17 Members of Congress call on Conference Committee to Oppose Salary or Retirement Security Cuts, Citing Previous Sacrifices
Washington, DC – Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led 17 Members of Congress today in urging the conference committee considering legislation to extend the payroll tax cut through 2012 to oppose any additional cuts to the pay or benefits of Federal employees.
“Federal workers have already made significant sacrifices to help reduce our government’s budget deficit,” the Members wrote. “Subjecting these dedicated public servants to additional pay cuts and retirement benefit reductions in order to pay for such expenditures as a payroll tax cut for all middle class Americans is unfair and illogical, particularly as the vast majority of federal workers are middle-income earners as well. Such cuts would also impede the federal government’s efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest individuals.”
The letter noted that Federal workers are currently subject to a two-year pay freeze that will save $5 billion by the end of 2012 and more than $60 billion over the next decade. Federal workers also face the possibility of furloughs and layoffs in the coming years due to automatic spending reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Below is the complete letter.
January 25, 2012
The Honorable Max Baucus
United States Senate
511 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Baucus:
As you begin meeting to craft a conference report to accompany H.R. 3630, we urge you to oppose any proposals that would require additional cuts to the pay or benefits of our dedicated federal workforce.
Our federal public servants are the hard working men and women who provide vital operational support to our military members; ensure our senior citizens receive their Social Security checks; protect our borders; ensure the safety of our environment, food, and water; treat our wounded veterans; and research cures for cancer and other deadly diseases. Federal employees reside in every state, and they implement every federal program created by Congress. In fact, there are 10,605 federal employees in Montana according to OPM data released last March.
Federal workers have already made significant sacrifices to help reduce our government’s budget deficit. For example, they are currently subject to a two-year pay freeze that will save $5 billion by the end of fiscal year 2012 and more than $60 billion over the next decade. Federal workers are also facing the possibility of furloughs and layoffs in the coming years as automatic spending reductions mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 reduce budgets for agency discretionary salaries and expense accounts.
Subjecting these dedicated public servants to additional pay cuts and retirement benefit reductions in order to pay for such expenditures as a payroll tax cut for all middle class Americans is unfair and illogical, particularly as the vast majority of federal workers are middle-income earners as well. Such cuts would also impede the federal government’s efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest individuals.
We therefore urge you to reject provisions such as those in the House version of H.R. 3630 that would require an additional one-year extension of the federal pay freeze initiated in 2011; impose a 1.5% increase in federal employees’ retirement contributions over a three-year period; and eliminate the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Social Security supplement for most federal workers.
Additionally, we urge you to oppose provisions in the House bill that would make even deeper cuts in the benefits of newly hired employees, who would be referred to as “secure annuity employees.” While most federal employees contribute 0.8% to their retirement pension, under the House-passed bill, secure annuity employees would be obligated to contribute an additional 3.2% to their retirement pension. Further, the “average pay” used to calculate the FERS annuity for these employees would be based on their five highest annual salaries rather than their three highest annual salaries and would be subjected to a reduced FERS benefit accrual rate. If enacted, the combined effect of such changes would lower pension values by roughly 30% for these employees despite requiring a much greater contribution on their part over time.
Given the critical role that federal workers play in making our government work for our citizens, and noting the significant sacrifices they have already made, we urge you to oppose any additional cuts to the pay or benefits of federal employees.
Sincerely,
Elijah E. Cummings Stephen F. Lynch
Ranking Member Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Subcommittee on Federal Workforce,
Government Reform U.S Postal Service, and Labor Policy
Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform
Eleanor Holmes Norton Gerald F. Connolly
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Edolphus Towns Carolyn B. Maloney
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Dennis J. Kucinich Wm. Lacy Clay
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Danny K. Davis Bruce L. Braley
Member of Congress Member of Congress
James P. Moran Bennie G. Thompson
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Lynn Woolsey James P. McGovern
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Adam B. Schiff John P. Sarbanes
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Donna F. Edwards
Member of Congress
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSPERSON, BOTH SENATORS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE REGARDING THIS GRAVE MATTER! YOU ARE ABOUT TO LOSE ABOUT HALF OF YOUR FERS RETIREMENT BENEFITS! IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RETIRE IF THIS HAPPENS! VOTE OUT THE REPUBLICANS AND TEA PARTIERS THAT ARE DESTROYING OUR FERS RETIREMENT BENEFITS! ACT NOW!!!!!!
