Posted on 11/29/2010 7:57:24 AM PST by VRWCTexan
markknoller NBC Tweet
WH announces 2-year pay freeze for all civilian federal employees – including Department of Defense – but NOT military personnel
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
You are thinking about the old CRCS system which was a pension system based on years with payouts to the employee for life and to the spouse in the event of the employees death. However, if the employee wants the spousal coverage, there is up to a 40% cut in the payment from the get-go. A CRCS employee does not contribute to social security, so they depend on the pension only.
A CRCS employee may also contribute to a thrift savings plan. This has no matching at all and the employee can choose or not to choose to participate. FERS MUST contribute to the FERS plan.
The CRCS plan is in many ways superior to the FERS.
Hope this clears it up a bit. BTW, can you guess which system the congress critters are covered by? Sure you can!
You are thinking about the old CRCS system which was a pension system based on years with payouts to the employee for life and to the spouse in the event of the employees death. However, if the employee wants the spousal coverage, there is up to a 40% cut in the payment from the get-go. A CRCS employee does not contribute to social security, so they depend on the pension only.
A CRCS employee may also contribute to a thrift savings plan. This has no matching at all and the employee can choose or not to choose to participate. FERS MUST contribute to the FERS plan.
The CRCS plan is in many ways superior to the FERS.
Hope this clears it up a bit. BTW, can you guess which system the congress critters are covered by? Sure you can!
I just find it interesting that the people who actually work for a living are the ones who have their pay frozen, while those that are literally, really living off the government tit and produce NOTHING, ie. welfare, get increases.
There’s something wrong with that picture.
Thanks for the info. But it is true the benefits from the federal plan last the entire life of the retiree, correct?
Smoke & Mirrors.
There is no freeze of their COLA pay.
No freeze of their upgrades to a higher level.
No freeze of their annual increases due to seniority.
I think he is only freezing the initial pay grade for each ranking G-1 thru G-13 of G-15.
Someboby post the Balky WH offecal statement. In the very first sentence i swear it says
BOOSHES FAULT!!! LOL
The benefits from the CRCS last the lifetime of the employee, and if they decide to take a percentage hit, then it is for their spouse also.
However, this is only true for the CRCS. FERS only get what they have put into the 401k-type plan, and social security, just like every other corporate plan.
And while there was matching at one time, and 2-1 matching at that - that was in the early 90’s. Now, it is only what the employee puts in and no more. But the employee is required to put into a FERS, unlike a 401k where an employee can choose/not choose.
And of course, the congress critters get CRCS for lifetime. of course
That's a new one to me. My understanding was that the only way a GS'r could increase their pay was by moving up the pay band with their years in, changing jobs, or a COLA.
What detail am I missing?
Also, all employees hired since 1987 are under the FERS plan. Many employees hired before that switched over, enticed by the 2-1 matching. It will be only a matter of time before the only ones in the CRCS system will be Congressional folks.
>> The first part [NT: “Government produces nothing of benefit”] is simply not true. Government has enumerated powers. Do you consider national defense “nothing of benefit?”
Point taken. I should have said “nothing of value to the economy”, because as you point out, national defense is definitely something “of benefit”.
However, defense is a *necessary evil*, a drain on the economy rather than a contributor to economic value. It would be far better, *economically* speaking, if NO money needed to be spent on a military. Having said that, I am in favor of a strong military and willing to pay for it.
Now, even if I change my premise to “nothing of value of the economy” — that is also hyperbolic. As SoftballMom points out, there are (a very few) functions (she named Air Traffic Control) that are not only valid to be performed by a government, but also *of value* to the economy.
Hyperbole though it may be, I stand by my premise that the VAST majority of government is at best a necessary evil, a drag on the economy, and should be reduced or eliminated WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
But only if one wants a vigorous free market economy. For those who prefer a socialist welfare state, YMMV.
FRegards
>> those that are literally... living off the government tit and produce NOTHING... get increases.
There’s something wrong with that picture.
Oh, I have no problem at all with tying off the government teat COMPLETELY. Of course, then the “udder” — the vast government bureaucracy that distributes the “milk” — could be eliminated as well.
It’s a “win-win”, baby!
We are on the same page and I’d go a bit further. Instead of cutting salaries, the government should be cutting departments and positions down to the very basic Constitutional needs. THEN make those jobs desirable to attract the very best talent. Quantity over quality.
Still, if we are all going to share the pain, I’d like to see cuts in all gov’t payouts, including welfare
>> ...the government should be cutting departments and positions down to the very basic Constitutional needs. THEN make those jobs desirable to attract the very best talent. Quantity over quality.
I could get behind that plan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.