Whenever we talk with friends and colleagues about trimming the federal budget or raising taxes, the inevitable response is “Politicians don’t suggest those things because people don’t want them.” This is undoubtedly true. Left to our own devices, no one wants to make hard decisions, like paying more money to the government or turning down a contract between the federal government and a local business that provides money and jobs to our neighbors.
But just because we don’t automatically want a smaller budget or higher taxes doesn’t mean we can’t be convinced that those things are in our best interest. Where are the leaders to convince us? Who is in government today that can say, “These are hard decisions, but they will make us all better off by leading into this plan…” and then gives us a plan for us to collectively sacrifice for our national benefit? Who?
We’d vote for that candidate and support them for higher office. But we haven’t seen anyone who will make a genuine and not token call to sacrifice.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Turn Federal Pensions into De Facto 401(k)s
It's one of the worst kept secrets in Washington that entitlement spending constitutes most of the federal budget. How exactly does that break down? Here's a brief outline of entitlement programs as a percentage of total US government spending in 2003:
Social Security: 23% Medicare: 12% Medicaid: 7% Other Means-tested entitlements: 6% Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Together, these five categories consumed 54% of the federal budget. By comparison, in 2008, the US government spent 21% of its budget on the military, which is frequently mis-cited as the largest sector of federal government spending (although it is the largest sector of federal government discretionary spending).
We have already touched upon the first category, social security: raise the national retirement age to 70. Although we plan on revisiting that, today we would like to bring up the final sector: mandatory payments, specifically pensions.
Currently, federal pensions are disbursed based on a guaranteed payout system. If you work for 20, 30, 40, etc. years, you are guaranteed a predetermined monthly payment. We used to call this a pension system, but we stopped doing that as fewer and fewer companies offered pensions, opting instead for 401(k) plans.
Why not follow the lead of those companies? The federal government should stop offering a guaranteed payout to its workers after they retire. Instead, the US government should determine how much would be required for the employee him/herself to invest each year for the next few decades at 7% annual interest to receive the same predetermined payout in 20, 30, or 40, etc. years as they are now guaranteed. Every salary should then be increased that amount (after taxes, of course). This would provide a short-term expense for the federal government (the increased salary), but long-term savings, as Washington would not be on the hook for enormous quasi-salary payments to former employees who are no longer in public service (no more pension payments).
A natural concern: most federal employees won’t invest that money. An easy solution: automatically place that money in a 401(k)-like instrument. For bookkeeping purposes, it’s the same thing. For employees, it provides similar a similar retirement plan.
This requires a definite sacrifice by federal employees. They must make the hard choice to forgo a guaranteed pension when they retire. But such a sacrifice will provide great returns to our kids, as the pensions of retired federal employees will not burden future federal budgets. The patriotic sacrifice of these employees will further secure the future of the nation they proudly serve.
Social Security: 23% Medicare: 12% Medicaid: 7% Other Means-tested entitlements: 6% Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Together, these five categories consumed 54% of the federal budget. By comparison, in 2008, the US government spent 21% of its budget on the military, which is frequently mis-cited as the largest sector of federal government spending (although it is the largest sector of federal government discretionary spending).
We have already touched upon the first category, social security: raise the national retirement age to 70. Although we plan on revisiting that, today we would like to bring up the final sector: mandatory payments, specifically pensions.
Currently, federal pensions are disbursed based on a guaranteed payout system. If you work for 20, 30, 40, etc. years, you are guaranteed a predetermined monthly payment. We used to call this a pension system, but we stopped doing that as fewer and fewer companies offered pensions, opting instead for 401(k) plans.
Why not follow the lead of those companies? The federal government should stop offering a guaranteed payout to its workers after they retire. Instead, the US government should determine how much would be required for the employee him/herself to invest each year for the next few decades at 7% annual interest to receive the same predetermined payout in 20, 30, or 40, etc. years as they are now guaranteed. Every salary should then be increased that amount (after taxes, of course). This would provide a short-term expense for the federal government (the increased salary), but long-term savings, as Washington would not be on the hook for enormous quasi-salary payments to former employees who are no longer in public service (no more pension payments).
A natural concern: most federal employees won’t invest that money. An easy solution: automatically place that money in a 401(k)-like instrument. For bookkeeping purposes, it’s the same thing. For employees, it provides similar a similar retirement plan.
This requires a definite sacrifice by federal employees. They must make the hard choice to forgo a guaranteed pension when they retire. But such a sacrifice will provide great returns to our kids, as the pensions of retired federal employees will not burden future federal budgets. The patriotic sacrifice of these employees will further secure the future of the nation they proudly serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
