12:28 pm, July 13, 2014

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 9
       

  • Knee Jerk. oblivious Congress
    NormalDude
    Just embarrassing. No will to work together and come up with actual solutions with those across the aisle. Opposing parties are demonized, treated as the 'enemy' and evil, and we get nowhere. There is no compromise as one can never comprimise with perceived evil. The Republican treatment of the federal workforce has reached the stage of 'bullying.' I think they would come up 14 trillion dollars short if they tried to squeeze 14 trillion dollars out of civil servants, so why is this the only thing they focus on cutting? It's a drop in the ocean. Makes no sense.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Trillions for Wall Street, but cut the workers Pensions
    jethro
    What arrogance from the House, make us add more to our pensions and cut out the supplements, the average salary in the Post Office for a clerk level 6 is 53,000 and no raises in sight, a FERS retirement with 30 years times 1% = 16,500 if that was your three year high ,minus medical and deductions, maybe 9,000, and if you take away the bridge to Social Security, and you retire say at 58 years old, and your TSP may have 54,000, unless you were lucky ad socked away another 100k, poverty here we come, Trillions for Banks and spit on the workers, okay Marie Antoinette, you know what comes next ! Why not force the Post Office to offer us the VER, so those who are close can get the Heck out !, Oh!, but that makes sense, so that idea is gone, as DC Fiddles, and the Country Burns.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Contact your Representative
    DOtransportation
    Here is what I said I am a Federal employee working with the ******************* on ***************** at the ***********. I have served for over 25 years. I was one of the first bunch that came in under the FERS retirement program instead of the old CSRS. Concerning the last couple years and the current proposed H. R. 3813, I can swallow the pay raise freezes... (I was not promised pay raises) I can even stomach contributing more to the pot that will fund my annuity as described in H.R. 3813 BUT I cannot understand why I would be told (in literature and briefings) over and over for decades that I would, at age 57 (with over 38 years of service) be able to retire and collect a Supplement to my annuity to get me through to the age when I could collect Social Security therefore making retirement at my MRA (min. retirement age) possible. I chose Federal service partly because I desired to go into a field that could allow me to retire at a younger age and I sacrificed other opportunities in the private sector because of a few important benefit elements that fit my desires for my future. I had full faith that I could count on the Federal Gov. to live up to honoring the benefits they touted through HR literature upon taking my first job with the Gov. in the 1980's and often through HR briefings that followed. Removing the Supplement provision from folks that have served honorably believing in and planning for it is a slap in the face. I would need to come up with about 90k in order to make up for the Supplement dollars that were promised to carry me through those 5 years. In reality it will mean missing years with my grandkids as I continue to work to age 62 because I will not have 90k lying around to allow me to go out at 57. I planned on the Supplement, and why should I not have? I was told over and over that it was part of my retirement plan that I was working for. It was part of my benefit package! I have also served over 20 years in the Air National Guard and served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. My federal Gov. counted on me the last few decades and I did my country proud. It is wrong to bait and switch like this. As with the retirement change proposal to base annuities on a "High 5" year average instead of a "High 3" year average this removal of the Supplement should be for new hires that have full knowledge from the get go of the Retirement Plan fundamentals. Please submit a modification to this part of HR3813 ( when and if it gets to the Senate ) to grandfather those already in FERS to keep the Supplement they were promised. Please speak to your colleagues concerning this necessary change. Thanks *********** ***********
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • "... liabilities [these folks] disappear after 2050"??
    AuntieFed
    "The older Civil Service Retirement System is not, but the Democrat members say evidence shows the liabilities for those folks will disappear after 2050, as the approximately 100,000 federal employees still under that system retire. " ...'Scuse me, but I hired on in 1982 and know that the change to FERS came a couple years later. Anyone in CSRS retiring after 2050 would be no younger than their mid-90's, and working over 70 years. "Retire" is not the word they mean - they mean "DIE." I have served this Nation for over 30 years. Today's Members of Congress on this Committee consider me no more than a liability who should hurry up and die?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }