GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Lawmakers, witnesses debate fairness of pension provisions

• 66220
  

  I'm a retired CSRS employee. Prior to my civil service career I all ready had 40 quarters. Now I have been working in the private sector again and paying my fair share for the past nine years. According to this formular I will never collect one nickel. If I were to draw at age 70 I would have invested 25 yrs paying into SS. Why shoud there be a GPO at all. All I ask for is fairness. What's the point sending me my statement every December showing me numbers that I'll never receive what a joke.

  Edward Newman Posted January 9, 2009 5:00 PM
• 57264
  

  I, too, am a 30-year retired federal employee. I have written everyone I can about the GPO/WEP. This is one of the most grossly unfair pieces of legislation ever passed. I retired 12 years ago from Government. I have worked in the public sector long enough to have 40 quarters of Social Security and full retirement age of 67 years & 10 months. I am also divorced.

  If I had worked in the private sector, I could draw that full pension plus SS. In addition, if I had been a stay-at-home wife, I could have drawn on my husband never having paid one red cent. This is so unfair. I have never asked for anything I did not work for. Have never drawn one penny of unemployment or food stamps. Have worked 50 plus years.

  Our Government has taken funds from our Social Security to fund everything under the sun. They use that fund daily to pay bills and then never pay it back. It is full of I.O.U.s.

  Let's not forget all of the foreign aid that is paid to other countries for a sundry list of things too. Some of these funds could be used to fund the repeal of the GPO/WEP. I always thought charity began at home.

  You can believe if this affected the people in Washington, they would be fast doing something about it.

  I only want what I have worked for. If they are not going to give it to us, then quit taking it out of my paycheck and give me back what I have paid in.

  The teachers who retired in Texas up until 2003 would work until retirement and then the last day of retirement work under a Social Security covered job and draw full retirement. They changed this law in 2003; however, they did not go back and take back the monies from those who got it illegally. They were allowed to keep it. Another travesty!!! I worked long enough to earn all 40 quarters not just one day.

  Oh well, I may not live long enough to see this changed. Hopefully, someone will.

  Thanks for letting me vent.

  Catherine L. Glass Posted August 26, 2008 3:54 PM
• 42941
  

  I am not for paying anyone anything they have not earned (except in dire circumstances - reference the concept of "noblesse oblige"); but if you paid for a benefit, you should receive that benefit. Yes I must note that, as seen in several of Tammy's articles, given the same last 3 years' income, 30 years of service; the basic FERS retirement equates to 40-45% of a CSRS retirement.

  But, my spouse (CSRS), like many others, paid into SS prior to her current employment, will as likely after retirement, and should receive what she earned. I (FERS) also paid for survivor benefits (40 years of military & civilian careers upon retirement) for her; and she should be entitled to that as well. Even putting these two together, they will only be minuscule and she will be existing on near-poverty level income after I'm gone; after supporting our people and government during a 30 year career.

  In an effort to ensure she has sufficient funds to live without the largess of others, I'm chunking every cent I can into the TSP; which I might add reduces my own Social Security entitlement by lowering my taxable income. But what am I to do?

  Well, the TSP board thinks very few civil servant would take advantage of a TSP Roth plan, but it is just such a plan that would allow government employees, such as myself, to put away a little retirement change without lowering our income basis for later SS payments.

  I keep wondering if there are any competent CPAs within the beltway, and then I remember how they get us both coming AND going.

  Tip off Posted February 4, 2008 12:29 PM
• 42178
  

  Social Security is well on its way down the path to becoming a vehicle for income redistribution that masquerades as pension and insurance system.

  Paul M. Posted January 24, 2008 3:26 PM
• 42160
  

  The WEP and the GPO were passed by Congress just because they could take from the Gov. employees. Rep McKoen (CA) introduced HR 147 in 2005 which would repeal the GPO and WEP. It had 302 cosponsors but has not been acted upon. If repealed it would restore proper retirement to thousands. Contact your congressman and get it going.

