Government Shutdown: Will Federal Retirees Continue to Receive Annuity Payments?

By on September 24, 2013 in Current Events, Retirement with 203 Comments

Federal retirees may be wondering whether or not they will continue to receive their annuity payments if the government shuts down at the end of the month.

The good news is that retirees under both FERS and CSRS will still receive their scheduled payments on the first business day of the month in the event of a government shutdown.

What effect would a shutdown furlough have on your high-3? According to OPM, there most likely will be no negative impact: “Generally there will be no effect on the high-3 average pay unless the furlough causes the employee to be in a nonpay status for more than 6 months during the calendar year.”

What will happen to employees who would have retired during a shutdown furlough?

According to OPM: “Employees who, on or before the requested retirement date, submitted some notice of their desire to retire, agencies should, when the lapse in appropriations ends, make the retirement effective as of the date requested. The retirement request may be informal (such as a letter requesting retirement), and can be either mailed or personally submitted to the agency. Any additional required paper work, such as the formal retirement application form, may be completed when the agency reopens. No time spent by the retiree in such actions after the effective date of the retirement may be considered as duty time, since the individual would no longer be an employee of the agency.”

For more answers to common questions about a shutdown and its impact on your pay and benefits, see OPM’s guidance on shutdown furloughs.

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

Tags:

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

203 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. concerned says:

    to John V, you need to get up to date on your facts. First of all Obamacare was not meant to replace insurance for anyone who had insurance that met the criteria in the Affordable Patient Care Act. The people of this country voted in Obama, therefore they voted for Obamacare. The Act has good and bad things in it.
    Many folks have found the good things a lifesaver, no lifetime limitations on costs, try one heart operation and see how long you will have insurance. Children can be carried on parents insurance until 26, how many can afford insurance after college and the bills for their education? No denial of coverage for preexisting conditions. My brother fits in this class, his insurance raised to $5000 a month due to having a very rare uncurable form of bone cancer, he cancelled his insurance as he didn’t even begin to make that, now he can afford insurance. I know many people with medical conditions that the cost of insurance has forced them to drop it in order to meet basic daily needs like eating. Obamacare needs to be fixed, not destroyed.
    Now as to your other prejudicial uninformed comments, Obamacare WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE INSURANCE THAT ANYONE HAS so why pick on a group. You sound like some of the deadbeats that don’t believe in insurance because they are healthy now, what if you have an accident tomorrow? I have had health insurance since I was 18 and I am sick and tired of paying for all the folks that don’t and use the hospitals for treatment that belongs at the doctor’s office (who by the way don’t have to take deadbeats, but hospitals do). Picking out a particular group is discrimination, I don’t see anyone saying that the wealthy need to go under Obamacare, why should they be exempt? When the Congress agreed to go into Obamacare folks got a shock, the government subsidy they receive for insurance, by law, has to go with them. Anyway, the major point no one has addressed is the lack of medical facilities, doctors, etc. to support the influx into the system. Doctors do not have to take new patients. All this aside, why aren’t you angry over all the billions of dollars we give in aid to countries who hate our guts. Go out and look at the amounts we give away, it is available to the public. With the amount of money we give away, we could provide free health care to everyone in this country and repair our deteriorating infrastructure. Put your anger to better use and attack the government about these expenditures that provide no benefit to the people in this country and are paid for with our dollars.

  2. concerned says:

    More important is what happens to the funds invested in government securities? These funds were withdrawn from our TSP account and into a non-interest bearing account the last time we were facing a debt ceiling increase fight. One Congressman proposed a bill that we not be paid interest while these funds were out of our accounts but at least sanity prevailed. The problem this time is that if the government defaults on its debts, one of those debts is our G funds, I think I just saw 40% of the money in TSP is n G funds. A lot of folks moved into the “no risk” fund because of the fluctuations in the other funds. The problem is, these funds are a debt of the government and if it comes to a default, these funds could fall in the same category as all other government debts and not be paid. The Treasury has been asked what happens with these funds, they have declined to comment. Does anyone know for sure? I for one can not afford to lose this money.

  3. tgusnik says:

    Annuitants will be paid until we hit the debt ceiling. At that point the secretary of the treasury is required to first pay our sovereign obligations – interest on all our loans plus any maturing securities. This should result is a reduced payment for all entitlement programs as well as annuities.

  4. Itsjustmeagain1 says:

    I am a CSRS Annuint with a BC/BS health insurance. Will BC/BS receive the Govt. portion of the monthly premium?

    • Jess says:

      Good question. This is what we are concerned about as well. To our family, that insurance is more important than the monthly check.

  5. Jose Cantu says:

    Okay, so CSRS retirees received their October 1st annuities, but what about November and beyond?

  6. John says:

    The more important question is whether retirees will continue to be paid in the event of a debt ceiling showdown. Hopefully, the Republicans won’t be that silly, but you never know. Most don’t seem to have an excess of IQ points.

    For what it’s worth, I’m a retiree and would be somewhat perturbed if they stopped my checks. On the other hand, I have enough cash on hand to last years without a check. Not everyone is so lucky, though.

    • John V says:

      Apparently YOU aren’t paying attention. The House Republicns have submitted SEVERAL options. Obama and Reid have stated THEY WILL NOT NEGOTIATE ! You should get up to date on current events before popping off about the Republicans. Obamacare is a travesty and a financial nightmare. Obama has made exceptiond for his buddies, The Unions, The Senate, and Congress. If it’s not good enough for them, it’s not good enough for the rest of us. The REPUBLICANS are looking out for YOUR interests. Just say “Thank You” and be quiet.

  7. Eo Utnac says:

    How am I suffering? By having O’bama’s boot on my neck if I don’t agree to fund his O’bama Care which forces me to support “taxed abortion.” I do NOT adhere to abortion. To me it is a blasphemy against faith; so why should my tax dollars go to support the beliefs of HIS faith?

