I hope others have enjoyed this discussion.

[James48843]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Today- Senator Kent Conrad, (D-North Dakota) , Senate Budget Committee head, announced his proposals for federal budget will incorporate many of the cuts previously proposed.

Included in Conrad's Democratic Proposal--many of the pay and compensation cuts of the Bowles-Simpson proposal:



Speaking on the plan, Conrad said, "I will begin a Budget Committee markup of a long-term budget for the nation. As my Chairman’s Mark, I will lay down the bipartisan Fiscal Commission plan, also known as the Bowles-Simpson plan. It is a plan which I believe represents the best blueprint from which to build a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement that can ultimately be adopted."
So what does this mean if you're a federal worker? Here's a refresher on some of what the Simpson-Bowles plan contains:



Impose a three-year freeze on pay for members of Congress
Impose a three-year pay freeze on federal workers and Defense Department civilians
Reduce the size of the federal workforce 10% through attrition
Reduce federal travel, printing, and vehicle budgets
Use the highest five years of earnings to calculate civil service pension benefits for new retirees (CSRS and FERS), rather than the highest three years prescribed under current law, to bring the benefit calculation in line with the private sector standard



More details:
News Articles: Pay/Benefits Cuts Proposed by Senate Budget Committee (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3386/paybenefits-cuts-proposed-by-senate-budget.html)

Dang! And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING!

[OBGibby]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Today- Senator Kent Conrad, (D-North Dakota) , Senate Budget Committee head, announced his proposals for federal budget will incorporate many of the cuts previously proposed.

Included in Conrad's Democratic Proposal--many of the pay and compensation cuts of the Bowles-Simpson proposal:



More details:
News Articles: Pay/Benefits Cuts Proposed by Senate Budget Committee (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3386/paybenefits-cuts-proposed-by-senate-budget.html)

Dang! And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING!

Sounds good to me.

[James48843]

And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING:

Seantor Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposes mega-cuts to the Postal Service, including MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF ALL USPS RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE WORKERS, AND AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR POSTAL WORKERS.



The Senate will resume debate on postal reform Tuesday, considering several amendments to its bill that would affect workers’ pay and benefits.

Measures that would prohibit collective bargaining at the U.S. Postal Service, require retirement-eligible employees to retire, and increase the amount workers contribute to their health benefits and life insurance are among the 39 amendments (http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2012/12-040-amendments-120419.pdf) the Senate plans to vote on as part of the 21st Century Postal Service Act (S. 1789 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1789rs/pdf/BILLS-112s1789rs.pdf)). Other amendments would limit executive pay at USPS, remove language scaling back workers’ compensation benefits (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/04/senator-tries-rid-postal-reform-bill-language-reducing-workers-comp/41843/), and curtail the amount agencies can spend on government conferences.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is shepherding a few amendments to S. 1789, including one that would force the Postal Service to dismiss workers who are eligible for retirement to reduce expenses. The legislation in its current form allows USPS to offer buyouts to eligible employees to reduce personnel costs, but Coburn believes requiring eligible workers to retire is a smarter and more cost-effective downsizing strategy. “S. 1789 would provide buyouts -- essentially cash bonuses or years of service credits -- to encourage postal employees to decide to retire,” said a summary of the amendment from Coburn’s office. “But there is a real risk that these buyouts will go to workers who would already be planning to retire anyway. That is, these buyouts may essentially be retirement gifts to already retiring workers.”

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....

MORE:
Pay and benefits feature prominently in postal reform bill - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/04/pay-and-benefits-feature-prominently-postal-reform-bill/41863/?oref=top-story)

[FAAM]

[QUOTE=James48843;359212] Seantor Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposes mega-cuts to the Postal Service, including MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF ALL USPS RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE WORKERS, AND AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR POSTAL WORKERS.

... Thanks James for keeping the drumbeat and us informed. Thankful I'm not working for the Postal Service, yet it is increasingly difficult to work when they've placed us in the sewer, trying to flush us down to the cesspool, while trying to hold my brown umbrella over my head each day of public service to fend off the brown stuff that keeps rolling down the hill (trickle-down), all while trying to dodge the arrows being aimed at the targets somebody pasted to my back and chest. Ho- Hum.

[James48843]

and the HITS Just KEEP ON COMING:

Take a look at today's Govexec.com top story:

Romney rips 'unfairness' of federal pay, benefits - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/04/romney-rips-unfairness-federal-pay-benefits/55383/?oref=top-story)

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

[jkenjohnson]

and the HITS Just KEEP ON COMING:

Take a look at today's Govexec.com top story:

Romney rips 'unfairness' of federal pay, benefits - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/04/romney-rips-unfairness-federal-pay-benefits/55383/?oref=top-story)

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

Yet most of the people on this board would vote for Romney today. As I look at the fact that I am a Fed, am I better off with Romney or Obama?

[Frixxxx]

Yet most of the people on this board would vote for Romney today. As I look at the fact that I am a Fed, am I better off with Romney or Obama?Romney stated unfairness, President Obama froze our pay.... I make 35% less pay than my contractor counterparts, but get a better retirement plan....Health benefits are about the same. I say right now, my perspective is that I took an oath to do my job and I never had to when I was in the private sector.

[James48843]

I am trying to simply post factual data without comment. But yes, that was the lead story on govexec.com today.


And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.........


(I imagine we're going to hear a lot this campaign about federal employees.)

[Frixxxx]

I am trying to simply post factual data without comment. But yes, that was the lead story on govexec.com today.


And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.........


(I imagine we're going to hear a lot this campaign about federal employees.)

I haven't seen anything but facts pointed out here (except a rhetorical question from jk). This thread has been nothing but fair.

[konakathy]

And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING:

Seantor Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) proposes mega-cuts to the Postal Service, including MANDATORY RETIREMENT OF ALL USPS RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE WORKERS, AND AN END TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR POSTAL WORKERS.



and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....

MORE:
Pay and benefits feature prominently in postal reform bill - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/04/pay-and-benefits-feature-prominently-postal-reform-bill/41863/?oref=top-story)



http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/webkit-fake-url://C55D54B9-3980-4E66-BF6E-35565C2B2AFD/image.tiffhttp://www.tsptalk.com/mb/webkit-fake-url://A39E6702-E233-4D92-8E51-56184F206CA3/image.tiff :mad:

[KevinD]

S. 1789 just passed 62-37

[uscfanhawaii]

S. 1789 just passed 62-37

Kevin,
I see that you are still counting down the days to 8-25-17!! Are you sure you can wait 5 years when all these 'hits just keep on coming'?!? :rolleyes:

[KevinD]

Kevin,
I see that you are still counting down the days to 8-25-17!! Are you sure you can wait 5 years when all these 'hits just keep on coming'?!? :rolleyes:

I'm gonna have to. I don't have my house paid off yet... :o :embarrest:

[KevinD]

Here's a thread on federalsoup of the breakdown of today's voting on the amendments to S. 1789

S1789 Votes Happening Now - FederalSoup.com (http://federalsoup.federaldaily.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=43785&title=s1789-votes-happening-now)

Roll Call Vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_112_2.htm

[ILoveTDs]

Interesting. Notice Rubio Nay voted. Romney blast the federal employee on the same day his VP front runner stands up for them. It's going to make for an interesting ticket.

[James48843]

Thank you Kevin for that listing of which amendments were considered and passed.

This one is one that caught my eye- it's an amendment which limits Agency conference spending to no more than $500,000, and creates all kinds of new rules and reporting requirements. You might call this the "GSA does VEGAS " Coburn amendment. (snicker).

Here is what it says, and yes, it passed the Senate, so the chances are high it will become law:



(a) Travel Expenses of Federal Agencies Relating to Conferences.-- (1) LIMITATIONS AND REPORTS ON TRAVEL EXPENSES TO CONFERENCES.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 5711 the following:`` 5712. Limitations and reports on travel expenses to conferences
``(a) In this section, the term--
``(1) `conference' means a meeting that--
``(A) is held for consultation, education, or discussion;
``(B) is not held entirely at an agency facility;
``(C) involves costs associated with travel and lodging for some participants; and
``(D) is sponsored by 1 or more agencies, 1 or more organizations that are not agencies, or a combination of such agencies or organizations; and
``(2) `international conference' means a conference attended by representatives of --

[Page: S2513] ``(A) the United States Government; and
``(B) any foreign government, international organization, or foreign nongovernmental organization.
``(b) No agency may pay the travel expenses for more than 50 employees of that agency who are stationed in the United States, for any international conference occurring outside the United States, unless the Secretary of State determines that attendance for such employees is in the national interest.
``(c) At the beginning of each quarter of each fiscal year, each agency shall post on the public Internet website of that agency a report on each conference for which the agency paid travel expenses during the preceding 3 months that includes--
``(1) the itemized expenses paid by the agency, including travel expenses, the cost of scouting for and selecting the location of the conference, and any agency expenditures to otherwise support the conference;
``(2) the primary sponsor of the conference;
``(3) the location of the conference;
``(4) in the case of a conference for which that agency was the primary sponsor, a statement that--
``(A) justifies the location selected;
``(B) demonstrates the cost efficiency of the location; and
``(C) provides a cost benefit analysis of holding a conference rather than conducting a teleconference;
``(5) the date of the conference;
``(6) a brief explanation how the conference advanced the mission of the agency;
``(7) the title of any Federal employee or any individual who is not a Federal employee whose travel expenses or other conference expenses were paid by the agency; and
``(8) the total number of individuals whose travel expenses or other conference expenses were paid by the agency.
``(d) Each report posted on the public Internet website under subsection (c) shall--
``(1) be in a searchable electronic format; and
``(2) remain on that website for at least 5 years after the date of posting.''.
(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5711 the following:

``5712. Limitations and reports on travel expenses to conferences.''.

(b) Limitations on Annual Travel Expenses.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016, an agency (as defined under section 5701(1) of title 5, United States Code) may not make, or obligate to make, expenditures for travel expenses, in an aggregate amount greater than 80 percent of the aggregate amount of such expenses for fiscal year 2010.
(2) IDENTIFICATION OF TRAVEL EXPENSES.--Not later than September 1, 2012 and after consultation with the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish guidelines for the determination of what expenses constitute travel expenses for purposes of this subsection. The guidelines shall identify specific expenses, and classes of expenses, that are to be treated as travel expenses.
(c) Conference Transparency and Limitations.--
(1) DEFINITIONS.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given under section 5701(1) of title 5, United States Code; and
(B) the term ``conference'' has the meaning given under section 5712(a)(1) of that title (as added by subsection (a)).
(2) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF CONFERENCE MATERIALS.--Each agency shall post on the public Internet website of that agency a detailed information on any presentation made by any employee of that agency at a conference, including--
(A) any minutes relating to the presentation;
(B) any speech delivered;
(C) any visual exhibit, including photographs or slides;
(D) any video, digital, or audio recordings of the conference; and
(E) information regarding any financial support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-Federal source used to pay or defray the costs of the conference, which shall include a certification by the head of the agency that there is no conflict of interest resulting from the support received from each such source.
(3) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT EXPENDED ON A CONFERENCE.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--No agency may expend more than $500,000 to support a single conference.
(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude an agency from receiving financial support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-Federal source to pay or defray the costs of a conference the total cost of which exceeds $500,000.
(4) LIMITATION ON THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF CONFERENCES AN AGENCY MAY SUPPORT.--No agency may expend funds on more than a single conference sponsored or organized by an organization during any fiscal year, unless the agency is the primary sponsor and organizer of the conference.

Interesting- I think that just shot down a whole lot of manager's future meetings in my agency.

[James48843]

From FEDSMITH today-



...
A bill that is going before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday would require federal employees to have to pay 5 percent more of their salaries towards their retirement benefits beginning in 2013 and phased in over five years.

Current federal workers would pay 1.5 percent more next year, an additional 0.5 percent in 2014 and then another 1 percent per year from 2015-2017.

New hires would see the full 5 percent increase starting in 2013 if they have less than five years of prior federal service.

Members of Congress and their staff members would not be exempt from the legislation either should it pass. Members of Congress would have to contribute an additional 8.5 percent from their salaries, and Congressional staffers under CSRS would pay 8.5 percent while staffers under FERS would be required to contribute an additional 7.5 percent.