  Ken Ross Posted January 24, 2008 12:34 PM
• 42147
  

  What SSA is trying to do is slowly eliminate survivors' benefits. Or reduce the amount you will receive as a survivor (widow or widower) so that you will not want to collect on their account (because the benefit is reduced for survivors), but collect on your own earnings. And the survivors' benefit depends on age and whether you have minor children, ranging from 50 to 90% of the average of the contributor's highest-paying 35-year earnings contributions (for all US residents, not just federal or other government employees.)

  Teresa P Bland Posted January 24, 2008 10:56 AM
• 42133
  

  I worked for private industry for 15 years before coming to work for the government. I have 31 years with the government am 66 yrs old and collecting my full Social Security, but when I reteire I will have SS cut by 40%. I don't think it's fair to cut SS when I realy need it. Why are only government worker being punished? The private sector can collect SS a pension from the company for whom they work.

  Robert Francolino Posted January 24, 2008 9:39 AM
• 42129
  

  I hear the complaints from people about "Double Dipping" govt. Workers - but I EARNED my SSN, for 16 years of work PRIOR to coming to work for the Govt.! I paid into the system just as anyone else would have. If I had NOT gone to work for the Feds - I could now sign up for SSN (since I am over 62) for FULL benefits, now my amount would be greatly reduced. This is very unfair as I EARNED my 40 Quarters prior to my Fed Employment. OUR SSN system sometimes makes a person want to 'do nothing' and still get a monthly check!!!!

  Gerry Posted January 24, 2008 9:32 AM
• 42111
  

  I have 31+ years @ 52, with no personal future SS benefits, however my husband of 35 yrs. has paid in a large sum. If I understand it, CSRS widows who have lost their spouse can draw their full spouse's check as long as they work, the reduction is after they retire, explains folks working as many additional years as they can, see it in the workforce now & may have to be one myself someday, working past my prime to save $ to off-set the off-set. Good to know, thanks, has any CSRS made it to 50 years

  Nancy Thigpen Posted January 24, 2008 8:21 AM
• 42088
  

  Yeah, Scott, it's true that CSRS employees didn't have to pay 6.2 % of their income into Social Security like you FERS employees do. Instead, we paid 7.5 % of our income into CSRS every paycheck, so we could collect an annuity when we retire. The CSRS pension is not free, we had to pay for it too. Just thought you should know.

  ICEd Posted January 23, 2008 6:16 PM
• 41984
  

  Funny how the CSRS folks (who, by the way, had options) are raising issues now when they are retiring vs. earlier when they were working?? Think they may have been concerned about having to pay into Social Security like everyone else??? Cake & eat it, too, perhaps??

  RA Posted January 22, 2008 4:14 PM
• 41944
  

  I am a CSRS Offset employee and have worked for over 38 years. I recently retired and WEP will be applied to my retirement annuity check. This will result in a hardship for my family as my husband is disabled and does not qualify for any benefits other than a small retirement check from SSA. WEP will affect his benefit check as well on my retirement. Even though the WEP and GPO was intended to make civilian retirement more fair it has resulted in penalizing women who performed the low paying jobs in the federal system. The system is equal now because women have a fair chance for the higher paying jobs which was not available to women in the past. I feel I am entitled to my full social security retirement and my full CSRS retirement benefits. I support repealing both of these provisions.

  Carmelita C. Stith Posted January 22, 2008 8:54 AM
• 41931
  

  I find it absurd that those in favor of eliminating the GPO argue that "if these workers had worked anywhere except the Federal Government, they would receive spousal/surving spousal benefits." Yeah, and THEY WOULD HAVE PAID INTO THE SYSTEM TOO!

  CSRS employees already have a thousand advantages over FERS employees, not the least of which is double the pension. But, let's not forget that CSRS workers never had to pay 6.2% of their income into Social Security like the FERS employees do. So, they get their double-pensions sooner than FERS employees (who now wait until up to age 57 for minimum full retirement age, and up to 67 for full Social Security retirement), and they got a 6.2% bonus all through their working years. So, OF COURSE we should give them another freebee!

  The other thing I don't get is why should the GPO be eliminated before the WEP? At least with the WEP, one can make a credible argument that the employee should collect their own Social Security benefit on their own contributions to the system in non-federal employment. Yet, the GPO seems to be on the chopping-block before WEP.

