The end of FERS Supplement - and other stuff

[James48843]

Just in case anybody missed it last week- the Trump Administration proposal on Federal Employee retirement was released last week.

It includes DOING AWAY WITH THE FERS SUPPLEMENT; Increasing FERS employee contribution from 0.8% to 7% over a number of years; and discussion of a completion removal of FERS altogether, with a replacement of a TSP-ONLY situation for new employees. In addition, FERS would be redesigned to eliminate any COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS in the FERS retirement in the future, AND reduce CSRS Cost of Living Adjustments. All retirement calculations would be reduced based on a High-Five rather than the current High-Three.

Some of the proposals, including the elimination of FERS Supplement, would take effect immediately- in 2018.

Read more here:

Trump?s 2018 Budget Reportedly Targets Federal Retirement Programs - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2017/05/trumps-2018-budget-reportedly-targets-federal-retirement-programs/138014/?oref=top-story)

If you are a federal employee approaching retirement age, this will be a major, major hit if passed.

[James48843]

Increase Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) employee contributions from workers by 1 percentage point each year until they equal the government’s contribution. This would take five to six years and would result in increased out-of-pocket payments of about 6 percent over that period. Out-of-pocket payments by federal law enforcement officers would increase by the same amount, but would not equal the greater contributions from law enforcement agencies.
Base future retirement benefits on the average of the high five years of salary instead of the current high three
Eliminate cost of living adjustments (COLA) for current and future FERS employees
Cut the COLA for Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees by 0.5 percent from what the formula would allowed
Eliminate supplement payments for FERS employees who retire beginning in 2018. The supplement approximates the value of Social Security benefits for those who retire before age 62.

more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/18/trumps-budget-calls-for-hits-on-federal-employee-retirement-programs/?utm_term=.6442f8355100

[evilanne]

For most of the proposed changes, I thought they could only implement these type of changes to new employees as they did when they changed from CSRS to FERS and as they did with FERS-RAE & FERS-FRAE in 2013 & 2014, increasing the retirement contribution.

[nnuut]

I had to wait to take my Social Security until I was 62, but I took it at 64 and 9 months why should FERS folks be able to retire early and get a subsidy? I paid 8% for the whole time into my retirement plan, you paid less than 1% I was CSRS and qualified for Social Security they cut my SSN by 60% when I retired, you FERS folks are complaining, what for?

[James48843]

Why?, you ask?

Because that was the deal on the table at the time of career decision making, Nnuut. It was like- do I take the private industry career path that leads to more cash possibilities, but fewer retirement benefits, or do I take the federal career, with fewer hours of work and a decent retirement, but never will warn the cash that the private sector had available.

So for 29 years I've had the deal where I will do X work, and in return, I will expect to get a decent retirement after 30 years, with cola built in, so I will never have to be poor again. Not rich, but blessed beyond many of my peer group.

And then the R's take office, and suddenly decide to cut 35% of my retirement income right off the bat, (no FERS supplement) and no COLA if I get lucky enough to live mute than a few years.

This close- and now those nice conservative folk wish to change the deal and have me take a huge cut.

Thanks, right wingers.


Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=74921)

[evilanne]

I had to wait to take my Social Security until I was 62, but I took it at 64 and 9 months why should FERS folks be able to retire early and get a subsidy? I paid 8% for the whole time into my retirement plan, you paid less than 1% I was CSRS and qualified for Social Security they cut my SSN by 60% when I retired, you FERS folks are complaining, what for?Sorry NNUUT, but it sounds like you are whining too. You know you got a better deal with CSRS.

Social Security is 6.2% + .8% = 7% FERS Contribution, (those hired in 2013 & 2014 pay 3.1% & 4.4%)
The FERS 1% per year pension is still half of the equivalent CSRS Pension and there is no FERS COLA until age 62
(FERS COLA is decremented up to 1% if rate is over 2%).
CSRS Contributions ranges from 7% Regular Employees to 8% Congress & Judges; 7.5% LEOs
What was your federal job NUUTT?
The reason for FERS was to save money & part of the fix for Social Security at the time--adding Feds to increase the pool.
FERS employees have to wait until 62 for Social Security.
The supplement is a gap measure-- FERS Pension (no COLA) + Supplement < normal CSRS Pension w/COLA
The best thing about FERS is the TSP Matching for those that take advantage of it.

The long-term costs of paying the FERS retirement benefit are about half as much as future CSRS retirement benefits due to the less generous computation of the retirement benefit. That means the long-range costs of FERS are lower.Here?s Some Good News About Your Retirement Benefit - Retirement Planning - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2014/08/heres-some-good-news-about-your-retirement-benefit/91502/)

[Cactus]

I know that CSRS employees didn't pay into SS on their Government salary but did they pay into Medicare?

I always lumped that with SS for a 7.5% deduction we get to our salary.

[quabit]

I hate to say this but these cuts are just about the same ones Paul Ryan proposed when he was House Committee Chairman years ago. To refresh your memory just about 8 paragraphs down in the article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/29/gop-lawmakers-eye-federal-retiree-benefits-in-upcoming-budget-talks/

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2013/10/29/gop-lawmakers-eye-federal-retiree-benefits-in-upcoming-budget-talks/)
It doesn't surprise me that these proposals came up again. All that was needed was for the right pegs to fall in place. I still have a ways to go before retirement and can only hope now that it fails or we get grandfathered. I will say that the pension and TSP was the reason I went government in the first place because, I elected to take a pay cut to move into a government position. Job security was another reason. My reasoning was I wanted to add two legs to the retirement stool.

[nnuut]

Sorry NNUUT, but it sounds like you are whining too. You know you got a better deal with CSRS.

Social Security is 6.2% + .8% = 7% FERS Contribution, (those hired in 2013 & 2014 pay 3.1% & 4.4%)
The FERS 1% per year pension is still half of the equivalent CSRS Pension and there is no FERS COLA until age 62
(FERS COLA is decremented up to 1% if rate is over 2%).
CSRS Contributions ranges from 7% Regular Employees to 8% Congress & Judges; 7.5% LEOs
What was your federal job NUUTT?
The reason for FERS was to save money & part of the fix for Social Security at the time--adding Feds to increase the pool.
FERS employees have to wait until 62 for Social Security.
The supplement is a gap measure-- FERS Pension (no COLA) + Supplement < normal CSRS Pension w/COLA
The best thing about FERS is the TSP Matching for those that take advantage of it.
Here?s Some Good News About Your Retirement Benefit - Retirement Planning - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/retirement-planning/2014/08/heres-some-good-news-about-your-retirement-benefit/91502/)


I retired in 2010! With no matching in tsp, that 5% would have been nice. Yes it did vary from 7% to 8%, sometimes I forget stuff, Yes I was wrong. Cola? What damn COLA?

[evilanne]

I retired in 2010! With no matching in tsp, that 5% would have been nice. Yes it did vary from 7% to 8%, sometimes I forget stuff, Yes I was wrong. Cola? What damn COLA?In your case, 3 out of 7 years have been 0, but you have gotten 8.8% in increases thus far.
Annual COLA Percentages:





Year


SS & CSRS


FERS


2017

0.3

0.3



2016

0

0



2015

1.7

1.7



2014

1.5

1.5



2013

1.7

1.7



2012

3.6

2.6



2011

0

0

[evilanne]

I know that CSRS employees didn't pay into SS on their Government salary but did they pay into Medicare?Both FERS & CSRS pay into Medicare.

[Cactus]

Thanx for the info, evilanne.

[FireWeatherMet]

I had to wait to take my Social Security until I was 62, but I took it at 64 and 9 months why should FERS folks be able to retire early and get a subsidy? I paid 8% for the whole time into my retirement plan, you paid less than 1% I was CSRS and qualified for Social Security they cut my SSN by 60% when I retired, you FERS folks are complaining, what for?

You mean you get CSRS AND Social Security?
Way to double dip on Uncle Sam! And you complain about the government?? You should be a true blue democrat. :D

And us FERS folks are paying for YOUR CSRS right now which is unfunded. So what are you complaining about?

And you get to retire in your mid 50s with full, unreduced benefits, whereas FERS folks have to work till nearly 60 to actually retire fully with a supplement that mimicks Social Security, otherwise we have to work till a minimum of 62 to get a reduced Social Security that we pay an extra several % for.

Jeeze, you got it soooo good from the gov't, I can't understand what it is you're complaining about.

[weatherweenie]

You mean you get CSRS AND Social Security?
Way to double dip on Uncle Sam! And you complain about the government?? You should be a true blue democrat. :D

And us FERS folks are paying for YOUR CSRS right now which is unfunded. So what are you complaining about?

And you get to retire in your mid 50s with full, unreduced benefits, whereas FERS folks have to work till nearly 60 to actually retire fully with a supplement that mimicks Social Security, otherwise we have to work till a minimum of 62 to get a reduced Social Security that we pay an extra several % for.

Jeeze, you got it soooo good from the gov't, I can't understand what it is you're complaining about.

Yep, it's this 'I got mine, but don't want you to get yours' mentality that has turned me off of the selfish Republican mindset. No, doesn't mean that I have gone to the dark/Dem side either. :ban:

[nasa1974]

Not sure why anyone is complaining right now.

Our retirement is still better then most outside business. That's one of the main reasons a lot of us stayed as Federal Employees, the pay sucked but the benefits made up for it. My understanding is the change in retirement is for new hires, at least for now.

Look CSRS vs. FERS has it's plus and minuses and we can all debate it. Can we all agree we have decent health insurance? Oh! Wait! They want to mess with that also.

I do agree with Norm about Social Security. I earned all my points working a part time job and because I have a Government pension I am going to be penalized on my SS.

[burrocrat]

here is the secret to life for 99% of the population: you work until you die. it has always been this way.

[weatherweenie]

Not sure why anyone is complaining right now.

Our retirement is still better then most outside business. That's one of the main reasons a lot of us stayed as Federal Employees, the pay sucked but the benefits made up for it. My understanding is the change in retirement is for new hires, at least for now.



Based on the info that is out there, it does not read that the changes are only for new hires.

The plan also eliminates cost of living adjustments for current and future FERS employees, and it would cut Civil Service Retirement System COLA adjustments by 0.5 percent. Unlike CSRS employees, FERS retirees receive Social Security benefits, which are adjusted for inflation each year.

Finally, the proposal would eliminate supplemental payments for FERS employees who retire before Social Security kicks in at age 62, beginning for those who retire in 2018.

[Weather]

Just in case anybody missed it last week- the Trump Administration proposal on Federal Employee retirement was released last week.

It includes DOING AWAY WITH THE FERS SUPPLEMENT; Increasing FERS employee contribution from 0.8% to 7% over a number of years; and discussion of a completion removal of FERS altogether, with a replacement of a TSP-ONLY situation for new employees. In addition, FERS would be redesigned to eliminate any COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS in the FERS retirement in the future, AND reduce CSRS Cost of Living Adjustments. All retirement calculations would be reduced based on a High-Five rather than the current High-Three.

Some of the proposals, including the elimination of FERS Supplement, would take effect immediately- in 2018.

Read more here:

Trump?s 2018 Budget Reportedly Targets Federal Retirement Programs - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2017/05/trumps-2018-budget-reportedly-targets-federal-retirement-programs/138014/?oref=top-story)

If you are a federal employee approaching retirement age, this will be a major, major hit if passed.

James - This is an interesting budget proposal by the White House; however, I would not get too excited at this point. Your final statement is correct. Congress has not passed a budget since 2009. I saw Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi on TV this morning. Both said the President's budget is DOA.

[weatherweenie]

James - This is an interesting budget proposal by the White House; however, I would not get too excited at this point. Your final statement is correct. Congress has not passed a budget since 2009. I saw Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi on TV this morning. Both said the President's budget is DOA.

Hopefully this is the case, that the budget is DOA. With Republicans in control, I will believe it's DOA when I see it.

[James48843]

This is supported by republicans in the House, the Senate , and the White House. It stands a very high chance of passing and adversely affecting current employees.


Sent from my iPhone using TSP Talk Forums (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=74921)

[Khotso]

Just in case anybody missed it last week- the Trump Administration proposal on Federal Employee retirement was released last week.

