GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Honey Pot

• 33866
  

  Ms. Rutzick, we've appreciated your articles for quite some time. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.

  I would like to request your consideration for doing a particular article. It's been quite some time since a REIT fund was talked about for the inclusion into our TSP and I think now would be a particularly effective time for an update; perhaps pointing out the effect the current real estate debacle might have had on our retirement.

  Also, I'd like to bring your attention to a Reader's Digest article. "Real Estate Ripoff" by Michael Crowley (February 07) really opened my eyes as to why there was so much pressure for inclusion of a REIT even as the "bubble" was building.

  Bringing these two aspects of the overall story together during this time just might prevent future pressure by parties having a vested interest in manipulating our retirement. At the very least, it should open a lot of TSP participants' eyes.

  Thank you for your consideration.

  Tip off Posted September 26, 2007 1:37 PM
• 22784
  

  Tom,

  Okay, if you're going to hold me to every thing that Slick did, then I'll have to 'fess up. All of our leaders, including Slick, have done some stupid stuff. Such is the foible of hoisting human leaders on pedestals; or perhaps their own petards.

  In the past, whenever we were attacked and responded, the first thing we did was to grow our armed forces. Granted, Willie didn't have that stimulus; but in 2001, Dubya listened to Don and, rather than start the multi-year process of growth, he reorganized. Don't know what your job is but maybe you've heard about the fiasco that was with Unit Ey and Ex, or some such nonsense; and within a year it was gone. Regardless, such massive changes in our war doctrine, without the necessary growth to sustain it, make for an even less effective military. Growth was denied until most recently as the "last resort". If you're in DoD or TRADOC, you know the budget crisis we currently face.

  Not sure where you got your economics data but the economy took a major hit just after Dubya took office. I will not blame that on him, the economy was simply due. But the response was all his. Cutting taxes only put an average of $200 in the hands of the common folk. That was not a sufficient economic stimulus. The real kick came from the tax breaks given to businesses and those with higher incomes. Combine that with hefty outlays to the heavy-metals industries under a war-time economy; well, that was what caused the national debt to increase so dramatically; more Trickle-down/Voodoo economics laying waste to our children's' futures. This all took from 2001 until 2003 to have any effect and that was only on the single year. Overall growth did not happen until approximately 2005, in his 2nd term. Once more, growth has not been managed and threatens to be a major domestic issue.

  Well, hind sight is golden. As I've said before, there is enough blame to spread all around; but, the particular fiascos that are Iraq and the national debt are all Dubya's. Whether or not we get our monies (and lives) worth will only be seen by our children, and their outlook is not good; just ask them.

  Tip off

  Tip Posted May 7, 2007 10:04 AM
• 22650
  

  Yo Tip! You are right, the reductions did start then. I was a brand new college grad and 2LT active duty in the army! Then in 92, not to be outdone, Slick Willy doubled the amount of Army Divisions to be cut, against all advice! That's how the budget was turned around (partly)! The economy was going well even before the war was started, even after 9/11 and the Enron's and the like by reducing taxes and low and behold tax revenues for the government INCREASED! WOW! How does that work?

  tom Posted May 2, 2007 5:55 PM
• 22639
  

  Okay, Tom, I'll agree there are some rabid anti-Dubya folks out here (I'll try not to salivate) but, you've got to admit, supporting a wartime economy is relatively easy. You just throw money at it. Have you seen at the deficit lately? Slick Willie beat it down without spending more. Bill had even greater growth in the stock market without busting the budget. Okay, I must give MUCH of that to Mr. Greenspan but still...

  And for those who keep blaming him for cutting our forces, that's was going on before he got in office. The first two BRAC rounds were held in 1989 and 1991. I.e. they were started by Ronnie and held by George (the 1st).

  I did forget to mention in my previous posting, I do NOT understand why they are keeping Terry Duffy on retainer. Isn't that where you pay someone anticipating their performance at a later date? Seems like a case of non-performance. Perhaps he is kept on because he is known to go along with their agenda but, really now, can't we get an interested party in there?

  Tip off.

  GovExec.com reader Posted May 2, 2007 12:29 PM
• 22628
  

  rds, You are incorrigible! Everything that ever happens is President Bush's fault to you! Get a grip and a life! By the way, the economy is well and so is the TSP accounts growth over the Bush Administration watch! But of course, the reason it is still doing well is because of some late wave of affect from Slick Willy's doing! Come up for air or back away from the Kool-aid!

  tom Posted May 1, 2007 5:49 PM
• 22489
  

  I'm not sure if this article is toeing the party line or not, but I must agree that Gary Amelio's tenure with the TSP board was a net gain. This TSP is a different animal than I joined up with just a mere nine years ago. I had to wait a year before participating and by then the market was in throes. Book keeping appeared sketchy at best, and transactions took seemingly forever.

  If some of these changes had been in effect back then, I think my future would be sitting much prettier. As it is now people like myself, with an interest in active participation, have the tools we need to succeed; and folks who split a desire for stability with a longing for gains, sprinkled with a lack of knowledge and trepidation have a series of graduated self-adjusting funds that carry little cost but don't do bad in the returns department.

  I know there will always be room for improvement, particularly in the eyes of the beholder, but I truly appreciate the pugnacious defense from the fiddling fingers of our friends in Congress. Perhaps the REITs would have been a good move, even if they comprise a very special/select market, but I loath the tinkering with my retirement by those who stand to personally gain in contributions. Perhaps they would have gained credibility if they had not had a vested interest in passing such a requirement.

  I have two hopes for the future. One is that the incoming president proves to be as professional as the outgoing, and two is that we improve the methodology of customer feedback and/or input.

  Tip off

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 24, 2007 11:37 AM
• 22430
  

  Think back to when the last problem with the TSP began and you find it all started with the Bush Administration. These people get good plans messed up just because they can. I wish they would leave our money alone and keep their hands off the investment plans. All they do is make people afraid of the good the plan can have for many FERS employees who will receive less retirement than those in CSRS.

  Can't wait until the next election.

  rds Posted April 20, 2007 6:55 PM