    • TampaCharlie says:

      Move to another country if you don’t like it here. The people of this country re-elected Obama for a second term, Live with it so move out.

  8. flashbyte says:

    Since 2008 we have been putting up with ovomits BS; now it is even worse.

  9. LenDinder says:

    Thanks for publishing this article. I looked a long time for info on federal government retiree pensions during this special event before finding your informative news.

  10. Davesandbrook says:

    You all can pontificate, banter, and quibble all you want. My October annuity is already safely deposited in my bank account, accessible since 09/27. I do not have to worry about it again until the end of October. Will the shutdown last that long?

    • Cheryl Reynolds says:

      UGH, I guess I need to check both mine and my husband’s. We get the double whammy since we are both retired (me civil service, him USAF retired).

  11. ron waite says:

    I’ve read most of the comments. I am a retired fed. and my views are that all funds to be sent to any foreign country for any reason should immediately be suspended, except of course for interest payments. Next the boyish arguments about the aca are ridiculous, all sides including our nonpresident are to blame, if possible they should all be impeached–not going to happen is it. But the only logical solution is to make both sides suffer by delaying the aca until a workable act can be formulated and to not pass any legislation until it is—again not going to happen. Let’s face it we are stuck with these fools until and unless we can kick them out of office–again pretty hard to do—read the amendment book by Levine.

    • guestgov says:

      @ ron waite…some of your comments I agreewith…others not in agreement

      I agree..”.I am a retired fed. and my views are that all funds to be sent to any foreign country for any reason should immediately be suspended, “

      I agree….”Next the boyish arguments about the aca are ridiculous, all sides (including our nonpresident….****) are to blame”….**** IF YOU ADD noncongress to thispart of the comment…then I agree…

      “I agree….”we are stuck with these fools until and unless we can kick them out of office–“

      DO NOT agree….”But the only logical solution is to make both sides suffer by delaying the aca until a workable act can be formulated and to not pass any legislation until it is—“

      • ron waite says:

        I couldn’t actually come up with a logical solution so i put that in, do you have one??

        • guestgov says:

          Ron, I’m NOT sure either…but all this suffering on all sides and by everyone is not a logical solution…Short term I don’t know…I think go ahead and pass the CR wiht ACA funding…..this is only for a few weeks and go ahead and start negotiating on the debt ceiling…I think both sides should provide their pros and cons to the ACA in factual and easy to read format to all US citizens…THEN have open comments from citizens re: ACA, healthcare in USA etc….open forums for input from ctizens…Then consider revisions changes etc etc to ACA or whatever program/solutionto improve healthcare in USA……LONG TERM (but we really need short term)…..Bring jobs especially manufacturing back to USA!! (RON.. I have money to spend waiting waiting,,FOR made in USA..I will NOT spend my money until I am able to buy made in USA!!!)..When jobs are back in USA, more money into SS, Medicare, Revenue which will improve our economy ALOT and there will be less money spent on unemployement. food stamps, medicaid, etc etc!! STOP waste, fraud and abuse, of taxpayer money…STOP building infrastructure and spending/sending insane money to foreign countries who are our enemies and put that money into USA infrastructure!!….Then there will be money to fund affordable and high quality medical care…CONGRESS can do this…CONGRESS sent/is still sending our jobs and our money out of USA and they certainly are able to reverse this!!

          • ron waite says:

            You have my vote for president.

          • guestgov says:

            ron, I’m NOT running…first..I’m too old and feeble (brain still works thank goodness)…and second.. a monumental task to clean up this mess CONGRESS has made over the past 30 plus years… YEP BOTH parties made this mess….Ron…If everyone emails, calls, faxes, writes their CONGRESSIONAL REPRS telling them to do this, “bring manufacturing jobs back to USA, STOP waste, fraud, and abuse, put our money into USA inrastructure instead of foreign countries”…maybe CONGRESS will do what is right and return our wonderful country to us!! hoping!! I email, call, FAX etc my CONGRESSIONAL REPRS and sometimes the COMMITEES at least once per month!!……….. and will continue to do so until we get our country back!!!

          • concerned says:

            Wow, there is someone out there with a brain. You are the first person in all these tirades that sees the whole picture. I am so sick of all these uninformed folks who let these inflammatory emails set them off without looking at the facts. The one issue you didn’t address is the lack of medical personnel and facilities to handle the influx of people into our medical system and the ability to find doctors that will take on new patient and the backlog for getting treatment (my opinion).
            You are right on with the rest of it.

  12. Itsjustmeagain1 says:

    OPM pays a part of the Health Care premium. Will that continue during a shutdown?

  13. SamIamTwo says:

    What about if they refuse to raise the debt ceiling? We have several things in play.

    • AvJoe says:

      Bit of a scare tactic. If the debt ceiling is NOT raised, SS and pensions will still be paid.

      • SamIamTwo says:

        I hope you are right. It’s not like they paid back any of the funds they have robbed over the past 30 some odd years. Robbed 4 times that I know of by Team O.

        And the COLA has never been calculated IAW the law…they do not give any weight to HC increases. The formula is heavily weighted for oil.

        And that is one way to keep from paying out fair COLAS to those on SS.

        You balance your books with what you spend…and aside from suppressed COLAS, entitlements are bound to get hit as it is something that gov’t has control over.

  14. Tutu says:

    There would not be a shut down if the Senate passed the bill that was sent to them. Only Obamacare would be unfunded. All the rest of the government would be funded. However, Reid will not bring up the Senate version with this in the House bill. Who really is shutting down the government? Demos or Repubs?

    • copamo says:

      Repubs. The Affordable Care Act already passed the Congress, was signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Republicans need to get over it and get on with the real work that needs to be done instead of wasting time by voting to overturn the law 4 times!!!!!

