GovernmentExecutive.com

Federal employees seem skittish heading into 2008, at least when it comes to their benefits. Some of this anxiety is justified: The federal government cannot surpass private-sector salaries, so benefits are important as compensation and incentive. But in some cases, feds seem resistant to proposals that would expand their benefits to other Americans out of protectiveness -- a sense that to let nonfederal employees in the door would lower the emotional, if not financial, value of those benefits.

When Government Executive published a story about a proposal by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., to allow uninsured Americans to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program as part of her plan to reform the health care system, 75 percent of readers said they opposed the plan. That margin seemed somewhat surprising, given that a story that preceded the survey made it clear that Clinton's plan would create a separate risk pool for nonfederal employees, and would have no impact on premiums.

In another recent survey, readers of FedSmith, an news and information Web site for federal employees, said by a 7-point margin that they thought domestic partners of federal employees shouldn't be eligible for health and retirement benefits. Those results could have more to do with an unwillingness to sanction gay and lesbian relationships (the comments FedSmith received certainly suggest that) and less to do with the exclusivity of federal employee benefits. Still, it suggests a reluctance to share benefits outside a traditional community, even if that opening up would benefit federal employees who could get health coverage for their partners.

The continuing debate over the Government Pension Offset provision of Social Security -- which reduces spousal benefits by two-thirds of the amount that workers not covered by Social Security receive in their own pensions -- is an example of the outside pressures on benefits for federal workers. At a hearing last week on the offset's impact on public employees, there was a striking difference between the way employee advocates and budget analysts characterized the provision.

David Rust, acting deputy commissioner for disability and income security programs at the Social Security Administration, told the panel that GPO removed an advantage for federal employees. Rhoda Trent, president of the advocacy group Federally Employed Women, countered in a written submission that GPO penalizes federal workers who already make other sacrifices to serve the government.

Both of them are right, of course: Whether it's the height of unfairness or a restoration of balance not to let federal employees collect full spousal Social Security benefits depends on your perspective. But it's not just that Trent represents federal employees and Rust has to oversee an entire subset of Social Security programs. Deciding whether to repeal GPO requires lawmakers to balance rewarding federal employees for their sacrifice and calculating the cost of that reward to an already economically stressed program that's about to come under even greater strain.

In a world where the pay gap persists with no truly serious efforts to close it, and where we expect federal employees to build long, stable careers on something more than post-graduate fervor and ramen noodles for supper, benefits are a critical compensation for the other sacrifices public servants make. It's important to protect those benefits from decimation by outside economic pressures. But when expanding those benefits to others would come at relatively little cost to federal employees, perhaps they don't need to feel so threatened by the needs of their fellow Americans.

COMMENTS

• I am a retired school teacher and I am drawing a pension because of this I have been denied my husband's Social Security benefits. To top it off my husband died of a service-connected disease. I am in the process of fighting for my benefits. The Department of Veterans Affairs says if a veteran dies of a service-connected disease and he has enough work credits benefits are payable to his spouse. It states no provisions, but Social Security still denies me of his benefits. I have contacted my congressman and his office is working on my case. I am now in the last stage of appeal. Imagine if I stayed at home I would draw his benefits, but because I chose to have a profession I am being discriminated against. My husband paid into Social Security over forty years. I believe, TREAT ALL SOCIAL SECURITY CREDITS EQUALLY FOR ALL CITIZENS. GPO/WEP should definitely be repealed. Helen Stewart Posted April 23, 2008 12:39 PM
• Thank you for publishing my recent comment on the adverse effect of the government offset/windfall provisions upon social security benefits earned in the private sector and due the individual who actually worked and paid into the sytem in their own right. This category of personnel should never have been included in this action. Obviously when the votes were cast by members of the Senate and House who represent their constituency, someone did not understand the resulting disparity between workers who had worked in the private sector and who elected to join the government workforce and those who retired from the private sector and can draw both their retirement benefits from their place of employment and their Social Security benefits. Those who serve our country provide a great service, and certainly should not be penalized (robbed) for doing so. Hopefully, this explanation for our frustration will cast more understanding of this particular situation and the action creating this monster reversed as a jesture of good faith and fairness to all government workers in this category. Carol. H. Edwards Posted February 13, 2008 8:45 AM
• C Edwards is right on when it comes to federal employees who will retire under CSRS being entitled to social security benefits. Since I'm in that category, when I retire, unless something changes, and soon, it's fairly obvious to me unlike someone who retires from the private sector and just happened to pay the same amount to social security as I have, will receive a substantially greater social security benefit than me who will receive nothing or a mere pittance of that amount. Where's the justice in that? There isn't any. John Posted February 7, 2008 10:13 AM