  Scott Posted January 21, 2008 10:53 PM
• 41916
  

  I've often wondered why women are entitled to 1/2 of their spouse's SSI earnings or their own, whichever is greater, even before they are widowed, and regardless of financial need. Over 1/3 of SSI benefits are paid to dependents who did not fully contribute toward their benefits. SSI benefits return close to 90% of final wages to the lowest income folks, and about 15% or less to the highest income folks. The low income subsidy should be retained in the SSI offset rules instead of an across the board 2/3 reduction. But the whole concept of how SSI benefits are set for married couples should be reviewed as well.

  margaret Posted January 21, 2008 12:08 PM
• 41909
  

  Let's look who had this put in to effect. Ronald Regan. I sure Mr Windfall, got a pension as California Governer, as President of the Screen Actors Guild, O and how about a little Pension for being the President of the United States. Want to check if Nancy is getting his SS without any reduction???? And we would be getting a windfall, if you are intitled to SS, has had to pay into it to be able to get something. Maybe if we were paid like the privite sector we would not have to have gotten a 2nd. job.

  Paul Posted January 20, 2008 7:33 PM
• 41908
  

  What can I add to the above comments that hasn't already been said? The inequity is obvious to anyone with a modicum of brainpower. This is not rocket science. Just return my SS contributions, _with interest_, that represent the SS benefit that I'm being denied - or, roll the time equivalent of the same SS contributions over into my CSRS annuity calculation. Don't just STEAL my money! Lesson to all US citizens - If the Govt can steal my money by denying my SS benefit on a trumped up CSRS excuse, IT CAN ALSO STEAL YOURS! Still think Social Security will be there when YOUR time comes?

  Dave Posted January 20, 2008 6:57 PM
• 41878
  

  Thanks, to everyone who wrote in and lobbied to the people who make decisions.Now i hope OUR Government will treat its entire Federal workforce a little better than it has in the past.

  Sam Posted January 18, 2008 7:07 PM
• 41819
  

  To me the bottom line is that individuals are entitled to what they have earned. If a career civil service employee has worked other jobs and has earned the number of quarters required by SS to qualify for benefits than they should received those benefits. It doesn't matter if you have 40 quarters or 40 years of employment under SS, they both qualify you for the entitlement.

  Any reduction to what one has earned is a unfair treatment by Congress and should be eliminated.

  Dave Posted January 18, 2008 10:05 AM
• 41817
  

  What everyone seems to be missing is that none of this was done with fairness in mind. Yes, if you pay into a retirement program and SS you should get the full amount of benefit for each, but that will never happen. The reason is that the Congress has to find a way to keep SS solvent, and it should surprise no-one that it's on the backs of federal civil servants.

  Max Posted January 18, 2008 9:42 AM
• 41792
  

  To illustrate the inequity regarding the WEP and POS imposition on civil servants versus retired military. A subordinate of mine had retired from the military (20 years),and had 19 years in CSRS. He converted his military time to Civil service for a total time of 39 years and retired as a CSRS retiree. Yes, he had to deposit for the 20 years he did not contribute to the Civil service system for this benefit, but he still retained his entitlement of receiving full social security benefits because he had paid into the system while in the military. No WEP/POS applied here. This is good for this type of individual, but why should there be a bias against the civilian and such an inequity when it comes to fairness regarding Social Security etitlements.

  Harry Posted January 17, 2008 11:07 PM
• 41786
  

  Very simple. I worked as a Government employee for 35 years and paid my contribution in the the CSRS. Prior to Government employement I worked after school earining $.75/hr for 4 years. I paid what was required in to the SS from these earnings After retiring from the Government I now work as a self-employeed paying doubly in to the SS. Because of GPO and WEP my SS entitilement which I will be eligible soon will be reduced considerably because of my employement under CSRS. I consider this to be totally unfair and even discriminatory. These 2 policies should be challenged as unconstituional because they single out CSRS and other public employees. I agree, if you did not pay into SS then you should not be entitled. However, when you pay into each system then you should receive the same benefit given others.

  John Cunningham Posted January 17, 2008 9:09 PM
• 41777
  

  I worked 10 years seasonal. I did not have a choice I was put into FERS. Any questions?

  mike Posted January 17, 2008 5:46 PM
• 41771
  

  All this arguing over a GPO and WEF, yet no one is addressing the issue as to why a retired military person can keep his entire retainer pay and yet work in the private sector or become a civil servant and reap the benefits of both a full retirement and social security. The argument that they served is fine, but how about those civilians who served also in direct support of overseas conflicts such as Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Cosovo, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq? Why not give full social security and full retirement to those civilians who served?

  William Bidlack Posted January 17, 2008 4:31 PM
• 41767
  

  If you worked for the Feds prior to 1984 you don't have SS coming

  dan ketter Posted January 17, 2008 4:14 PM
• 41766
  

  I have worked 50 years under SSI.I have worked under FERS 23 years of that 50. When I retire I might get 1300 a month under SSI maybe 1100 FERS retirement. What kind of retirement dose some one who has worked 30 under USGS get. Who gets the best deal?

  Mike Posted January 17, 2008 4:06 PM
• 41758
  

  WEP is nothing more than the some old thing of Government slipping its hand into your back pocket - even while you're awake. We need to keep replacing legislators who refuse to eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision. And, "windfall" who you kiddin'? A couple hundred more in my pocket as a retiree will go a long way to help the economy of this nation now that we are facing a recession. Instead of an across-the-board tax break, who better deserves to get the full benefit of SS than those of us who paid into it over the years and dedicated a career working for Uncle Sam? Of course its not fair. But, who will step up and do the right thing? Instead of railing on these forums, we all should be on the phone to our representatives; and, that's where I'm going right now!

  M. Corbett, CSRS Retiree & SS eligible Posted January 17, 2008 2:43 PM
• 41756
  

  I worked for the government for 20 plus years (CSRS) and have now worked outside of the government for 25 years of paying social security. I believe that I am entitled to my full social security benefit instead of a greatly reduced social security benefit. Yet if I work for five more years, I will be entitled to the full social security benefit. Unfortunately, that isn't possible.

  Bob Posted January 17, 2008 2:38 PM
• 41754
  

  Dan Keeter has it all backwards. FERS do not have an offset CSRS does. Any sane person would want to collect what is due. I myself do not care about GPO but I do care about WEP because I have worked in adition to my federal position at jobs in the private sector and have reached eligability for SS except it will be reduced because my proimary work was on the fed side. When I retire and take another position in the private sector I will still have to pay SS taxes but never be able to collect my full pension.

  GB Posted January 17, 2008 2:31 PM
• 41744
  

  Its my understanding that there is no offset to the CSRS pension since your paying SS for the enrire time you work for the Feds. The offset onlt applies to FERs as it should, why should you get a full share of SS when you haven't contributed like everyone else. Military pay SS their entire career and are entitled to what ever the system says they should get based on contribution.

  The folks complaining today worked and contributed for 10 years but want a payment as if they have contributed their whole life, its as if they hit the lottery invset $2 and win $10,000 for life.

  Anthony brings up a point about widows who aren't covered when their spouse dies and loose they Fed pension. While I symptizes with them they had to sign a waiver that said they realized that when their spouse die they got "0". They opted to take a full pension today and roll the dice in the future. It may sound harsh but it came up snake eyes

  dan ketter Posted January 17, 2008 1:07 PM
• 41738
  

  I honestly believe that if you have paid into social security and have earned enough quarters, you should be entitled to receive the full amount of the social security benefit when you retire because you have earned it. To have it reduced because you have worked for the federal government under CSRS is grossly unfair and should not be tolerated. To make it equitable, social security should consider refunding a percentage of the contributions made by these employees.

  S Xavier Posted January 17, 2008 12:50 PM
• 41732
  

  The GPO and WEP legislation inflicts hardship on those of us who have contributed to SS and continue to contribute to the nation as Federal employees. Repeal of the GPO and WEP will allow me money enough to care for my wheelchair ridden spouse in our home and not in an assisted living facility following my retirement. I worked hard for the money paid into SS and now more than ever need it not for the enjoyment of retirement but for the demands of being a loving caregiver.

