Postal employees and USPS have paid nearly 200% of what the actuaries say its going to cost for their retirements.
There really hasn't been a issue over federal employee retirements. There has, however, been a major public outcry regarding state and local pensions.
I'd take the ERISA and pass a law PROHIBITING it from picking up any state or local bankrupt retirement operations. Now that'd protect federal resources from criminal involvement ~ but not likely to see any Congress do that is there.
They have been screwing with federal employee retirement benefits for sometime now. FERS, CSRS, and forcing all new federal employees hired after 1983 to join SS are just some of the changes made over the years.
Just like there is a SSTF, there is also a federal employee trust fund filled with the same kinds of IOUs, i.e., non-market T-bills. Trust Funds and Measures of Federal Debt So just like the SSTF, it represents an unfunded liability and is part of the $15 trillion national debt held under "Intragovernmental Transfers."
There really hasn't been a issue over federal employee retirements. There has, however, been a major public outcry regarding state and local pensions.
The issue is one of equity and fairness compared to the private sector. If you read the bill that passed in the House, they want the federal employee to pay more his/her own retirement, which would reduce the amount of money the taxpayer puts into the system by matching the employee contribution. It saves money. Federal employees have one of the best retirement packages of anyone. They can retire earlier, have a three legged stool of FERS/CSRS, SS, and the Thrift Savings Plan. Their retirement pay is linked to the same COLA as SS and they get 70% of their health care payments subsidized by the taxpayer in both employment and retirement. It's a great deal for the employee, myself included, but how long will the public put up with using their money to give public employees a better pay and benefits package than themselves?