      • RightyFeep says:

        Well, what about Obama’s selective enforcement of the law? He has chosen not to DO what the law requires. So why are those who don’t want to PAY for it the bad guys? And Harry Reid just says NO. Won’t agree to fully enforce, won’t agree to negotiate. “No Budget Harry.”

        This is a bad law passed by Congress in a corrupt fashion and now being used by a lawless president to reward his allies and punish his “enemies”. Shut down Obamacare, or shut down the government. Obama’s choice.

        • John V says:

          I don’t know if the Obamacare fans are uninformed, or just plain stupid. It helps NOBODY ! All it does is generate more tax dollars for the Democrats to piss away. The Libs have just discovered a new way to screw the taxpayers and grow government. Obamacare must be stopped.

      • mAX says:

        The ACA was shoved down our throats. It was not wanted by the American public. No one read it (to long). Read some of the plans on the internet. What I can understand is there are 3. Gold, Silver, and I forgot the third. The catch is: no matter what your income–adjusted or gross–it does not say, you pay a percentage. YES, A PERCENTAGE INTO A FUND TO COVER HEALTH INSURANCE FOR SMOKERS. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU SMOKE OR NOT!! Why in god’s name do I have to pay for somebody who makes a bad choice? I am sick and tired of having to pay for the: LAZY, FAT, UNEDUCATED AND DOWNRIGHT BUMS OUT THERE WHO BELIVE THE “LAND OF THE FREE” MEANS EVERYTHING IS FREE.

      • John V says:

        You are OBVIOUSLY uninformed ! Obamacare DID NOT pass.Iit was sent to the Supreme Court to determine Constitutionality and did not pass. The Supreme Court should have shot it down because it WAS, in fact, Unconstitutional. Instead of identifying it as Unconstitutional, as they should have, they took it upon themselves to re-lable it as a TAX. That was not their job and THAT should be challenged. The process in place is working. It has stopped the one sided dictatorship of the “Imposter in Chief”. Obama should have been Impeached long ago.

  15. Peanuts says:

    How about full retirement pay processing??? I have been waiting seven months and still only receive a minimal very bare initial annuity. Government shutdowns only prolong this process and serve no purpose whatsoever except to make employees and former employees angry as well as further or derail politicians’ agenda.

  16. Coco says:

    You skimp and save to send your kid to college. After graduation, they can’t find a good job and settle for a minimum wage crap job. This doesn’t apply to politican’s kids. They all get well paid jobs.

  17. AvJoe says:

    How are you suffering?

  18. HappilyRetiredFed says:

    Why should anyone have to go through this year after year? As a retiree I earned my pension by putting up with this BS for the last 25+ years of my career. Some people are forced to retire because of health reasons. Some of you want to put them back in the workforce? Why should retired people have to suffer when we already paid into our retirement fund when we were working. Get real.

    • AvJoe says:

      SS, CSRS, and FERS are all paid on time. How are you suffering?

      • $31427826 says:

        Perhaps you can help me understand your post “How are you suffering? Are SS, CSRS and FERS retirees suppose to suffer in your mind? In order to collect these pensions, they had to meet certain criteria, paid there retirement contributions, worked sufficient number of years and attained a certain age in order to retire. Since they paid, worked enough years and met the minimum age, why should they suffer? Is the Walton family (Walmart), Bill Gates, Warren Buffet families suffering?

        • Fella says:

          I don’t want to argue, I don’t even particularly care… but the shoe being on the other foot and playing devil’s advocate; retires say they’ve put in their time and should not be affected; current employees are the ones actually doing the work and are the ones actually providing the support to the mission and those that keep our country safe and running.. why should they be the ones made to “suffer”?

          • $31427826 says:

            I do not disagree with you, shutting the government down is really stupid, non-productive and only creates resentment. However, the question was about who gets paid and who doesn’t in a shut down.

          • PA says:

            Attacks on civil servants (retired and working) are on the rise but serve no purpose other than to pit the masses against each other. Last time I checked, no government worker (excluding some politicians) is living the lifestyle of the rich and famous

          • Fella says:

            The only example I can think of is the Treasury Secretary is usually living a pretty good life (because of private sector). I assume there are a few other SES, but you’re right… they aren’t. Most of it is very middle class.. which I suppose is better than some still.

        • AvJoe says:

          I’m a retired fed. employee and want every penny I’m entitled to. But my generous annuity primarily comes from current employee deductions not my own contributions, just like SS payouts. So your kids and mine are actually paying for my pension.
          The politicians lied (and are still lying) and said there would be enough money for everything. Not happening. Some things will be cut, but not SS or fed pensions. Retired state employee pensions are being reduced, but ours are not, so what is there to whine about?

        • mandinka says:

          seeing as how they are $500B in the red its time to end COLA’s for the foreseeable future

          • RightyFeep says:

            Well, that would certainly be a bad-faith move. So I expect it will happen in due course.

            My wife also has a federal pension. I might live another 10 years, and my wife for another 10 after, so we have to plan for living on my pension for 20 years, taking into account her spousal annuity and pension. We are planning on the assumption that the COLA will not last that long. In fact, we are planning on the assumption that the pensions themselves will be reduced. This will probably be done by capping pensions for those who who retired above grade 9.

          • mandinka says:

            No one in the private sector has a pension indexed for inflation why should Feds??

          • A Guest says:

            Another lie… keep ’em coming so we know that it’s you, Mr. Peabody.

          • guestgov says:

            SS is indexed for inflation but the current formula that is used for the calculation does NOT keep upwith inflation and is NOT FAIR for those on fixed income!!!

      • theinnerring says:

        mainly from a lack of understanding, apparently

      • SamIamTwo says:

        The only thing that could cause a stop payment would be if they do not raise the debt ceiling.

