Pension Reform - Forum Post

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Pension Reform

Displaying all 4 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2011-10-28 03:29 PM

lisam7
Park Ridge, IL
Posts: 2

I am wondering if your organization supports cuts to the salaries, healthcare and pension benefits provided to congress the judiciary and the executive branch and their retirees. After all, american taxpayers foot the bill for them. They talk about cutting programs and services which benefit american citizens. But not if it means cutting their own pocketbooks. I heard on WBBM that 43% of the federal debt is salaries and health and pension benefits of all federal employees.

2011-10-31 11:09 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

As a long time contributer to the Democratic Hub (but with no official connection) I can say that the website has no official position on any of the issues of the day. The discussions are community driven with a wide latitude for opinions and facts put forth and discussed. Contributors that often get knocked off are those right wingers that sign up to just regurgitate the Fox News or Rush Limbaugh talking points demonizing Democrats or liberal/progressive positions without any factual basis to back up their claims.

But on the issue of Federal pensions, it is indeed a good topic for discussion. For those that want a bit more insight on the problem, Dennis Cauchon of the USA Today published an article (September 29, 2011), Federal retirement plans almost as costly as Social Security. Cauchon points out that "the government paid a record $268 billion in pension and health benefits last year to 10 million former civil servants, military personnel and their dependents, about $100 billion more than was paid a decade earlier after adjusting for inflation. And $7 billion more was deposited into tax-deferred accounts of current workers."

Projecting the costs many decades into the future, these retirement programs have a $5.7 trillion unfunded liability, compared with a $6.5 trillion shortfall for Social Security.

Cauchon also makes the claim that "the federal government hasn't set aside money or created a revenue source similar to Social Security's payroll tax to help pay for the benefits, so the retirement costs must be paid every year through taxes and borrowing."

Okay, I'll share my opinion. Pensions are just one part of a renumeration package that includes salaries, bonuses, health care insurance, vacation time, and other perks such as gym memberships. Federal worker unions as well as private sector unions have often traded lower salaries for better health care benefits and long term pensions. Those were negotiated in good faith by both sides over the past decades, but the math is now catching up with everyone as they have a reality check. Because of the systematic tax reductions (and therefore revenue reductions) in the 30 years since Reagan, and two wars in the last decade that were not funded, federal workers benefits are just one of the many government programs and organizations now being targeted for spending cuts by Republicans for deficit reduction. But they won't touch one of the biggest contributors to our deficits...military expenditures.

So perhaps some of the short term arguments could be couched like this: Should federal workers make sacrifices in order to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Should federal workers sacrifice so that the Top 1 percent can continue to enjoy the lowest effective tax rates since 1929?

In the longer term, of course, there is a real demographics problem in the USA as well as globally in which the population is aging and the declining numbers of the younger generations will have an increasing financial burden to support an ever increasing population of senior citizens. Some countries like Japan are much worse off than the USA. Maybe I'll address this as a separate forum post after I put some facts together. In the meantime, discussion is invited.

2011-10-31 03:26 PM

lisam7
Park Ridge, IL
Posts: 2

Thanks for your inciteful comments. I tried to find the article you mentioned online but I don't think there is anyway to access it without subscribing to the paper.

2011-10-31 05:24 PM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Just click on the link in my post above in bold blue. It will get you to the article.

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES