Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Evading an agenda

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Evading an agenda.

Here are the responses we have received to the June 19 Ned on Feds column, "Evading an agenda "

Ned is extremely partisan. Get rid of him.

-Name withheld

Well at least this gentleman comes clean! A true political partisan who has no qualms about trying to influence those who read him to support one candidate over the other, despite his insistance that there really is "no appreciable" difference between the two national candidates for President concerning "meaningful" overhaul. I just adore someone who proposes that employees who have and are contributing to their Congressional established defined benefit retirement as " a liability". Get real, GovExec.

- Name withheld

Suppose we have one senator from each state and one rep for every million people or major fraction thereof. Think of how much staff and space this would save. This would also reduce the egos which take up even more space and cost billions of dollars to placate.

-Bob Katzen

Thanks for clarifying your points about "partnerships." I agree with the preponderence of your statements as well as their underlying premise, but question the effectiveness of Fed labor organizations. DOErs are represented by the NTEU. My experience is that the NTEU sometimes serves to alert members to issues affecting their pay and benefits and acts as a focal point to represent members' interests before the Hill and the Exec Branch. But as to the NTEU's clout, it's better known for wringing its hands and gnashing its teeth.

(Please don't conclude that I think unions should be powerful. On the contrary, I generally believe that Labor union leaders are like tort lawyers and casino operators, they create no new value. Instead, they redistribute value created by others while taking their percentage off the top).

I also have a couple of questions. First, do all of the duplicative federal sector entites you list exclusively serve federal employees? Second, in what way has the TSP been ineffectively managed?

-Jeff

Mr. Lynch,

This question stems from your recent article titled "Evading an Agenda." In the short period of time I have been reading your column, I have come to enjoy your commentaries and position on different issues of interest to the federal community.

In this column, you mentioned that the TSP is "ineffectively administered" and alluded to the need for reform. This is intriguing to me since most agencies and TSP/Benefit administrators (myself included) have been under the impression that the TSP is one of the best federal programs in terms of long-term benefits for an employee's retirement future, minimal costs to administer, good investment returns, independence of the agency, etc. Again, most of the information relating to the TSP plan is always positive, but I also know you can't believe everything you read.

Thus, I would appreciate your insight in future columns regarding this essential and crucial benefit for federal employees, and if possible, an answer to your claim on the need for TSP reform.

Thank you,

-Ernest G. Espinoza
Personnel Management Specialist
Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts