I once had the pleasure of serving with an Army platoon sergeant who, when the going got tough, would say “relax ladies, it could have been worse.” Even at age 17 this was not amusing. Also, this was before men and women served in the same units so the reference to us as ladies was, I assume, intended to somehow cheer us up. Or distract us. Perhaps a little levity into the clean-the-latrines detail.

It didn’t work.

But I do think of the good sarge almost every time the president (almost any president) delivers his budget plan to Congress. Bad as the proposals may be — and this latest batch is pretty bad for feds — it could have been worse. Which workers and retirees will likely learn this time next year when the next budget goes to Congress.

Last year, the president proposed a number of civil service reforms. The House Republicans piled on with a set of reforms of their own. (Note: When Washington-based politicians use the word “reform” it should always be accompanied by air quotes because one person’s “reform” is another person’s potential nightmare).

The 2017 reforms proposed by the House cut much deeper into the civil service benefit package than the few in that year’s White House budget.

This time the White House appears to be serious —as in piling on — with proposals to eliminate cost-of-living adjustments for FERS retirees; reduce January inflation catch ups by 0.5 percent for CSRS retirees; and a major but unspecified overhaul of the sick/holiday/annual leave package. Worst case scenario: It could give workers less time off then they have at present, could reduce their lifetime annuities and cut into the lump sum annual leave payments many count on when they first retire.

Congress, as in House Republicans, haven’t dropped their fiscal shoe yet. But they no doubt will come back with some of the cuts they proposed last year.

But as the sarge would say, it still could have been worse. Most if not all of the civil service reforms proposed by Congress and the Trump administration have come from a 2016 Heritage Foundation report. Heritage is a respected, conservative-oriented D.C. think tank. Its scholars are convinced that many if not most feds are paid much more than they could get in the private sector for doing the same jobs. And that their benefits package — leave, holidays and retirement benefits — are far superior to the private sector.

Many if not all of the reforms proposed for the civil service have come from the Heritage report “Why It is Time to Reform Compensation for Federal Employees.” One involves the a major overhaul (some would say “gutting” of the FERS program) by getting rid of the “defined benefit” (FERS pension) for future hires and current workers with less than 5 years of service. They would go under a system where their retirement benefits were based on the Thrift Savings Plan and Social Security. That’s typical of most current non-federal retirement programs.

Current employees with 25 or more years of service, and those already retired under FERS, would see no change. Under the Heritage plan, which is being looked at by some House leaders, new hires and non-vested employees (those with under 5-years federal service) would be shifted “to a new system that provides higher Thrift Savings Plan contributions, but no FERS contributions or benefits.” To kick start that, some of the money workers have already paid into FERS would be rolled over into their TSP accounts.

The proposal to eliminate FERS isn’t on the table. Yet. And it may not be. This year or next. But proposed new “reforms” from the House are still in the works.

So, maybe it could have been worse.

And may yet be.

Nearly Useless Factoid

By Michael O’Connell

The Shakey’s Pizza chain is named for one of its founders, Sherwood “Shakey” Johnson, whose nickname derives from the nerve damage he received from a bout of malaria he incurred during World War II.

Source: Wikipedia

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.