  Kevin McKelvey Posted January 17, 2008 11:37 AM
• 41730
  

  I worked in private industry and paid in to Social Security for 17 years before I started my Government Career. To retire after 25 years with the Government, why do I have to be penalized for the amount I paid into SS for 17 years. If I worked for a corporation and received a retirement benefit, I would receive my full SS Benefits. I think anyone who has paid in to SS should receive their full benefits.

  Barbara Posted January 17, 2008 11:24 AM
• 41722
  

  This is a very complex issue given the problems with future funding of social security. I work for the federal government, but for many years I worked in the private sector, and paid lots of social security tax. My wife also worked in the private sector for years, but now is a school teacher. Lots of people live as single people, or have multiple divorces and spouses, choose not to have children, or are single parents. Bottom line is the marriage is both a choice and an economic unit. Spouses who stay together and raise a family work together to provide for all members of the family jointly not independently. They contribute to our society and are productive. People who have no children or who divorce or have children single have made life choices of their own, and these impact their economics. Studies show that the traditional family has the best chance of producing contributing citizens. Federal Employees or their spouses ought not be penalized for their committment to an institution that brings so msny benefits to society. This is like the marriage penalty that is in the tax code. If something happens to me I don't want my spouse's funds cut just when she needs them most in old age and retirement. It is simply not fair. Congress should be encouraging marriage and the family unit not hurting it. I don't mind at all contributing to support for fellow citizens in need, but don't balance this burden on my spouse's back when I am gone and she can least afford it.

  Average Citizen Posted January 17, 2008 10:22 AM
• 41721
  

  Why should Government employees be penelized for giving their all to our government. We pay social security to people who do not even pay into our social security system. We give them free medical benefits. All of this is at the expense of the American people and especially the government employee. The pay disparity between men and women has always been talked about, but nothing has been done. Now the final insult is this GPO/WEP.

  Diane A. Downing Posted January 17, 2008 10:14 AM
• 41718
  

  This shouldn't be that hard. Set a minimum threshold of retirement benefits that does not impact the Social Security Benefit. Then scale the reduction of SS benefits (survivor or otherwise) from there. Widows and widowers whose federal careers were in low paying jobs would be minimally impacted, or not impacted at all. Then the system could scale the reduction as appropriate to prevent the highly paid retiree from getting a SS benefit beyond what they earned. (As I understand it the GPO was initially created for this reason. Because social security is weighted to reward lower paid employees at a higher rate of return, a highly paid CSRS employee could work side jobs covered by Social Security for minimal pay, and receive a substantial benefit they weren't intended to receive.)

  Tryan Toobefair Posted January 17, 2008 10:04 AM
• 41716
  

  I have met many widows that have had spouses that did not leave spousal benefits, because they were under the impression that the funds would automatically transfer to their widows, that in turn were working 2 or more part jobs to just maintain their standard of living, along with their regular jobs. To see many of these widows have to suffer through bankrupcty due to loss of income is harsh for many widows that believed that they were actually going to be able to live in their home or pay for maintenance on their vehicles or buy medicine without becoming fincially embarrsed.

  Anthony Gomez Posted January 17, 2008 9:59 AM
• 41715
  

  SS should be revamped. Just think if you want to work after retirement you must pay SS $1 dollar for every $2 you earn. Can one or someone in the know explain this rational. Or do I just stave or don't pay a bill.Idiots in charge.

  Crab Posted January 17, 2008 9:44 AM
• 41713
  

  I am not sure why those of us who are Federal retirees AND have paid (or are still paying) into the Social Security system can't receive the full Social Security benefits due to us. If the reason is that we receive "adequate retirement income" from a non-Social Security source, why isn't this rule applied to everyone with non Social Security income from other sources after retirement.

  Alternatively, we shouldn't have to pay full Social Security costs if we work after retiring on our Federal pensions.

  Kiki Munshi Posted January 17, 2008 9:33 AM
• 41712
  

  I am not sure why those of us who are Federal retirees AND have paid (or are still paying) into the Social Security system can't receive the full Social Security benefits due to us. If the reason is that we receive "adequate retirement income" from a non-Social Security source, why isn't this rule applied to everyone with non Social Security income from other sources after retirement.

