• Federal Diary • Federal Diary Live • Subscribe to the OnPolitics e-mail update • Federal Page • Who do you want to talk to? E-mail us • Talk: OnPolitics message boards • Live Online Transcripts

Federal Diary Live
With Stephen Barr
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesdays; Noon EST

The Post's Stephen Barr is the author of The Federal Diary, which runs Sunday through Friday in the Metro section. Steve has been a reporter and editor at The Post since 1979, including stints as Federal Page editor, congressional editor and a staff writer covering the federal bureaucracy. He takes the column live to answer your questions Wednesdays at noon EST.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Stephen Barr: Thanks to all of you for joining us today. The House plans to vote today on a budget resolution that largely reflects President Bush's priorities. It contains a "pay parity" provision, inserted at the request of Rep. Jim Moran (D) with the backing of Rep. Tom Davis (R), that recommends Congress ensure federal employees receive no less than what Bush has recommended for the armed forces--a 4.6 percent raise. The Senate takes up its budget resolution next week.

With that, let's move to the questions.

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Barr: I enjoy your column and appreciate this forum. As with most jobs I have had, I have found that working for the Justice Department has its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, I thoroughly enjoy the work and get to spend significant time with my family. On the other hand, I am paid less than my private counterparts. The benefits presently outweigh the detriments and I intend to remain a federal employee for the foreseeable future. That said, it is especially disheartening when administrations and/or administrators make promises they can't or don't keep. The TSP upgrade is the latest example of this recurring problem, closely preceded by delayed incentives like the student loan repayment plan and abandoned measures like the pay parity legislation signed by Bush I. Sometimes it feels like one of those gag shows where they tie a dollar bill to some fishing line and jerk it away when you go to pick it up. It's simply degrading and, in my opinion, it causes most civil servants to ignore the process and just accept what is given. Do you agree with this assessment? If so, how can federal workers convey this broad message to effect change?

Stephen Barr: I can't say that I disagree. There are simply too many players in the federal workplace. Take the student loan repayment program. Congress approved it a decade ago, but agencies were downsizing and had no interest. Suddenly, given the coming retirement wave and agency woes in hiring young people, OPM issues the rules. Then the new administration puts them on a 60-day hold. I hear from countless employees who are already discouraged and fear their agencies will not offer this new benefit.

The bottom line, for loan repayments and salary hikes, is money, of course. If the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act was followed, the pay raise to close the gap with the private sector would be nearly 19 percent, according to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Since no one will recommend that large a pay raise, the issue drifts off into a debate over whatever annual raise seems appropriate. This year, it's parity with the military.

I don't know what employees can do to address this issue, except to regularly write their members of Congress, explain the importance of their work and give examples of where there agencies are falling short.

But the whole process is discouraging. No corporation would last long with such herky-jerky practices.

Arlington, Va.: Regarding the pay parity efforts in Congress that you've written about: I appreciate the efforts by Hoyer and Sarbanes, but isn't this a sign that we can give up on the comparability law to close the pay gap?

Stephen Barr: I think probably so. For the most part, the Office of Management and Budget have effectively given up on it. Even the surveys used by the Office of Personnel Management in the FEPCA formula are out of date.

Alexandria, Va.: Nice to see the "pay parity" insertion. Do you think there's a snowball's chance that the pay agreement signed by Bush Sr. will be implemented by Bush Jr.? It was totally ignored by Bill Clinton. Considering that federal employees are thought of as a Democratic voting bloc (I'm not sure that's necessarily true), I find it amazing the disdain with which Democratic politicians treat us feds.

Stephen Barr: You would hope with prospects of a budget surplus stretching far into the future--even with an economic slowdown--that Bush's OMB would move to address some sort of pay reform. But don't bet on across-the-board reform; most likely, reform will be targeted toward certain occupations where OMB thinks the problems are most severe.

Rockville, Md.: In your column today, you note that Senator Sarbanes is pushing for a raise for civil service employees equal to that for military personnel.

I haven't heard any reports of civil service employees being paid under the poverty level and needing foodstamps to get by, or living in falling apart, slum level barracks, or working 12-16 hours a day, six days a week.

And this is one of the same senators who is outraged at the concept of giving private citizens a small tax cut.

Linda Tripp's position at the Pentagon paid $96,000 a year. A Sergeant, who's job includes being shot at, with 15 years service, is paid $23,000 a year.

Who do you think needs a raise?

Stephen Barr: Clearly, both groups have legitimate claims of being undercompensated. Direct comparisons between the military and the civil service are difficult, but data exists that shows a good number of federal employees find it difficult to pay their health care premiums, or child care costs, in the lower GS grades. Remember, the government did its part to fulfill the "welfare to work" mandate and currently employs a lot of single parents who have trouble making ends meet in high-cost cities.