Speaking on the legislation, committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said, "Like Social Security, the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund is not a store of wealth, it’s a line on the Treasury’s ledger. If the federal government’s out of control spending is not curbed, these accounts will prove just how empty they really are — we need to secure these earned employee benefits and reduce the deficit at the same time."

...

Good article outlining this bill.

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

More- News Articles: Feds Would Pay 5% More for Retirement Benefits (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3401/feds-would-pay-5-more-retirement-benefits.html)

[Valkyrie]

From FEDSMITH today-



Good article outlining this bill.

and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING....

More- News Articles: Feds Would Pay 5% More for Retirement Benefits (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3401/feds-would-pay-5-more-retirement-benefits.html)


and even President Obama has proposed some benefits cuts (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/3302/wh-budget-asks-federal-employees-sacrifice.html) as well as being the original architect of the current pay freeze (http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2634/president-obama-proposes-freeze-federal-civilian.html) on the federal workforce.

[James48843]

and THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....



Feds would pay more for pensions under House bill



By Kellie Lunney (http://www.govexec.com/voices/kellie-lunney/2348/)
8:14 P.M.

GOVEXEC.COM



The House Budget Committee Monday approved a measure on a party-line vote that would increase the amount government employees contribute to their pensions.
The legislation, shepherded by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., incorporates measures approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in late April requiring current federal employees to pay 5 percent more toward their retirement over the next five years, beginning in 2013. Members of Congress would have to contribute an additional 8.5 percent to their defined benefit plan during the same time period. Employees hired after 2012 would begin contributing the additional 5 percent immediately.


In addition, the bill eliminates a current provision in the law that supplements the benefits of feds not subject to mandatory retirement who are covered under the Federal Employees Retirement System and retire before age 62, or the age at which their Social Security benefits can kick in.

Man...that Paul Ryan really has it out for feds.

MORE IN TODAY'S GOVEXEC.COM
Feds would pay more for pensions under House bill - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/05/feds-would-pay-more-pensions-under-house-bill/55622/?oref=top-story)

[jkenjohnson]

Man...that Paul Ryan really has it out for feds.

Most Republicans do. And to think I have been voting Republican for 25+ years. I am to the point that I despise the Repukes and the Dummycrats. I think we need a new party. What to name it?

[nnuut]

The IGMPKI "I've Got Mine and Plan to Keep It's"

[ILoveTDs]

It's called libritarian

[James48843]

Grab your ankles.

Paul Ryan's (R) bill to raise what we kick in for FERS retirement just passed the House with 218 votes this afternoon.

That sends the bill over to the Senate.

House passes fed pension hike
By Kellie Lunney
3:46 PM ET
Federal employees would have to contribute more to their government pensions under a bill approved by the House Thursday.
The House voted 218-199 with one Republican voting present for legislation (H.R. 5652 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5652:)) that requires current federal workers to pay 5 percent more (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/04/fed-pension-hike-set-advance-house/55414/) toward their retirement, with the increase introduced incrementally over the next five years, beginning in 2013. Members of Congress enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System would have to contribute an additional 8.5 percent to their defined benefit plan, with the hike added during the same time period. Federal employees hired after 2012 would begin contributing the additional 5 percent immediately.


More:
Government News, Research and Events for Federal Employees - GovExec.com (http://govexec.com)

Thank you SIR may I have another?

[James48843]

18838

FOR raising the FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RETIREE TAX: The FERS contribution from 0.8% to 5.8%, and the CSRS raised by 5% more as well.
Thank you House of Reps for your efforts to cut/slash/tax Federal employees more:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FINAL VOTE RESULTS
FOR ROLL CALL 247
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
H R 5652 RECORDED VOTE 10-May-2012 2:15 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013




Ayes (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll247.xml#Y)
Noes (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll247.xml#N)
PRES (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll247.xml#P)
NV (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll247.xml#NV)


Republican
218
16
1
6


Democratic

183

7


Independent






TOTALS
218
199
1
13




---- AYES 218 ---


Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)



---- NOES 199 ---


Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth



---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 1 ---


Sensenbrenner



---- NOT VOTING 13 ---


Berman
Burgess
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Heinrich
Mack
McIntyre
Napolitano
Noem
Paul
Paulsen
Slaughter
Stutzman

[MohammadXX]

During the months following the 2012 election, will the President and the Democrats support raising FERS retirement contributions or will they say NEVER?

[James48843]

House passes PAY FREEZE EXTENSION for Department of Defense and Veterans Administration employees:



A spending bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5854rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr5854rh.pdf) the House approved Thursday night includes language that would effectively extend the two-year pay freeze for some civilian employees. The White House has pledged to veto the measure.

The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, passed 407-12, would prolong the pay freeze for some employees at the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments by cutting funds that otherwise would have gone toward the 0.5 percent civilian pay hike President Obama requested in his fiscal 2013 budget. The bill reduces Defense civilian personnel spending by $2.3 million and cuts VA spending that would have gone toward raises by nearly $100 million.

According to a statement from Office of Management and Budget, President Obama’s senior advisers would recommend he veto the spending bill because they believe it departs from the agreement the White House and Congress reached in enacting the 2011 Budget Control Act.

OMB encouraged Congress to support the president’s 0.5 percent pay raise proposal. “As the president stated in his fiscal 2013 budget, a permanent pay freeze is neither sustainable nor desirable,” OMB said.

Thank you (R) House of Representatives for that additional pay freeze for DoD and VA.
(sarcasm font)

More on the story:

House passes bill that would extend pay freeze for some civilians - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/05/house-takes-bill-would-extend-pay-freeze-some-civilians/56023/?oref=top-story)


And the hits just keep on coming.

[Boghie]

Damn,

What am I going to do without that 0.5% cost of living increase? How will I survive? Maybe if the civilian workforce wasn't bloated up the gubmint could afford a decent cost of living raise.

And, I <sarcasm> honestly </sarcasm> thought that my 0.8% investment into FERS would fund my retirement. I had so much faith that future politicians would respect the promises of past politicians. I mean, I pay 6.3% of the money put into FERS. All the Federal Gubmint has to do is fund the other 93.7% - call it kinda like a TSP match or something. And look at the <sarcasm> great return </sarcasm> we get for that investment. I mean, had I had that 12% of gross salary to invest in TSP I would definitely be eating dog food in my golden years - instead I will get 25% of my salary:).

Folks, if it cannot go on it wont.

The only lock box you got is your TSP.

My greatest hope is that they allow me to opt out.

[CrabClaw]

My greatest hope is that they allow me to opt out.

yep......

[SkyPilot]

Grab your ankles.

Paul Ryan's (R) bill to raise what we kick in for FERS retirement just passed the House with 218 votes this afternoon.

That sends the bill over to the Senate.
[SIZE=4]

More:
Government News, Research and Events for Federal Employees - GovExec.com (http://govexec.com)

Thank you SIR may I have another?

Betcha the President can be bipartisan on this one just like he did on the pay freeze!

[James48843]

Republicans propose federal pension hikes to fund student loan program




By Amanda Palleschi , GOVEXEC.COM (http://www.govexec.com/voices/amanda-palleschi/2341/)


House Republicans have proposed increasing federal retirement contributions by 1.2 percent over the next three years to pay for a one-year extension of the reduced interest rate for student loans.

In a letter to President Obama (http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speaker.house.gov/files/documents/12-05-31_studentloans.pdf) dated Thursday, Republicans from both chambers of Congress rejected Senate Democrats’ proposal to pay for a one year extension of a reduced interest rate for subsidized Stafford student loans with a tax hike on small businesses. Republicans suggested three alternatives to the tax hike, the first of which targets federal employees’ pension contributions.

“We believe our alternative is reasonable and responsible, but in the interest of finding common ground,” Republican lawmakers wrote.
Under the proposal, those in the Civil Service Retirement System and those in the Federal Employees Retirement System would contribute 0.4 percent more to their pensions in calendar years 2012 through 2015. This would add up to a 1.2 percent increase over current contribution levels. The House passed a bill earlier this month (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/05/house-passes-fed-pension-hike/55676/) that includes a 5 percent pension hike phased in over five years for CSRS and FERS employees.


And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING.....

you know, if the (R)'s were proposing that we payed 1.2% more, and those making over $250'k a year all payed 1.2% more on all sources of income, including capital gains, then I wouldn't be nearly as mad. But no- it's all got to be on the backs of federal workers, teachers, police officers, etc.

Where is the sacrifice by the richest 1%? Where is the surcharge on the over $1 million in CEO stock option tax?

I'M WAITING TO SEE WHAT THEY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO BALANCING THE BUDGET....

MORE:
Republicans propose federal pension hikes to fund student loan program - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2012/06/republicans-propose-federal-pension-hikes-fund-student-loan-program/56033/?oref=top-story)

[SkyPilot]

For me the ironic part is that many of those who receive the benefit of the loan subsidy will be from families who are losing income by way of the proposed hike... it really does seem to be a war on federal employees. However, President Obama offered us up for the pay freeze as an accommodation and compromise first (or is my history muddled)? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/politics/30freeze.html

[OBGibby]

For me the disturbing part is why do we continue to subsidize an individual's education, that is at its very core a personal benefit to the individual? We're effectively taking money from everyone, to help out the few with their student loans. How is that fair? Oh wait, I remember: Upwards of 50% of American taxpayers don't end up paying a dime in federal tax each year so why would they care? Higher education is one of the biggest scams going (rivaled only by the global warming crowd), with costs rising year after year with ever increasing layers of bureaucracy (useless and unneeded adminstrators and professors who don't actually teach), offering degrees in nonsense. To think that everyone needs to go to college to "succeed" in life is ridicules. Like the judge said, "The world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny." The higher education crowd pushes and pushes more and more loan subsidies so they can in turn raise their tuition rates. Coupled with the younger generation believing education is their "right" and you've got a recipe for disaster. Why should I subsidize some young clown's desire to get a degree in the study of XYZ? Pay for it yourself. The government needs to get out of the student loan business entirely. Give it back to the banks and let the market decide what a fair price for an education is.

[nasa1974]

For me the disturbing part is why do we continue to subsidize an individual's education, that is at its very core a personal benefit to the individual? We're effectively taking money from everyone, to help out the few with their student loans. How is that fair? Oh wait, I remember: Upwards of 50% of American taxpayers don't end up paying a dime in federal tax each year so why would they care? Higher education is one of the biggest scams going (rivaled only by the global warming crowd), with costs rising year after year with ever increasing layers of bureaucracy (useless and unneeded adminstrators and professors who don't actually teach), offering degrees in nonsense. To think that everyone needs to go to college to "succeed" in life is ridicules. Like the judge said, "The world needs ditch diggers, too, Danny." The higher education crowd pushes and pushes more and more loan subsidies so they can in turn raise their tuition rates. Coupled with the younger generation believing education is their "right" and you've got a recipe for disaster. Why should I subsidize some young clown's desire to get a degree in the study of XYZ? Pay for it yourself. The government needs to get out of the student loan business entirely. Give it back to the banks and let the market decide what a fair price for an education is.

If the banks would charge low interest then let the government get out of the loan business. I am paying back the government loans I took out for my daughters so they could get a college education and not be strapped down with at least $60,000.00 in debt before they even had a job. I am paying between 4 and 7.5% for those loans. I agree not everyone needs to go to college but the degree today is equal to the high school diploma I got and needed to get a good job. Don't blame the government for making loans available, let's blame the folks that are making a college degree unafordable to almost everyone. Back in the early 70's I could have gotten a BS for under $10,000.00. Now that $10,000.00 might get you room and board for the year not including classes and books. That's if you go to an inexpensive school. It is a right to expect a good education for our kids and we are not doing it. Our whole education system stinks in this country. I could go on and on and on, but I won't. OFF MY SOAPBOX!!!

[OBGibby]

Not everyone needs or wants to go to college. Why should all taxpayers be forced to subsidize those that do? Taxing the poor to pay for the elite!?!? The 'progressives' should be up in arms about such a scenario, but of course they're not, because it fits into their mold of "College for Everyone!" and "If only everyone was 'educated' we wouldn't have these problems!"

