Evening star., 1927-11-28
Retired Federal Employees
And Annuity Legislation
To the Editor of T,ha Star:

| Now that the Seventieth Congress
| Is about to convene, the retired Fed
eral employees who got but the merest
| trifie from the law of July 3, 1926.
will be looking forward with ex-
pectancy to this Congress to correct
| the errors that have developed in the
recent retirement law.
/ Most of the annuitants did not un-
derstand how they were to be affected
by the new law, and as rule gave
! it a far more liberal Interpretation
than it deserved; but the public in gen.
eral were of opinion, after the Presi-
dent had signed the bill raising the
! annuities to $1,000, that there should
| no longer be any cause for complaint
Eamong the retired Government work
ers. 1t is certain that there would
have been very few complaints II the
maximum annuity of $1,000 had been
based on a maximum salary OF $1,000,
as was the original law of May 22.
| 1920. Retaining the present system
Of calculating the annuities, this
would call for a So divisor, as 30, the
maximum number Of years for which
allowance is provided, multiplied by
1900, the maximum salary, equals
! 80 900, divided by 36, which gives 81 900,
the amount sanctioned by the Presl-
dent; then every retired Government
worker who had served 80 years. and
whose average basic salary for the
| last 10 years of service amounted to
| 81, 200 or more, would be entitled to
an annuity of 900. and this would
| include about half of all the retired
people.
Those whose salaries fell below
$1,000, had they served 80 years,
would receive their salary multiplied
/ by 80 and divided by 36, or ve-siXths
of the Average basic salary they were
drawing from the Government during
the last 10 years of service.
Such a bill would have given COM
plete satisfaction to all classes Of an
nuitants, and it would have cost
scarcely $1,5OO,000 over the amount
required to function the present law.
which has satisfied only a handful
of high salaried retired Government
workers.
It is hard to conceive how men ac-
tuated by a sense of justice could
have recommended such a bill as that
Of July 3, 1926. 1t Is true that some
men were receiving salaries ranging
from $2,400 to $4,000 or more, and
as rule they were worth every
cent of it. for they were men who had
received a superior education and
training, which enabled them to cope
with problems of a difficult nature
that low-salaried clerks were incapa-
| BILE of doing. But once placed on
the retired list" the CHIEF of divi-
sion was not rendering one whit more
service to the Government than the
fellow who was sweeping the office
floor. They are all on the same foot
| ing now and their wants are precisely
the same. They all need food, clothes
! md nd or
| injustice to give seven or eight times
as much increase in their annuities
! to one set of retired workers as to an
! other set. who may have served the
| Government as long and as faithfully
as the other fellow. Numbers of an
nuitants are trying to exist on $33 a
month, most of them incumbered with
dependents. 1 do not know how rent
and clothes are provided; there is no
money for medicine, they claim, and
scarcely enough to purchase the com.
mon necessaries of life: yet when the
law of July 3, 1926, passed, this class
/ OF annuitants got S3-a-month in
crease. If they We're facing starva-
ton on $33 a month. they are not
lying upon bed of roses now because
their annuity has been raised to S36
month.
Will this Congress do something to
correct the glaring defects of the law
of July 8. 1926? The President ap-
proved of $1,000 maximum. which
would have been a splendid relief
! measure If. as stated above, it had
been based upon the original maxi.
mum salary Of $1,000. but when Con-
gress agreed to raise the annuity
$3.50. it raised the maximum salary
from $1,000 to $1,500. thus almost
completely shutting out the low-sal.
aried Government workers from any
relief under the bill, while all classes
| acknowledged that these were the
people who needed it most
! Should the much-mooted question of
raising the maximum annuity to
$1,000 receive favorable considerati ton
from this or some future Congress.
If the maximum salary on which this
annuity might be based should be
! raised 5000. as in the last instance
that is, to S1,S00--not single annui.
tant whose average basic salary for
the last 10 years did not exceed 81 500
| would receive one penny more than
he or she is getting now. Not even
| should they raise the annuity to
| $4,000, based on a maximum salary of
| $4,000. would the same class of an
nuitants get a cent of increase from
such law.
Let the low-salaried people remem-
her that they were not drawing high
salaries: consequently, any retirement
bill based on a high salary is not in.
tended to give them any relief.
EDMUND MURPHY.