It includes DOING AWAY WITH THE FERS SUPPLEMENT; Increasing FERS employee contribution from 0.8% to 7% over a number of years; and discussion of a completion removal of FERS altogether, with a replacement of a TSP-ONLY situation for new employees. In addition, FERS would be redesigned to eliminate any COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS in the FERS retirement in the future, AND reduce CSRS Cost of Living Adjustments. All retirement calculations would be reduced based on a High-Five rather than the current High-Three.

Some of the proposals, including the elimination of FERS Supplement, would take effect immediately- in 2018.

Read more here:

Trump?s 2018 Budget Reportedly Targets Federal Retirement Programs - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2017/05/trumps-2018-budget-reportedly-targets-federal-retirement-programs/138014/?oref=top-story)

If you are a federal employee approaching retirement age, this will be a major, major hit if passed.

And it will also be a hit on current retirees.

Trump's budget will immediately affect current CSRS retirees by reducing COLAs by .5 percent from what the current formula would yield -- and that will happen every year going forward. To put that in perspective, I retired 4 years ago, in two of the 3 COLAs I've received since, my retirement income from 35 1/2 yrs of federal work would have actually declined.

To get a sense for what has been going on with federal employee remuneration/retirement, I'll use my own example. Civilian federal salaries (except military) were frozen during my last 3 years. ... So in the past 6 COLAs, my income rose a total of 1.7% (you don't get the COLA your first retired year because you weren't retired). 1.7% over 6 years. That is not sustainable. By my figures, real inflation (what my non-discretionary costs of living have risen over that same timeframe) is more like 10% over that time-frame.

The COLA formula already is inadequate relative to real inflation. Arbitrarily reducing it by .5%every year will have a huge impact unless one doesn't live very long.

[Khotso]

Not sure why anyone is complaining right now.

Our retirement is still better then most outside business. That's one of the main reasons a lot of us stayed as Federal Employees, the pay sucked but the benefits made up for it. My understanding is the change in retirement is for new hires, at least for now.

Look CSRS vs. FERS has it's plus and minuses and we can all debate it. Can we all agree we have decent health insurance? Oh! Wait! They want to mess with that also.

I do agree with Norm about Social Security. I earned all my points working a part time job and because I have a Government pension I am going to be penalized on my SS.

Why complain? One, it isn't just for new hires. It's not even just for new retirees. It affects current retirees as well, even CSRS retirees. In that sense, Congress is breaking the "contract" that was in place when many of us made the decision to stay and work for the feds right through to retirement. Many States have already done the same, which leads me to point 2. The long term trend. Not too long ago, most people who worked for an employer throughout a career received some form of pension as a benefit. That is no longer the case. ...... The trend is to lower everyone's boats -- except the owners. Instead of raising others up, we have been bringing everyone down both in wages and retirement benefits over the past 35-40 years.

Seems to me that that justifies concern (or as you called it, complaining).

[Khotso]

James - This is an interesting budget proposal by the White House; however, I would not get too excited at this point. Your final statement is correct. Congress has not passed a budget since 2009. I saw Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi on TV this morning. Both said the President's budget is DOA.


From what I've gathered thus far, only the Ds are taking issue with this. The Rs are in control -- House, Senate, WH. Rs might not like everything in Trump's budget and will certainly make some changes, but haven't heard any of them protesting the proposed changes to federal benefits. This could have a huge impact -- especially on current employees, but also on current retirees.

[Warrenlm]

Need to retitle this thread to "The End of Free Stuff" or "The Lifetime Guarantee" or "THEY Can Afford It".

Entitlement is not created when you first take a job, James. Think of a contract renewed annually. How about the business that failed just as some of its employees got so old no one would hire them. Because of government red tape yet.

In Nags Head you can find a wonderfully big City government building, being paid for by the businessman running a pier fishing business with broken down screen doors.

[Khotso]

I had to wait to take my Social Security until I was 62, but I took it at 64 and 9 months why should FERS folks be able to retire early and get a subsidy? I paid 8% for the whole time into my retirement plan, you paid less than 1% I was CSRS and qualified for Social Security they cut my SSN by 60% when I retired, you FERS folks are complaining, what for?


"8% for the whole time into" your retirement plan? What government did you work for?

[nnuut]

"8% for the whole time into" your retirement plan? What government did you work for?

It changed over the years, as I have said before 7% now is the real number, I hate repeating myself, how much did you donate?

[Khotso]

It changed over the years, as I have said before 7% now is the real number, I hate repeating myself, how much did you donate?


Interesting. I paid 7.5% throughout my career (at least that's what I thought). I always thought everyone paid the same amount (7.5%). Huh, so you actually had to contribute 8% for at least a while it sounds. I'll be damned -- wonder what's up with that.

[RazorCat]

As a Fed LEO (FERS) I contributed 1.3% towards retirement, and I believe 6.2%'for SS and 1.45% for Medicare.
Trying to find an old pay stub to verify. I know it varied slightly over the years.
I don't really have a problem with the .5% decrease in CSRS COLAS. CSRS has always gotten a COLA that's 1% higher than FERS retirees. The proposal should have read "CSRS and FERS COLAS will be paid at the same rate". Sounds better and accomplishes the same thing.
The one part of these budget proposals I don't agree with is contribution rate changes proposed for current employees.
I could see some variance in contribution rates. But, a 5-6% increase above the one you hired in at is hard pile to swallow.
Still, FERS is a better deal than anything ANY of my non-government retired friends have.

[Cactus]

A 5-6% increase above the one you hired in at may be a hard pile to swallow but it is better that benefit cuts. Unfortunately I am expecting both. That is why many of us are here. We foresaw our 3 legged stool being whittled down to a single leg. TSP is the only one we have any control over, so we are seeking to maximize it.

Someone on here used the term double-dipping in their post. I'd watch out with that one as it can be redefined at any time. Wait and see. In the future we will be accused of double-dipping because we have two government pensions (FERS & SS). It doesn't matter that it was set up that way from the beginning. It doesn't matter that it's cheaper than CSRS. What matters is saving SS, and government employees have been a favorite target for quite some time now. "Hey, their pension is better than the private sector so let's just tax it away from them." In the future I expect FERS to share in the CSRS SS cut and any other taxes government can come up with to save SS. Face it, the money has to come from somewhere and we are an easy target no one cares about.