        Well I guess they can rob the federal retirement trust fund again by not paying into it, and issue IOUs to include interest, eh? Yep that is what the SEC of TRES has done at least 8 times…that I can recall. Helps to contribute to the deficit.

    • wombat1951 says:

      As a retiree, you are not affected.

    • HappilyRetiredFed says:

      Don’t you think I know this? My post was directed at those who think the retirees SHOULD be affected along with the workforce.

  19. Sendthemback says:

    Let’s complain about the SSI recipients that come here from another country, get their naturalization papers, and start getting social security payments without having paid in one cent to social security! These Mom and Pops then send the money back to relatives in the foreign countries without hardly spending one cent of the money here in the U.S. I know several people who have used the money to buy land in Philippines, Mexico, and South Korea making their relatives wealthy off our contributions. I say pass a law that to receive any type of contribution they must pay into social security as much as we do. If not then no money, and do not have that law grandfathered. I no medicare either, they have to pay in, also.

    • WORLDBFREE says:

      Amen, plus rental assistance, heating assistance and food stamps / welfare, tuition assistance etc.

    • nonfednowfed says:

      I’m not aware that one can collect social security without first having paid a certain amount into it. I’m not familiar with SSI. I do know that even to get disability, one must have at least a certain number of paid quarters depending upon ones age. I thought the same applied to any type of social security. Are you sure that they can collect without having paid anything into it?

      • wombat1951 says:

        Nobody qualifies for SS by paying a certain amount in. One qualifies when one has a minimum number of “quarters” of income exposed to the SS tax. The amount of earnings required for a quarter of coverage in 2013 is
        $1,160. “Quarter of coverage” is a legal term,
        but you may also see the term “Social Security credit” (or just “credit”) used
        elsewhere. A quarter is the basic unit for determining whether a worker is vested under the Social Security program.
        No matter how high your earnings may be, you can not earn more than 4 quarters in any one calendar year.

      • guestgov says:

        to…nonfednowfed..et al….It is my understanding and I am NOT an expert on this….is that one of the SS disability programs that provides income to “disabled” (or allegedly disabled) does not require that the indiviual have paid anything into anything…..~20+ years ago while I observed a man who was ~ 50 years of age and who was working in his sons business…the work was physical and required some physical strength. I later found out that he was not being (officially) paid by his son…I found out that this man was drawing the SSDI that does not require anything paid in..but he was doing a job that a truely disabled person would not have been able to do….The man did not speak English and both he and his son had immigrated from another country (not USA)… I called SS to report fraud…I was told that to file a fraud complaint I would need the man’s SS #…uh WT___!!?? the SS # is covered by the privacy laws and therefore practically NObody could ever file a SS fraud complaint..OMG!!!

        • PA says:

          Look at your neighbors…. MANY are working under the table not paying into SS.

          • Sickofthis says:

            Neither are our lawmakers as they opt out of Social Security.

          • guestgov says:

            How are our lawmakers opting out of SS??? Please give specific explanation!!

          • Brooklyn says:

            How is that any different than all the freebies the Congressmen receive and don’t report on their taxes (breakfasts, lunches, dinners, drinks, limo rides, postage, haircuts, massages, In-house health treatments, etc.)? The people cheat because their Leaders cheat. It’s all wacked.

      • mandinka says:

        Check out Barak’s auntie from Kenya. She collected Foodstamps, housing Medicaid while waiting for her green card

      • PA says:

        Visit a SS offfice and you will be amazed who is there filing to collect! Sad! We were shocked!

    • Retiree says:

      SSI is a needs program… Funding comes out of your tax dollars not the social security fund.. SSA just oversees the Supplmental Security Income Program…

  20. retiredfederal says:

    Think about how much money is wasted preparing for a shutdown and delaying payments! It totally infuriates me that we go through this “exercise” so many years.

  21. wombat1951 says:

    The part of government that is “shut down” if the budget isn’t passed in “only” that part that is subject to the annual appropriation process every year. And even not all of that.

    Remember — tax revenues are still coming in and will be used to pay for the non-discretionary spending like Social Security and Federal pensions.

    What gets hit the hardest are Federal agencies that require the annual appropriation process to access money for projects and salaries and the like.

    • ron waite says:

      I’m a long time retired fed and your comment is quite correct. when I was working our group was one of those exempt because of security reasons but the poor people who were on annual approp, including the poor GI’s worked without pay until the cr’s were passed. Hurray for the president and congress who passed some laws that exempted them since they are too valuable to be affected—that’s tongue in cheek obviously not seriously.

  22. nonfednowfed says:

    Retirees have one advantage over others, that is time. They have plenty of tome to write their members of Congress, newspapers and anyone else who they might be able to influence. The government owes retirement to retirees, It is not a gift that is unearned like the Obamacare that this President is attempting to force us to pay for. Those of you who are complaining that your private company shut down and now are happy that federal workers may not be paid are not thinking logically. How is the fact that someone else is not being paid going to help you? You must spend your time in looking for a better job or perhaps in training for a new career. Remember that everyone will be dependent upon government checks when we retire. So, if federal retirees can’t be paid, how can social security recipients be paid? Yes, I know about the trust fund. What trust fund? Congress depleted it when it stole its funds to pay for its re-election schemes. So, now no one will receive social security checks. Then everyone will be camping out on the lawn of the Congressional and Senate Office Buildings. These problems are all of our problems. Don’t fall into the trap of pointing the finger at others. Point the finger at the politicians who are failing to compromise, We must work together and not against each other as some in government would prefer.

    • guestgov says:

      nonfednowfed….you are so right!…and I agree with you except your comment re: the Affordable Care ACT (aka Obamacare)….I am not sure where I stand on AFCA…There are some parts that I think are good for the average person/taxpayer…The Quality improvement parts of this law are long overdue in my opinion..AND The part of this law that mandates that health insurers spend a majority % of premiums on healthcare for the insured..sooo I am still evaluating this law….

