Comments (5) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Federal pension reform
Tools
Washington politicians of both parties continue to seek ways to extend federal loans to the states to keep laid-off workers drawing 99 weeks worth of benefits. (That number is now set to be gradually reduced, though it will still have little relation to premiums originally set to fund just 13 weeks of benefits.)
The most recent impasse on the Hill: Republicans wanted to come up with a way to pay for this ongoing largess by reducing federal spending obligations somewhere else.
Up till last week, negotiators appeared headed for a deal that would have required all federal employees to pay more for their pensions. But key negotiators Sen. Benjamin Cardin and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, both D-Md., balked at the proposal, even after phone calls from President Barack Obama, The Washington Post reports. So negotiators finally agreed Thursday that only future federal employees will contribute more toward their pensions.
As the deal now stands, new federal employees hired after Dec. 31, 2012, who have less than five years of federal service, would pay 3.1 percent of their salary toward retirement benefits -- 2.3 points more than employees currently enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System.
Current federal employees, and any current employee with more than five years of service who is hired into a new federal position, would not be affected by the changes. The plan is expected to generate about $15 billion in savings.
Leaders of government employee unions promptly complained the proposal would establish two classes of federal employees: new hires paying more for retirement benefits, versus current employees, many of whom are older, paying less for the same benefits.
Oh, the humanity.
Yes, the initial GOP plan would have made more economic sense. After all, switching all employees away from defined-benefit pension plans and into defined contribution plans more like 401(k)s is precisely what the private sector now finds necessary.
Just the day before, on Wednesday, General Motors announced it's freezing its traditional pension plan for salaried workers, moving them instead toward a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan. GM has had its own two-tiered system for about a decade. Workers hired after 2001 had been on this defined-contribution plan, while those hired before that time had remained on the traditional defined-benefit plan.
For salaried employees -- not hourly employees, who work under a union-set pension plan -- that will change this fall.
The advantage to workers is that the new account becomes their property, even if they leave the company. The disadvantage is that once the account runs out of money, there are no more payments.
The advantage for employers? Solvency -- a concern seldom raised in Washington, these days.
Requiring some federal workers to pay more toward their own retirements is, at least, a step in the right direction.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
how much did 0bama give the banks ? alot more than 99 week$
With all the 401k's bad investments and fraud why the heck are you people praising 401k's. The banks and wall street are just hoping that the republicans will give them control of all our retirement money.
@Long Time.Nevadan ----- A National Sales Tax or VAT has already been proppsed by the DemocRATS. They also immediately came out and said "POOR PEOPLE (DemoccRATS voting base) WOULD BE EXCLUDED" --- So, your thought of non-taxpayers paying "SOMETHING" is "MOOT". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The current 50% of Americans that do pay taxes, would have to pay "MORE TAXES", and continue to bear the burden of "FREE EVERYTHING FOR THE FOREVER WELFARE DREGS !!!"
As private citizens we work all our lives to retire. We save through 401K's, investments, IRA's and all other forms for our golden years. So why should we have to pay for the government employee's retirement why shouldn't they be in the same situation as the private citizen?
I can't say that I agree with what is happening here. I do agree that requiring new employees to pay more is fair as new hires will "know the rules" before accepting the job. No one is forcing them to work for the government. What I don't like is that this change is being used to cover a short term `new-spending' initiative rather than overall deficit reductions. The ideal solution would be to let the payroll reduction lapse at the end of the month and use this `new found wealth from the new fed employees' be used towards their pensions when they retire.
Until someone in DC wakes up and understands that we need to raise taxes and cut spending, we will turn into Greece. I did like Herman Cain's idea of a national sales tax. Currently half the US population pays no Fed Income Tax. These are the folks, with no skin in the game, that tend to favor more and more fed spending. If I were in that boat, I would like that too, afterall, having a rich uncle that takes care of me would be great.