Not to mention that the majority of college administrators and professors are of a liberal bent, and it's no surprise college costs have gone up about 400% in the last thirty years. Do you think the value of that college education has increased proportionately? I don't think so. Ask the recent college grads, 50%+ of whom can't find a job. College costs have gone up precisely because of the cheap money available to fund it. Cheap money primarily made available by government backing and subsidies. Our tax dollars at work, to the tune of about $6 billion a year.

I've seen college graduates of late and many can't seem to string a coherent sentence together. I read a recent study that purported to show that many college students after their first two years actually knew less than when they entered. That should make any taxpayer feel good that they subsidized two years of copious amounts of alcohol consumption, smoking dope and getting laid vice actually learning (there's a concept!).

Sure, I'm generalizing a bit, but we all know the reality. For every one engineering student who actually studies and learns, and has a skill immediately transferrable to the economy, there's three more college students floating through classes for four to six years with absolutely nothing to show for it. The colleges and universities gladly take their money and eventually send them on their way with the peice of paper to hang on the wall.

It's common knowledge that college graduates make more money over their lifetime than non-college graduates. So why should we subsidize their education when they're going to make enough money to pay it back?

[ILoveTDs]

It's common knowledge that college graduates make more money over their lifetime than non-college graduates. So why should we subsidize their education when they're going to make enough money to pay it back?

My understanding was the difference between a subsidize and un-subsidize loan was the government paid the interest on the subsidize loan for the 4-6 years while the individual was in school, with very few exceptions (military deployment, etc.). Once out of school the individual paid the principle and interest accrued there forth. An un-subsidize loan accrued and compounded interest while in school and the individual paid the principle and all interest since inception, is that not correct?

At least that is how I remember my subsidize school loan for my BS and my un-subsidize loan for my Masters. It made since to me at the time - I made $10 per hour while working on my BS, so they covered my interest while I worked on it. I made 80K a year while working on my Masters and they felt I could afford the interest.

I don't know - I just don't think 4-6 years student loan interest can really be that big of a budget ticket item, and if we can all agree with OBGibby above that "college graduates make more money over their lifetime" than they should have more income being taxed and usually end up in a higher tax bracket. I would place my money on the government gets that loan interest money back a few times fold over an individuals lifetime. One of the few government programs I think actually makes money. Just my two cents.

On a side note I think this whole discussion started because of the house bill passed this week to "continue the federal pay freeze in order to fund student loans". That's pure political maneuvering don't fall for it - these two things have nothing to do with each other.

[James48843]

... That should make any taxpayer feel good that they subsidized two years of copious amounts of alcohol consumption, smoking dope and getting laid vice actually learning (there's a concept!).

Woa-ah now! (bolts upright) Wait a minute. What school is that? Where can I sign up?

[k0nkuzh0n]

why is anything subsidized? If the government is going to support something, I personally think higher education and intellectual growth of America would be a one of the best options.

[OBGibby]

Today (http://economics21.org/commentary/todays-student-loan-recipients-are-tomorrows-economic-elite) (Today’s Student Loan Recipients are Tomorrow’s Economic Elite)

".....since 2008 the Federal Government has effectively socialized (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566428388983701.html) the student loan market by enacting laws to eliminate private lender participation in administering Federal loans......"


".....student loans owned by the Federal Government have grown from $111 billion at the end of 2008 to $425 billion (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1.pdf) (L. 106) as of December 31, 2011, a compound annualized growth rate of 56%. With a 9% default rate (http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/cdr.html) among borrowers in the most recent cohort and no collateral to cushion default severities (there are added protections in bankruptcy), the program’s interest rate would be insufficient to cover expected credit losses at today’s default rates....."

".....With no externality or market failure to correct, the case for subsidized student loans seems to rest on the cost of college tuition and the fact that it has grown faster than the rate of inflation for many decades. But why should anyone believe the cost of tuition is exogenous to government subsidies?....."

".....Imagine a favorite area restaurant that grew so popular that the prices of its menu items grew well in excess of inflation. If the government provided cash and loan subsidies to help patrons of the restaurant finance their meals, the net effect on affordability would probably be nil, as the restaurant’s owners would likely respond by raising prices. By relaxing patrons’ budget constraints but doing nothing to control costs, the policy would simply increase demand for a good that’s already in fixed supply, which is clearly a recipe for inflation....."
".....The effect of cash and loan subsidies for higher education are unlikely to be any different. Colleges and universities have simply responded to the subsidies through increased tuition and housing costs. While the share of the population with college degrees has increased to a high of 30% (http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html), college completion rates have fallen (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr07-626.pdf) as the increase in enrollment has not been matched by a similar increase in graduates. The student loan program appears to have stimulated enrollments, without a corresponding increase in graduates. This leaves households in the worst position of all, with the added debt associated with student loans but no degree to show for them....."

[James48843]

...That should make any taxpayer feel good that they subsidized two years of copious amounts of alcohol consumption, smoking dope and getting laid vice actually learning (there's a concept!).


You know, I have always been a strong supporter of "life-long learning".



World's oldest graduate, Aussie grandfather picks up fourth degree aged 97

19084

A 97-year-old Aussie man will become the world's oldest university graduate, more than seven decades after attaining his fourth degree.

Allan Stewart became the world's oldest graduate when he earned a law degree aged 91.
He will surpass his own record on Friday when he graduates with a Master of Clinical Science (Complementary Medicine) from Southern Cross University in Lismore.
Mr Stewart, a former career dentist now living at Port Stephens on the state's mid-north coast, said that at 97 years and 58 days, his fourth university degree may be his last.
"I can hang up my mortar board and academic robes after this one, although I said that after my last degree and then I got bored," he said in a statement.

"I have so much time on my hands these days and I like to keep mentally active."

More:
http://www.tntmagazine.com/news/world/worlds-oldest-graduate-aussie-grandfather-picks-up-fourth-degree-aged-97



19083

I always wondered why that guy on the billboard was smiling.

Heck, even old guys like me really need to go back to school.


...they subsidized two years of copious amounts of alcohol consumption, smoking dope and getting laid...

Did I mention that really old guys like me ought to go back to school?

I know I was thinking, maybe I would go back to school.

