Several weeks ago, FedSmith.com published an article (See High Three to High Five?) about a proposal to cut pension payments to future federal retirees. The cut would come by changing how the annuity is calculated by using an average of an employee’s five highest consecutive earning years instead of the highest three earning years.
Subsequently, we published an article that suggested not losing too much sleep over the proposal as it was not likely to get through Congress. (See Worried About Changes to Your Federal Retirement Program?)
In politics, several weeks is a long time and events and issues can quickly change. This issue is a good example. Here’s why.
Last month, leaders in the House quickly dismissed calls to cut government spending. The sky seemed to be the limit in part due to pending and very large federal expenditures that had not been anticipated as a result of natural disasters. But now, according to an article in the Washington Post (registration required to read the Post article), a group of lawmakers known as the Republican Study Committee has gained an upper hand. The turnabout has come in large part because of the legal and political problems of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay was indicted by a grand jury in Texas on September 28–about a week after the article on possible changes to the federal retirement program was published.
Cutting the budget seemed like an exercise in wishful thinking among a few lawmakers who were appalled at the rate of government spending. Now, cutting government spending is back in vogue and it has assumed a front and center position in Congressional debate.
So what does the political wrangling in Congress have to do with spending in your agency and, specifically, with the proposal to alter how the federal retirement annuity is calculated?
The Republican Study Committee published the original recommendations on how to cut government spending. In other words, the proposed cuts may have a more significant impact as a result of the changing political debate in Congress.
Not surprisingly, these proposals would not save as much as changing or eliminating other federal programs.
The proposals from the Republican Study Committee do not mean that all of the proposals will be enacted–or that any of them will be enacted.
But the federal workforce operates in a political environment and is subject to the political mood, political environment and political decisions made in relatively short time. The budget scenario has changed substantially in the past several weeks. Moreover, it is much more likely that other proposals may not be enacted in the current environment.
For example, earlier this year, it seemed possible–even likely–that a law to allow federal employee retirees to pay for health insurance premiums out of pre-tax dollars would happen this year. There was also a possibility (less likely but still a possibility) that the "offset" rules would change to the benefit of a number of federal employees. (The Government Pension Offset impacts anyone retiring under the Civil Service Retirement System and who is counting on Social Security benefits from a spouse, deceased spouse or former spouse. Click here to read more about the offset and what it may mean to you.)
With a Congressional mood to find ways to cut spending, the chances of Congress passing new benefits or improving benefits that would cut government revenue are less likely.
To review the entire proposal from the Republican Study Committee and how your agency may be impacted, click here.