Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Have you been paying attention to the senate buget committeee. Both the democrtic leader and the republican mleader have recently proposed a congressional committeee that would put all governamnt spending on the table. This is unlike a presidental committee often seen that has to allow amnedment. It just started and has 34 sponors in the senate. It bascailly wouold come up with changes in budget rules that would be a up or down vote in both houses.This has never been done before as most are presdientail committeees like the breaux committeee in the 80's on medicare'social security and medicaid whixch had no powwer and could be amnded when coming out of committee. If not the changes will come as we go further and furhter towards what california is see now has a nation.What is happening to Ireland and other nations such as Spain could happen here.That would mean real changes in governamnt spending including employment and legacy cost such as retirements.
There's a good chance that it could change from high 3 to high 5.
That change to a "high-5" has been rumored to be a possibility for as long as I've been in Government (31 yrs.). It has never been seriously considered. Now granted, there is a slight chance that it may one day occur. But that doesn't make it "likely" that it would happen as texdav posted, nor make it a "good chance" as you yourself posted. It just is not on the table at this point in time.
In fact, with every year that passes, it becomes even less likely. That's because the biggest budgetary savings would be in applying it to current CSRS employees; and as you know, with limited exceptions, employees hired since 1984 are under FERS. FERS employees receive a much lower basic annuity based on a formula that provides only roughly 1/2 the CSRS benefit.
It's too late for the Government to save much money by switching to a high-5 formula from a high-3. And it is beyond the realm of possibility to think that they would switch it to a high-30 (entire career) like texdave suggested.
Wow, as a federal employee, I feel the love. In a month I'll be doing my job -purchasing agent - in Afghanistan. Does your employer require you as a civilian to go in harms way? Will you be issued a vest and helmet? Not likely.
I am proud of what I do and I am glad I will be with the military ensuring that they get the food and supplies that they need. I would not trade it for the world. My reward at retirement will be a pension PARTIALLY indexed to inflation as all federal employees hired since 1984 I get the first 2% CPI dollar for dollar but over that I get only partial CPI.
Bless all of you who support our military and thousands of civil servants who find themselves in harms way to defend you and your right to post your opinion!
You may even think that it would be a good idea if it changed.
But one thing I can guarantee you....
it definitely is not "likely" to change.
Folks don't realize that the cost for most govt pensions at the state level are acturarial cost and long term. The people who would be impacted by any shortage are early in their careers. It is not a pay as you go each year program and the state pensions have for the most part a boat load of money to last them a good number of years.
Scroll down and read the link in the blog you posted.
""In 2006 the USPS was made the guinea pig for how to fix this problem. They became the first entity to be required to fully prefund its obligation. They have to pay to current costs of about $2 billion per year plus another $5.5 billion per year to fully fund all past and future retiree healthcare benefits by 2016.
The USPS is required to give this money to the federal gov’t to “invest” in low return treasuries. Between this and the retiree prefunding the gov’t currently holds $300 billion of postal funds for future postal retirees.""
The point is that many government agencies lose money. Private industry would be bankrupt and gone.
How many government agencies are supposed to make money? I know of a few agencies or parts of agencies that charge fees, and that money goes to make up some or all of the money needed to run the agency. Two at the federal level that come to mind are the Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office. At the local level, public libraries charge fines for overdue books, but that is just a tiny fraction of the cost in running the library.
The Post Office is an exception in many ways, but especially in not being funded by tax dollars. That and other factors (primarily the Internet) have pushed the Post Office deep into the red, and I suspect some major changes will be coming, including no more Saturday deliveries.
The point is that many government agencies lose money. Private industry would be bankrupt and gone.
So lose money and get a pay raise increase. Only in government
[/url]
This is a pretty funny statement given the huge amounts of money so many failed executives gleaned from their failing companies for running them into the ground and that the taxpayers just bailed out last year...
Oh yeah, I forgot, the far right doesn't consider corporate welfare to be a bad thing... only govt services.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