Yeh, that's the ticket. I could go back and get a second degree. That would be really good.

What school did you say that was?

[nasa1974]

Today (http://economics21.org/commentary/todays-student-loan-recipients-are-tomorrows-economic-elite) (Today’s Student Loan Recipients are Tomorrow’s Economic Elite)

".....since 2008 the Federal Government has effectively socialized (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566428388983701.html) the student loan market by enacting laws to eliminate private lender participation in administering Federal loans......"


".....student loans owned by the Federal Government have grown from $111 billion at the end of 2008 to $425 billion (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1.pdf) (L. 106) as of December 31, 2011, a compound annualized growth rate of 56%. With a 9% default rate (http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/cdr.html) among borrowers in the most recent cohort and no collateral to cushion default severities (there are added protections in bankruptcy), the program’s interest rate would be insufficient to cover expected credit losses at today’s default rates....."

".....With no externality or market failure to correct, the case for subsidized student loans seems to rest on the cost of college tuition and the fact that it has grown faster than the rate of inflation for many decades. But why should anyone believe the cost of tuition is exogenous to government subsidies?....."

".....Imagine a favorite area restaurant that grew so popular that the prices of its menu items grew well in excess of inflation. If the government provided cash and loan subsidies to help patrons of the restaurant finance their meals, the net effect on affordability would probably be nil, as the restaurant’s owners would likely respond by raising prices. By relaxing patrons’ budget constraints but doing nothing to control costs, the policy would simply increase demand for a good that’s already in fixed supply, which is clearly a recipe for inflation....."
".....The effect of cash and loan subsidies for higher education are unlikely to be any different. Colleges and universities have simply responded to the subsidies through increased tuition and housing costs. While the share of the population with college degrees has increased to a high of 30% (http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/historical/index.html), college completion rates have fallen (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr07-626.pdf) as the increase in enrollment has not been matched by a similar increase in graduates. The student loan program appears to have stimulated enrollments, without a corresponding increase in graduates. This leaves households in the worst position of all, with the added debt associated with student loans but no degree to show for them....."

Let's agree to disagree. I have no problem with the government offering lower percentage loans than banks for higher education. If these loans provide a chance for low income or middle income kids to get a good education I'm for it. If you want to talk about government subsidies lets look at the oil companies or some of our largest companies. How about the farming industy? Without the loans my girls wouldn't have gone to college. My youngest is a good Interior Designer and my eldest is helping run a well established catering company. I mean this with all sincerety, if you were able to send your children to college without taking out loans that is fantastic and I really mean it. I needed to take advantage of the loans.

[Khotso]

Today (http://economics21.org/commentary/todays-student-loan-recipients-are-tomorrows-economic-elite) (Today’s Student Loan Recipients are Tomorrow’s Economic Elite)

".....since 2008 the Federal Government has effectively socialized (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566428388983701.html) the student loan market by enacting laws to eliminate private lender participation in administering Federal loans......"
....."

Frankly, our system of public higher education is royally screwed up these days. The average middle class family cannot afford the cost of higher education today regardless of how loans are financed. At their current price, BAs or BSs are hardly worth it! Why in the F are public universities costing $80,000 and up for a 4 year degree?!! Stop bitching about "socialized" student loans and bitch about the real problem instead. Geesh !!!!!!

[OBGibby]

Let's agree to disagree. I have no problem with the government offering lower percentage loans than banks for higher education. If these loans provide a chance for low income or middle income kids to get a good education I'm for it. If you want to talk about government subsidies lets look at the oil companies or some of our largest companies. How about the farming industy? Without the loans my girls wouldn't have gone to college. My youngest is a good Interior Designer and my eldest is helping run a well established catering company. I mean this with all sincerety, if you were able to send your children to college without taking out loans that is fantastic and I really mean it. I needed to take advantage of the loans.

And I have no problem with you taking out loans to pay for their college (nice thing to do for your kids) - I just would like to see the government get out of the business and let banks set the market for the rates and leave the taxpayer out of it.

[OBGibby]

Frankly, our system of public higher education is royally screwed up these days. The average middle class family cannot afford the cost of higher education today regardless of how loans are financed. At their current price, BAs or BSs are hardly worth it! Why in the F are public universities costing $80,000 and up for a 4 year degree?!! Stop bitching about "socialized" student loans and bitch about the real problem instead. Geesh !!!!!!

See my earlier posts about government backing of student loans contributing to the absurd inflation of college costs. My argument is that the government backing of student loans is contributing to those rising costs you're "bitching" about. Maybe you saw the word "socialization" and went into instant defense mode of your particular political persuasion, but a more careful analysis of the college loan issue reveals it's been an issue politicians from both parties have used it to their political benefit for decades. Those that benefit the most from the "everyone needs to go to college" mantra is the higher education crowd - costs just keep going up and return on investment keeps going down. Doesn't matter to the higher education crowd, there's more suckers coming in the door each year with easy and cheap money to pay for that "education."

[James48843]

Hey Gibby-

What school was that again?

[Sensei]

Hey Gibby-

What school was that again?

Someone mentioned an $80,000 public college education, and I can't imagine what that is referring to. I completed a masters degree at a Cal State University from 2004-7, and it cost $8-10K per year, depending on courseload, books, and whether I attended summer quarter. I can't imagine the cost has skyrocketed to $20K now.

[SkyPilot]

Read'm and weep.... Best Values in Public Colleges, 2011-12 (http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/colleges/), http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_articles/Education_Inflation.asp

"Many schools have increased tuition fees due to higher overhead costs. Fuel and labor costs continue to rise. Many older college buildings are in need of renovation or replacement. The demand for expanded libraries and new research and computer labs is at an all-time high. Some schools also need additional security measures.
Yet, the main reason tuition continues to rise is a dramatic change that took place regarding the Federal Stafford Loan more than a decade ago. When Uncle Sam opened the floodgates to government-backed student loans without parent income restrictions in 1992, colleges welcomed the news with open arms. The sudden injection of millions of additional aid dollars only furthered tuition increases. Add to that the government’s continued promotion of the Stafford Loan as a low-cost program, and you have the formula for hyperinflationary costs.
When the government made it exceptionally easy for students to borrow massive amounts of money, the colleges followed the lead by increasing their tuition rates. This combination led to record-level borrowing. Today the average undergraduate student loan debt is nearing $20,000. Those who go on to graduate school often end up with an additional $30,000. Law and medical students report an average accumulated debt from all years (undergraduate and graduate study) of $91,700. "


Someone mentioned an $80,000 public college education, and I can't imagine what that is referring to. I completed a masters degree at a Cal State University from 2004-7, and it cost $8-10K per year, depending on courseload, books, and whether I attended summer quarter. I can't imagine the cost has skyrocketed to $20K now.

