Fairness Is One Thing; Pigs at a Trough Another : Pensions: At least curb the cost-of-living increases for government retirees.
The checks of the nation’s 40 million Social Security recipients went up 3.7% this month. The average retiree will be entitled to an extra $22 a month cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).
But I’m getting 14 times that much--an extra $315 a month--not because my cost of living is any greater but because I am a “quadruple scooper” who receives four government pensions. Our debt-ridden but spendthrift government hasn’t figured out yet that I need a COLA on only one of those pensions--the rest I call “cost-of-luxury adjustments.”
Here it is 1992 and the $1,560 a month check I got from my congressional/civil service pension in 1973 is now a whopping $5,506 a month. But that isn’t all. My check for military retirement started at $550 a month at age 60 and is now up to $1,322 a month (it’s a real “double dip” because my years of active duty counted toward my civil-service pension). In 1980, Social Security netted me $620 a month, and now brings in $1,132 per month. Since my wife, a retired civil servant, passed away in 1989, my widower’s pension has increased from $620 per month to $746. That comes to a lot. I’ve received more than $1 million so far in federal pensions, nearly half due to COLAs.
Of course, my pension as a former member of Congress is a lot bigger than the civil service average of $1,300 a month. But there’s nothing unusual about my multiple pensions. In the next few decades, the multiple benefits to which I and about 4 million other federal annuitants are “entitled,” will cost Uncle Sam an additional $400 billion in excess COLAs.
It shouldn’t require a mathematician to figure out how to save that money without unfairly reducing the pensions of federal retirees. Just treat us the same way the Social Security system treats those who retire from the private sector. Give us COLAs on an amount (currently the first $12,224 a year, or $18,336 for a qualified couple) that covers the basics, such as food, shelter, clothing. Apply the limit to any and all federal pension benefits, whether these pensions be civil service, military or Social Security. This amount is the limit on which the Social Security COLA is already paid to the private-sector retiree. The limit wouldn’t reduce anyone’s pension payment--just their future COLAs.
Federal pension liabilities now approach $2 trillion--a figure that could make the savings and loan bailout look like small potatoes. Why is it so difficult for Congress to disarm this fiscal time bomb? The answer lies in the self-interest/special interest politics of federal retiree organizations, both civilian and military. These groups are superbly organized and, because of their affluence, very well funded. One of them, the National Assn. of Retired Federal Employees was the fifth-largest political action committee contributor in the 1988 elections.
An article in the December, 1990, issue of Retirement Officer, described how military retirees worked to derail a tentative agreement on COLA reform that had been reached at the October budget summit. All retired officers were “sent an ‘Urgent COLA Alert’ asking them to . . . ‘burn the wires’ to all congressional offices.”
Unfortunately, there is no consistent countervailing pressure from the taxpayers who must pay for the excesses. Even token remedies are regularly rejected by members of Congress and their staffs because they benefit from COLAs. The White House has indicated that COLA reform will not be on its election-year agenda.
However, I believe that COLAs should be an election issue. Taxpayers who must struggle to have an adequate retirement should not be forced to fund lavish pension benefits for federal retirees.