Besides, Linda Tripp was a political appointee, and that's why she lost her job when Bush took office.

Burke, Va.: Mr. Barr,

Excellent point on paying off college loans and recruitment/retention bonuses etc. But you forget one key point. OPM can urge them on agencies all they want, but without additional money, it's a non-player to many agencies. What agency is not going to pay existing obligations in order to hire someone new?

Stephen Barr: A good point. Without the budget dollars, agencies will be reluctant to offer such benefits. The same could be said for recruitment and retention related benefits, such as child care subsidies. Thanks for the reminder on this.

Washington, D.C.: Your column discussed the Securities and Exchange Commission's special pay increase a few weeks ago. As an SEC employee a year plus away from the "SI" designation, I'm wondering if there's any more news on the status of the SEC fee reduction/pay parity bill. Thanks!

Stephen Barr: The SEC bill sailed through the Senate last Thursday and should be up for a vote in the House today. The two measures contain slight differences on a formula for cutting fees, so the legislation will likely be sent to a conference committee for negotiations. As you know, the pay provision gives SEC the authority to make exceptions to the General Schedule, but don't spend that projected pay raise yet....

For those of you who don't work at the SEC, this is a prime example of how pay reform is starting to happen in the government. Piece by piece, agency by agency.

Arlington, Va.: I work at a smaller agency under the Commerce department. I'm hoping for a promotion to the GS-14 or 15 level. Is the hiring freeze still in effect? Any idea when it will be lifted?

Stephen Barr: Each agency is handling the hiring freeze as it sees fit, and there's still a lot of confusion about promotions and transfers. Your best bet is to check with the Commerce personnel office. The last time I check, Commerce was saying it had no written guidance for employees. That, of course, doesn't help matters.

Raleigh, N.C.: What is the outlook for federal retirees being able to pay medical insurance premiums with pre-tax dollars as federal employees can?

Stephen Barr: Even in today's budget environment, this could be a hard sell. The problem is the tax code provisions governing retirees generally. Allowing federal retirees to capture such a tax break would set a precedent nationally. The keepers of the tax revenue are not eager to have huge numbers of retirees petitioning for similar treatment.

Falls Church, Va.: The following quote appeared in your column of this Monday:

“Under a 1997 amendment to Social Security law, two-thirds of a person's government pension is taken to offset the anticipated Social Security survivor benefit.”

As I read this, if my spouse dies and I receive a survivor's benefit check from Social Security, my Federal pension will be reduced by 67 percent!

Am I reading the statement correctly?

Stephen Barr: The reduction applies to the Social Security benefit, not to the federal retirement benefit. For more information, you might want to read the offset and windfall elimination pamphlets on the Social Security Administration web site (www.ssa.gov).

Blue Ash, Ohio: Is Congress aware of the financial impact of the GPO on widows? The Social Security spousal benefit works fine for a retired couple, however if one dies the financial impact to the public servant retiree is unequal when compared to the private sector retiree.

Stephen Barr: That's the argument being made by people who favor revamping this provision. Social Security testified last year, however, that it believes private-sector workers face an even more offset when both are covered by Social Security because the survivor gets the lower of his or her own benefit or the survivor benefit--meaning in many cases that no survivor benefit is paid at all.

Some members of Congress are aware of GPO's effects, but seem reluctant to open up the Social Security law to revisions.

Cincinnati, Ohio: 1. If the Government Pension Offset legislation were submitted today, knowing how it impacted widows, and other public service retirees, would there be any legislator who would publicly support such legislation?
2. Rep. Shaw, Chairman of the sub committee on Social Security is the individual who is in a position to either support or block HR 664 and other legislation. How can pressure be brought to have hearings initiated?

Stephen Barr: There is a bloc in the House and a modest number in the Senate who seem ready to tackle the issue. But because revisions or repeal would cost the government money, it's hard to build pressure for change. Rep. Shaw held a hearing last year, the first in ages on the GPO. Your best bet is to keep sending those cards and letters to members of Congress. The only hope for change is a large-scale grass-roots lobbying effort, I would think.

Washington, D.C.: What's your opinion on last week's guest from AMEX who said, I believe, that he recommends new money for small cap stocks go into an actively managed small cap fund rather than an index-based small cap TSP fund because they will outperform the TSP index small cap.

Stephen Barr: First, I urge all of you interested in the TSP to refer to last week's on-line discussion with financial planner Dennis Gurtz. Secondly, I'm not qualified to offer financial advice. The TSP's overall approach is passively managed index funds. That suits some people's tastes better than others. I don't think you will ever see an actively managed fund in the TSP, so if you want to get in one you'll have to invest elsewhere.

Washington, D.C.: I'm considering taking out a TSP loan to pay off some other high interest debts. I figure now is a good time, since the C fund returns are currently pretty low and I would be paying myself approximately 5-6 percent interest on my loan. Can you tell me some of the pros and cons of a TSP loan given the current market situation?

Stephen Barr: As with the previous question, check out Dennis Gurtz's advice last week on the issue of taking out TSP loans.

The question is, do you think the C Fund has hit bottom and is poised for a big charge upward, or do you think it will continue to struggle? That's a judgment you have to make for yourself.

Arlington, Va.: Comparing a Sgt. to a GS-15 is like apples and oranges - in the comparison scale, a GS-15 is the equivalent of a colonel.

Let's also not forget that the Sgt. (who I agree does deserve more money than he/she gets) does get medical care, PX privileges and often housing.

Stephen Barr: Noted. That's why it is so hard to make comparisons--the differences in benefits, working conditions, expectations, etc.

Gaithersburg: The guy who said you never hear of federal workers under the poverty level.
1. He conveniently ignored his housing and food allowance
2. He compared a Sgt. with someone like Linda Tripp who would equal the position of an O-6 or better. Your average federal employee that start with a degree.
3. 30 days leave
4. Retirement after 20 years.
5. Your boss going to bat for you every year on Capitol Hill

Oh yeah, and those military at the poverty level are recruits with 3 kids.

Stephen Barr: Noted, as well.

Bethesda, Md.: Good afternoon,
How can I find out which agencies or offices will help with student loan repayments? I am seriously considering a job with the government, but would have to have the help with student loans if I am to turn down higher salaries from the private sector. It seems that many HR people do not know anything about this.

Thanks

Stephen Barr: As mentioned earlier, this new benefit is still in flux. When applying for a federal job, ask the agency personnel office if you are eligible for a student loan repayment. But since the rules have been delayed, most offices probably will not be able to answer such questions for another month or two.

I sincerely hope agencies offer this benefit. It seems a sure winner in attracting talented people to federal service and a way to make starting salaries look more competitive.

Charleston, S.C.: I have a comment on the esteemed Sgt. from Rockville's note about pay comparability between the civil service and the military. None of us would dispute the difficult working conditions our Military face every day - however, if the Sgt., who obviously enlisted and reupped more than once, chooses such a life; bless him. He and all those who serve under arms have my total respect. But don't deny the value of the civil servants who often provide the "tail" that helps his "tooth" bite the bad guys. As for Linda Tripp, as noted by Mr. Barr, she was just one of the cavalcade of clowns that come and go as the various administrations blow into and out of town - he should be grateful that there are those of us who stay to keep it all moving and repair the damage some of those goofballs inflict on the machinery of government. Live and let live Sargent!

Stephen Barr: Noted. Thanks much.

McLoud, Okla.: WHEN and IF federal pay comparability comes about, will present retirees annuity be re-computed to that figure that they would have received if raise caps were not in force in the past 20 or so years of wage adjustments?

Stephen Barr: Nice idea, but no chance.

Mechanicsville, Md.: Mr. Barr, as one of the Bush administration "targeted" mid level managers how can I protect myself? Will this action trigger an early out?

Stephen Barr: First, obviously, you will need to be perceived as valuable to your agency by the new political leadership. But if they decide to eliminate an entire office or job series, then you'll need to study the RIF rules. It seems to me, though, that the Bush White House wants to eliminate these jobs through attrition; in other words, as managers retire, they simply won't be replaced.

I don't think there will be a government-wide early out, but offers might be made on a targeted basis, where the Bush team wants cutbacks. We'll just have to wait and see.

Hyattsville, Md.: I am very supportive of telecommuting, but I am concerned that many federal agencies management will simple give this lip-service. For instance, the new regulations states that there be a plan for 25% of eligible staff to participate by April. Based on anecdotal evidence, I believe my agency will say that it has no eligible staff. Is anything being done to assure this doesn't happen?

Stephen Barr: I suspect any agency that tells OPM they don't have eliglible staff for telecommuting will also have to offer a pretty good explanation why. Rep. Frank Wolf (R) is watching this closely, and he chairs one House Appropriations subcommittee and sits on another subcommittee. He's got the power to make things happen.

McLean, Va.: Public Service is a life/career decision. Many Federal employees view it just that way. Our roles are usually not as glamorous or as well compensated as elected officials or political appointees, yet our dedication to public service is no less a serious personal choice. I am concerned about the impact on young people of negative portrayals of civil service and civil servants by opportunistic politicians. How can we expect to recruit the best and brightest to public service if the stereotype is negative. President Kennedy's "ask not" call for public service stirred a major response from a generation of citizens. Who are the leaders today who recognize the need for all forms of public service and are willing to promote positive change?

Stephen Barr: Excellent points, and a hard question to answer.

There are members of the Bush administration who have backgrounds in public service and recognize its value (such as Colin Powell and Dick Cheney).

But I don't know who is going to lead the charge. The last I recall was Paul Volcker, the former Fed Reserve chairman, and that was a decade ago.

Springfield, Va.: I am a federal CSRS retiree. My question is about the annual cost of living adjustments. Is there a web-site I can visit to learn how much has been "banked" to date for the nest COLA?

Stephen Barr: The best place to keep up with COLA projections and related information is at the web site operated by the National Association of Retired Federal Employees (www.narfe.org).

Oklahoma City, Okla.: My husband and I are both CSRS employees. We are retiring in about five years. He currently carries our FEHB family coverage. We were going to let him continue to carry it into retirement. Personnel told me that if it is under his name, if he precedes me in death, that I can't pick up the FEHB coverage. I thought if I was carried on family continuously for five years that I would be eligible to convert our coverage to me. We will still have a dependent child.

Stephen Barr: To be sure you will be covered, have your husband designate you as a survivor beneficiary on his annuity. Possibly he would have done so anyway. The basic survivor annuity under CSRS is 55 percent of the employee's annuity, but remember, he can designate a smaller amount if that make sense for the two of you financially. I'd go back to your agency's retirement counselor and ask them for the details on this. Best of luck.

Woodbridge, Va.: How can a small, middle class group get their legislation noticed under the present system of rewarding only those groups with top expensive lobbyist or those making huge campaign contributions?

A FERS Buyback bill was introduced in the 105th and the 106th Congress. In 2000, a companion bill was introduced in the Senate.

The bill enables FDIC employees to buy FERS coverage for the years when they were classified as term employees. Many of these employees worked up to 15 years as term. This bill is supported by the FDIC and by NETU.

As I see it the main problem with the passage of the bill is that it effects so few people, probably less than 10 thousand.

This is a plus in that it will not cost the government much in a monetary sense, but this is not a plus when it comes to lobbying Congress. Under the present system if a proposal cannot get its sponsors on the front page of the Washington Post, on TV or generate huge campaign contributions it will be buried in a subcommittee.

There is something fundamentally wrong when small, insignificant but worthy petitioners cannot have their cause fully and justly considered.

Stephen Barr: I really don't know how to respond, but employees who were faced in the wrong retirement system fought for recognition and eventually obtained congressional relief. You've just got to talk to your local lawmakers, I think.

Escondido, Calif.: Read your article in the Federal Diary, March 28. Due to the modem on my computer being 99 percent inefficient I do not know if I will be able to connect at noon (9 a.m. here) for the discussion. I probably couldn't "fit in" anyway.

I am a 62-year-old widow collecting a 46 percent survivor's annuity from my husband's CSRS pension. I was aware of spouses and widows being included in the GPO but did not know the offset Social Security portion would be subject to federal and state income tax, or that my husband had the opportunity to switch from the CSRS to FERS plan that would have exempted me from the GPO. Both of these issues, in my opinion, are matters that could be subject to legal argument.

If my survivors annuity is, by federal law, mandated to be two thirds Social Security benefits then that portion should be tax exempt once my Social Security benefits are offset into the annuity. Taxing it like a private pension just doesn't cut anymore once 67 percent becomes payment in lieu of Social Security. The reasoning may be that neither the federal government or the employee paid FICA taxes and are consequently excluded from the SSA tax provisions. But, I did pay FICA taxes and it is my Social Security benefits that will be offset into my survivors annuity so that portion should be tax exempt if my gross is under $25K. SSA tells me I am not being denied Social Security benefits, they are being offset into my survivors annuity. OPM Retirement Operation Center. in Boyers, Pa., told me that my Social Security benefits will "reduce" my annuity, another representative told me my SS benefits will be "deducted" from my annuity. This indicates to me that my Social Security benefits are replacing part of the annuity.

How is the CSRS pension trust being funded if it was discontinued for new employees after 1983, most of the younger employees probably switched to the FERS plan in 1988, and very few employees are now paying into CSRS? Are my offset Social Security benefits credited to the CSRS retirement trust fund? Are the taxes I pay on the Social Security portion of my annuity credited to the CSRS retirement trust fund or to the SSA trust fund? My research found no information on this matter and when I specifically asked SSA and OPM they became very evasive. Why did OPM get so testy when I refused to apply for Social Security survivors benefits from my husband's SS account and demand my decision in writing. If they are not receiving a credit then what was their motive?

