What the Budget Deal Means for Federal Employees

Furloughed government union workers demonstrate on the side of Constitution Avenue October 2, 2013 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Kellie Lunney, Government Executive
See more stories about...
Kellie Lunney, Government Executive
Dec. 11, 2013, 5:11 a.m.

New fed­er­al em­ploy­ees and mil­it­ary re­tir­ees would have to con­trib­ute more to their pen­sions un­der the bi­par­tis­an deal the con­gres­sion­al budget con­fer­ence com­mit­tee un­veiled Tues­day even­ing.

Fed­er­al work­ers hired on or after Jan. 1, 2014, with less than five years of ser­vice would have to pay 4.4 per­cent to­ward their defined re­tire­ment be­ne­fit — 1.3 per­cent more than the cur­rent 3.1 per­cent that em­ploy­ees hired after 2012 con­trib­ute.

Mil­it­ary re­tir­ees un­der the age of 62 would see a de­crease, phased-in over the next two years, to the cal­cu­la­tion of their cost-of-liv­ing ad­just­ment, equal to in­fla­tion minus 1 per­cent. “This change would be gradu­ally phased in, with no change for the cur­rent year, a 0.25 per­cent de­crease in Decem­ber 2014, and a 0.5 per­cent de­crease in Decem­ber 2015,” ac­cord­ing to a sum­mary of the deal. The change would not af­fect ser­vice mem­bers who re­tired be­cause of in­jury or dis­ab­il­ity.

The pro­pos­al also caps the amount the gov­ern­ment can re­im­burse con­tract­ors for ex­ec­ut­ive com­pens­a­tion at $487,000. The cur­rent cap is more than $900,000.

The deal re­quires new ci­vil­ian fed­er­al work­ers and mil­it­ary re­tir­ees to con­trib­ute $12 bil­lion in sav­ings over­all — $6 bil­lion from each group — to help par­tially re­peal the se­quester for fisc­al 2014 and fisc­al 2015. That $12 bil­lion fig­ure is part of the total pro­posed $63 bil­lion in sav­ings to off­set the auto­mat­ic spend­ing cuts for two years.

Cur­rent fed­er­al em­ploy­ees man­aged to emerge un­scathed. Ini­tial re­ports of the deal said cur­rent fed­er­al work­ers would have to con­trib­ute $20 bil­lion over­all to the budget sav­ings, prompt­ing fed­er­al em­ploy­ee uni­ons and oth­er ad­vocacy or­gan­iz­a­tions, as well as the Wash­ing­ton-area con­gres­sion­al del­eg­a­tion, to push back hard against such a pro­pos­al.

“One of the most dif­fi­cult chal­lenges we faced as we worked through this, was the is­sue of fed­er­al em­ploy­ees and mil­it­ary,” said Sen. Patty Mur­ray, D-Wash., dur­ing a press con­fer­ence with Rep. Paul Ry­an, R-Wis., on Tues­day. The two led the budget con­fer­ence ne­go­ti­ations. “And Con­gress­man Ry­an and I have worked on this a lot,” she ad­ded. “He is a tough ne­go­ti­at­or”¦and it star­ted out very high at $20 bil­lion; it is now down to $6 bil­lion for fed­er­al em­ploy­ees, and $6 bil­lion for mil­it­ary.”

Rep. Chris Van Hol­len, D-Md., rank­ing mem­ber of the House Budget Com­mit­tee and a mem­ber of the con­fer­ence com­mit­tee, re­portedly played a ma­jor role in re­du­cing the amount fed­er­al work­ers had to sac­ri­fice. Van Hol­len has a large fed­er­al em­ploy­ee con­stitu­ency.

Work­ers in the Fed­er­al Em­ploy­ees Re­tire­ment Sys­tem hired in or be­fore 2012 con­trib­ute 0.8 per­cent to their defined re­tire­ment be­ne­fit, or pen­sion; those in the Civil Ser­vice Re­tire­ment Sys­tem now con­trib­ute 7 per­cent. A 2011 law re­quires feds hired after 2012 and those with few­er than five years of pre­vi­ous fed­er­al ser­vice to con­trib­ute 3.1 per­cent to­ward their pen­sions. CBO has es­tim­ated that the change to post-2012 hires’ pen­sion con­tri­bu­tions will save the gov­ern­ment ap­prox­im­ately $15.5 bil­lion from 2012 through 2022; those sav­ings are sep­ar­ate from the sav­ings un­veiled by Ry­an and Mur­ray on Tues­day.

If Con­gress ap­proves the budget deal, then fed­er­al work­ers will have con­trib­uted roughly $120 bil­lion to de­fi­cit re­duc­tion, which in­cludes the three-year pay freeze.

Ry­an said it was “only fair” to tax­pay­ers who help sub­sid­ize fed­er­al em­ploy­ees’ pen­sions to ask feds to con­trib­ute more. “So, what we are ask­ing here, is that the people who work for the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment — and we thank them for their work, they are hard­work­ing ded­ic­ated people that we re­spect — but we think it’s only right and fair that they pay something more to­ward their pen­sions just like the hard­work­ing tax­pay­er that pays for those pen­sions in the first place,” said Ry­an.

