Paul Ryan's Budget Deficit Reduction Plan

[Forehead]

I agree though they shouldn't freeze raises especaily for those federal employees who are GS-7's and below. But atleast they aren't taking the steps away. I am contractor and the reason we make a little more is because the government doesn't have to pay for clearances(if needed) also health care or retirement. Plus as a contractor you don't have that job security as a federal employee after you complete your probation period.

Full disclosure, I'm not a GS-7, I'm a bit higher than that, I'm just showing empathy for our admins and other folks who can't afford to take the hit as much as some of the rest of us.

I haven't read yet into how he plans to reform our benefits. All I'd point out is that the really cushy pension that everyone harps on was the old retirement system, the CSRC. Newer employees came in under FERS, which isn't quite as generous.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Full disclosure, I'm not a GS-7, I'm a bit higher than that, I'm just showing empathy for our admins and other folks who can't afford to take the hit as much as some of the rest of us.

I haven't read yet into how he plans to reform our benefits. All I'd point out is that the really cushy pension that everyone harps on was the old retirement system, the CSRC. Newer employees came in under FERS, which isn't quite as generous.

I agree my wife is in the Federal government as well and I think the admin's that work in her office is GS-5 I think. I thought that as a federal employee you got TSP?

[Forehead]

I agree my wife is the Federal government as well and I think the admin's that work in her office is GS-5 I think. I thought that as a federal employee you got TSP?

TSP is the equivalent of our 401K plan. FERS is the retirement system. The old CSRC, the Civil Service Retirement System, had the really nice pensions that everyone ****es about. FERS still has some sort of retirement annuity, but I don't know much about it, I'm still 25 years+ away from retirement so I haven't really looked into exactly what it entails.

All I've heard is that it isn't quite as generous, but I'm not positive because it's so far off. I just contribute to TSP as much as possible for the time being.

[December90]

It's a good plan if you agree with phasing out Medicare while giving wealthy folk bigger tax breaks. :2cents:

So you think it is a bad plan if you think you should take what one has earned to give it to one who has not?

[Forehead]

So you think it is a bad plan if you think you should take what one has earned to give it to one who has not?

I certainly think it's a bad plan if you tell an entire category of middle class workers "you're stuck for five years."

[Thiebear]

Ryand Bill and The Healthcare bill are the same:

Its about time one was brought up: I hope we do a better job with this one but i have low standards.

When i read in the USAtoday that the debt ceiling was reduced from 14trillion to 13trillion i'll do the electric slide next to the Rayburn building.

[Fergasun]

Thiebear,

Did you notice how this plan didn't say anything about stabilizing the debt ceiling? This plan is all about adding only $5T in debt instead of $11T in debt over the next 10 years. So we'll be at $20T instead of $25T. If you want the plan that starts to actually pay down our national debt, I think that's the Rand Paul plan.

Regarding Federal Workers, I hate how the GOP seems like the party against workers. Now that they've successfully waged war on the private sector and killed wages there, they are unhappy that government workers make too much?

Shouldn't they honestly say that the private sector workers need to make more? Our situation is so bad that we can't even afford to buy American made, the only products we can afford are from China.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It's a good plan if you agree with phasing out Medicare while giving wealthy folk bigger tax breaks. :2cents:

I don't think it really touches social security. It radically alters medicare, and basically gets rid of Medicaid. I don't know why we would want to make millions uninsured again though... that just leads to higher premiums for all of us.

[Fergasun]

... and they talk about a Federal pay freeze. What if they said we are going to freeze what we pay for medical costs? Would that cause outrage? Why are labor costs treated differently. Its BS!

Let's have a medical cost freeze!

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I don't think it really touches social security. It radically alters medicare, and basically gets rid of Medicaid. I don't know why we would want to make millions uninsured again though... that just leads to higher premiums for all of us.

Yeah, you're right. After reading through Ryan's plan a bit, I see that social security wasn't mentioned.

My bad.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Where do people get this from? I'm a Fed and I can promise you the contractors in my agency are making as much or more than I am at similar job levels/descriptions.

I think a lot of people have that impression when it comes to total compensation. I'm a contractor and have worked on several federal clients. I even was offered a fed job last winter and turned it down. The compensation would have been about the same (possibly a little less at the agency than I make now). However, if you consider the partial pension plan, the health care, etc., I'm assuming you could easily make the case that a federal employee makes out over a similarly skilled/leveled contractor.

In reference to a later post of yours in the thread, the pension plan is NOT nearly as generous as it was for our parents. My dad will collect about 85-90% of his highest salary for the rest of his life (with COLA). However, it's still pretty nice. My understanding is that you accrue 1% per year. So, if you work for the government for 30 years and retire, you'll collect 30% of your highest salary for the rest of your life. Nothing you can live off of, but a nice supplement to the other programs they have and something that doesn't exist in the private sector.

[sacase]

I agree though they shouldn't freeze raises especaily for those federal employees who are GS-7's and below. But atleast they aren't taking the steps away. I am contractor and the reason we make a little more is because the government doesn't have to pay for clearances(if needed) also health care or retirement. Plus as a contractor you don't have that job security as a federal employee after you complete your probation period.

Simply not true, the government still has to pay for the clearance. If you are a DoD contractor, they it is held and adjudicated by DISCO which is apart of DSS, the investigation is done by OPM.Your company doesn't pay for your clearance at all. You are right about the job security part, but there are still far more jobs needing clearances than people who can obtain them.

[The Evil Genius]

Nothing you can live off of, but a nice supplement to the other programs they have and something that doesn't exist in the private sector.

Sure it does.

Nothing stops anyone in the private sector from contributing to a 401k or IRAs. Public workers (federal, state, local) contribute for those 30x years towards their retirement system (8% of my salary each month goes to mine - I don't have a choice) - why can't private sector people do the same?

As an aside, defined pensions used to be quite common in the private sector. That is, until big business decided that the workers shouldn't get them anymore (so the head honchos could pocket more $'s) and did away with them, for the most part. No one to blame but the people who let it happen.

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 07:23 AM ----------

As for this plan - it's a non-starter. Repealing the new Health Care plan will never see the light of day under Obama. Why even bother? I mean, other than trying to appeal to your fringe element of your party?

Additionally, why roll back the top rate from 35% to 25%? Why not keep it that and spare some of the cuts?

[Madison Redskin]

I think a lot of people have that impression when it comes to total compensation. I'm a contractor and have worked on several federal clients. I even was offered a fed job last winter and turned it down. The compensation would have been about the same (possibly a little less at the agency than I make now). However, if you consider the partial pension plan, the health care, etc., I'm assuming you could easily make the case that a federal employee makes out over a similarly skilled/leveled contractor.

In reference to a later post of yours in the thread, the pension plan is NOT nearly as generous as it was for our parents. My dad will collect about 85-90% of his highest salary for the rest of his life (with COLA). However, it's still pretty nice. My understanding is that you accrue 1% per year. So, if you work for the government for 30 years and retire, you'll collect 30% of your highest salary for the rest of your life. Nothing you can live off of, but a nice supplement to the other programs they have and something that doesn't exist in the private sector.

I think the salary gap between federal and private workers varies quite a bit from job to job. My brother is an Assistant US Attorney (i.e., a federal prosecutor) and he took a 65% pay cut to go from a big firm to the his new job. I had an offer to work for a federal agency as an attorney for roughly 40% less than what I make as in-house counsel. The pension plan for federal workers is good, but not as good as many people think and certainly not good enough to entice me to take a massive pay cut. I think my brother made the switch simply because he wanted more courtroom experience and to serve the public.

[Forehead]

I think a lot of people have that impression when it comes to total compensation. I'm a contractor and have worked on several federal clients. I even was offered a fed job last winter and turned it down. The compensation would have been about the same (possibly a little less at the agency than I make now). However, if you consider the partial pension plan, the health care, etc., I'm assuming you could easily make the case that a federal employee makes out over a similarly skilled/leveled contractor.

In reference to a later post of yours in the thread, the pension plan is NOT nearly as generous as it was for our parents. My dad will collect about 85-90% of his highest salary for the rest of his life (with COLA). However, it's still pretty nice. My understanding is that you accrue 1% per year. So, if you work for the government for 30 years and retire, you'll collect 30% of your highest salary for the rest of your life. Nothing you can live off of, but a nice supplement to the other programs they have and something that doesn't exist in the private sector.

The total compensation thing could be argued, but that's what this plan appears to be taking away from Feds, reforming their benefits. Since the base pay is often lower, the benefits are part of what attracts people to Federal service. What's going to happen when being a Fed is no longer attractive, are they going to go after private sector workers again?

As for the pension, I think that sounds about right, I knew the old one was incredible. Still, I'd argue that while that's a nice benefit down the road, it doesn't do Fed workers a whole lot of good in the present time, when we're trying to pay a mortgage and raise kids, etc., so it's tough to make the argument that it's really doing anything for us.