When my husband was offered to change from CSRS to FERS this was a financial matter that directly concerned me since it would determine if I received my Social Security benefits of $177,600, plus increases for about 20 years. If one spouse tries to omit the other from an IRA or 401K it requires a notarized signature, the same if one spouse wants the other to waive rights to a 50 percent survivors pension. Apparently the government found the loophole they needed in their own laws to omit spouses from this decision since there was no specific law to protect a spouse on this matter like there is to protect a spouse in all financial obligations for contracts and disbursements in a marriage. The CSRS and FERS pension plans are a contract between employee and employer only up to the point that the contract does not directly affect a third party's present or future income, then it becomes a three way contract. Hence the need for a notarized signature for a spouse to waive rights to a 50 percent survivors annuity. The opportunity to change retirement plans also affected a spouse in the same manner due to the fact it would have exempted me from the GPO/Windfall.

I do not know if the offer to switch started in 1983 or was made several times in 1988-9 due to employee protest. I also do not know if my husband signed that he rejected the change or if it was a matter of doing nothing to stay in CSRS. But my signature was not required to assure that I was aware an opportunity to change plans was available to exempt me from the GPO, that I was knowledgeable of my husbands decision, or if I approved or rejected his decision. Basically we were railroaded into a financial decision that was detrimental to our future welfare without our permission or knowledge and we were denied an equal opportunity to be exempt from the GPO.

This matter alone should be enough to abolish the GPO for every spouse or widow whose husband had a CSRS pension. If the federal government cannot produce a signed waiver from us it obvious they deliberately omitted us from an opportunity to be exempt from the GPO.

Sorry to be so long-winded. Hope you have time to read all this. I am sure I am not so original in my thinking that the above two arguments haven't been tried before. But they do deserve comment and to brought into a discussion or report on the GPO.

Thank you for "listening"

Mary S. Firda

Stephen Barr: You raise a lot of the concerns regarding current law. My advice, as before, is to get involved and speak out to your members of Congress. That's about the only way the changes you seek can happen.

Washington, D.C.: Today there is an article bemoaning the sorry state of civil service and saying we must "fix" it. The last time politicians "fixed" it they mandated RIFs, which got rid of the most recent hires. Now they are complaining that people are going to retire and there isn't anyone to replace them. Well gee duh, you guys got rid of all of the replacements. They cut the workers and increased the workload and can't figure out why morale is poor. Why should anyone want to work for a company where the management want to get rid of promotion opportunities, i.e. flatten middle management, and are constantly portraying you as a lazy incompetent, then piling on the work.

Stephen Barr: It is a mess, isn't it?

Excellent points, though, about choking off the pipeline and limiting opportunities for promotions.

East Falls Church, Va.: I have a question about the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act. Does it raise the General Schedule salaries 19 percent across the board, or is that an average? That is, are salaries to be raised by grade (e.g. 17 percent for grade 10, but 20 percent for grade 13)?

This will be a very unpopular opinion, and even though I am grossly underpaid (I know this -- I've talking to people on the "outside"), but raising salaries wholesale across agencies, professions, jobs, is really, really, inefficient. It's a bad idea. Some will still be underpaid and others will be overpaid. I can just see the implementation of this lead to charges of feds being paid a lot to do little. What needs to be done is to decentralize hiring and pay authority to the agencies, who can more easily observe what they directly compete with.

Stephen Barr: The raise called for by the FEPCA formula would be the average of all geographic areas--but all grades would get the same percentage increase.

Your point may be unpopular, but I suspect you describe what may turn out to be the remedy, given the reluctance to provide large across-the-board raises and the sharp swings in private sector compensation for "hot skills" that are here today and gone tomorrow.

This market-based approach will get serious consideration in Congress and the administration, I suspect. Stay tuned to the hearings that will be held by Sen. George Voinovich (R) this year.

Stephen Barr: Once again, we've run out of time. Thanks for joining us today and for taking the time to read this transcript. You folks are one of the best crowds that gather at washingtonpost.com.

See you at noon next Wednesday.

washingtonpost.com:

That was our last question today. Thanks to Stephen Barr, and to everyone who joined us.

Stay tuned on Live Online:
NCAA: Kevin Grevey at 1 p.m. EST
Real Estate Law at 1 p.m. EST
Joel Achenbach at 2 p.m. EST
Ken Baker at 2 p.m. EST
Supermodel Rachel Hunter at 3:30 p.m. EST

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

   |       |