[Sensei]

Read'm and weep.... Best Values in Public Colleges, 2011-12 (http://www.kiplinger.com/tools/colleges/), InflationData: Education Inflation (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_articles/Education_Inflation.asp)
"
These numbers all include room and board. According to UC Berkeley's website, tuition and fees cost $13K and change for a year of undergrad. Still pretty reasonable compared to Stanford or USC. The room and board issues are inflation-related issues shared by all Americans, not just college students.

[OBGibby]

Hey Gibby-

What school was that again?


http://www.kushmagazine.com/images/stories/Website_Story_Images/obama_smoking_marijuana_maraniss.jpg


Occidental College, Columbia, Harvard Law

(Sorry, that was too hard to resist!)

[Khotso]

See my earlier posts about government backing of student loans contributing to the absurd inflation of college costs. My argument is that the government backing of student loans is contributing to those rising costs you're "bitching" about. Maybe you saw the word "socialization" and went into instant defense mode of your particular political persuasion, but a more careful analysis of the college loan issue reveals it's been an issue politicians from both parties have used it to their political benefit for decades. Those that benefit the most from the "everyone needs to go to college" mantra is the higher education crowd - costs just keep going up and return on investment keeps going down. Doesn't matter to the higher education crowd, there's more suckers coming in the door each year with easy and cheap money to pay for that "education."

Oh, so you want to make those loans even more expensive so that only those who can afford them or can pay costs out of pocket can actually go to college??

I read your post and understand your point, but still think it ignores the real problem and therefore misses the target. Maybe I did react to the word "socialized", but leaping to the conclusion that "subsidized loans/access" is the problem is a knee-jerk reaction of another particular political persuasion as well.

Subsidized loans in and of themselves aren't the problem; they didn't cause the "absurd inflation" of public college costs over the past couple of decades. That argument attacks the people who aspire to getting an affordable college education as opposed to those who are making a killing via our higher education finance system (the bankers and the university fat cats).

Why not go back to what many States did in the past: finance loans directly as opposed to through banks? Why not begin to reduce university salaries to a reasonable level? Salaries and benefits are way out of control -- especially for administrators, department heads, deans, and long-term tenured faculty. One million $/year salary for President of a State University?? Two million $ severance pay for an Athletics Director who left on his own volition??!! Give me a break!????


(By the way, somebody else questioned the $80,000 figure ... it's roughly $20,000/year here in Oregon -- look it up; just go to the U of O and Oregon State websites to see for yourself. I'm not making this stuff up. Two of my kids went thru those systems recently -- so believe me, I know.)

[Sensei]

(By the way, somebody else questioned the $80,000 figure ... it's roughly $20,000/year here in Oregon -- look it up; just go to the U of O and Oregon State websites to see for yourself. I'm not making this stuff up. Two of my kids went thru those systems recently -- so believe me, I know.)

I guess I shouldn't focus on something that isn't the point of this thread. But I looked up U of O, and tuition and fees for 2012-13 will cost a little over $9200. Again, the $20K figure includes room and board. Obviously, you have to pay that when your kid goes to college. But you (or your kid) would have to pay rent, utilities, and living expenses just the same if they didn't go to college and moved out on their own to work or something. I'll just let it go though, because I'm off topic. Carry on.

[Khotso]

I guess I shouldn't focus on something that isn't the point of this thread. But I looked up U of O, and tuition and fees for 2012-13 will cost a little over $9200. Again, the $20K figure includes room and board. Obviously, you have to pay that when your kid goes to college. But you (or your kid) would have to pay rent, utilities, and living expenses just the same if they didn't go to college and moved out on their own to work or something. I'll just let it go though, because I'm off topic. Carry on.

Yeah, and the total cost (room and board, etc.) included is $19,000 plus. Those costs are real! Let's don't smoke and mirrors this thing. $9200 a year for 45 term credits is a lot of money when you have classes that average whatever they average -- probably over 100 students each. So assuming it's half that (50), $460,000 per class is reasonable!? Get real!

I'm all for teachers and professors making a fair wage. I'm big supporter of public education. But things are out of control.

[PessOptimist]

Umm...The Day Job/Federal Employees.

The money saved by milking Feds will go to lowering the interest rates for student loans?

Higher Education and intellectual growth do not have a lot in common.

Someone start a thread with that name.

I mainly deal with people with Engineering degrees and Technical degrees. I like the letters BS and AS or AAS. They say a lot. Both come to the world of real jobs in need of a lot of OJT.

Those with the BA degrees that cannot apply the degree to a real job, oh well. Some of those degrees are classified as BS which has a real meaning.

What's up with H.R. 5652? I haven't had time to look.

PO

[nasa1974]

19158
Federal News -- Breaking Reports and Analysis for Government Employees - News - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/)


Weather Service says it may furlough 5,000 employees http://cdn.govexec.com/images/arrow02.png
Move comes as agency seeks to address funding shortfall in the wake of scandal over ...

[OBGibby]

Subprime College Educations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-subprime-college-educations/2012/06/08/gJQA4fGiOV_story.html) - George Will, Washington Post

[James48843]

So there you go. Weather Service senior managers screw up, and it's the 5,000 low-level worker-bee employees who get laid off.

Isn't that always the case?

Weather Service says it may furlough 5,000 employees - Oversight - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2012/06/weather-service-says-it-may-furlough-5000-employees/56162/)

I wonder..... If they just laid off off those Senior Managers and SES's- would that fix the budget?

Are they going to be laid off for 13 days too?

[nnuut]

So there you go. Weather Service senior managers screw up, and it's the 5,000 low-level worker-bee employees who get laid off.

Isn't that always the case?

Weather Service says it may furlough 5,000 employees - Oversight - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2012/06/weather-service-says-it-may-furlough-5000-employees/56162/)

I wonder..... If they just laid off off those Senior Managers and SES's- would that fix the budget?

Are they going to be laid off for 13 days too?
Hey Jame,s are you not a Senior Manager?

[James48843]

Hey Jame,s are you not a Senior Manager?

HA! You are a funny, funny guy Nnnut. :D

No- I am not a Senior Manager!

Nor do I play one on TV.

I am proud to be a lowly run-of-the-mill federal worker-bee,
toiling away anonymously behind the scenes,
in the hope that I can make our nation a better place.

19175

[James48843]

GSA PER DIEM RATES:
LOWER HOTEL REIMBURSEMENTS BY 30%

Feds may see sharply lower per diem rates when they travel beginning in October.

The General Services Administration is considering lowering lodging per diems by up to 30 percent, say travel industry officials familiar with a GSA proposal.
GSA recently discussed with travel industry officials the possibility that it will revise how it calculates average per diems by removing more costly hotels from its averages — lowering the resulting per diem. Lower per diems would mean fewer choices for federal travelers, said Shawn McBurney, senior vice president of governmental affairs at American Hotel and Lodging Association, who is familiar with GSA’s proposal. He estimated that about 85 percent of Washington, D.C., hotels charge rates that would exceed per diems if GSA uses the new methodology.

Roger Dow, president of the U.S. Travel Association, which represents hotels, airlines and other travel-related industries, said the GSA proposal is part of a broader reaction to wasteful spending at an $823,000 Western Regions Conference in Las Vegas in 2010. An April inspector general’s report on the conference led to the ouster of GSA’s top leadership, numerous hearings in Congress, legislation aimed at curbing travel spending and a top-to-bottom review of the agency by GSA’s new acting administrator, Dan Tangherlini.

A GSA spokesman declined to confirm or deny whether the agency is considering a new methodology to calculate per diem rates. He said the agency is following an Office of Management and Budget directive to reduce travel spending by 30 percent in fiscal 2013 compared to a 2010 baseline.


More at: GSA considering sharply lower per diem rates, industry sources say | Federal Times | federaltimes.com (http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120705/TRAVEL02/307050003/GSA-considering-sharply-lower-per-diem-rates-industry-sources-say?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)


I have already spent 39 nights in hotels so far this year. Just thinking that I'll have to either find hotels that cost 30% lower *(I have a hard time today sometimes finding rooms at the per diem rate) means I'll have a much harder time getting hotels.


Motel 6 comes to mind-Living the life on the road as a fed.

19461
and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING...

We'll leave the light on for ya.

[Kaufmanrider]

I probably spend 10-12 weeks a year on the road. Most places I stay are rural or semi-rural so the rest of U.S. rates usually are accepted, i.e., Best Western, Holiday Inn Express, Hampton Inn, Comfort Inn and Suites, etc. What is it, 87 a night? From what I have read those rates won't be changing. However, when I travel to a Metro Area, I'll have to find cheaper hotels, no more Embassy Suites, Hilton, Sheraton, etc., as they will be removed from the rate calculations. I always have a government car, so I'll drive a bit more from the hotel to where I am working. As long as they don't cut our daily per diem;)



More at: GSA considering sharply lower per diem rates, industry sources say | Federal Times | federaltimes.com (http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20120705/TRAVEL02/307050003/GSA-considering-sharply-lower-per-diem-rates-industry-sources-say?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE)


I have already spent 39 nights in hotels so far this year. Just thinking that I'll have to either find hotels that cost 30% lower *(I have a hard time today sometimes finding rooms at the per diem rate) means I'll have a much harder time getting hotels.


Motel 6 comes to mind-Living the life on the road as a fed.

19461
and the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING...

We'll leave the light on for ya.

[James48843]

I probably spend 10-12 weeks a year on the road. Most places I stay are rural or semi-rural so the rest of U.S. rates usually are accepted, i.e., Best Western, Holiday Inn Express, Hampton Inn, Comfort Inn and Suites, etc. What is it, 87 a night? From what I have read those rates won't be changing. ;)

No, the "rest of US" rate is now $77. I haven't read anywhere that they are not changing that. If they do change that, it drops to $54.

Can you find a decent hotel room for $54?

Motel Six....I'm telling ya.

[Kaufmanrider]

No, the "rest of US" rate is now $77. I haven't read anywhere that they are not changing that. If they do change that, it drops to $54.

Can you find a decent hotel room for $54?

Motel Six....I'm telling ya.

Sorry about that, my mistake. Our office secretary usually makes my travel reservations for me/us.

The way I read the article they are looking to remove the high end priced hotels from the calculations, therefore, lowering the overall average rate for each area. Rural areas, rest of U.S., usually have lower rates top and bottom, fewer hotels, more competitive, so rates are closer amongst them. So I don't see that average changing to much, maybe a couple bucks. And I think most those hotels would simply adjust their pricing to accomodate Gov. employees.

However, large Metro areas have big expensive hotels and cheaper cut rate hotels. That's where the hit will come. Removing the higher priced hotels will dramatically drop the per diem rate average for that area. And with other travelers willing to pay high prices, I don't see those hotels changing their Gov rates too much just to get a few Fed's to stay with them. So when you go to the big city, you'll either stay in the suburbs and drive, or stay at one of those cut rate hotels in a not so good of a part of town.

[nasa1974]

I probably spend 10-12 weeks a year on the road. Most places I stay are rural or semi-rural so the rest of U.S. rates usually are accepted, i.e., Best Western, Holiday Inn Express, Hampton Inn, Comfort Inn and Suites, etc. What is it, 87 a night? From what I have read those rates won't be changing. However, when I travel to a Metro Area, I'll have to find cheaper hotels, no more Embassy Suites, Hilton, Sheraton, etc., as they will be removed from the rate calculations. I always have a government car, so I'll drive a bit more from the hotel to where I am working. As long as they don't cut our daily per diem;)


I hope the per diem doesn't change. What few times I did travel I would find cheap places to eat and spend the unused per diem for beer. :D