  Alternatively, we shouldn't have to pay full Social Security costs if we work after retiring on our Federal pensions.

  Kiki Munshi Posted January 17, 2008 9:33 AM
• 41711
  

  What about the federal employees that are not married (have no surviving spouse)? They are penalized by the GPO, especially when most of the social security holdings were earned outside of government employment.

  Nora Bryant Posted January 17, 2008 9:33 AM
• 41705
  

  The Government didn't hesitate to collect my payments into the system. Also, more importantly, the CSRS is an annuity and NOT a pension. We pay into the CSRS just like any other annuity. A pension does not require paying anything into it's system in order to collect benefits.

  Ben Gibson Posted January 17, 2008 9:12 AM
• 41700
  

  WEP unreasonably discriminates against those who served their country in civil service. Someone who earned and receives a pension from the military or a large private company doesn't have to give up some of the Social Security they also earn and are forced to pay for. They don't give me the choice of keeping the $5K or $6K I pay into social security each year now, but when someday I go to claim the meager $200/month, the Government will take 5/9ths of it away.

  Just as bad, almost all my CSRS pension is taxed, but some of Social Security is tax exempt.

  Dan Posted January 17, 2008 8:52 AM
• 41692
  

  Unless I missed something, above article does not address individuals who earned their own Social Security benefits by working in the local community prior to employment with the federal government. This affects both men and women and the fact we are penalized for working for the federal government is TOTALLY unfair. It is not a spousal benefit-it is something we worked for, earned and counted on upon retirement to make ends meet. I am 67 years old, have medical problems, have met retirement requirements, but must keep working to pay my bills due to the offset/windfall provisions. Something is bad wrong and we deserve recognition and correction of problem. PLEASE HELP. I would be willing to testify to how devastating this has been and will continue to be for me if something is not done. Please insure my comment gets to the people who can act on our behalf. Overturn of the current policy would enable me to retire and enjoy the fruits of my 48 years of labor (24 in the private sector and 24 w/federal government). Thank you for this opportunity for input.

  Carol. H. Edwards Posted January 17, 2008 8:32 AM
• 41691
  

  The government needs to stop trying to balance the budget and pay for their ill conceived wars from funds designed for retirees and widows of those retirees who worked all their lives, many for 30 and 40 years, and have no other options for supporting themselves after retiring. Just try to get a job after you hit 50 or 55 years of age. Not a pretty picture we paint. It's OK to use government monies to support illegal immigrants but not those people who work for all those years? If the government doesn't have the money to support its bureaucracy, it needs to decrease the size of its bureaucracy, not break promises made to people in good faith.

  Concerned government employee Posted January 17, 2008 8:30 AM
• 41689
  

  Just another attempt to milk future generations of their social security monies. They are not at a disadvantage. The GPO is an attempt to not reward people who did not pay a penny into the s.s.system. The WEP is to designed to balance account for individuals that are not low income (as they appear to be when calculating their s.s. benefits) b/c they are receiving a govt pension. Don't let special interest groups rob America's future generations of their retirement due as well. These folks are getting (or had access to) a very generous retirement plan, nicer than any civilian plans out there. Stand fast politicians! There are folks behind you.

  Bill Posted January 17, 2008 8:28 AM
• 41688
  

  I worked 46 years all together. I worked 22 years in federal government and 24 years in private industry - paying social security.

  If I retired on my social security and had no federal service, I would receive @$1200 a month.

  But because I worked federal government for 22 years, I only will receive $500 a month. My Governmnet retirement is $1300 a month before taxes and health insurance - my net is @900 a month. This is hardly enough to live on.

  I feel as though I am being penalized because I worked 46 years. If I had only worked 24 years in private industry I would have $700 more a month.

  vivian ridgway Posted January 17, 2008 8:25 AM
• 41687
  

  I got my 40 plus quarters paid before I became a Fed. I paid in good faith. My ss would not be big, about 600 a month. This will be cut in half. Why?

