Fouled Anchor Forums

[rabutcher (Robert)]

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 10, 2009 17:02:50 EDT

To pay for a government smoking prevention bill, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., wants all government employees to be required to enroll in the Thrift Savings Program — including all service members.

The forced enrollment in the government’s version of a tax-deferred savings plan doesn’t sit well with the lawmaker who is responsible for opening the program to the military. Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s military personnel panel, said some service members may not want their money tied up in the TSP because they receive no government match for their contributions, as federal civilian employees do.

If enrollment is required, Buyer said the government should provide matching funds for service members, which he acknowledged would require finding money in the defense budget.

“Any future matching requirements combined with mandatory enrollment could result in significant costs to the defense budget,” said Buyer, currently the ranking Republican on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

Buyer’s criticism is aimed at HR 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. It requires all government workers to automatically be enrolled to divert 3 percent of their basic pay into the pre-tax savings plan. They would be allowed to reduce their contribution or disenroll. The idea behind automatic enrollment is that most people would not go through the steps to drop out.

Under complex congressional budget rules, requiring mandatory TSP enrollment would trigger a temporary increase in mandatory spending, which Waxman would tap into to pay for his anti-smoking bill.

[mcm1210 (Michael)]

I would be all on board with this if the service member could opt out of Social Sedurity and apply his or her Social Security premiums to the TSP. This would ensure a monthly contribution of 5.5% of the service members' wages going to the TSP (in addition to whatever he or she decides to add) with a government match of 100% of the first 5.5% which is very comparable to private plans. Even at a 50% match of the members' first 11%, the government breaks even and the member makes out a hell of a lot better than with SSI alone.

I have not seen the bill nor have I heard anything else about it, but if this were done properly it is a win-win-win situation for the member, the government, and the taxpayers.

Mike