    • wombat1951 says:

      While it is true that the SS “trust fund” is empty, it is NOT because the funds were “stolen”. Excess SS tax revenues have ALWAYS been diverted to the “general fund” by law since the beginning of SS, and replaced with non-marketable debt instruments that can’t be spent. Look up the term “intra-governmental debt”, which, BTW, comprises about one third of the $17T “National Debt”.

      • nonfednowfed says:

        Of Course, Congress wrote the law that allows Congress to spend the social security funds that we paid for our retirement. It then replaces it with an IOU that it can’t be forced to make payment on and knows it will never be able to. I guess the lawyers in Congress do not call it stealing. If I take a cookie from the jar and leave a note to promise to replace it and know that I can never replace it nor can I be forced to I would say that I stole the cookie. What else can it be called?

        • wombat1951 says:

          We could spend hours talking about how Congress uses smoke and mirrors to fool everyone into thinking up is down and left is right 🙂 For example: the fact that spending “cuts” are never actually reductions in spending, but rather just small reductions in the anticipated INCREASE in spending year over year that always happens. It’s called “baseline budgeting” for those interested in the topic.

          Again — for those who care….up until the 1970s it didn’t matter a whole lot. But in 1983, as SS was careening toward not being able to cover benefits with current revenues, Reagan and Tip O’Neill agreed to a HUGE SS tax increase to stave it off. This tax increase caused hundreds of billions of $$ in excess SS revenues to be taken in….every penny of which went directly to Congress to be spent, and replaced with those IOUs that can’t.

          They were only doing what they’d always done, but from 1983 it was being done in a huge way.

          We are now back where we were in 1983 — and everyone is talking about needing more and higher SS taxes.

          And Congress is salivating at being able to once again use any excess revenues as they see fit, as they continue to LIE about the true nature of the so-called “trust fund”.

          • nonfednowfed says:

            Thank you wombat1951. I well remember that my Army Reserve pay decreased in 1985 or so because Congress had decided that even our small reserve pay for one weekend a month should be taxed. I guess it chose to extract the money from anyone no matter how little the pay. To think that it spent all of this extra money that people were initially exempt from paying and now complain that they need more money if we want social security is one more reason to vote them all out of office. When they claim that the fund will run out because not enough are now paying into it is simply unbelievable.

          • wombat1951 says:

            What that “deal” boiled down to is that we were all OVERTAXED by SS for decades by politicians [both parties!] who lied to us that the SS “trust fund” held spendable assets.

            EVERYONE should wake up and demand that in ANY “fix” for SS that requires increasing SS revenues from higher taxes and/or more income subject to it — that ALL excess revenue be actually saved and not spent by Congress and replaced by non-spendable debt.

          • $31427826 says:

            Overtaxed is not the correct word to use here. SS workers are not overtaxed. Their trust fund has been misused by prior Presidents and Congress.

          • Brooklyn says:

            Correct. That why it ticks me off that they “dip” into our TSP Money for their fix when the Treasury gets tied up or frozen by politics. I can’t “dip” into the Treasury and the Govt should not “dip” into my TSP Account to borrow for it’s Band Aid “fixes”.
            Because the government ‘Taketh’ and the government ‘Keepth’, especially when they feel like it. Grrrrrrrrr….

          • guestgov says:

            yeah kinda yuk…..when you give this some thought…ALL the CSRS money contrubuted is private personal money…not gov money….although I finally was able to read somewhere that what happens is that the gov “suspends” its “CURRENT CONTRUBUTIONS” to TSP rather than actually “TAKING” money already in the TSP accounts…..quite a difference between the two!!!

          • guestgov says:

            YES YES YES wombat1951!!!!

          • Daniel Manley says:

            thak you now if the rest of the county would wake up and se the reality of the ssi and medicaid prob not that too many are gtting too much it is that the gov takes 70% of what should go to people to give to big oil and farm subsidies

          • $31427826 says:

            All income unless specifically excluded by statute is taxable, IRC Section 61

          • guestgov says:

            Yeah, and Congress passed laws and supported taxpayers fund incentives to send USA jobs to other countries which reduced the # and amount of money being paid into SS and is one primary reason why SS is not bringin enough money in on a daily basis…IF jobs (especially manufacturing jobs) were brought BACK TO USA we would be in much better shape economically!!!!! okay soooo vote for people in CONGRESS who will bring OUR JOBS BACK TO USA!!!!

          • mandinka says:

            The law that was passed to make SS part of the unitary budget happened in 1965 under LBJ’s War on Poverty

      • mandinka says:

        No that’s not the case. SS became party of the unified budget under LBJ

    • $31427826 says:

      Very true

    • Max Power says:

      Are you looking for a mirical or something?

  23. anAmericanJoe says:

    EVERYONE should share in a shutdown, anything else is plainly wrong.

    • Ross200 says:

      Joe, how about no one shares in the shutdown because the Congress does its job for a change.

    • retired worker fed says:

      Why? Non employees still work etc. Retirees have already paid for retirement. Of course, they cannot get a fed employee to help them if the fed is not being paid.

      • anAmericanJoe says:

        Because we should all share. I know life isn’t fair but still to pay off retirees at the expense of people with families?

        • retired worker fed says:

          Why? The retirees have nothing to do with the budget. Their money, in theory, comes from a different source.

          • anAmericanJoe says:

            Yea, from revenues collected by the current feds!!!!

            Let’s be honest….CSRS runs a deficit, and FERS, while solvent has a SSA component. So……who collects those revenues to cover that? The CURRENT employees at the IRS.

          • retired worker fed says:

            Current employees at the IRS? They must put in one heckofalot of money to cover all of those payments. The government was supposed to put into the plan enough money to cover these pensions. That makes it the government’s problem.