The $85 bil­lion sav­ings pack­age an­nounced by Mur­ray and Ry­an would fund the gov­ern­ment past Jan. 15, 2014, avert­ing an­oth­er shut­down and set­ting spend­ing levels for the next two years.

“If Chair­man Ry­an and I did not reach an agree­ment, we would be at se­quester level very shortly, and many of these same people [fed­er­al em­ploy­ees] would be fa­cing fur­loughs, lay­offs and un­cer­tainty,” Mur­ray said. “We have brought cer­tainty back to all those people.”

The deal’s fu­ture re­mains un­cer­tain in Con­gress, es­pe­cially giv­en many Demo­crats’ op­pos­i­tion to in­creas­ing the amount fed­er­al work­ers pay to­ward their pen­sions as well as the aver­sion from Re­pub­lic­an and Demo­crat­ic law­makers to tinker­ing with the mil­it­ary re­tire­ment sys­tem.

“This agree­ment isn’t per­fect, but it is cer­tainly bet­ter than no agree­ment at all,” Van Hol­len said in a state­ment. “This dif­fi­cult ne­go­ti­ation has gone through many phases. The fi­nal product re­places part of the job-killing se­quester without dis­pro­por­tion­ally hit­ting work­ing fam­il­ies, in­clud­ing hun­dreds of thou­sands of pub­lic ser­vants.”

Na­tion­al Treas­ury Em­ploy­ees Uni­on Pres­id­ent Colleen Kel­ley offered tempered praise for the deal.

“While we think fed­er­al em­ploy­ees con­tin­ue to con­trib­ute a dis­pro­por­tion­ate amount to de­fi­cit re­duc­tion and should not be in­cluded in this pack­age, there is re­cog­ni­tion in this deal that cur­rent fed­er­al em­ploy­ees already sac­ri­ficed again and again,” she said in a state­ment. “I am dis­ap­poin­ted that the budget deal an­nounced today pro­poses in­creases to fed­er­al em­ploy­ee re­tire­ment con­tri­bu­tions for new hires; however, I am glad to see the num­bers were sig­ni­fic­antly re­duced from ori­gin­al pro­pos­als and that these re­tire­ment in­creases will not im­pact cur­rent em­ploy­ees.”

More from Gov­ern­ment Ex­ec­ut­ive, our sis­ter site:

De­fense Com­bat Pay, Bo­nus Au­thor­ity At Risk

Pro­gress­ive Dems to Obama: Raise Min­im­um Wage for Fed­er­al Con­tract­ors

Uncle Sam Sheds More Jobs in Novem­ber

What We're Following See More »
OTHER SECRETARIES AT FAULT, TOO
State Dept. Review Faults Clinton Email Management
22 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"A State Department audit has faulted Hillary Clinton and previous secretaries of state for poorly managing email and other computer information and slowly responding to new cybersecurity risks. ... It cites 'longstanding, systemic weaknesses' related to communications. These started before Clinton's appointment as secretary of state, but her failures were singled out as more serious."

Source:
CRUZ STILL TOOK DELEGATES AT THE CONVENTION
Trump Rolls in Washington Primary
39 minutes ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump "was on course to win more than three-quarters of the vote in Washington's primary" last night. Ted Cruz's defunct candidacy still pulled about 10 percent. "Cruz dropped out of the race on May 3, but won 40 of the state's 41 delegates up for grabs at last weekend's state GOP convention."

Source:
MULTIPLE OFFICERS INJURED
Trump Rally Turns Violent in New Mexico
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"What started as a calm protest outside Donald Trump’s rally Tuesday erupted into fiery violence as protesters jumped on police cars, smashed windows and fought with Trump supporters and police. Police faced such an angry crowd that they called in reinforcements from around the state, seeking to double their numbers to counter the protesters, whose numbers swelled beyond 600." Protesters threw rocks and bottles at police, who broke up several fights. 

Source:
‘LOTS OF MEETINGS’
Hill Dems Mull Dropping Wasserman Schultz
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Concerned that she's become too divisive, "Democrats on Capitol Hill are discussing whether Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should step down as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman before the party’s national convention in July. ... Wasserman Schultz has had an increasingly acrimonious relationship with the party’s other presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, who argue she has tilted the scales in Clinton’s favor." The money quote, from a Democratic senator who backs Clinton: “There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on." Meanwhile, Newsweek takes a look at why no one seems to like Wasserman Schultz.

Source:
PRESIDENT PLEDGES VETO
House Votes Today on Bill to Strip Budget Autonomy from DC
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The U.S. House of Representatives plans to vote Wednesday on a Republican bill that would block the District of Columbia from spending locally raised tax revenue without congressional approval, prompting President Obama to pledge to veto it. In issuing the veto threat on Tuesday, the Obama White House made one of the strongest statements to date in support of the District’s attempt to win financial independence from Congress."

Source:
×