Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Who needs early outs?

DAILY BRIEFING

Reader responses to Ned on Feds - Who needs early outs?

Here are the responses we have received to the June 5 Ned on Feds column, "Who needs early outs? "

Ned states that "Many private employers will pay premiums to people who demonstrate their ability through effective performance in federal positions.

The federal retirement system should not subsidize their future employers through additional incentives, especially when agencies allegedly have important needs for their skills."

I find it interesting that anyone could hold this view for one part of the Federal Government when I am sure there opinions are 180 degrees different for the other side of the Federal Government.

I am of course referring to the military service where it is possible for an individual to retire at the ripe age of 37 (rather and 55) with 20 years service (rather than 30 years service) and receive full benefits into retirement, including among many other benefits, free medical (including dental) for themselves and their families.

For many years employers have taken advantage of this situation, and received the full support of the legislative and executive branches, even when the services are requesting additional incentive to attract new employees as they are not able to make their quotas.

-Name withheld

Most of us are not as fortunate as Mr. Gracey (who took early retirement at 51 with 30 years.) We are not SES and do not carry with us anywhere near what he got in retirement benefits.

Some military branches are wisely looking toward the future by offering early out and hiring in a younger workforce that have new ideas and can virtually restructure the federal government. This will benefit the government in the long run as well as economy by providing jobs for young people, just out of college, looking for work.

So everyone benefits: the government with a new, fresh workforce, government employees who retire and are allowed to pursue some pleasure in their lives before they become so incapacitated that they have to go straight to a nursing home, and college graduates who would now be able to find employment because job vacancies have been created.

- Name withheld

Ned, Your point is well-stated and well taken in the first sentence of your final paragraph, though, as always, I take issue with your reducing everything to an economic argument.

Early-Outs may indeed be ineffective from a financial perspective. Those that promote them from a financial perspective usually cite "new blood" and lower pay rates for younger, less experienced workers.

Since I hope to take advantage of an Early Out, I hope your arguments are less than persuausive.

The last sentence in that same paragraph, however, betrays your biases. You assume that the "colleagues" are less attractive because they are less talented. My experience in both the public and private sectors reveal that talent or merit, for that matter, is only one of many factors in any selection decision. Sometimes the selection decision is even determined by the candidate's apparent willingness to misuse his or her talents on behalf of the selector.

Such willingness may indeed be valuable to the selector, but I would not characterize this as talent.

The example also points out the danger of reducing discussions of value to purely economic considerations.

-Jeff Lenhert

In reading the latest Ned on Feds article (that discussed retirement in general and Social Security in specific) my blood pressure started to rise again. For many years I have viewed the debate over HOW to save Social Security with great rage. Before I progress too far let me divulge that I will not be of retirement age for nearly 15 years. Either because I am smarter than average or just scared by the bad press around the subject, I have been saving for my own retirement rather than trusting politicians to do the right thing.

It seems that anyone involved wants the OTHER party to propose the eventual tax increases that will make the system sound again (similar to what was done when Reagan took office). Not being as closely involved as these people the answer seems crystal clear to me. REQUIRE members of Congress to be covered by Social Security. If this were done then congress (past, present and future) will stop playing political football with Social Security (a practice that was outlawed in the 1800's which dictated the closing of bars on election day) and make sure it were solvent because it would be their own tail on the line. Until OUR Congress changes their "me first" attitude the American Public cannot and will not trust them to "do the right thing" for Social Security.

-Lynn L. Weed
Wright Patterson Air Force Base
Chief, Civilian Pay

I take personal umbrage at Ned's assumption that if you are worth anything, you'd leave the federal government and take a private sector job. Since you stay with the government, you must not be worth anything. However, Ned thinks that if your pay is "private" then you are good, if your pay is "public" then you are not. Must we continuously have this sterotype? By his reasoning, we should extend this thought to contractors provide services to the government. If they were any good, they would find some other source of income. So, if we contract out services, are we really getting the best, or just the less talented that could not compete outside the government safety net?

-Marsha S. Roepe
DCMC Lockheed Martin Marietta