3:52 am, April 16, 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.

  • 7
       

  • CBO is Delusional
    The Virginian
    I don't know who at the CBO is doing their "research." But they are totally delusional when they claim that eliminating the FERS supplemental annuity will save money. The truth is that opposite will occur. It will not save money, but cost the government more money; perhaps MUCH more money. Apparently, these bring young minds failed to take into account that if the FERS supplement is taken away, people will work longer. This means that they will not only be collecting full federal salaries longer, but that additional time in service will be added to their pensions. I can't speak for anyone else, but here is how it will work for me. I am currently a GS-13. I got a late start working for the feds, so I was planning to retire at age 60 with 28 years of experience. The way my numbers work out, I would reach my 30-year service mark just a few months before my 62nd birthday. If I calculated properly, this would mean approximately $5,000 years more per year for my pension if I stick around for the extra two years. Now if they eliminate the FERS supplement, I would DEFINITELY work the extra two years. If I live another 20 years after retirement (not out of the realm of possibility) that's $100,000 more in pension money I will receive. Not to mention the additional money my wife would get as a surviving spouse. But wait, there's more. Instead of being retired from age 60 to 62, I will instead still be in the work force and collecting my full federal salary. The difference between the full salary and my pension with the FERS supplement for that time is about $120,000. Add to that all the employer costs the government would have to pay such as TSP matches, Social Security payments, etc., and we are looking at the United States Government having to spend about an additional quarter-million dollars by making me stick around for an additional two years, depending on my life-span. And these numbers will only increase for those who would have to work longer than my two years. Creating a situation where federal employees have to stay in the workforce longer is NOT the way to reduce the budget. If that is their goal, it is counterproductive and will fail miserably.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Typo
    The Virginian
    At the end of Line 3, I wrote, "Apparently, these bring young minds," That should be "Apparently, these BRIGHT young minds." Sorry for the typo. Also, even if my figures are off, I'll stand by the principles behind them. To put things another way, I will make more money with my full fed salary during the first year of working past 60, then the FERS supplement for both years; PLUS the increased pension payments after 62 due to the aditional time in service.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • It will cost them in my case
    fers_bob
    I currently plan on retiring in less than 5 years at 56... However, if they drop the Special Retirement Supplement (aka FERS Social Security Supplement) that was promised when I started over 28yrs ago, I will either continue to work at my already maxed out salary and get a much bigger annuity when I'm 62, or I will still "retire" and come back to my desk the next day as a contractor making 50% more. Either way it ultimately costs the government a lot more money than that initial outlay of the supplement for 5 to 6 yrs.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Dumping The FERs Supplement Is A Ruse
    Hector
    It is primarily intended to force a mass exodus of otherwise eligible, or those close to their MRA, to leave the government roles by 12/31/12 to keep their supplement. Its really a mass illegal RIF, masquerading itself as legitimate retirement reform. I do not understand why the federal employee unions/associations have not hrasped this reality.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Will Cost the Gov't More
    harveyinnyc
    Leave it to Federal Employees to point out what the sponsors of H.R. 3813 overlooked: Eliminating the FERS Supplement will actually cost the gov't more money. This will, in my case alone, cost an extra $22,000 per year, for six additional years. I would recommend that the CBO include these figures in their calculations of what H.R. 3813 will provide, in terms of savings.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Contractor Pensions
    harveyinnyc
    I wonder why H.R. 3813 has not recommended any cuts to contractor pensions, when it appears there are savings to be had there as well? According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), taxpayers contributed more than $3.3 billion to the pension programs of 18 of the biggest federal contractors in 2010. This includes $988 million in 2010 to Lockheed Martin, $667 million to Raytheon, and $529 million to Northrup Grumman. Plus 15 other federal contractors.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }