Ryan Budget Blueprint Raises Pension Contributions

By on March 21, 2012 in Current Events with 127 Comments

In addition to freezing pay through 2015 and cutting the size of the federal workforce, the budget released yesterday by the House Budget Committee would also require federal workers to pay more towards their pensions.

In a press conference yesterday discussing the budget blueprint (see video below), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said, “We think that federal workers should have to pay half of their pensions themselves instead of having the private sector taxpayers pay for all of it.”

What exactly might that mean? Taken at face value and based on the limited information we currently have, federal employees under FERS currently pay 0.8% of their salaries towards their pensions, and the agency contributes 13.8%. That totals 14.6%; if the employee paid half, that would be roughly 7.3%.

Another reform plan suggested earlier this year was under Congressman Dennis Ross’ (R-FL) bill. While it seems unlikely this bill will advance past the house, its plan would increase employee contributions for current employees under both CSRS and FERS by 0.5% per year for three years starting in 2013. This would ultimately result in a contribution of 2.3% for FERS employees and 8.5% for CSRS.

Pension reform has already taken place to some extent. Under the payroll tax deal that was recently implemented, future federal workers will see increased pension contributions to help offset the cost of unemployment benefits. Federal workers hired beginning in 2013 will have to pay 3.1% towards their pensions instead of the current 0.8%.

Ryan’s budget proposal would take the above suggestions further, however, in terms of employees’ contribution amounts.

As more information becomes available, we will advise readers of any changes in this plan or other significant proposals impacting federal pay and benefits.

© 2016 Ian Smith. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Ian Smith.

About the Author

Ian Smith is one of the co-founders of FedSmith.com. He enjoys writing about current topics that affect the federal workforce. Ian also has a background in web development and does the technical work for the FedSmith.com web site and its sibling sites.

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

127 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. Ken B says:

    Congressman Ryan’s budget proposals are destroying any republican chances to win the next elections. He must go more mainstream or we’ll suffer living under another years of Democratic Socialism.

  2. SINkue says:

    Ryan and cronies are still attacking federal employees, who have already given enough towards balancing the national budget. Everyone knows that it’s no secret that politicians like Ryan want to see a smaller government, which in turn means fewer services for the American people.

    I cannot seem to understand why their vision is so narrow when we are growing as a nation. If politicians like Ryan continue to use government employees as their scapegoat [to balance the budget], they will eventually get their wish, which is to force our youth to seek employment opportunities elsewhere [private industry] and not consider public service as a career.

    It saddens me to know that our public figures lack vision and creativity, when it comes to solving national issues. Since the assignation of JFK, our system of government has fail to attract the best and brightest minds into federal service. Perhaps this is because everyone is out for self or maybe those personality traits needed to serve in a leadership capacity no longer exist (like integrity, selflessness, and patriotism). Either way, people like Ryan need to resign and go back to doing what they know best—nothing!

    Enough Ryan! Do us all a favor and go away.

  3. Petedantonio says:

    So Mr Ryan will not raise $1 of taxes for the rich but will increase cost to Federal Employees for their Pensions…….is this not a tax just by another name? It’s OK, its on the middle class.

  4. jarvis32 says:

    Republicans, who gave the world george w. bush and the great depression, want to destroy the working middle class. They make no-bones-about-it and proudly beat their chests declaring that millionaires and billionaires are to be protected from taxes, rules and regulations, and are to be privileged. Federal gov workers have been paid far less than corporations, company workers for over 25 years. Now that there are no good jobs (thanx republican bush jr and cheney) all of a sudden it great pay! It is stressful work and 90% need at least a master’s degree and many years of experience to accomplish the day-to-day demands of taking care of the general public. All the GOP does is sit around trying to destroy President Obama and take what little is left of the country!

    • cforlife1109@gmail.com says:

      President Obama has done his share also. All his taxes affect the middle class with extremely little affecting the upper. The ACA is the best example. This nit-wit has devised a plan whereby those of us who have worked hard and played by the rules stand to lose the most. Currently, the best fiscal plan is to be on food stamps.

  5. Taxpayer says:

    ned,

    Do you know what means calendar days?

    Obviously not.

  6. RicknATL says:

    Ryan tends to forget the middle class and the federal employees have been sacrificing, unlike the rich/corporations.  His budget will hasten the decline of the middle class, while the richest 1% get even more wealthy. All the while, those job creators, haven’t created very many jobs with all that wealth.