[nnuut]

Interesting. I paid 7.5% throughout my career (at least that's what I thought). I always thought everyone paid the same amount (7.5%). Huh, so you actually had to contribute 8% for at least a while it sounds. I'll be damned -- wonder what's up with that. Oh, I didn't count the 1.45% Medicare.

[Khotso]

As a Fed LEO (FERS) I contributed 1.3% towards retirement, and I believe 6.2%'for SS and 1.45% for Medicare.

I don't really have a problem with the .5% decrease in CSRS COLAS. CSRS has always gotten a COLA that's 1% higher than FERS retirees. The proposal should have read "CSRS and FERS COLAS will be paid at the same rate". Sounds better and accomplishes the same thing.
The one part of these budget proposals I don't agree with is contribution rate changes proposed for current employees.
I could see some variance in contribution rates. But, a 5-6% increase above the one you hired in at is hard pile to swallow.
Still, FERS is a better deal than anything ANY of my non-government retired friends have.

Haha. Easy for you to say, not being a CSRS retiree. Let's all pull to bring the other guy down. There's a winning strategy for the working class.

Look, since 1999, there have been 5 instances when the CSRS COLA was actually 1% higher than FERS. 5 out of 18. So, lets say the proposed .5% CSRS had been in place over that time frame (18 x .5 = 9% less COLA for CSRS compared to CPI). Meanwhile the FERS shortfall compared to CSRS w/h been 5% less than CPI. Not exactly even.

On the contribution side, you contributed a total of 7.5%. Same as me. Everyone contributes the same 1.45% to Medicare I believe. So we're even there, except CSRS don't/didn't get matching on TSP contributions and don't get a SS benefit. Depending on an individual's TSP contributions/strategy, FERS can actually be a far better deal -- or so many financial advisers claim.

It may be fine with you, but I'm not okay with any changes made to the retirement promise (contract) that was made to me before I made my decision to stay with the federal government for my entire career. It was the driving reason I stayed on after my first 8 years when I considered leaving the feds.

[Khotso]

Oh, I didn't count the 1.45% Medicare.


I didn't either. So we're even there.

[Khotso]

A 5-6% increase above the one you hired in at may be a hard pile to swallow but it is better that benefit cuts. Unfortunately I am expecting both. That is why many of us are here. We foresaw our 3 legged stool being whittled down to a single leg. TSP is the only one we have any control over, so we are seeking to maximize it.

Someone on here used the term double-dipping in their post. I'd watch out with that one as it can be redefined at any time. Wait and see. In the future we will be accused of double-dipping because we have two government pensions (FERS & SS). It doesn't matter that it was set up that way from the beginning. It doesn't matter that it's cheaper than CSRS. What matters is saving SS, and government employees have been a favorite target for quite some time now. "Hey, their pension is better than the private sector so let's just tax it away from them." In the future I expect FERS to share in the CSRS SS cut and any other taxes government can come up with to save SS. Face it, the money has to come from somewhere and we are an easy target no one cares about.

That's exactly the thinking behind the current WH budget proposal. The WH is not the federal employees/retirees friend by any stretch.

[RazorCat]

Haha. Easy for you to say, not being a CSRS retiree. Let's all pull to bring the other guy down. There's a winning strategy for the working class.

Look, since 1999, there have been 5 instances when the CSRS COLA was actually 1% higher than FERS. 5 out of 18. So, lets say the proposed .5% CSRS had been in place over that time frame (18 x .5 = 9% less COLA for CSRS compared to CPI). Meanwhile the FERS shortfall compared to CSRS w/h been 5% less than CPI. Not exactly even.

On the contribution side, you contributed a total of 7.5%. Same as me. Everyone contributes the same 1.45% to Medicare I believe. So we're even there, except CSRS don't/didn't get matching on TSP contributions and don't get a SS benefit. Depending on an individual's TSP contributions/strategy, FERS can actually be a far better deal -- or so many financial advisers claim.

It may be fine with you, but I'm not okay with any changes made to the retirement promise (contract) that was made to me before I made my decision to stay with the federal government for my entire career. It was the driving reason I stayed on after my first 8 years when I considered leaving the feds.

I don't want anyone's retirement benefits to adversely affected. Most especially current retirees. We worked for it. We earned it. It was part of our employment agreement with Uncle Sam, and a main reason most stayed in government service.
CSRS has unfunded liability while FERS is/was fully funded. So, why isn't it fair for both to get the same COLA? Or not get a COLA? And those CSRS unfunded liabilities are being partially paid from contributions of FERS employees which has now created unfunded liability for the FERS fund. FERS was designed to be "pre-funded" and therefore incurred no unfunded liability in the beginning. CSRS was designed as a "pay as you go" system which worked fine until the number of contributors declined/ceased and retirees increased. Now the once fully funded FERS system has unfunded liability because it's being raided to help cover unfunded CSRS liabilities. I helped fund my retirement, AND yours. Again, why shouldn't we all be treated equally when receiving COLAs.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf

Because the full costs of CSRS are not met by the combined total of employee contributions, agency contributions, interest earnings, and the supplemental payments from the Treasury, some future CSRS benefits will of necessity be paid from contributions that were made to the CSRDF on behalf of employees who are enrolled in FERS. This will create an unfunded liability for FERS, which will be paid off through a new series of 30-year amortization payments from the general fund of the Treasury to the CSRDF.
What I said was "The proposal should have read "CSRS and FERS COLAS will be paid at the same rate". Sounds better and accomplishes the same thing.
From FedWeek:

Cost-of-living adjustments

Under CSRS, retirees receive COLAs regardless of the age at which they retire. FERS retirees only receive them when they reach age 62, unless they are special category employees, such as law enforcement officers, firefighters or air traffic controllers, or disability retirees. Further, the COLAs of FERS employees are generally smaller than those for CSRS employees. While CSRS retirees receive the full COLA adjustment based on the consumer price index, FERS employees only receive that up to 2 percent; between 2 and 3 percent, they receive, 2 percent; and above 3 percent, they receive the CPI minus 1 percent. Once more, CSRS is the big winner.

[Scout333]

FERS is only a better deal if you take advantage of matching and maximize your TSP!!!

[Boghie]

Boghie the Swami here...

All my predictions coming true. I can see the future. I can speak with the dead, the living, and the yet born...