  Am I a criminal because I got a civil service job? I am not a high grade and this cut will hurt me.

  Little Guy Posted January 17, 2008 8:22 AM
• 41685
  

  If any individual EARNS the SS benefit, regardless of source of employment and any other retirement benefit, the SS benefit payout and associated provisions are not the business of the government. My father and mother were eligible for SS benefits as well as a federal retirement for my dad. He made provisions for my mom in the event of his death. The government tried to deny SS benefits to mom because of his fed retirement. My CPA brother was able to correct the error.

  Tom de Seve Posted January 17, 2008 8:09 AM
• 41684
  

  I am 67 and still working, and as long as I work I can draw my social security I earned before working for the govt. As soon as I retire I will lose that SS benefit because I start drawing my federal retirement. That will be the time I will need it. My fed. ret will only be $24000. after 34 yrs of govt. service

  Carolyn Rayburn Posted January 17, 2008 8:03 AM
• 41682
  

  I don't understand it when people equate Social Security with a federal pension. A federal pension is not an "entitlement". Federal workers earn their pension just like employees in the private sector earn their pension - through their loyalty to their organization, years of hard work and meeting eligibility requirements. Many private sector workers get full Social Security (when eligible) AND a pension. Or their spouse gets full Social Security benefits when eligible, and also benefit from their spouse's pension. Why do we need to "offset" anything when we are talking about a federal pension? Why are federal workers singled out for this bizarre view of "fairness"? Whay aren't private sector workers penalized in the same way? After all they get a pension, too. When my wife retires she will not get full Social Security benefits she is entitle to, having worked in the private sector for 25 years now (and without having any pension at all), merely because she is married to me. Where is the fairness in that? Maybe she should divorce me, refuse any rights to my pension, and get the full Social Security benefits she is entitled to. I guess we can just live in sin together after that, but we will be financially better off.

  JT Posted January 17, 2008 8:00 AM
• 41681
  

  The WEP is definitely unfair to those who worked two jobs (one public and one private sector) to support their families. As the oldest of five children, I watched my father, a recently retired firefighter, work two jobs to support the family. I don't feel that it's "double dipping" for him to get his full social security when he worked full-time, as a carpenter, to make up the difference between what he was paid as a firefighter and what was really needed to provide for his family. He actually paid his "quarters" unlike some of those who have never fully paid into the system yet, through the magic of government entitlement programs, have somehow become more entitled to the money that was the result of the sweat equity that my father and others like him contributed to the system but are not entitled to. Seeing my mother having to financially suffer because of my father's decision to work as a public servant is a wrong that needs to be corrected.

  Son of a Retired Firefighter Posted January 17, 2008 7:57 AM
• 41663
  

  Scenario - retired military who work for the Govt and would be entitled to a Gov't retirement do not get penalized by GPO and WEP. Scenario - retired military who worked for the Gov't and convert their military time to a full service Gov't retirement, do not get penalized by GPO and WEP.

  Scenario - Reserve personnel who are entitled to a retirement, and also entitled to a Gov't retirement (CSRS) do not get penalized by GPO and WEP.

  Scenario - Someone in industry can draw several retirement entitlements/pensions and not be penalized by GPO and WEP. If fairness is the focus - why is the Gov't civilian retirement the lightning rod for the GPO and WEP - Solely, public Perception?? It seems to me that a person is entitled to receive all and as many pension entitlements/benefits that they have worked for and paid into. As they say -retire early and retire often.

  Harry Posted January 16, 2008 7:53 PM
• 41662
  

  I read the testimony offered by the GAO and others claiming that workers who have entitlements under both the SS system and governmentn pensions receive overly advantageous SS benefits. That testimony is grossly in error. I have paid into SS for about 13 years and have a 33 year government career. With reductions my SS benefit would be around $200 monthly. If those years were applied to my government work my pension would rise by almost $1000 monthly. The average SS benefit with 30 years is somewhat near $1200. Why not calculate 13/30ths as a fair benefit without a reduction. The present formula is unfair. Check the PA teachers benefit. They joined ss only a short time ago for 2% more in deductions.

  Charles McCollum Posted January 16, 2008 7:31 PM