  7. $15300432 says:

    Thank you Congressman!!! We need more folks like you in Congress!!!

    • polanalyst says:

      What do you get out of it? You lobbying for funding for your earmark?

      • $15300432 says:

        Insuring that my unborn grandchildren wont b saddled with even more debt

        • polanalyst says:

          Again, what do you (& your grandkids) get out of THIS? When us feds default on our homes from this, it will be YOU and your GRANDKIDS saddled with an even greater debt. 

          Glad you care about your grandkids-too bad you don’t know what’s good for them. I have kids too-and this move by Ryan is a disgrace and anti-family; puts MY unborn grandkids in trouble.

        • ned says:

          as if anyone would breed with you.

          god have mercy on those grandchildren if someone did.

        • ned says:

          oh, now i see -  “it’s for the (grand)children”

          gee where have i heard that line before?????????

  8. Taxpayer says:

     ned,
    What makes you think that I’m the guy with the 100% taxpayer funded pension?  As usual, you’re confused & don’t understand from shine-ola and that’s why you’re a Government employee.
     
     
     

    • ned says:

      if you are going to use multiple screen names at least be smart enough to change the contents of your rants slightly.

      and i understand you from shine-ola.

  9. P Curley says:

    FERS employees should pay 3 1/2 % of their salary. Their benefits are slightly higher than half of the benfits of CSRS employees for the same length of years. (1% per year instead of almost 2% for CSRS, the CSRS shortfall coming from the reduced % for the first 10 years). Since they get no COLA’s until 62 that would offset the higher percentage. CSRS employees already pay 7%, half of that would be 3 1/2%. They are definitely getting more out of it for less in.

    • ned says:

      yeah and CSRS should have to pay SS to prop up the system.

      tell you what, give me back the >$100,000 i’ve paid in OASDI (SS) and i’ll gladly
      pay 7% to double my FERS annuity and get to retire at 55 instead of 62 if CONgressman
      Ross has his way.

      deal?

  10. Not voting for you! says:

    I wouldn’t mind Ryan’s suggestion if it went both ways.  Where was the fight for the Federal employees a few years back when the stock market was flying up and people were making millions off of the housing and stock market?  My contractors just got a 6% pay increase and my neighbor just got a bonus at work…yet another three years of no pay increase is being proposed?  Why can’t they admit its not about pay equality but about spending less on employees so the money can be used to fund pet projects and give Congressional staffers more pay and bonuses…..

    • Gnatman says:

      Everyone is riding the tax breaks for employer benes (see the two top tax expenditures), but want to take away from government emplyees.  HYPOCRISY

  11. leavingfederalservicesoon says:

    Absolutely ridiculous.  Increase the employee contribution from 0.8% to over 7%!  That means my pension contribution will go from around $40 per month to over $400!!  I PAY TAXES JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE.  Why should I essentially be taxed $400 more just cause I’m a federal employee (prove to me that the extra $$ is going to the pension fund)?  A majority of current FERS employees will not last long enough to collect the pension anyway.  I already pay $900 a month in federal tax, $300 in state tax, $350 in SS, plus around $150 in health insurance, not to mention my TSP contributions. 

  12. Taxpayer says:

    RicknATL,

    Actually the opposite is true, compared to private sector employees. Show me one private sector employee that gets two calendar months of vacation per year, on top of the generous pay and other benefits. 
     

    • polanalyst says:

      Again, you fail to prove the opposite is true if you’re implying that fed employees are rich. I have news for you: professionals in equivalent professions in the private sector DO make more money and have good benefits. That’s why they CHOSE not to work for the govt. They can afford to live in the best suburbs w/the best school districts & deservedly so. We took a tradeoff of a lesser salary for more security and slightly better leave time, which you’ve exaggerated. 

      FYI-from the 3rd year through the 15th year, we get 4 weeks/year-hardly the 2 calendar months you referred to in your lies above.  My friends in the private sector get about 4 weeks/year as well. 
      Face it, you are just jealous and bitter b/c you applied to the govt. and your incompetence prevented you from being accepted. You WOULD prefer 100 words or less b/c you’re too much of a simpleton to understand any complex issue including pay and benefit structures. 

    • RicknATL says:

      Ease off on the GOP kool aid dude. A federal employee (starting out) gets only 14 days per year vacation time and the pay is an estimated 26% lower than the private sector (assuming at least a 4 yr degree profession).

    • Bean Counter says:

      Where do you get two calendar months of vacation a year dude?  We get 5 weeks, and that is only after 15 years of service!  Yes, we can save that leave and turn it into use or lose, which might equate to 2 months, but people that EARN that leave have taken many years to do so.  It isn’t a given for everyone!

    • Gello35 says:

      “Show me one private sector employee that gets two calendar months of vacation per year, on top of the generous pay and other benefits.” 
      Another ignorant statement. Keep em coming, just dilutes any credibility you have, as if you ever had any.

    • ned says:

      you explain to us how 208 hours of leave per year (after 15 years of service) translates to “two calendar months of vacation per year”.

      come on – we’re waiting.

  13. Taxpayer says:

    ned,

    Once again you prove that Government employees cannot write well and, they speak in code.

    However, it’s obvious that you’ll vote for people that will “take care” of your pay and benefits and nothing else. And that’s why you work for the Government…and, you most likely couldn’t get a job in the private sector.
     

    • ned says:

      it’s not my ability to write – it’s your inability to comprehend.

      and aren’t you the guy with the 100% taxpayer-funded pension?

      if i was retirement eligible i’d do what my coworkers are currently doing –
      retire and come back as contractors at higher salaries.

    • Gello35 says:

      Uh, your writing is horrible and you think they speak in code because apparently you are a little on the low end of the IQ scale.  I bet you are a government job reject, yep that’s it, the government wouldn’t hire you.  That’s why you are so bitter.  Don’t bother to dispute, I know it is a fact, nothing you can say will change my mind.  

  14. Taxpayer says:

    rickn,
     
    What do you mean by that? 

    • RicknATL says:

      It seems to me that he is pointing out that Ryan’s proposed budget is sticking it to the federal employee, and that he (Ryan) erronously thinks all feds are rich and living the good life. When the opposite is true.

  15. Taxpayer says:

    polan,

    What’s your point, in 100 words or less.

  16. polanalyst says:

    What a sick man! He wants to impose an 11% tax on a struggling middle-class single-income family w/2 small kids, just one car who’s barely making ends meet!

    Here’s the math: My bi-weekly net pay is $1818.25 (not bad but certainly not rich) and this pension hike would decrease that by $207.22! Yes, that’s 11.4% of a modest take home pay. Plus the extended pay freeze would cut it further since health premiums always go up. And you think inflation will stop and wait?Why do I feel like as a federal employee with a Master’s degree and who’s lived life frugally and responsibly, I now have a lynch mob coming after me to destroy my family and my livelihood? Does anyone else feel that way?

    • Bean Counter says:

      Yes, a lot of us do.  I know I do.  I take home somewhat less than you do and a raise in the FERS contribution would have a dramatic effect on my bottom line.  The loss would be almost equal to my truck payment, which would be devastating to us if we had to give that up.  We have already taken steps to cut our expenses, moving closer to work due to high gas prices, etc.  And the less we make, the less we can contribute to the economy!  DON’T THEY GET THAT???

      • $15300432 says:

        Right and food stamps and welfare also keep the economy growing

        • polanalyst says:

          Uh Onedone? Food Stamps and Welfare are for people w/o a job. We were discussing people who actually have jobs they do for a living. Just in case you don’t understand the difference.

    • $15300432 says:

      Drop out… that’s how mature peoplep handle somthing if they can’t afford it

      • ned says:

        “peoplep”

        huh??

      • polanalyst says:

        OK, onedonewong, maybe you do lead us to a legitimate point. 

        Nothing in the Ryan plan or when they were talking about doing this last year, included an “opt-out” option. That’s something I would at least entertain if they want to just cash out my contributions thus far into some IRA or whatever and cancel the defined benefit plan all together. My problem as I’ve stated is more on the immediate effects on “take-home pay” than future pension benefits. Eventually everyone in both public/private sector will need to work with individual 401K’s and a drastically reformed SS system.

        So what we won’t stand for is being “forced” to buy something at a higher price after we’ve already organized ourselves around a negotiated contract. That’s the same complaint the people against Obamacare have-the mandated purchase.

