Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 52
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

Banner Year for Federal Benefits: One Other Big Benefit May Be On the Way

NOW you are worried about deficits???

Assistant to the Deputy Director
Labor
Thu Nov 5, 2009 9:05 AM

Post Reply

When these deficits were being run up under Bush and Reagan, nobody said a word, except Dick Cheney, who famously said "Deficits don't matter".

But now that we might get a benefit, deficits matter.

/Or maybe it's just Obama bashing.

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

lr specialist
dod agency
Thu Nov 5, 2009 9:43 AM
The cost of the recent retirement fix was about $40 million over 10 years. Presumably, the cost of the new benefit will be substantially more--I would guess a few hundred million over ten years when the immediate loss of taxes to the govt. is counted in.

As for the deficits, I think we were all worried before. Obama is sending it into the stratosphere and we should all worry as our grandchildren will probablyl not be able to pay off the deficit for all the worthless stuff we are buying with our "stimulus" payments, etc.

I don't see this as a one-party issue. We should all worry about this. We will be paying about 33% of our budget in interest alone in the very near future.

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

GUESS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:03 AM
Ass't to the Deputy Director
So now it is Bush and Reagan's fault? Try reading the constitution which gives to Congress the power to appropriate money. So yes it is Hussein's fault since he controls the WH, the Senate and the House of representatives. If you did not notice they are all controlled by Democrats. Bottom line. It is not Obama bashing -just telling the truth. But I have seen this type of blind ideology before and failure to face facts.

From 1980 until 1994 we see a steep rise in the National debt courtesy of a U S Congress controlled by the Democratic Party. There is a plateau in growth of the debt beginning in 1994 when the U S Congress came under control of the Republican party. How does the GWB legacy fit into your fantasy? Is GWB so powerful that he could control these factors decades before he became president?

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

General Engineer
DOT
Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:20 AM
I think you have it wrong for blaming Obama in running up these huge deficits. The culprits were in the preceding administration. Does the Iraq war ring a bell or the deregulation of banks?

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

manager
usda
Thu Nov 5, 2009 11:10 AM
Actually, I don't think the sick leave bill will result in the biggest cost.

That honor belongs to the TSP bill.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says in its report that the new TSP legislation "would cost $10 million in 2009 and $279 million between 2009 and 2013, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts." The new TSP bill will actually cost about $279 million more than the current TSP program over the next five years.

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

manager
usda
Thu Nov 5, 2009 11:12 AM
Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013. The Washington Post has a graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

The graphic is at: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

GUESS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Thu Nov 5, 2009 11:27 AM
General Engineer DOT. Thank you for proving my point about blind ideology. Your DEMOCRAT president Clinton signed that bill into law.

But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into. Bill Clinton

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle -- oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.
As for IRAQ. You mean the war that a number of Democrats voted to appropritae funds for and still do and they also supported? That Iraq war? Is there anything else I can prove you wrong on?

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

Program Analyst
DOL
Thu Nov 5, 2009 6:38 PM
No doubt about it -- Obama and a Democratic Congress has been a BONANZA for federal employees. No worries from them about deficits or a so called "recession".

I'm sure the economy stinks for some private sector employed taxpayers who have lost jobs. (I guess they are now "former" taxpayers?) The economy also probably stinks for some state and local public sector employees who lost jobs or were furloughed.

But face it, for federal employees it's party time!! What recession???? What deficits? This Administration and Congress have been throwing money and benefits at us since January and faster than we can count it! More please, and soon!

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

worker
fed
Fri Nov 6, 2009 8:23 AM
Guess those that blame Obama for the current spending do not realize he inherited a depression from a Republican George Bush. They also forgot to mention the bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors(not Bush's fault). The bank failures in the Bush administration were helped by stupid lending and stupid investments which should have been investigated and stopped by the executive department, headed by Bush.
Even the spending to help failed institutions was started by Bush. Obama is continuing and expanding it to get us out of the depression. Hopefully, it will work. Hopefully, we will then balance the budget and have surpluses (ala the Clinton administration)

Re: NOW you are worried about deficits???

IRS Agent
IRS
Mon Nov 9, 2009 9:33 AM
Whoa boys, lets slow down with all the blame game. Both Republicans and Democrats have dirty hands in this. The President has a veto. Some (un-named) fail to use it. Reagan had one term where the Republicans controlled the Congress. Also Clinton faced a Congress that was not Democrat, so Guess can stop guessing on his facts. The run-up to the recession has its start a few years before.

Removing obstacles is not necessarily a benefit

Mid-Level Manager
Generic Agency
Thu Nov 5, 2009 9:31 AM

Post Reply

Ralph, I enjoy your articles. But aren't you doing most of your readership a disservice by touting these changes as lucky "benefits?" Most of these changes simply remove inefficiencies or inequities that cost little. The most costly change is probably allowing retirement credit for sick leave for FERS employees. That change, however, will have a huge impact on reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, and more rational use of sick leave. I would rather you paint these as win-win scenarios for improving the effectiveness of Government service, than as Fed employees making out bigtime while the public suffers.

Re-employment of retirees on a part time basis

Management Analyst - GS-09
DoD
Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:08 AM

Post Reply

How would I apply for re-employment on a part time basis? I retired from DoD (Department of the Navy) in 1999 and would like to work another five years on a part time basis.

Benefits

observer
government
Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:11 AM

Post Reply

I would like to increase my TSP by my unused annual leave that is over 30 days. Better yet do it with my sick leave. I have alot of that. Better not expect that. That would be greedy. But I can dream.

Bad Timing

Info Tech Specialist
Navy
Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:18 AM

Post Reply

Many of the politicians that rightly chastise the CEOs for taking enormous bonuses while their companies are failing are the same ones that have pushed like mad to expand federal employee benefits, when we are running the highest deficits in the history of mankind. It won't be long before interest payments are the biggest item in the federal budget. Who could imagine it would come to this?

Buying Back Temporary Time

Writer/Editor
Forest Service
Thu Nov 5, 2009 10:39 AM

Post Reply

What are the chances that Federal employees will be able to buy back tempory time after they become permanent employees? This used to be possible before 1989. Some employees, especially in Natural Resource agencies, worked for years for the government before landing a "permanent job" but cannot count this time toward retirement.

Annuity Penalties

Jim W. Acuff
USAF Civilian
Thu Nov 5, 2009 11:02 AM

Post Reply

At a time when the Federal Government has brought itself to not having as many experienced employees due to early retirement incentives, I feel that the Federal Government should not have any penalties on a retireed employees annuity if they choose to return to working for the Federal Government. The Government already has penalties on a retired Government employees Social Security Benefits. I feel that if I have paid into the system to qualify for an annuity, I should get the full annuity and if I go back to work for the Government I should not be taking a cut in my retirement annuity. That is a real incentive to go back to work and lose some of your retirement annuity. What a joke.

Total Comments: 52
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.