Here are the facts:

America is $19,921,739,XXX,XXX in debt.
Both FERS and CSRS are 'invested' in G Fund promissory notes
Neither FERS nor CSRS are funded. They are line items in the budget
Anyone dumb enough to trust a politicians promise gets a little financial instruction


In the end it will not matter that you were promised something if it wasn't funded. It was DUMB for us Rubes to think that saving 1% toward our pension ('matched' by a 14% contribution by the gubmint) was sustainable and was going into Gore's Lockbox in some super secure Swiss bank. Uh, nope, it gets dumped into the same asset pool as Social Security contributions and then gets 'borrowed' from - although never paid back, simply rolled over. Folks like Nnuut have their pension benefits tied to a line item in the Federal budget - there ain't no assets. We really are not talking about lots of money - say about $5 Billion a year if I remember correctly - but the battlefield has been prepped. While the nasty Republicans may get the blame if they start changing things in smallish ways now, those changes may be easier to handle than an abrupt 25% cut required in the near future. What do you think will happen in a future where Democrats run the show - but, nobody is funding our largess and we can no longer borrow. You don't think the Democrats will sacrifice some of our 'generous' pension benefits to sustain benefits for the poor and needy.

Folks, math don't lie.

[PessOptimist]

Some thoughts FWIW.
I started my fed employment at age 45. So. I never worried about the SS supplement but thought it a really good deal for some to be able to retire at MRA and get that “extra” money.

Many I know who retired at MRA didn’t know about the supplement and were surprised. Now many of those people are turning 62 and bitching about reduced annuities. Some went on to other jobs, some did not. Now they are faced with trying to find those SS statements they were sent over the years and figuring out how to establish an account at ssa.gov.

Many years in the military and almost as many years in fed service has taught me one thing. NEVER take anything for granted.

Included in the President’s budget proposal is a “mandatory” proposal to sell the part of the agency I work for. Of course, the Agency’s budget request includes that proposal. This has come up before. It is just a proposal to propose divestiture. That will take years. It helps moral 0% at my level. Adding to the angst is OPM issued a SF50 to many of us reassigning us. No notification of new docs in eOPF. Most of us are still assigned to the same work station, get the same pay and are just a different job title under the same series. A few were changed with no notification and some pay was reduced. OPM says they are fixing the duty station and pay thing. Cause and effect. This didn’t just happen. Management claims no knowledge.
So, fellow feds, things are afoot. Just remember that a budget proposal is not a new federal law. It has to go through legislative process. Unless it becomes a presidential proclamation. (search previous administration).

Listen to James48843, he keeps an eye on things and will always remind you it’s Trumps fault. Actually it all goes back to Reagan and HW and W and… the fact that Carter, Clinton and Obama let the proposal ride is of no consequence.

PO

[James48843]

...Listen to James48843, he keeps an eye on things and will always remind you it’s Trumps fault. Actually it all goes back to Reagan and HW and W and… the fact that Carter, Clinton and Obama let the proposal ride is of no consequence.

PO


It's all Herbert Hoover's Fault!

41522

[evilanne]

I don't think they can do what is outlined in Trump's plan. All major changes to government employee compensation has applied to new employees, FERS, FERS-RAE & FERS-FRAE. CSRS Offset employees had special rules for those that had a certain number of years under CSRS.

Interesting article from earlier this year https://chiefhro.com/2017/01/10/6-civil-service-changes-we-can-expect-from-the-115th-congress/

There have been multiple proposals in recent years to eliminate the defined benefit portion of FERS and move new hires (not existing employees) to a plan based entirely on Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan. <SNIP>
The first year of a party change in Washington puts a lot of issues on the table and it is unlikely everything would happen at once. A comprehensive civil service reform bill would take time and energy that the Congress may not want to devote to federal workforce issues. That means the most likely outcome is piecemeal legislation stretched out over both years of the 115th Congress.

[Boghie]

I don't think they can do what is outlined in Trump's plan. All major changes to government employee compensation has applied to new employees, FERS, FERS-RAE & FERS-FRAE. CSRS Offset employees had special rules for those that had a certain number of years under CSRS.

Interesting article from earlier this year https://chiefhro.com/2017/01/10/6-civil-service-changes-we-can-expect-from-the-115th-congress/


I think you are correct. However, I have never found James wrong on facts easily researched - regardless of how wrong he is elsewhere:D Thus, this is something to watch.

This President and this Administration press issues and fight battles they will likely lose. My guess is that changes will apply to new hires...

[Scout333]

I don't think they can do what is outlined in Trump's plan. All major changes to government employee compensation has applied to new employees, FERS, FERS-RAE & FERS-FRAE. CSRS Offset employees had special rules for those that had a certain number of years under CSRS.

Interesting article from earlier this year https://chiefhro.com/2017/01/10/6-civil-service-changes-we-can-expect-from-the-115th-congress/


I happen to have the CSRS Offset plan as I left and returned to Civil Service. Whoo that is a wild ride! When I started the Offset plan in 1987 there was only one lady in DC who could answer questions about the plan. All I heard was trust us it'll be fine! It actually turned out to be like FERS without the matching and the Supplement. You pay SS and Medicare on your salary and the net difference between SS and CSRS ( .8%) if I remember correctly. They then pay your regular CSRS annuity less the SS pension you draw based on your Offset years. Then you receive a Soc. Sec. Pension as adjusted if you have less than 30 years of SS earnings including your Offset years. Exciting enough for you yet? Also, you have to draw your Soc. Sec. at 62 whether you want to or not. They still reduce your CSRS annuity by your Soc. Sec. receivable at 62 whether or not you actually received it yet.

Watch the changes but don't freak out. It may change a thousand time or not before the budget is finalized. They have been trying to cut our pay, benefits, and retirement for the last 40 years through Democrat and Republican administrations alike. My WAG is that major changes will impact new hires only.

[tsptalk]

Update:


Proposed Changes to Retirement Benefits

Good News! We have dodged the bullet....for now. Today, the House narrowly adopted the Senate's budget, and the Senate's version did not include instructions for reducing federal expenditures through reductions to federal retirement benefits. The big debate in DC now will be over tax reform.

