Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama to Freeze Pay for Most Federal Workers (for 2 Years)
NYT ^ | 11-29-10 | Peter Baker

Posted on 11/29/2010 8:15:05 AM PST by pillut48

WASHINGTON -- President Obama plans to announce a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers later Monday morning, according to an administration official, the latest White House move intended to demonstrate concern over sky-high deficit spending.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: notbreakingnews
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 last
To: skookum55; All

My Social Security COLA has already been frozen the last two years. My late husband’s teacher’s pension has been frozen for one year.

141 posted on 11/29/2010 9:54:07 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: skookum55; All

What is your source for private sector increase of only 8%? I have been following “Forbes CEO Compensation” for a few years, and perhaps they have been doing that to their low level workers, but sure as heck not to themselves!! Of course if you include minimum wage jobs which had NO increase for years you may be right.

142 posted on 11/29/2010 10:03:53 PM PST by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

I don’t know what you are talking about either. And I suspect, neither do you.

Fed bennies suck compared to large companies in private sector.

If you happen to work for a small business that doesn’t provide benefits, that’s your choice.

143 posted on 11/30/2010 4:44:26 AM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: The Big Boo


I work for the V.A. Just now they are looking at telework.

I worked remotely 15 years ago in private sector.

144 posted on 11/30/2010 4:47:45 AM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: OldGoatCPO

The “they” I am referring to are those who are making nearly double what their private sector counterparts are making.

I don’t know how it would be implemented, but it’s those union members who have had their pays increased approximately 34% over the past few years (I think that’s what I heard).

If your country is anything like mine, MANY of the government workers are not necessary - it’s pretty much a joke up here.

On the other hand, I have a good friend who works VERY hard for the federal government and is paid along the same lines as the private sector. He is an honourable, ethical accountant - he deserves to be compensated accordingly.

145 posted on 11/30/2010 6:53:25 AM PST by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: JudyinCanada

Grossly overpaid? Jesus woman, how’s that free health care in Canada working out for you? Stay out of affairs you don’t understand. The private sector is full of cheap cost-cutting hypocrites, who expect their employees to work harder for less, and offer more expensive, yet crappy benefits to boot. You really need to remove your head from your hind end, Canuk!

146 posted on 11/30/2010 8:24:27 AM PST by jbospunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scbison

wrong, the low wage employees are not contractors, they are fed employees just like the GS community. More of the low wage jobs will eventually go contractor because of the pay freeze.

147 posted on 11/30/2010 9:42:54 AM PST by OldGoatCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

“My Social Security COLA has already been frozen the last two years. My late husband’s teacher’s pension has been frozen for one year.”

Nice of Obama to try to finance his socialist dreams on the backs of retired folks.

148 posted on 11/30/2010 10:40:39 AM PST by skookum55 ("We can give up on America or we can give up on this president ...." D. D'Souza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

My source is the NY Times article posted. I just tried to revisit it, but one now has to log in. I swear the entire article was available at the time I posted. The article, as I recall, gave annual compensation rates of increase for the past decade — I merely multiplied them to determine the net increases over the 10-year period.

CEO compensation, while hefty, is insignificant in terms of national averages.

I must admit that I don’t know whether the Times reported real rates of increase (i.e., rates adjusted for inflation) or raw rates — they didn’t specify. It doesn’t matter for purposes of comparing private and public sectors, but it might for purpose of generating numbers that are familiar to you.

149 posted on 11/30/2010 10:47:35 AM PST by skookum55 ("We can give up on America or we can give up on this president ...." D. D'Souza)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: OldGoatCPO

My agency did alot contracting out of lower wage positions during Bush (A76 review).

150 posted on 11/30/2010 11:27:35 AM PST by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: glm
The Fed Gov matches up to a certain amount.

Close, but not quite. The Fed Gov puts in 1% of the total annual salary no matter how much the employee puts in.

In CRCS, employees do not pay into social security. The payment instead goes to CRCS. Therefore the old school Fed employees will not get social security, they will get CRCS. UNLESS they have qualified for social security under another job. For instance, my husband will retire in 5 years. He has worked for the same agency since 1980, and only worked a couple of years in a gas station as a teen. He will get nothing from social security, because he paid nothing into it.

151 posted on 11/30/2010 11:34:02 AM PST by SoftballMominVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: glm
I can see the day coming where all the CSRS benefits will be slowly taken away from the retirees since there is no left working to keep it going.

I said the same thing to my husband. He is one that didn't switch over to FERS. He just smiled and said 'Nope, it will never happen. The Congress is covered under CRCS."

152 posted on 11/30/2010 11:38:09 AM PST by SoftballMominVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: OldGoatCPO

Don’t forget the “they” that are in the CIA, DEA, FBI, and border control. The citizenry expects top dollar performance and then claps their hands in glee when the people in these agencies are nickled and dimed. And then scratch their collective heads in wonderment that the best and the brightest go to private industry.

153 posted on 11/30/2010 11:43:12 AM PST by SoftballMominVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Congress had no contract with GM bond holders and did not interfere with any contract involving them.

There are several issues which would stop Congress from abrogating the contract it has with fed workers. Any such law would appear to be a violation of the Constitutional ban on ex post facto Laws.

Such a law would also be a form of confiscation of private property without compensation since the labor agreed to be provided was performed under an agreement as to compensation.

Marshall dealt with similar issues (Gibbons vs Ogden, Hunters Leasee, Yazoo) as long ago as 200 yrs. I have no doubt the courts would rule very quickly to stop any ex post facto changes in fed compensation.

154 posted on 11/30/2010 1:14:57 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: kabar

After a certain number of years that may well be true. But the Basic Plan is not much. My friend will be retiring at the end of the month after 23 years as an engineer with the feds and will receive the princely pension of around two grand a month. That is not much, fortunately he saved a lot and never had kids so he is not in bad shape.

155 posted on 11/30/2010 1:30:57 PM PST by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
I have no idea what you are talking about, pension plans are changed all the time, my father ended up getting pennies on the dollar of his supposedly “guaranteed” pension.

Nothing is guaranteed, period.

Not welfare, not SS, not medicare, not pensions, nothing.

Congress can do whatever it wants, it can raise them, lower them, raise the retirement age for getting them, limit how much you can get from various government sources, cut them entirely.

156 posted on 11/30/2010 1:54:10 PM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama = Epic Fail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

He is entitled to a SS suplpement in addition to his pension.

157 posted on 11/30/2010 3:12:13 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Don’t worry. The unions will not allow this to happen. It sounds nice, but Congress would have to mandate this by law.

158 posted on 12/01/2010 3:06:41 AM PST by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoftballMominVA
Here are the rules for Congress (the same as Fed. Govt.)

When are Members of Congress considered vested and eligible to receive a pension? And how much is that pension? Monticello, Arkansas - 9/28/00

Members who have participated in the congressional pension system are vested after 5 years of service. A full pension is available to Members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service; or 25 years of service at any age. A reduced pension is available depending upon which of several different age/service options is chosen. If Members leave Congress before reaching retirement age, they may leave their contributions behind and receive a deferred pension later.

How much they receive depends on a complicated formula based on when they joined Congress, how old they are at the time of retirement, how many years of service they had at the time of retirement (including previous military or other federal service), their salary, and which pension option they chose when they enrolled. In any case, a Member's pension amount may not exceed 80% of his/her salary upon retirement.

Since January 1, 1984, all Members of Congress also participate in the Social Security system and are required to pay Social Security taxes.

Members who were elected after 1984 are automatically part of the FERS, or Federal Employees' Retirement System. Members elected before 1984 were in the CSRS, or Civil Service Retirement System. In 1984, those Members in CSRS had to choose to remain with CSRS, or switch to FERS. The Members elected before 1984 could further choose between full CSRS benefits, plus Social Security or CSRS benefits offset by Social Security.

A further variant in the amount of retirement benefits received is whether or not Members under either system choose to participate in the voluntary Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) open to all federal employees. Members under CSRS may contribute up to 5% of their salary and FERS Members 10% of their salary into this tax-deferred retirement investment fund. The differential favoring FERS Members is because pension benefits paid out under the old CSRS system are higher than those paid out under the current FERS system.

Both CSRS and FERS have differing formulas combining age and service factors which further affect how much a specific Member's pension will pay out. Therefore, the only solid averages concerning benefit payments are those that come from the just over 400 retired Members now actually drawing pensions.

The average annuity for retired Members, as of 1998, was either $50,616 [for those that retired under CSRS] or $46,908 [for Members that retired under FERS]. However, these averages don't take into account any additional funds these Members may have also accrued through investments in the Thrift Savings Plan described above.

Congressional pensions are funded the same way as those of other federal employees: through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.

Hope this clarifies the confusion about Congress pensions.

159 posted on 12/02/2010 3:33:18 AM PST by glm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-159 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson