The Washington times., 1906-03-31
FINDS FALLAC|ES
IN RETIRING PLAN
Younger Clerks Pay More
For Same Benefits.
DOUBTS MONEY is ENOUGH
II Not Sufficient for One to Save
Alone, All Cannot Save
for All.

To the Editor of The Washington Times;
For several years, a number OF the
older employees Of the Government.
working under an organization known
as the Civil Service Retirement Associ-
tion. have sought to secure the adop-
tion by Congress of civil pension list
The experience gained In their efforts
seems to have persuaded these en-
ployes that the only way in which the
retirement. wits pay. of civil employees
of the Government may be effected is
TO provide the necessary fund by an
assessment on the salaries of the en-
ployes themselves. 1t is not necessary
TO discuss here the various estimates
which have been made as to the
amount Of assessment necessary to ac-
complish this retirement plan, and the
benefits which will accrue hereunder.
A bill VIII probably be introduced 1T
this session of Congress, which will
set forth the plan finally selected by
the association
The question which the Government
employees as a body should consider
carefully is whether this bill, when
presented. embodies the wishes, ambi-
tions, and sentiments of a majority of
those IN the service. 1t must be borne
in mind that Congress will not likely
pass any legislation along this line
which has not the support of major
ity of the employees Of the Government
But II will doubtless be presented 10
the committee by the promoters Of this
bill that ii has the Endorsement of
most of the employees in the service;
that the Civil Service Retirement As
SO ,f.at
tion which. voices the sentiments Of
the majority of the thinking. acting
employees Of the Government, What the
employees in the service feel and wish
IN the matter they should not hesitate
to express. Congress will likely take
some action on this matter at an early
date. perhaps ut the present session.
Every employe should, therefore, let II
be known to Congress through his own
or some Representative just what he
thinks of the bill when 1t comes up
for consideration.
Same Assessment Inequitable.
In viewing this proposition in a gem
eral way, there are certain questions
presented which each employe as an
individual owes to himself and to those
dependent on him to consider thought
fully. Is it not an obvious fact that II
such an assessment scheme receive the
sanction of Congress every employe in
the service will either give or receive
more than Is his right? If certain
aged clerks have rendered long and
faithful services TO the Government
which merit further remuneration
should IL be paid by the Government.
for which those services were render
ed. or should it be taken from the sal
aries of other equally faithful employees?
Should a clerk who will pay only two
or three. or even ten. assessments before
he retires. receive the same benefits as
one who must pay thirty or forty as
sessments2
The whole scheme seems to be based
on fallacIous calculations IL the Gov
ernment employees as a body can save
enough out of their combined salaries
to care for every employe who reaches
a certain age. why cannot each en-
ploye, as an individual, save enough
out of his own salary to do it7 1t is
asserted that many will not do it. But
WIN should anyone concern himself
about a person who can provide for his
future ard will not do so2 IL IS said
that the Government salaries are too
small for employees TO provide for their
present and future needs out of them.
If this is true. how is an assessment
plan going TO help them? IL the salaries
are too small for the employees TO sup
port themselves and families comforta-
bly,, what will il mean to them to have
a part of their salaries taken away and
put into q fund where they may never
see IL again?
Really Furnishes Frugal.
But, on the other hand. who is there
in the service who does not know of
many instances where Government en-
pioyes who draw salaries ranging from
$50 TO 81, 200 year, are in better finan-
cial condition today than many others
who draw $500 or 5000? "A state
ment which it is hardly worth while
to notice here is that as an employe
rises in the service. he must live better,
thus increasing his expenses out of
proportion to his salary. Are the lower
grade employees in the service who re-
side in obscure places where rents are
cheaper, who live frugally in order that
their families may have the necessary
comforts of life, willing to withhold
some of these comforts in order that
higher grade employees may live in a
better part of the city with certain
luXuries. and have their future provid-
ed for out of a fund which costs them
no sacrifice. but which represents many
an actual necessity taken from the low
er grade employe? His own future will
be provided for, it is said. But grant
that some, at least, would much rather
give all their small earnings to clothe
and educate their children or TO give
happiness and cor fort to aged parents.
than to think of their own old age. If
these employees wish to give all unself-
ishly TO their families at time when
they need 1t most why should they not
have this privilege?
Another ineQuitable and unjust phase
of this scheme is that the prof1igate,
spendthrift clerk will receive the same
benefits as the sober. industrious,
thrifty clerk, who would use his saw
ings to far greater advantage than the
Retirement Association could possibly
give
Many Clerks Good Men.
There is in Washington a stigma
which attaches to the Government
clerk" Many outside the service look
down upon it; many inside are half
ashamed of their connection with it.
~ A0