          • anAmericanJoe says:

            who collects 98% of the country’s revenues dude?

            No, CSRS is not fully funded. See for example, http://www.federaltimes.com/article/2...

            So, in the event of any shutdown theory would suggest that CSRS retirees should share in the receipt of IOUs

          • $31427826 says:

            Funded is a relative word. Employees have paid into the system their entire working career on 100% of their salary with no “Payroll Tax Holiday.” Congress chose to use that money rather than invest it. My contributions to CSRS was over 160K. Using a discounted present value method with a rate of 5% return (conservative) compounded annually, would result in a nest egg in excess of 1.5 million. Now tell me I should share in the IOU’s.

        • theinnerring says:

          retirees don’t have families? who knew?

          • anAmericanJoe says:

            How many federal retirees have kids at home?

          • RightyFeep says:

            Well, I do. And he’s not a boomerang kid, either.

            But what’s this “share” stuff? My pension is like a savings account. I paid into it on the terms offered, and now it belongs to me. If the government does not pay me what it promised, that’s not “sharing”; that’s theft.

          • anAmericanJoe says:

            Well I have 240 hrs of accrued use or lose leave on the books AND probably another 150 hrs I have yet to use this year…..it’s mine, but if they shutdown they don’t let me use it.

            The whole thing is theft.

    • Fed_Peasant says:

      I agree. It is the civil & fair thing to do. You are obviously not a fed retiree! You would be foaming at the mouth….LOL….LOL!!!!!

  24. YesterDay4 says:

    I am required to pay my share of tribute regardless of my financial situation. Shouldn’t that requirement apply to the current monarchy ??? Oh, I forgot for a minute … … “they” can do anything they want.

    • retired worker fed says:

      Monarchy? They were elected. Democracy or Republics allow the people to vote. You are suffering because you disagree with the present people in office. I suffered for 8 years being bushwacked.

  25. Rambo1957 says:

    I don’t understand how retirees get paid during a shutdown. I’m sure there are other priorities that are higher. It’s not as if you won’t get back pay.

    • Wake up! says:

      For the same reason Social Security gets paid. Retirees have paid for their retirement and have bills to pay like everyone else…it is not a handout. Government employees are full citizens in this country, just like everyone else, and should not be demonized by everyone with an agenda…

    • Retiree says:

      Try getting a job at 60 or collecting unemployment when you haven’t been working. A shut down is no good for anyone.

      • Rambo1957 says:

        I have little faith that people can read.

        • skisok says:

          I don’t think retirees creditors will be happy with, “I will pay you as soon as the government shutdown is over.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Hence being prepared for the unexpected. Living paycheck to paycheck is dangerous.

          • skisok says:

            I don’t think that’s the point. No matter how prepared I am, I want the money that I’m due. And all it takes is some unexpected health issues, and I don ‘to care how prepared you are, with the crummy insurance that we have to day to go bankrupt. Wealthy people have home bankrupt as a result of health issues. What chance do you think a person on fixed income ha s or are you that dense?

          • Rambo1957 says:

            We have terrific insurance. So in the mean time you are assuming that in the small window not getting the annuity you can suffer a catastrophic event, not be able to pay and go bankrupt? And you call me dense? Yeah, that’s your bottom line, to hell with anyone else, I want mine. At least I’m willing to share in the pain.

          • $31427826 says:

            Dangerous for sure but a reality for many with spouses laid off, medical bills and children in school, prices rising, wages decreasing.

        • $31427826 says:

          I go one further, I have little faith people can think.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Disagreeing on a topic does not mean I’m not thinking. A valid question: is retiree pay a top priority? You disagree. I don’t think it is.

          • Fed_Peasant says:

            Delirium has resulted. Lower your expectations of dialogue, with these reactionaries.

          • $31427826 says:

            Speaking of delirium

          • $31427826 says:

            For the record, I was not referring to you not thinking. You usually have some thoughtful posts, however, I do not agree with your post on retirees. There are some posters here that do not think or even care to think.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Thank you. I’m not sure what to think on this topic. My thoughts are honestly based upon my own situation. I am not in favor of a shutdown nor would I like to see anyone do without. I simply don’t think that annuities should come before any vital government services. I appreciate your response.

    • Dannye Smith says:

      it would be the same as not paying Social Security. The funds have already been obligated / appropriated and are due.

      • D Byte says:

        There are Trust Funds separate from General funds.

        • nonfednowfed says:

          What trust fund? Congress stole it to pay for re-elction schemes, remember? So now, how can social security recipients be paid? This situation will affect all of us. We all must work together instead of apart to motivate the government to fix this.

        • wombat1951 says:

          Those “trust funds” do NOT contain spendable assets. They are non-marketable debt instruments, that to cash REQUIRES Treasury to find the actual money from elsewhere — either new public borrowing; new taxes; or diverted from existing programs.

    • theinnerring says:

      so you’d make the same argument for social security payments?

      • Rambo1957 says:

        I’m not making any argument.

        • theinnerring says:

          of course you are.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            No. I simply think we need to prioritize how we fund the government in the event of a shutdown. My opinion is retirees pay may not be a top priority. Should not we prioritize? If so, is the pay a top priority? Over active pay? Defense? Law enforcement?

          • nonfednowfed says:

            The government considers certain services essential and others not essential. Workers must report to essential positions. I don’t know if they will be paid during the shut down or not.

          • theinnerring says:

            no, they will not. they will, however, receive backpay once funds are available. this will happen without any action by congress.

            non-essentials will not work and may or may not get backpay for days not worked. this is up to congress.

          • $31427826 says:

            If they are essential and instructed to report, they may not receive immediate pay, however they must be paid by law. One cannot volunteer or work for nothing during a shutdown.

          • wombat1951 says:

            In DC, EVERYTHING is tied for priority one for spending.

            That is why there is NEVER any real cost cutting when money is tight. Congress and the President will always REFUSE to prioritize spending, because to do so would automatically expose things at the bottom of the list to reduction or elimination when funds are not available.

            It is this way of doing business that causes us to borrow almost 40% of what we spend. The unlimited government credit card, now with a balance of almost $17T, and growing by hundreds and hundreds of billions of $$ annually, with no relief in sight.

          • theinnerring says:

            it appears things are already prioritized, just not to your liking.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            What is the priority?

        • $31427826 says:

          I beg your pardon, did you or did you not suggest there are higher priorities that should be paid before retirees? Sounds like an argument to me.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Okay. Is paying retirees THE top priority? Is that at the top of the list? If you had to choose between active duty or retirees, which would get paid if you were making that decision. As a retiree, I would rather wait for my annuity rather than an essential element going without funding.

          • $31427826 says:

            I didn’t claim it to be the TOP NUMBER 1 priority, however, it must be a priority as it has been set based upon prior payments by said retiree. The wages are current payments for work recently performed including a 14 day pay lag. Active duty, that is those serving in a war zone, should be paid currently. However, those serving state-side or not in a war zone have no distinguishing factors that would place them ahead of other workers. I have previously funded my annuity and expect to be paid . Let’s face it, this situation sucks and Congress and the Pres can share blame. Look at Cruz wasting time on something he cannot prevent.

    • AnotherGuessed says:

      I don’t understand how gravity works, yet, we don’t all go floating off into space.

    • $31427826 says:

      It’s quite simple. Retirees receive an annuity which they worked their entire career for. Employees are currently working for a current pay check. If they are shut down, they are not working (unless emergency designation for which they will be paid later). I agree this situation sucks, but what are some of the other “priorities” that are higher? SS is in the same boat as federal retirees. bondholders? China can wait, they have more resources than retirees. Military? Maybe active military. Who else?

      • Rambo1957 says:

        You mean, what else. Honestly, I don’t know. But with all the posturing on how bad this will be I think that paying retirees should not be a priority. I’m not saying they should not be paid, but with a limited amount to work with, those resources could go to more vital areas.

        • Chloe says:

          And what would the more vital areas be? Like sending more of our money to countries in the middle east? Al Qaida, perhaps?

        • Ross200 says:

          What is more important than keeping the promise to older Americans to pay earned pensions and Social Security ? I like the way you are trying to backtrack on your first post, LOL.

        • DeathMerchant says:

          You still need to name those “vital” areas.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Pay for active employees. Defense. Is getting pay to retirees a top priority to you in the scheme of things especially since that back pay will be provided?

          • retired worker fed says:

            Yes. Retirees already have earned their retirement. Defense cannot be paid w/o a budget or CR (unfortunately) and a deficit increase.

          • redauburn says:

            They need to buy food and have a roof over their head also. They earned it!!!

        • skisok says:

          I think safeguarding American citizens, retirees included, and not just from attack, but also from economic harm, is a high enough priority.

        • retired worker fed says:

          Not really. They and you already have the retirement earned and must be paid. My prejudice is that I will be retiring soon.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            I am retired. I would have no problem forgoing pay until the situation is resolved. I should not be sheltered from the process.

          • retired worker fed says:

            that’s good. But do not impose that on others. I am still a fed employee. But I would not impose that on retirees.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            At no time did I imply to impose on anyone. A point of view is not imposing on anyone.

          • retired worker fed says:

            Yes you are. You are advocating that retirees do not get paid until the other priorities are handled. That is an improper imposition.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Had I shared my opinion with those in a decision making position, I would be advocating. Sharing on this forum is providing my opinion in a discussion.

      • Fed_Peasant says:

        There are scenarios & risks, in the future, that could prove you very, very, wrong. I hope not!

    • Ross200 says:

      It’s people like Rambo1957 who want to cause misery to millions of federal retirees. Whatever happened to caring about your fellow citizens and keeping commitments ?

      • Rambo1957 says:

        I’m a retiree. Did I say they shouldn’t get paid? Can you read? I believe there are items of higher priority I’m quite sure. You need to take a course on reading comprehension.

        • Fed_Peasant says:

          No more sitting on the sofa watching endless TV or on the golf course playing never ending holes of golf, for some retirees. No more glancing through the monthly NARFE magazine, just keep barely aware. I don’t wish it upon them, but guess what!! Now they have a “pound of flesh” in the game. The real jolt & fear will come later when there is legislation to “privatize” their federal annuities. One day a letter comes in the mail, out of the blue. They are informed that the federal government has unloaded pensioners. A large insurance or pension fund will soon take over their account. No more CSRS or FERS for them. They have no control, or vote, in the matter. this is already happening to some private sector retirees

          • DeathMerchant says:

            Well, work in the “private” sector, you take your chances. Personally, I’d much rather work for the “last man standing”.

          • Fed_Peasant says:

            That must mean a contractor. With your title, I would say DOD contractor.

          • nonfednowfed says:

            Does this make you happy? How will this help you? Are you retired or considering it? What will you do when the government cuts your social security check? Complaining about others won’t help you. Spend your time making things better for yourself instead of wasting it complaining here. It does you no good. If we all work together instead of apart, we stand a better chance of convincing our government that it had better fix this situation for all of us.

          • Fed_Peasant says:

            Happiness has nothing to do with it. It’s an observation & an opinion. It should be rated R – FOR ADULTS ONLY.

          • AnotherGuessed says:

            Not in a country where any maniac can buy an assault weapon….

          • retired worker fed says:

            wow. This is out of the blue. They already earned their retirement and should be paid.The rest of your stuff is a way out dream with no basis in fact. The private pensions unloaded are bankrupt companies or frozen pension plans.

          • $31427826 says:

            Fed Peasant, you sound bitter towards retirees. Hopefully you will be one one day and understand. I take great exception to your statement “Now they have a “pound of flesh” in the game.” FYI the retirees already have their pound of flesh invested and mister this is no game. You want to play games, you play with your own money. I happen to have $160,000 pounds in this game, namely my contribution to CSRS. Your scenario about “privatizing federal annuities” will commence a revolution in this country.

          • Fed_Peasant says:

            Entitled?

          • $31427826 says:

            Entitled to a pension that I contributed over 160K to? You bet your butt I am entitled and I fully intend to collect it

          • Fed_Peasant says:

            An amusing choice of words “bet your butt”…LOL!! You speak of revolt & treason. You took an oath to flag, constitution, & country, when you became a federal employee. What happened to it? You were a hiring mistake. You should never have gotten even the most basic security clearance & the federal job. You may feel entitled. The tax payer & the rest of the work force probably sees it differently. If I lose my retirement, I will NOT commit treason.

          • $31427826 says:

            Are you having anxiety issues? Treason is a pretty serious charge my friend. Yes I took an oath when I was sworn in, upheld that oath and enforced the tax laws in this country. Any discussion to the contrary quite frankly disgusts me. Taking away a pension that was earned and paid for is un-American and violates the Constitution of the United States. At that point yes, a revolution is necessary to restore this government to its core principles.

          • nonfednowfed says:

            The term revolution has many meanings. Generally it means a change in the situation. He said nothing about treason or an overthrow. Yet you assume he did and then use that invalid assumption to accuse him of advocating violence against the government. Please use logic and support to devise your blogs. Insulting people simply reflects those types of words back toward yourself and negates the credibility of your comments.

          • Fed_Peasant says:

            So you are the spokesman & representative, or should I say “adult guardian” for createland? Explain the constitution remark for his federal pension? I need a good laugh!! You too, are obviously entitled & start foaming at the mouth when the slightest suggestion arrives to question it. To answer your earlier question, I was not referring to PBGC with the privatized pensions. No bankruptsy is required. It is simply being done out of the blue. I ponder it & try to plan for it. To mention it, is to warn people. Obviously, some will melt down, if it happens. Again, my views should be RATED R – FOR ADULTS ONLY.

          • nonfednowfed says:

            Earned for services rendered. Your government owes it to him just as your employer owes you for your services.

          • $31427826 says:

            As in an entitlement? NO, it was a benefit funded with my after tax dollars to which I am entitled by law to collect. If you are attributing this to a handout, you are a bigger fool than I thought.

          • nonfednowfed says:

            Yes, the governmennt has allowed companies to weasel out of their obligations to former employees. So now you wish this to happen to others? Are you jealous of the benefits that the government gives to federal employees? Remember, the reason for the benefits was to entice people to work for the government even though it’s pay was much lower than similar private jobs. Now those who took the higher paying private jobs are complaining that they took a risk and lost. Federal workers took a lower paying yet more secure job and most still have a job. Are you one of those who lost your high pay job? Do you feel that we should lose ours too? Instead of whining and sniveling about what we still have, perhaps you should concentrate upon making things better for all of us. If we all pester our government to fix this economy, maybe things will get better for all of us. Fighting with each other does no one any good.

          • guestgov says:

            nonfednowfed
            you are very correct!! so many left gov for lucrative jobs in the private sector with all kids of perks, benefits, money etc that they did not get in gov…..then the CEOs of many of these private sector companies became overly greedy and “robbed” the pensions of their employees (the CEOs pretty much had the pension programs set up that way to begin with)….NOW! NOW!! they want the public servant penalized for staying with the gov….In my opinion, they made their choices..reaped the benefits for years but now want fed retirees/employees to suffer…

        • gobama84 says:

          Examples please.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Not sure what will be targeted. I guess I’d rather see active employees get paid for the work they perform. Defense definitely comes first. No decisions have been made or at least shared thus far.

          • retired worker fed says:

            Can’t do that. The budget or CR and debt ceiling must be passed. The retirement stuff has nothing to do with it.

        • $31427826 says:

          Name them.

        • retired worker fed says:

          Then you should be paid. You earned it.

          • Rambo1957 says:

            Thanks but I know I will get paid. Why should I get paid and perhaps you do not?

          • retired worker fed says:

            That is generous of you, but the reasons are because you have earned it, and because the money, in theory, has been set aside to pay you for it. it is not part of the budget process in theory. On the other hand, in theory, I have not earned it since I am not working. Of course the reason I am not working is because of the donkey politicians.

      • Fed_Peasant says:

        You are now awake from your dozing?

    • Sanzi says:

      Retirees will be paid on the 1st business day of the month if there is no shutdown or if the shutdown lasts for months. The money used to pay annuities can’t be used for other purposes.

      If you go to the link OPM’s Guidance on shutdown furloughs shown above and then go to page 16 of that document, it discusses retiree payments during a shutdown.

    • DeathMerchant says:

      And those priorities would be what exactly???

    • Sanzi says:

      Retirees get paid because the funds used to pay retirees aren’t subject to the annual budget problems. Just as SS recipients will get their checks, Federal retirees will be paid whether the government is shut down or not.

    • $31427826 says:

      A retirement check is not a pay check, it is an annuity that has been earned or “paid for by the retiree.” They, like bondholders, have paid for their retirement during the working years and deserve to get an ROI on their investment, again no different than bondholders. To elevate someone else over them is wrong. Once again I ask you, what are the priorities?

    • retired worker fed says:

      Why should’t they? They have earned it and are not employees of the government. Of course, I am against any shutdown.

    • wombat1951 says:

      Because funds for things on auto-pilot — like SS and Fed pensions — will continue to be processed. The money is still coming in from taxes, and the computers will continue to spit out the checks.

      What can be affected, of course, are any new applications or any changes that require Fed workers to evaluate and process.

Top