        • polanalyst says:

          Also, the reason even Republicans  backed off the pension contribution increase last year was b/c of their stated opposition to tax increases. And to raise the contributions would be equivalent to one. If 2 million taxpayers have to seriously curb routine purchases or go broke, that will hurt the economy just like the R’s have always said tax increases do. And that’s not very good for you or anyone else either. 

      • Bean Counter says:

        I never said I couldn’t afford it.  That wasn’t my point.  I am blessed and CAN afford what I have.  My point was that Ryan is out of touch with the average federal employee or even a private sector employee.  The more that comes out of our check, the less we have to contribute to the economy because we can’t spend as much of our check buying things that generate revenue (taxes).  The more people WORKING the more the economy grows, and the more disposable income people have the more they spend!  DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. LittleLouie says:

    Rep. Ryan, Rep. Ross and others have glommed onto the attention grabbing headlines claiming the federal employees are overpaid, which is far from true.  This is all an effort to enrage the electorate, get them re-elected and distract from the fact they have no solution to the problems besetting our country. These stories that claim federal employees make $125,000 are distorted.  The average federal employee is a GS-9. They take actual salaries and use some imputed value of a pension over a 30 year retirement.  Remember, not everyone is going to enjoy a 30 year retirement. Some will die young, maybe not even reaching retirement age. That’s what actuaries count on when studying pension plans.
    Also, most federal employees are concentrated in high cost of living areas, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles to name a few.  I don’t know exactly where Rep. Ryan lives in Wisconsin, but the cost of living is nowhere near where I live in neighboring Chicago, Illinois.  If I lived where he lives, then yes, my federal salary would be pretty good.  For those in the privater sector who work for employers who provide no health insurance and no 401k, I sympathize with you.  Instead of attacking those who do have benefits, such as federal employees, you should be demanding that your employer provide better benefits as a condition of employment.

    • The Master says:

      Yes, that $125k figure is actually total comp[ensation including salary, and the value all benefits such as Leave earned and paid holidays. It just shopws how the small minds latch on something without understanding it fully.

      And I agree that people should spned their time and effort to get more of what they deserve instead of trying to take away from others.

  18. US citizen and Fed Employee says:

    Geeze… Does anything good come from Wisconsin (other than cheese) — Gov. Scott Walker, Rep. Paul Ryan???  I’m just saying!  

    • Fed Up! says:

      Milk & bratwurst.  

    • RicknATL says:

      For sure, those two right wing nutjobs are a big threat to the middle class/federal employees.  They won’t be happy until the GOP goal of a national sweatshop is realized, and the middle class ceases to exist.

  19. RicknATL says:

    Ryan has no clue what federal workers do. Instead of targeting those responsibile for the recession (banks/wall street/corporations), he is going after the last bastion of the middle class that has resisted corporate/GOP efforts to turn this country into a national sweatshop (by destroying the middle class).  Something which of course, favors the rich/corporations. 15 years ago, a decent job with benefits was a given among the middle class. Today, thanks to the GOP, that is no longer true. Even as the rich have accumulated more wealth and enjoy record low tax rates, the middle class is declining, with the poverty class is increasing.  Fortunately, many are waking up to the danger posed to the middle class by the GOP and hopefully the next election will result in many of those being kicked out of office.

    • Guest says:

      I think you’re painting with nearly as broad a brush as you’re accusing Ryan of doing.

      Banks and corporations, per se, did not get us into this.  It’s certain behaviors of particular banks and corporations that played a large part in the current mess.  Plenty of banks and corporations help, not hurt, the overall economy.

      And from my personal perspective, a great deal of this problem lies with Congress and the President (for ineffective regulation, and for listening too much to lobbyists), the Supreme Court (Citizens United, Southern Pacific Railroad, etc.)  And ultimately the American people, who have been mostly passive in permitting ourselves to be governed somewhat by a Plutocracy.

    • $15300432 says:

      I do and it ain’t much

  20. Have papers - will leave says:

    Good idea James70094  !!!!   Is there a way I could “opt out” of the government pension system ???
    Of course I want to keep the pension I’ve earned and paid for, but NO future benefits / payments.
     

  21. The Master says:

    Instead of this, just do away with the pension. I can contribute 7.3% to a investment account and take my chances. CSRS contributes roughly that much and gets more than twice the annuity FERS does. It’s the old CSRS system that is underfunded, not FERS. I have an idea for helping the budget, eliminate Congressional pensions and institute a pay cut to what the average federal employee makes. After all, Congress is a part time job. 