There's more but I didn't want to post too much in case this is only for subscribers to his service.

https://fersguide.com/

[weatherweenie]

There are plenty of FERS employees that are forced to retire at 56. Think air traffic controllers, LEO, fire fighters, etc. What do you say to those people? Tough luck?


I had to wait to take my Social Security until I was 62, but I took it at 64 and 9 months why should FERS folks be able to retire early and get a subsidy? I paid 8% for the whole time into my retirement plan, you paid less than 1% I was CSRS and qualified for Social Security they cut my SSN by 60% when I retired, you FERS folks are complaining, what for?

[uscfanhawaii]

Additional info from govexec.com. Including possible 0% raise for 2019.

House Vote Takes Federal Retirement Cuts Off the Table For Now - Pay & Benefits - GovExec.com (http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2017/10/house-approves-senate-budget-taking-retirement-cuts-table-now/142079/?oref=top-story)

[Happy_Trails]

There are plenty of FERS employees that are forced to retire at 56. Think air traffic controllers, LEO, fire fighters, etc. What do you say to those people? Tough luck?

The only thing that might make sense is to limit the benefits changes to new hires. At least you know going in what to expect. To change the rules on employees who have been onboard for decades and are getting ready to retire is not right, especially those forced to retire at 56.

[evilanne]

I came across this recently, it is at the state & local level, but it is a bad precedent if it ever comes to Federal Pensions or Social Security. Facts are somewhat different as the RI's legislative process isn't recorded http://www.businessinsider.com/rhode-island-court-decision-could-be-a-warning-sign-for-social-security-2018-2

[BamaAF]

This post scared the crap out of me - I retired @56 (36 years xx months) and am 58 now - whew

[RazorCat]

The only thing that might make sense is to limit the benefits changes to new hires. At least you know going in what to expect. To change the rules on employees who have been onboard for decades and are getting ready to retire is not right, especially those forced to retire at 56.
Of the many different iterations of retirement contributions and benefits changes I've seen proposed by Congress or the WH they do impact only "new hires". I know I may have missed one, but those I've seen don't affect those currently retired. For those currently employed, but not retired, I have read that there have been proposed changes to their level of contributions to retirement, but not to retirement benefits they were promised when hired. Of course, that could all change with the stroke of a pin. But, what's new. I heard the same song and dance in 30 years of working for DOJ, and though multiple administrations.
The thing that always seems to stick out to me (as noted in the Govexec article) is these proposals always seem to unfairly target FERS employees and retirees. For instance, elimination of the FERS supplement, and elimination of COLAS for FERS employees while only a reduction in CSRS COLAs of 0.5%. Funny thing is, FERS was fully funded until they started robbing money out of it to cover unfunded liabilities in CSRS, yet these proposals always seems to target the FERS cash cow.

[evilanne]

I agree RazorCat--most changes will most likely apply to new employees. Them going after FERS employee doesn't make any sense;swear

FERS retirement system is fully funded currently, it is the CSRS system that was never funded properly. If you retire early, you currently don't get any COLA until you reach 62 and then your pension is at a lower percentage than what CSRS retirees get for equal years of service. My pension is frozen for more than 10 years, so the Supplement will help @ MRA. If they get rid of the supplement, the end result will be that those employees will remain longer at the higher end of pay scale; if they wait until age 62 they get 1.1% vs 1% per year--resulting in higher payroll (current costs) and retirement costs (future costs) in the long run.

Under CSRS, they get COLAs the year after they retire with higher pensions. They only go after FERS because there are more federal employees under the new system now :saroll:

[kam]

You don't consider the 0.5% reduction in COLA for CSRS significant? I would say they are not "only going after FERS." Usually they don't go after retirees because they cannot change much at that point, so I'm hoping this is just a bargaining chip, but feel there not many that care about people with pensions.

I will say the few that jumped from CSRS to FERS when FERS came along, in my agency, at least the ones I know of their personal situations, they faired quite well, mostly because of the TSP contributions by the government (and a good market).

[evilanne]

You don't consider the 0.5% reduction in COLA for CSRS significant? I would say they are not "only going after FERS." Usually they don't go after retirees because they cannot change much at that point, so I'm hoping this is just a bargaining chip, but feel there not many that care about people with pensions.

I will say the few that jumped from CSRS to FERS when FERS came along, in my agency, at least the ones I know of their personal situations, they faired quite well, mostly because of the TSP contributions by the government (and a good market).

No one said .5% reduction for CSRS was insignificant but it is only a fraction of the proposed cuts (or increases) to FERS being proposed. COLA reductions to FERS retirees are already baked into any COLA > 2%. Historically, FERS COLAs have been between 0 to 1% below SS & CSRS COLAs - Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) | 2018 Federal FERS & CSRS Annuity Adjustments (http://www.federalretirement.net/cola.htm). FERS retiree also don't get any COLAs until age 62. To cut it further makes no sense--not that any cut isn't significant to those that are impacted. In other words, the implementation of FERS already cut the COLA for FERS retirees back in the mid 1980s.

The change from CSRS to FERS actually made a lot sense, which is why FERS has always been adequately funded and also increased number of employees subject to Social Security resulting in lower overall cost to the government. The supplement was to bridge the gap for the SS leg of the stool between MRA & age 62 when eligible for social security at a discounted rate (approximately 25-30% below SS @ FRA depending on when you were born) The ones with FERS offset have a combination of both systems which can be good or bad depending on the specific situation.

TSP is a great benefit for those who take advantage of it and contribute more than just the 5% matching over the years. If invested well, one can achieve the same level of retirement income as someone under CSRS gets from their pension alone--but this would be more of the exception rather than the rule. The FERS was in effect already a cut to the CSRS, placing more responsibility on the employee to plan for retirement while reducing the overall cost to the government.

[RazorCat]

You don't consider the 0.5% reduction in COLA for CSRS significant? I would say they are not "only going after FERS." Usually they don't go after retirees because they cannot change much at that point, so I'm hoping this is just a bargaining chip, but feel there not many that care about people with pensions.

I will say the few that jumped from CSRS to FERS when FERS came along, in my agency, at least the ones I know of their personal situations, they faired quite well, mostly because of the TSP contributions by the government (and a good market).