I'm not saying I want to throw the pension away, but right now, like many others in the Federal workforce, I'm trying to pay bills, raise my kid (and future kids) and live a modest middle class life. That pension may count as part of our total compensation, but it does me zero good right now, I certainly can't borrow against it to make a student loan payment or anything.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Sure it does.

Nothing stops anyone in the private sector from contributing to a 401k or IRAs. Public workers (federal, state, local) contribute for those 30x years towards their retirement system (8% of my salary each month goes to mine - I don't have a choice) - why can't private sector people do the same?

I don't understand. Are you saying that public workers pay into their pensions AND their 401k plans? I didn't get that impression at all. Of course, private workers have 401ks and can open up any number of accounts with their own money. However, if a public and private workers started on the same day, contributed the same amount to their retirement plan, and retired on the same day making $200K, the public worker would have his 401k + $60K per year in pension while the private worker would have his 401k. That $60K per year is extra money above and beyond anything that was contributed by the employee and could be paid out for 30 years (I assume).

As an aside, defined pensions used to be quite common in the private sector. That is, until big business decided that the workers shouldn't get them anymore (so the head honchos could pocket more $'s) and did away with them, for the most part. No one to blame but the people who let it happen.

Well, I'm not blaming anyone for anything...just attempting to explain the perception as I understand it. What the government might not have in straight salary or bonuses, it makes up for with very solid benefits that should not be ignored when discussing total compensation.

[BeachSkin]

I am a federal civil servant working in DOD. I am all for cutting waste and abuse and trimming the deficit. However, the 14T deficit was not caused by federal salaries and the 14T deficit will not be solved by federal salaries. We can all agree that GOVT has grown and should be trimmed. But, the end game cannot be won by attacking civilians alone, nor should it be.

Shut down to prove a point? Are you serious? We suffer a furlough and a potential loss of pay because the House and Senate cannot do the job they were paid to do. And contractors continue to work because their contracts have already been paid. Really? This is ridiculous and grossly unfair.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The total compensation thing could be argued, but that's what this plan appears to be taking away from Feds, reforming their benefits. Since the base pay is often lower, the benefits are part of what attracts people to Federal service. What's going to happen when being a Fed is no longer attractive, are they going to go after private sector workers again?

I have no clue about his plans for the total compensation, but if it was brought to a point where total compensation was equal, then you'd have an even playing field. I'm not necessarily advocating that, just saying that there is room to cut I suppose. I like what they do right now with the federal employees though since it does provide incentive.

As for the pension, I think that sounds about right, I knew the old one was incredible. Still, I'd argue that while that's a nice benefit down the road, it doesn't do Fed workers a whole lot of good in the present time, when we're trying to pay a mortgage and raise kids, etc., so it's tough to make the argument that it's really doing anything for us.

I'm not saying I want to throw the pension away, but right now, like many others in the Federal workforce, I'm trying to pay bills, raise my kid (and future kids) and live a modest middle class life. That pension may count as part of our total compensation, but it does me zero good right now, I certainly can't borrow against it to make a student loan payment or anything.

Good points. But in theory you could put less money into your retirement plan know that you'll have 30% of your income every year for the rest of your life (post-retirement). It gives you flexibility and it's free money since I don't believe you contribute that amount from your paycheck or anything (I could be wrong about that point after reading TEG's post).

---------- Post added April-6th-2011 at 10:48 AM ----------

I think the salary gap between federal and private workers varies quite a bit from job to job. My brother is an Assistant US Attorney (i.e., a federal prosecutor) and he took a 65% pay cut to go from a big firm to the his new job. I had an offer to work for a federal agency as an attorney for roughly 40% less than what I make as in-house counsel. The pension plan for federal workers is good, but not as good as many people think and certainly not good enough to entice me to take a massive pay cut. I think my brother made the switch simply because he wanted more courtroom experience and to serve the public.

I'm sure it does vary. I work in the federal IT/financial software industry and the salaries at my level are pretty comparable ($5-10K difference).

[The Evil Genius]

I don't understand. Are you saying that public workers pay into their pensions AND their 401k plans? I didn't get that impression at all. Of course, private workers have 401ks and can open up any number of accounts with their own money. However, if a public and private workers started on the same day, contributed the same amount to their retirement plan, and retired on the same day making $200K, the public worker would have his 401k + $60K per year in pension while the private worker would have his 401k. That $60K per year is extra money above and beyond anything that was contributed by the employee and could be paid out for 30 years (I assume).

No, that's not what I was saying.

What I was saying is that the private sector doesn't automatically lose 8% of their salary (like I do). I lose 8% off the top to pay for my retirement. The private sector can use that same 8% to fund their retirements over the 30+ years. And in reality, if the markets don't collapse, that 8% that the private sector is investing on their own should be equal in 30+ years to what I make in a pension. Moreover, since most comparable public sector jobs on average are paid less than the private sector, private sector employees have access to more money to fund their retirements.

There is a notion (not by you - it seems to be universal though) that public employees get a free pension. That needs to stop. Public employees pay for their retirement. How the state (city, federal govt) uses that pay is another conversation - but the employees do attempt to fund the system.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Simply not true, the government still has to pay for the clearance. If you are a DoD contractor, they it is held and adjudicated by DISCO which is apart of DSS, the investigation is done by OPM.Your company doesn't pay for your clearance at all. You are right about the job security part, but there are still far more jobs needing clearances than people who can obtain them.

Not true the Contractoring company pays for most of the cost to have a clearance processed. One of the reasons a company won't hire a person without a clearance is because they don't want to pay $ 15,000 to $20,000 to have it processed and adjudicated. Yes the process is done that way but the company still has to pay.

[The Evil Genius]

Not true the Contractoring company pays for most of the cost to have a clearance processed. One of the reasons a company won't hire a person without a clearance is because they don't want to pay $ 15,000 to $20,000 to have it processed and adjudicated. Yes the process is done that way but the company still has to pay.

They shift the cost though eventually to the government. That's why the positions that the contractors company charge the government cost way way way more than the actual pay the contractor gets.

[The Sisko]

I wonder just how many republicans are really going to embrace this plan though? Tea Partiers, will probably love it.

Don't be so sure.

According to the poll, 91% of Tea Partiers want a smaller government while at the same time 62% of them believe that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are worth the cost. I guess "socialist big government" isn't so bad when it's benefitting them.

I knew this would happen. Now let's see who gets on board with Ryan. My guess is almost none of them, even the Tea Bagger supported types.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

No, that's not what I was saying.

What I was saying is that the private sector doesn't automatically lose 8% of their salary (like I do). I lose 8% off the top to pay for my retirement. The private sector can use that same 8% to fund their retirements over the 30+ years. And in reality, if the markets don't collapse, that 8% that the private sector is investing on their own should be equal in 30+ years to what I make in a pension. Moreover, since most comparable public sector jobs on average are paid less than the private sector, private sector employees have access to more money to fund their retirements.

There is a notion (not by you - it seems to be universal though) that public employees get a free pension. That needs to stop. Public employees pay for their retirement. How the state (city, federal govt) uses that pay is another conversation - but the employees do attempt to fund the system.

Thanks for the clarification...I didn't realize that 8% came out of every pay check above and beyond whatever FERS or 401K-type plan you contribute to. Very interesting and something that is NOT common knowledge. How does health insurance work? Is that a deduction from your payroll as well? I never get a straight answer about that (from others) for some reason.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

They shift the cost though eventually to the government. That's why the positions that the contractors company charge the government cost way way way more than the actual pay the contractor gets.

I don't think they do you may be right but I know from working with my program manager in the hiring process. That when we are going through resumes our number one reason for not bringing someone on is because it saves times and money for our company if they already have a clearance.

Now I know if an existing company has a contract that doesn't require a clearance but then a couple of years later the government client comes back and tells the company hey we need to have your team cleared. Then the government will bear the cost.

[Forehead]

Good points. But in theory you could put less money into your retirement plan know that you'll have 30% of your income every year for the rest of your life (post-retirement). It gives you flexibility and it's free money since I don't believe you contribute that amount from your paycheck or anything (I could be wrong about that point after reading TEG's post).

I should know this off the top of my head but I haven't looked at a pay slip in awhile. TEG is correct, the FERS retirement is not free, we do pay into it. Now it could be argued that if we serve a full career, we're getting 30% of our salary per year (and based off higher salaries) while only paying in 8% or whatever he said it was (I'm not sure of the exact percentage), but when you consider interest over the years, I'm not sure we're really coming out ahead.

For someone like myself, that 8% could be useful because I'm very militant about paying bills ahead, investing, being financially secure. I consider the pension useful for people who might not be like me, who aren't good about saving, etc, because at least there will be something there for them when they retire. By the time I retire, I'm hoping to not have a mortgage or anything, so I can just use the money for whatever.