    • LittleLouie says:

      Remember that CSRS does not get Social Security and TSP match.  CSRS is not getting twice as much as FERS.  The two programs provide roughtly the same retirement income.

      • The Master says:

        And remember that we contribute to Social Security and Medicare. My father is retired under the CSRS system. His annuity is more than my combined annuity and social security is estimated to be. What I did not do was a good job in identifying that FERS contributing 7.3% of their salary and paying Social Security taxes would end paying twice as much to get the same as the CSRS. I did not intend to suggest that CSRS are getting twice as much under the current contribution rates. And any match relies on additional money we put out of pocket (in my case 15% of my salary) in order to get.

        • LittleLouie says:

          Thanks for the comment James70094.  I think we are of a like mind, just don’t always articulate ourselves well.  My point was that the contribution rate for CSRS employees is equivalent to the amount that FERS employees contribute to FERS and Social Security.  In theory what FERS employees will receive in retirement income from SS, FERS, and TSP withdrawals should be similar to what a CSRS employee receives from CSRS alone.  In my case I won’t receive anything from SS as I don’t have enough years of employment under SS to qualify.  There were a lot of variables to consider back when FERS was created, which is why I didn’t switch to FERS.  I figured I was potentially better off staying under CSRS.  And yes we contribute to Medicare even though we can keep our FEHB in retirement.  So, we end up paying for both Medicare and FEHB, but FEHB will be a secondary payer in retirement.

      • ned says:

        “CSRS does not get Social Security”

        more like “CSRS are not stuck under Social Security”.

        you also don’t have a CONgress clown trying to gut the
        pension benefits you were promised decades ago.

        i wonder why CSRS with their superior annuity are getting
        a pass on all this?????

        • A Guest says:

          Congress has dipped into our account many times.  Anytime there is an inkling of designated pot money, lawmakers find a way to stick their fingers in the pot.   Recent example, TSP.

        • LittleLouie says:

          I don’t know that we’re getting a pass on this.  I haven’t seen the specifics of all the proposals, but I didn’t see where they all necessarily excluded CSRS.  Right now the only thing that has passed affects only new hires after 1/1/2013.  For those still working and paying into SS you’re getting the 2% so-called payroll tax cut.  Those under CSRS and any other retirement system not contributing to SS don’t receive the 2% savings. 

          As for our superior annuity, that is the generally held opinion.  But, I recently read one comparision that suggested FERS employees could come out ahead.  It really comes down to each persons individual circumstances.  I didn’t make the switch to FERS back in 1986 because I wasn’t making enough to contribute to the TSP and contributing to the TSP was central to having a comparable retirement income to CSRS.  That was my decision though I knew several co-workers who did switch to FERS.  Obviously, anyone hired after 1/1/1984 didn’t have a choice and was placed under FERS.  There are positives and negatives to both retirement programs.  Each must be examined through the prism of one’s own circumstances.  Blanket genralizations such as we’re getting from Congress are not equitable.

          • ned says:

            “Right now the only thing that has passed affects only new hires after 1/1/2013.”

            key words there being “right now”. Ross is trying to eliminate the FERS Special Supplement which would allow FERS to retire at 56 which is comparable to CSRS 55. 

            “For those still working and paying into SS you’re getting the 2% so-called payroll tax cut. Those under CSRS and any other retirement system not contributing to SS don’t receive the 2% savings.”

            BFD. So are you saying you wish you were under the SS Ponzi scheme so you could get a short term 2% tax cut (a whopping 2%)? 

          • LittleLouie says:

            I’m in agreement with you, people like Rep. Ross and Rep. Chaffetz and others are out to punish federal employees, FERS and CSRS alike.  What puzzles me is your bitterness toward CSRS employees.  We didn’t make the rules.  When I went to work for the government in 1977 CSRS was the only retirement plan.  Retirement was a long ways off.  I was only happy to have a job. I didn’t make some calculated decision that if I took a federal job I would end up with a fabulous pension.  In fact federal benefits have continued to be eroded over the years.  It has mostly been net takeaways from federal employees.

          • ned says:

            not really bitter – i think CSRS should get everything they signed up for. but i also think FERS should.