AS I SAID BEFORE REGARDING THIS GRAVE MATTER: CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSPERSON ,BOTH SENATORS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!!!!! YOUR RETIREMENT BENEFITS ARE ABOUT TO BE CUT IN HALF; IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RETIRE!!!!!! ACT NOW!!!!!
face it, if they take away the FERS Social Security Supplement, and still impose the 2% penalty for retiring early, there No way anybody under 30 years WOULD retire….thats a third of my future retirement,with a penalty on top of it…..I’ll “go slow for more dough” before I accept that bullshit!
It’s the same ole story, the republicans want to take from the middle class and have once again focused on government workers who as the article indicates have already been hit with more then their share of reductions. The people we send to Washington are our think tank for this country which translates to being of sound mind and having good judgment. It is beyond belief that the continued introduction of bills to suck federal employee’s dry is incomprehensible. These are fat cats most being millionaires who receive free everything for themselves and their families. They earn in two weeks what most federal workers earn in a year and they want to dig in the pockets of our government workers who have prided themselves on being a public servant for this country. It is a misnomer that the private sector is under the assumption that federal workers have it better the most. Many federal workers have had to work nights for years, have been forced to work on holiday’s being away from their families, some being away from home for long periods of time all based around serving the people of our great country. As this assault on federal workers continues keep in mind that as a federal worker your spouse on your unfortunate death will only receive 55% as a full survivor benefit which you select when leaving your government service which in turn reduces your retirement by approximately 2%. The private sector worker receives 100%. of their loved one’s benefit. Federal workers are also subjected to WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) which had you paid into social security in prior years before becoming a federal worker and are entitled to a social security benefit it will be reduced by a minimum of 40% when you retire. Also, there is the GPO (Government Pension Offset) which reduces the amount of social security you will receive in retirement if your spouse expires before you. As it is now you would receive 50% of the total amount your spouse was receiving as a benefit at age 65 minus the GPO which is 2/3rds of your monthly government pension. Many times the offset is larger then the benefit leaving nothing as a benefit. With all that said it is without a conscience that these senators proceed with such disregard to suppress the government worker further in taking away earnings rightfully belonging to them. It is status quo for the republican party to condemn the middle class as a threat to the ever present concern that with the right house and senate someday these millionaires may have to pay their fair share of taxes. Mit Romney pays 15% tax, that’s the loop holes that these elected officials by the people set up for themselves. Free health care, free tuition for their kids, business deals, etc; etc;. Warren Buffet’s net worth is 47 BILLION and his secretary pays more tax then he does! That says it all to whom the financial laws are built for. This is exactly the root of the problem, the dems want the rich to pay their fare share and close these loop holes and the rich want no part of that they want the middle class to take the brunt of taxes. The war wages on in congress and the one’s who suffer are the same people who voted them into this position to stiff you…..us!
We offer dental plans…
But in yur case your to far gone. Best advice just shut it.
Unhappy with APWU? Unhappy with the contract? Unhappy with the level of representation you’re getting? Unhappy with loss of 40 hour jobs?
OCCUPY APWU at the 2012 Convention in Los Angeles (August 20-24) at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel (404 S Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA)
OTHERWISE:
Shut up and keeping paying dem dues! And, by the way…stay in line all you lemmings!
You know what this means Issa/Ross? for your attack bills on Federal employees.
Soon November…Tick Tock…You gone…LOL.