Return to Article: Coveted Benefits
-
19815
Going back to "Personal Finances 101," the intent of Social Security is to be one of the three "legs" of retirement income for Americans; with savings and business retirement funds (now mostly 401(k) plans) being the other two. Under the current system, these each depend on separate sources for funding, allowing a wobbly if not totally stable financial position should any one leg fail.
Sometimes old adages are repeated due to their truth, and my first thought is: "Never put all your eggs in one basket."
Should Social Security be switched to a market based plan, such as the TSP, a market failure would be catastrophic not only to that fund but also, potentially, to any participant of 401(k)s or the TSP; thereby knocking two of the three legs out from under those dependent on them. Not only would the general civilian population suffer, so would the Defense Department civilians depending on both the TSP and Social Security.
Additionally many people, unfortunately, consider their TSP or 401(k) to be that third leg, their savings.
Tip off.
-
17251
The Federal Thrift Savings Plan is a great program, but should logically only be used only as a model for retirement savings in addition to current hard earned Social Security benefits. Federal employees' retirement includes the Thrift Savings Plan, Social Security benefits, and a pension based on years of public service. To replace Social Security with higher-risk options available in the Thrift Savings Plan could result in harm to hard working Americans.
-
17232
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., was at the Mayo Clinic for substance abuse treatment. I think that kind of treatment is not generally paid for by FEHBP policies. Perhaps Rep. Kennedy has a FEHBP policy and private insurance.
It seems unlikely that Congress would force employers to offer FEHBP participation because the employer has to pay part of the premium. The candidate Republican Mark Kennedy makes it seem like taxpayers have to pay the $1.6 trillion (if one believes that number). Employers would pay that amount and they would only do so if they were getting a better deal than private insurance. This would be revenue neutral and neutral or beneficial to consumers.
On the other hand, we civil servants should be concerned that opening the program to anyone would ruin a good deal for us. I'm, no economist, so I don't have a guess as to whether increased participation would be beneficial or detrimental to civil service.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.