            “Remember that CSRS does not get Social Security and TSP match.” and i can’t stand it when others imply that being stuck in SS is a good thing.

  22. Cantbelievethis says:

    I think this Ryan character is really teetering on the edge…someone needs to keep a close eye on him!!

    • A Guest says:

      Notice how all the focus is on Feds, but NONE on the Financial Institutes and Big Business that screwed over the public. They continue to receive tax breaks and bailout money from taxpayers. With all the hub-bub on Feds, that takes the heat off them. 

  23. Tired of being a target! says:

    Please America, vote out every sitting member of Congress. Then maybe, just maybe, they will get the point. As far as Ryan, he is an idiot and the first one that should go. Hopefully this idiotic peace of legislation gets shot down.

    • Taxpayer says:

      You’re comments take into consideration of only your greed.  Consider the taxpayers and compare your overly generous benefits to private sector employees.  It’s obvious on who is the idiot.

      • Mel says:

        No, it is not greed. Ryan wants federal employees to pay over 7% more for pension contribution at and at the same time freeze pay thru 2015. That is a guge reduction in take home pay. I agree that federal employees should pay more than .8% for retirement. However, increasing the contribution amount to 7.3% is too much, especially given the wage freeze. Moreover, Ryan stated that federal employees should have to pay half the retirement contribution and not private taxpayers. Well Mr. Ryan, federal workers pay taxes too!

        • Old Fed says:

          What you are both missing is that when FERS was created, it was to bail out Social Security. CSRS employees, as well as the private sector, pay 7 percent of their salary for pensions.  CSRS employees don’t pay SS and don’t receive any when they retire.  The private sector pays 7 percent for a SS pension.  Since Congress stole the SS funds and needed more, the grand idea was to create FERS where employees would now pay SS, thus bailing it out. They were to pay 6.2 percent of their salary into SS and 0.8 into FERS. That equals 7 percent. They could now qualify for SS, and have a very small Federal pension (half of CSRS pension). 7 percent into any pension fund over 40 years, with compounded interest, grows to nearly 2 million dollars.  That is a FULLY FUNDED PENSION.  40 years is what SS  uses to compute annuity payments, as well as other pensions funds.  Well, yet again, Congress has taken all the SS funds and now they want more.

          • ned says:

            “Well, yet again, Congress has taken all the SS funds and now they want more.”

            yep. and the simple solution for CONgress is to simply keep raising the eligiblity age for SS so most of us die before we can collect much (if any). brilliant!

          • $15300432 says:

            Bailout for SS??? No we had too many CS drawing out all their contributions from SS is the 1st 10 months and remaining on the taxpayers dole no different than welfare. The taxpayers fund 95% of FERS and their contribution continue to grow. Time for CS to either pay more or drop the plan

        • $15300432 says:

          CS should be allowed to opt out if they think its a bad deal. CRS/FERS is such a bad deal why stay in?

          • ned says:

            let us know when you opt out of your 100% taxpayer-funded pension and we’ll consider it.

          • ned says:

            got yourself a new screen name eh LAZY CS?

            we’ll stay in for the same reason you are keeping your 100% taxpayer-funded pension.

      • Fresno says:

         What a simpleton.  If one has an education and can get a decent job you can make significantly more than almost all Feds.  If you work in a gas station without a high school diploma…well probably not.  Finish high school Taxpayer.

        • $15300432 says:

          But CS don’t work and are over paid for what little they do do. The fact that the taxpayers are paying a $100B premium for CS tells the whole story

          • Pismo says:

            You have no clue.  I would just as soon take you to the woodshed and teach you a lesson.  Better yet, a one room school house.  (I’m not sure you have the ability to learn anything.)  Don’t presume to tell me I was overpaid for protecting you.  I don’t deny there are those CS who don’t earn there keep.  But, don’t presume all CS aren’t worth the pay and benefits they receive.  If you don’t want to pay us, simply elect Ron Paul.  However, I’m not sure you could live with the results.

      • Herbsouder says:

         That would be you.

      • PhoenixWoman says:

        Why aren’t you going after the mega-rich billionaires who instead of investing in America, enrich themselves even further by taking the money from the tax cuts they’ve been gifted over the decades and using it to ship jobs overseas so they can use slave labor instead of paying people in America living wages?

