Westerman Seeks To Reduce Federal Pensions

WASHINGTON — As a freshman member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman has gone largely unnoticed by the unions that represent federal employees, but that is about to change.

Westerman, R-Hot Springs, is introducing legislation that would cut back on pension benefits for retirees starting in 2017. A reform, he says, is needed to curb the out-of-control growth in federal spending that has led to record debt.

“This is just a way to find some savings in the budget in an effort to balance the budget over a 10-year period,” Westerman said in an interview this week. “To me, it is one of the least intrusive things we could do.”

Westerman’s proposal would save about $3.1 billion over a decade by changing the way benefits are calculated, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Currently, benefits are based on years of service and pay. The “pay” is calculated based on the employee’s best three-year average salary. Westerman would expand that to a five-year average. The best-five years — rather than the best-three years — would likely lower the benefit for most retirees. The bill would apply only to civilian federal employees — not the military.

The proposal is not a new idea. In 2010, House Republicans had included it on a “You Cut” website for citizens to weigh in on budget matters. That July, it was ranked as the second most popular reduction. At the time, CBO estimated it would reduce benefits for retirees in the Civil Service Retirement System an average $7,148 over five years and $2,322 for those in the Future Federal Employees Retirement System.

Federal employees have had their pay frozen for the past three years, and newer hires are contributing more toward their retirement under changes enacted in 2012 and 2013. Those changes, along with other reforms, have cost federal workers about $159 billion, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 670,000 workers.

AFGE President J. David Cox Sr. said the union strongly opposes Westerman’s bill, saying Congress has made federal workers the “scapegoat” for an economic downturn not of their creation.

“Federal employees are working-class people just like most other Americans, and singling them out for more pain and sacrifice is just plain wrong,” he said.

The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal employees at 31 agencies, also opposes efforts in Congress to reduce pension benefits.

“While we have not seen Rep. Bruce Westerman’s bill, we are familiar with the proposal to base benefits on the high five years of pay, rather than the current high three. NTEU has successfully fought off past attempts to recalculate pension payments like this and will continue to oppose plans that reduce benefits for hard-working, middle-class federal workers,” said NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley.

Westerman expects opposition from federal employee unions but does not believe he is asking too much to begin slowing the growth in federal spending.

“I think this is a fair way to address some of the spending issues in the budget, especially on the mandatory side,” said Westerman, who noted that federal employees typically earn far more than his constituents. The median income in the 4th District is around $34,000, he said.

Without reform, Westerman said, the federal budget is on a path where by 2025 interest payments on the debt will be $900 billion a year.

“Every day, we kick the can down the road the problem gets magnified,” he said.

Westerman is seeking co-sponsors for his legislation and hopes that it will be included in the next budget agreement that Congress adopts.

Republican lawmakers will likely seek more ways to cut back on pay and benefits for federal workers.

Last October, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf to develop model projections of the long-term impact of the federal retirement system on the federal budget and how it could be reformed.

The proposal to cut federal civilian retirement annuities by basing them on the highest five years of salary was among the options CBO offered, Westerman said.

Is he proposing cutting his own benefits? How about all of them work completely for free. Or maybe some should just join 0’s cabinet. I’ll side with the union thugs over the GOP congress these days.

God help America.

When i left the government, they had THREE different pseudo-401’s set up.
The first was a dollar for a dollar, one by the employee, one by the gov’t, at a very low interest rate.
The second was the first plan for half of the monies, and the other half was put into mutual funds. One half was still a dollar for a dollar.
The third plan was all mutuals, as well as stock plans, and the employee gained all the upticks, and ‘ate’ all the downturns.

Get rid of the dollar for a dollar, and you will save a bundle, as well as making the employee manage their own future, instead of just sitting it out, for the rainbow’s end.

Considering that they have such cushy retirement benefits, I’d say Congress should start with their benefits and then move to civil service.

Information on the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is available at tsp.gov.

It is a 401K plan similar to private companies and is the primary retirement fund for federal employees hired after 1984 (when Civil Service retirement eligibility for new hires ceased).

Government contributes 1% of basic pay.
Government matches up to 4% if employee contributes 5% or more.
Must be a federal employee for 3 years to be vested in matching funds. Otherwise, matching funds are forfeited.

Better than some company 401K but not as good as others.

Hey, Bruce. Let’s reduce federal agencies/employees/apparatchiks.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Cut 5%…10%…25%…

Cut the roots of the tree of TOTALITARIANISM.

dear jim-x,

It seems that my comments, without referencing ‘dah t-s-p jacikpot’, has had you, go and see for yourself. that tells me that there might be others, who did so, and became acquainted with ‘dah jackpot’.

FWIW, when i was hired, and waited for an opening in a hiring freeze, i was offerred the CSRS, and when i was sworn in, it was then offerred as the TSP.

Not sure why you consider it a jackpot. As stated, it is better than some private 401K plans and not as good as others; a little better than average. Federal government must compete for workers with private sector.

dear jim-x,

‘dah gov’mint’, ‘civil soivice’, can never compete with the private sector.

And why?

In the private sector, they expect results.
In the public sector, they just pay the same job 11/2 to 2 times more, and expect less.

The gov’t union reps are not separate entities. It is an actual federal employee, on hours, doing union work, while still getting paid our tax dollars, for work not accomplished.

Dept. of Def.; Census Bureau; Veterans Administration, and held a ‘first level’ fed union rep spot, so I know whereof I speak.

Don’t pick a few bad ones and compare it to the whole bunch. I despise unions, especially federal unions. Never joined and would never have let them represent me. Not many people i knew or worked with were union members. Didnt see many reps the places i worked at DoD. And most people did their job, many worked longer hours with no OT, and quite a few were paid less than comparable jobs in private industry (programmers, engineers, IT managers, etc.). And, yes, there are a number of slackers that get by but the majority of people do their job.
it has gotten a little easier to get rid of the incompetents and slackers the last few years but still too difficult.

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.