Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-05-01
Retirement Bill

Recent approval by a Sen
ate committee Of a iberalized
retirement bill Is. 2875) for
civil service employees was
highly gratifying and COM
mendable. This bill, however,
has a very glaring and tragic
defect. Instead of superseding
previous retirement laws for
civil employees. it would estab-
lish an effective date of jan
uary /, 1857, thus denying
these well-deserved benefits to
all employees who, of their
own volition or because Of
disability or other reasons,
have retired or might retire
prior to that date. This, in eff
feet, would establish a dual
retirement system, i.e., one for
those who retire prior to jan
uary !, 1857. and another and
more generous for those who
retired after January /, 1857.
This of course would compli-
cate the administration of the
retirement system by the Gov
eminent agencies concerned.
Now, one might ask, why are
present retirees being excluded
from the provisions Of the
proposed bill? Is it because
they have not served as long
or as well as future retirees?
Or is 1t because they have not
contributed as much to the re-
tirement fund? The answers
to both are negative. Then
why the discrimination against
present retirees? The answer
to this enigma lies in the spe-
cious reasons presented by
Senator Johnston, chairman
of the Senate Civil Service
Committee, to the effect that
to include all retirees in the
one bill would be too costly to
the Government. In the same
breath Mr.. Johnston gives as
surances that he is prepared
to introduce another bill that
would benefit present retirees.
thus volunteering for the haz-
ardous tedium of plotting a
second retirement bill through
the Congress. Perhaps Mr..
Johnston might be able to
explain, through the legerde-
main of semantics, how he
can reconcile what appears to
be two positions that are in
compatible. To put it simply.
just how will two bills be less
costly to the Government than
one? To expand further, we
might ask for an explanation
as to how the Government
might administer a dual sys-
TEN of retirement at less cost
than one. We hope Mr.. John
ston has a solution to that.
If Congress. in the further
processing of this legislation,
does not eliminate the inequity
Of January I. 1857, as an ar
bitrary effective date, then by
so doing it commits itself TO
perpetuating an injustice and
a hardship to present retirees
who are deserving Of equal
benefits. This is particularly
true of individuals who must
retire for disability or other
compelling reasons prior to
January /, 1857. Who dares
say with conviction that such
individuals are not entitled to
the same reasonable subsist-
ence from the Government
they served as those who re-
tire after that date? AS an il
lustration. an employee COM
PEELED to retire on December /,
1856, because Of disability,
with ten years service and an
average salary Of $4,000, would
receive approximately $3.50
per annum. Another employe
retired in January, 1857, for
disability, with the same serv-
ice and same average salary.
would receive $4,000 per an
mum, almost three times a.
much. Can Mr.. Johnston ex-
plain this fantastic inequity?
The Senate and House
should modify this proposed
bill so that all civil service re-
tirees. both present and fu-
ture, may be equally covered
by its provisions. This would
not establish a precedent. since
the same principle is applied
In military retirement.
Carl Hanes,