      • Stanley says:

         When the gov’t runs out of money gov’t employees will not get their retirement.  Keep cutting back our military this country will really be in trouble. 
        Over 50% are not paying any taxes – and many of them get a refund. 

    • Richard Jefferson says:

       ” … vote out every sitting member of Congress.”

      While that might make one feel good, it is Constitutionally impossible to do. Only the House of Representatives is fully elected every two years. The House of the Senate holds elections every two years for one third of its members. It would take six years to vote out every member of the Senate.

  24. old Hack says:

    The last time we contributed to the debt, the frittered it and another 40 billion away for the social security tax cut.  Lets see what duplicate programs can be cut.  Better yet, lets get some non-working government assistants off the dole and see what happens

  25. Vote them ALL out says:

    Lead by EXAMPLE, Cut your own pay House and senate members to minimum wage, that will save 900 million over ten years. Especially since over 45% of you are already Millionares. Cut your staff by 25%. Why do we need over 800 Admirals when we have only a 300 ship navy? Eliminate goverment advertising that was 945 million last year. How many SES positions are there in the government? reduce by 30%. Eliminate all Contractors. For every dollar donated to political canidates, 75 cents should be taken to pay off the debt you created with POOR spending habits. Eliminate corporate welfare. No budget passed by due date NO PAY.

    • Richard Jefferson says:

       I more or less agree with most of what you say however;

      “Eliminate all Contractors.”

      That I don’t agree with, not fully. If we eliminated our service contractor, we would need an additional 30 to 33 percent increase in budget.

    • $15300432 says:

      I agree time to eliminate the 1 million unnecessary CS who produce nothing of value

  26. Cantbelievethis says:

    Once again…VOTE ALL REPUBLICANS OUT!!!!!!!!!

    • Taxpayer says:

      Why? Is it just because you may have to pay more, but still less than private sector employees.  We should all vote on how it affects your generous salary and overly generous benefits?  Is that they way you want us to vote.  You’re a piece of work.

      • Gello35 says:

        No the piece of work is anyone who thinks federal benefits are better than private sector.  I choose to serve as a government worker so I will not complain about paying $280 biweekly for health insurance while having to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for simple dental procedures.  However, I will complain about some uninformed individual making an ignorant blanket statement that our benefits are generous.  One of MANY examples, Verizon, Pfizer, Google…..the list goes on.  Look at their benifits compared to fed workers, your argument will no longer be valid.

      • guest says:

        Taxpayer, where do you get your information?  From studies that don’t compare apples to apples?  I choose to work for the Fed Gov’t because I think the mission of my agency is a worthy one, but I can tell you that when comparing my salary to that of a similar position with similar responsibilities, etc. on the outside mine is much lower.  People can complain about the federal employees all they want, but you’ll be the first one complaining about the services we provide not being available if they were to go away.

        • PA says:

           I agree.
          All members of my family make better pay and have better benefits – including more vacation time.  I know the professionals do better outside the gov’t – but the union member – electrician – has a much better salary.  Most work for big companies – not contractors — and several small business owners. Studies never compare apples to apples – and many make comments without facts.    

        • $15300432 says:

          Really tell me what you do and I’ll tell you waht you should make in the private sector

          • ned says:

            he can’t. he has a top secret clearance and if he told you he’d have to …..

            well, you know.

      • polanalyst says:

        Hey TP, we ALL pay taxes too! We ALL go to work too! We ALL pay our bills too! 

        We didn’t design the job openings….we applied for jobs that paid what we felt we were worth and were accepted—it’s called the free market.

        Don’t tell me about what people in the private sector pay-this is what we were OFFERED AND WE ORGANIZED OUR LIVES around it responsibly (do yu know the meaning of that word?). How do you go back to these people years after the fact and say, “Oh on 2nd thought, we need you to foreclose on your home, give up your car and cash out any little bit you saved for your kids’ savings. And while you’re at it, maybe feed them one less meal too.” 

        You’re a disgusting short-sighted, bitter and envious woman!

        • $15300432 says:

          and the taxpayers have looked at your compensation and have decided it needs to be significantly reduced based on your output and wok ethic and 0 accountability

      • ned says:

        and you’re a peice of …….

    • federally Exhausted says:

      and democrates, vote them all out and start over.  It’s not one side that has made the mess it’s all of them!

