Federal Report

Where’s gridlock when you really need it?

After years of people complaining that nothing was getting done because of gridlock between Congress and the White House, suddenly lots of federal workers and r...

Mike Causey@mcauseyWFED

June 5, 2017 12:05 am

5 min read

In a column just before the president’s full fed-whacking budget plan was unveiled, I attempted to play elder statesman (I’ve got the elder thing nailed. The jury is still out on the statesman part, but it was worth a shot). The message was that we’ve all been through tough times before and that more often than not, the sum of all our fears does not happen. Political Washington thrives on crisis.

Debate and taking sides — regardless of the issue — makes for full employment for politicians, those who serve them, lobbyists, lawyers, consultants and media types. I suggested that most the end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it warnings and forecasts should end with the term ‘or not.’ This doesn’t mean that bad things can’t or won’t happen. What it means is that feds have been under threat — from foe and sometimes even friends — for decades and yet, here we are.

Long-time feds have weathered numerous threats to their benefits and jobs over the years. Sometimes their friends were the most successful. The biggest job cuts and most RIFs came during the Clinton administration, which also introduced buyouts. House Republicans have led the charge to cut federal worker benefits without any success. So far. Federal unions and management groups have used political gridlock to protect the benefits package. So far.

The difference this time, maybe, is that one political party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. Gridlock, which has been the friend of feds for many years, is gone. Or not.
Long-time feds have weathered numerous threats to their benefits and jobs. The biggest job cuts and most RIFs came during the Clinton administration, which also introduced buyouts. House Republicans have led the charge to cut federal worker benefits without any success. So far. Which prompted some responses from feds on the front line:

“You said ‘all Congress has to do is approve…’. Well that was a big ‘all.’ It would take 60 votes in the Senate. A few weeks ago, I heard someone say, ‘There aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to declare today as being Monday.’

Of course the president’s budget is dead-on-arrival. The president proposes and the Congress dispossess. When was the last time the president’s budget was not dead-on-arrival? I’m thinking, uhhmmm, like maybe never. Or close to. Of course, some parts of the proposed budget are deader than others. It’s Congress’ job to sort that out (just as soon as they agree what day this is ).

I doubt that there will much, if anything, that will adversely affect current employees. Going back to five years (like it was way back when), instead of the current three years, would mean that with 1.5-to-2 percent annual pay raises, a person would need to work an extra nine months or so to get the same retirement payment. That is not the end of the world. And I expect that is highly unlikely, and if somehow it is passed, it will probably be phased-in, say over the next six-to-24 years. The employee contribution might be increased, but I would be extremely surprised if it amounted to an increase of more than 0.1 percent in the next year.

I suspect that this is one part (among others) of the budget that will take the brunt of the opposition to the budget. Meaning other parts will have a higher chance of going through— i.e. during the compromise phase, this will be tossed out, and other parts will stay in. That is, if we have a compromise phase. We could go directly to the CR phase. Congress’ track record for CRs is pretty good lately, or pretty bad, depending on what you mean.”

—H

“I just read your article, “Retirement life after COLAs disappear.” Thank you for the great column you provide … well explained.

I’m not going to worry just yet, but honestly this is very disheartening to hear.

In the event that all of these items are voted for and approved, it would be devastating. I am about 10 years into the federal service and my husband is about three years into federal service and we are both under FERS and both in our early 40’s. I feel like a rug could potentially be pulled from under all of us. I feel like there should be some grandfathering for those of us already under FERS. Then, phase in these changes for the next generation of new feds gradually.

Read more: Federal Report

I also wonder, for those of us here in D.C., how will feds buy a home, transportation, have a family, put money into savings, plus put money into the TSP plan for their financial future and have money to spend. I really worry how you could retire in, say, 20-30 years from the federal government, given this FY 18 proposal, and be financially secure for 20-40 years after you retire from the federal government. I was in the private sector; I left the private sector to have a better life and retirement working for the federal government.

I sincerely hope these proposals are phased-in slowly, otherwise I fear that morale, work satisfaction and recruiting top talent for all of the federal government’s career series will suffer greatly.”

—Deb

Nearly Useless Factoid

By Jory Heckman

At the age of 14, billionaire businessman Warren Buffet earned enough money delivering newspapers that he filed a $7 tax return with the IRS. He wrote off his watch and bicycle as business expenses.

Source: New York Times