I consider anything that adversely affects retiree pay to be significant. But, continuing to get a COLA with a mere 0.5% reduction (CSRS) is significantly more advantageous than eliminating COLAs altogether (FERS) on top of losing a significant portion of your retirement pay (FERS Supplement).
Add that to the fact that FERS employee contributions are being used to cover the unfunded liabilities of the CSRS, and will for decades to come, and it would appear the targeting of FERS benefits vs. CSRS benefits is out to balance.
CSRS Budget and Trust Fund Issues (http://www.fedweek.com/reg-jones-experts-view/csrs-budget-and-trust-fund-issues/)
Nothing against CSRS retirees, I almost was one (would have converted to FERS).
It simply is, what it is.

[weatherweenie]

Do the math. 0.5% over the course of 20-30 years, it adds up.

Same thing, on a bigger scale, with pay freezes.


I consider anything that adversely affects retiree pay to be significant. But, continuing to get a COLA with a mere 0.5% reduction (CSRS) is significantly more advantageous than eliminating COLAs altogether (FERS) on top of losing a significant portion of your retirement pay (FERS Supplement).
Add that to the fact that FERS employee contributions are being used to cover the unfunded liabilities of the CSRS, and will for decades to come, and it would appear the targeting of FERS benefits vs. CSRS benefits is out to balance.
CSRS Budget and Trust Fund Issues (http://www.fedweek.com/reg-jones-experts-view/csrs-budget-and-trust-fund-issues/)
Nothing against CSRS retirees, I almost was one (would have converted to FERS).
It simply is, what it is.

[weatherweenie]

This budget proposal is an assault on all government employees and retirees.

Pay freeze, FERS supplement and and lower to no COLA for retirees are unacceptable.

[RazorCat]

Do the math. 0.5% over the course of 20-30 years, it adds up.

Same thing, on a bigger scale, with pay freezes. Again, absolutely nothing meant negative about CSRS retirees. But, a 0.5% reduction and getting some sort of COLA is better than nothing at all which is what was proposed for FERS. There's never been COLAs given on the FERS supplement.
The House striped that, and several other provisions out anyway, so it's not a factor at this point.

[nnuut]

We CSRS retired Employees are the Enemy,,,,, AGAIN!

[nasa1974]

CSRS retiree's that earned Social Security credits outside the government will see a huge deduction to their SS dollars when they try to collect.

[evilanne]

I think the strategy is to attack government benefits that they are unlikely to ever get passed for existing employees so that when none of these come to fruition, existing employees will be more accepting of future pay freezes. A replacement system to FERS for new employee would likely be years down the road as they already modified the existing system with FERS-RAE & FRAE (https://www.fedsmith.com/2014/04/07/fers-fers-rae-fers-frae-what-does-all-this-mean (https://www.fedsmith.com/2014/04/07/fers-fers-rae-fers-frae-what-does-all-this-mean/)/) Just look at the current implementation of BRS (modeled after FERS) http://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Images/Blended%20Retirmeent/BRS_Timeline_02152017%20(2).jpg?ver=2017-02-27-084201-583. As previously stated, FERS is not the problem.

[evilanne]

We CSRS retired Employees are the Enemy,,,,, AGAIN!
Actually the enemy is Congress who never properly funded CSRS and who want to mess with FERS now.

[nnuut]

CSRS retiree's that earned Social Security credits outside the government will see a huge deduction to their SS dollars when they try to collect.
Actually they reduced my SSA by 60% and we didn't get that 5% Matching TSP thing, and I paid 8% a year for retirement for 36 years. How much more does the FERS need, take all you want.:D

[RazorCat]

Actually the enemy is Congress who never properly funded CSRS and who want to mess with FERS now.
This^^^
CSRS, nor FERS employees are the enemy. Just those who take the hit because our so-called leaders have mis-managed our country’s money for decades.
Time to cut up the government credit cards. We need a balanced budget amendment.

[Valkyrie]

there has been an agenda/plan since '99/00 to reduce # of govt employees and replace with contractors. it has been happening that long. reducing govt employee benefits helps usher in more to leave or retire. ones that leave become contractors or work for larger contractor companies who have officials in each other pockets. some work contracts are actually sub contracted out 2-4 times with each company owners skimming off their profits before work even starts and workers get paid. this is how much tax payers are over paying. contractors and the officials that allow all this are the problem. it will never be fixed until the system crashes. talk about corruption my command I retired from is extremely corrupt, since they are not directly funded by congress but have customers that are funded and go to them who are the main engineering support for the navy and pay them. very very little oversite on my last command.

[RazorCat]

99-00 sounds about right. Federal employee pay and benefits were a favorite target of politicians most of my career for one of two reasons.
To appear tough on wasteful government spending in order to get re-elected.
To appear tough in favor of federal employees when someone else got tough on wasteful government spending in order
to get re-elected.

[evilanne]

Privatization or contracting out has been around a lot longer, but its popularity has been cyclical, expanding and contracting at different times. Interesting article that gives a brief history of OMB Circular A-76 Federal Privatization and the Expensive Philosophy of the Circular A-76 Process (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22440-federal-privatization-and-the-expensive-philosophy-of-the-circular-a-76-process)

[Valkyrie]

Privatization or contracting out has been around a lot longer, but its popularity has been cyclical, expanding and contracting at different times. Interesting article that gives a brief history of OMB Circular A-76 Federal Privatization and the Expensive Philosophy of the Circular A-76 Process (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22440-federal-privatization-and-the-expensive-philosophy-of-the-circular-a-76-process)

A-76 is what I couldn't remember. won't forget it now.
thanks

[jonfresno]

Privatization or contracting out has been around a lot longer, but its popularity has been cyclical, expanding and contracting at different times. Interesting article that gives a brief history of OMB Circular A-76 Federal Privatization and the Expensive Philosophy of the Circular A-76 Process (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22440-federal-privatization-and-the-expensive-philosophy-of-the-circular-a-76-process)

From the article, but I think most of us could vouch for this. Same amount of money goes out, and as you noted, the business skims off the top, then pays the worker about half what they rip-off, er, bill the government for.

I've seen where we eventually hire someone from the contracting firm, put the person in a position to make decisions on purchasing software and IT services, and, you guessed it, they contract out from where they came from.