    • PA FED says:

       I don’t agree.  Evaluate each!  R.Paul has NO understanding of the Federal employee.  Review his site http://paul.senate.gov/   Vote him out.
      I am from PA and I know Mike Fitzpatrick has taken the time to understand the Federal Employee and Retires.  He has taken the time to educate himself. 
      R. Paul —- now want to give our health benefits to everyone? 

    • PA says:

       You must love the price of gas and the price of food. 

  27. Phil says:

    The private sector does the same thing regarding retirement contributions.  They simply pass the cost onto the consumer.   They don’t have their employees pay the matching amount.  Must be nice to be a millionaire representative who has a base salary of around $200K and all the ridiculous benefits that come with the position.  How about all of you paying for your own housing in DC.

    • Richard Jefferson says:

       “How about all of you paying for your own housing in DC.”

      They do. If you remember back in the early 1990’s when Congress wanted a 15% increase in pay, they claimed it was needed because they have to maintain a house in their home state AND in D.C.

      They didn’t get the 15%, but still got a raise.

  28. Fed Up! says:

    Well of course it does.  We sure can’t ask the 1% to cough up $47 BILLION under the Buffett Rule because its a “drop in the bucket”.  So the middle class fed employees will once again have to come up with “chump change” like ants peeing in the bucket.  The RWN socialists will continue to redistribute the ‘wealth’ of the middle class until November.  I’d bet $10,000 Romney bucks on it, if I had it.  

  29. Federaled Up says:

    One has to love the revisionist history of morons like Paul Ryan.  Let’s not forget that CSRS was fully funded.  Along came the bailout of SS which should have also been fully funded but which needed more money.  So, move many Feds from CSRS to FERS and make FERS folks and the agencies pay SS and FERS.  Promise at time was employee would pay the 6.2 percent SS (like other folks) and 0.8 FERS… agency would pay difference (each year).  In any event, the pension is still fully funded and not an unfunded liability as agencies pay this every pay period.  Now Ryan claims we are getting too good a deal.  Ryan, you are a lie and a cheat.  Feds recognize you for what you are.  Next time you and your ilk need anything from the Federal workforce – go to hades.  This beating up on public sector employees has got to stop!

    • Fed Peasant says:

      It will not stop until maybe after November.  It is a cheap shot way of getting votes!!

    • $15300432 says:

      Guess you went to school with barak…CRS/FERS is unfunded by $560Billion The taxpayers are making 95% of FERS and CRS is hopelessly broke. the only way to save them id termination of all CS COLA’s

      • ned says:

        and your pension?

      • Pbcrabshaw says:

         You don’t really know what you are talking about or know anything about the way retirement systems work. Here is some info, so that you can educate yourself:

        OPM
        estimates that the annual income of the CSRDF will increase from $102.9
        billion in 2010 to $175.5 billion in 2025 and to almost $1.4 trillion
        in 2080. The total expenses of the fund are projected to rise more
        slowly, increasing from $71.1 billion in 2010 to $130.7 billion in 2025
        and to $774.3 billion in 2080. Consequently, the assets held by the
        CSRDF also are projected to increase steadily, rising from $797.8
        billion in 2010 to more than $1.3 trillion in 2025 and to $15.3 trillion
        in 2080. Expenditures from the CSRDF currently are about 38% as large
        as federal expenditures for the salaries and wages paid to federal
        employees. Pension expenditures are projected to decline relative to the
        government’s wage and salary expenses, beginning around 2020. By 2080,
        the expenditures of the CSRDF are estimated to be only about 22% as
        large as the government’s expenditures for wage and salary payments to
        employees.

      • Pbcrabshaw says:

         and 
        In its annual report, OPM has stated that “the total assets of the
        CSRDF, including both CSRS and FERS, continue to grow throughout
        the term of the projection, and ultimately reach a level of about 4.1
        times payroll, or 19 times the level of annual benefit outlays” in 2080.
        Unlike the Social Security trust fund, there is no point over the next
        70 years at which the assets of the Civil Service Retirement and
        Disability Fund are projected to run out. .

        From FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM: BUDGET AND TRUST FUND ISSUES
        Congressional Research Service Report by Katelin P. Isaacs
        Analyst in Income Security

  30. Gnatman says:

    No matter who is made to pay for it, if the Congress steals the Trust again, who will pay for that… Taxpayers… or garnish the Congress pensions.

Top