"Studies have shown that privatization actually can increase costs. Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2011/co-gp-20110913.html), a 2011 study by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2011/co-gp-20110913.html), compared the cost of work performed by public employees versus private contractors. Among other things, POGO found that private contractors in 33 of 35 classifications cost more than public employees doing the same work, in some cases nearly five times more."

[evilanne]

It make sense for many supply or commercial services, typically performed by low skill or blue collar employees (e.g. Janitorial, grounds keeping, maintenance) but not for professional services. It actually made more sense under the old CSRS rules than under FERS--thinking about it now, I'm not sure they ever really factored in the difference as there was a given overhead cost applied to Government employees (I think 35%?).

[RazorCat]

It make sense for many supply or commercial services, typically performed by low skill or blue collar employees (e.g. Janitorial, grounds keeping, maintenance) but not for professional services. It actually made more sense under the old CSRS rules than under FERS--thinking about it now, I'm not sure they ever really factored in the difference as there was a given overhead cost applied to Government employees (I think 35%?).
You're correct. Overhead costs (pension benefits, matching TSP contributons, healthcare subsidy, etc.) are in the range of 33-37%. I estimated mine to be 34% on top of my annual salary.

[PessOptimist]

I agree except for facilities maintenance. Not knowing if you will have a job next year does not promote ownership of the facility infrastructure. Nor does it promote caring about what to do if a system breaks.

PO

[RazorCat]

I agree except for facilities maintenance. Not knowing if you will have a job next year does not promote ownership of the facility infrastructure. Nor does it promote caring about what to do if a system breaks.

PO
I wholeheartedly agree with that. I started in facilities maintenance and construction. It takes years to develop staff who fully understand the physical plant they’re maintaining in order to be effective and efficient at doing so. Low staff turnover is key.

[James48843]

House GOP Group Envisions Massive Changes to Civil Service in Budget Proposal



By Erich Wagner, Govexec.com

A group of more than 150 conservative House lawmakers unveiled its plan for the fiscal 2019 budget Wednesday, which includes a complete transformation of the civil service that removes most protections for workers.
The Republican Study Committee released its plan, entitled “A Framework for Unified Conservatism,” (https://gallery.mailchimp.com/d4254037a343b683d142111e0/files/9adb45c5-7c68-4096-bba1-87560d40f0ec/RSC_Budget_FY2019_Narrative_FINAL.02.pdf) and said it would balance the federal budget within eight years. That feat comes in no small part from its drastic changes to the civil service system, outlined under the heading “Deconstruct the Administrative State.”

The group proposed that all federal employees become “at-will,” able to be fired at any time. Additionally, the plan called for capping hiring at one employee for every three who leave the federal workforce, and it would end the practice where federal union officials perform representational duties while at work, known as official time.

The lawmakers took President Trump’s plan to freeze federal civilian employee pay (https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2018/02/trump-formalizes-2019-pay-freeze-proposal/145915/) in 2019 one step further, suggesting the government get rid of across-the-board raises altogether.

Automatic raises for federal employees should be eliminated,” the RSC stated. “Pay increases for federal employees should be merit-based not automatic, while still limited to parallel pay increases in the private sector.”


Other proposed changes:

* Eliminate FERS cost of living increases in retirement
* Increase employee contribution to FERS to 6% of pay
* Cut Health Care Insurance Employer portion to equal only the cheapest $ of any FEHB plan
* Eliminate "Official Time" for Union reps
* Make all employees "At-Will" and allow immediate firing for no cause
* Reduce COLA's by 50% for CSRS retirees
* Base pension on HIgh 5 instead of High 3
* Eliminate FERS supplement before age 62.
* Cut "G" fund interest rate from the average 10-year rate, to match the 30 -day interest rate
instead.
* Freeze pay in 2019
* Eliminate Step Increases altogether, and instead only pay the highest performers any kind of raise.


Link:

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2018/04/house-gop-group-envisions-massive-changes-civil-service-budget-proposal/147784/?oref=river



--

Wow.

[RazorCat]

The GS pay system is long overdue for an overhaul. Pay-for-performance vs. being rewarded with automatic step increases based on the number of years an employee is employed.
Why does CSRS continue to get COLAs when FERS has their’s eliminated? Especially in light of the fact FERS funds are being used to fund the unfunded CSRS liability. FERS was a completely solvent “pre-funded” system. CSRS is a pay-as-you-go system which has never been fully funded.Bothe CSRS And FERS should be treated equally as it pertains to COLAs.
Does eliminating the FERS Supplement prior to age 62 encompass all employees? Does the proposal include special category employees (LEO, FF, ATC, etc.)? Not enough details as yet.
Reduce the number of federal employees through attrition? Fine by me. I worked in and around D.C. long enough to know there’s plenty of dead weight that can be eliminated without much impact to overall productivity.
If new employees go into federal employment knowing the benefits, their required contribution levels, and their rights to employment, then so be it. Take the job, or don’t. Try the private sector. Maybe you’ll fair better. I don’t like the idea of government employees being “at-will”, but the private sector is already there for the most part.
Pay freezes, or raises too small to even be noticeable, is nothing new.
Most of the proposals appear to be designed to bring the public sector more in line with the private sector.
Guess we’ll see where it goes.

[evilanne]

Nothing really new...remember most of these changes have been previously been proposed without success. Only time will tell, but wouldn't get too concerned until something actually moves closer to reality, IMO--still just proposed.

[blueroadster]

My main concern is their persistence. If they continue to propose a change, it will eventually happen. I can see it now...In the future, someone will say that the real reason why there are problems is because no one enacted a change that has been proposed over the last 10 years.

[ABQTurtle]

Looks like this thread is going to be relevant again. "OPM submits 4 familiar retirement proposals to the House for consideration"
https://federalnewsradio.com/your-money/2018/05/opm-submits-4-familiar-retirement-proposals-to-the-house-for-consideration/

[esswun]

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/opm/2018/10/trump-names-omb-deputy-to-replace-pon-as-opm-director/

Amongst Pon’s proposals, were:


Eliminating Federal Employees’ Retirement System Annuity Supplements
Modifying Annuity Supplements From a High 3 Average to High 5 Average Salary
Increasing Contributions to Federal Employees Retirement System
Reducing or Eliminating Retirement Cost-of-Living Adjustments


This guy is gone now. Hopefully these items will become harder to accomplish.