The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2011

8 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 1 1 An Annuity for Non-Working FS Spouses The May Journal documented the economic sacrifices made by non- working spouses at overseas missions. However, this problem actually extends into retirement, because the employed FS member has no option other than to accept the “Reduced Annuity with Survivor Benefit” for his or her non- working spouse. That election instantly reduces the couple’s retirement income by about 10 percent (as well as de- creasing future cost-of-living incre- ments). Meanwhile, the spouses and part- ners of colleagues at other federal agencies who have spent all or most of their careers in the United States have had the opportunity to be employed, publicly or privately, and to qualify for separate retirement benefits. So when the government-employed spouse files for retirement, he or she has the option to reject a survivor benefit reduction, given their other retirement income. This holds even more true for my tandem-employed Foreign Service compatriots, both because each spouse has earned a well-deserved retirement annuity in his or her own right, and be- cause both partners would most likely elect a full annuity. This would result in about a 20-percent cost avoidance in their total combined annuities (as well as the additional compounding of fu- ture cost-of-living increases). In the interest of equity, and to rec- ognize the sacrifices of non-working Foreign Service spouses, I recom- mend that Section 806(b) of the 1980 Foreign Service Act (as amended), be further amended. The wording could be relatively simple to grant the sur- vivor benefit, but waive the reduction of the annuity for any federal govern- ment employee whose non-employed spouse has accompanied him or her on official U.S. government travel or- ders on foreign tours of duty totaling 10 or more years. “Non-employed” could be defined as a spouse who does not qualify for a Foreign or Civil Serv- ice annuity. Foreign Service tandem couples on retirement also qualify for federal em- ployee health benefits as two individu- als, each paying from their own annuity — whereas a single-income annuitant couple pays at the “family” rate, about one-third more. It would be another small but appreciated step if a non-working spouse who met the “10-year overseas rule” (envisioned above) would qualify the couple for a new FEHB “self-plus-one” rate. These two relatively low-cost ad- justments would bring official and tan- gible fiscal recognition to the non- salaried member of the team, who faithfully supported government poli- cies and objectives throughout a de- manding Foreign Service career at U.S. diplomatic missions. Paul J. Steere USIA Foreign Service Specialist, retired Kenmore, Wash. Stick to the Issues I’ve generally found the FSJ inter- esting and informative on many of the key issues facing the Foreign Service. But AFSA State Vice President Daniel Hirsch’s column in the April edition of AFSANews , “Good Supervision Leads to a Good EER Season,” was a glaring exception. I’m not denigrating the subject it- self, but would simply suggest that dis- cussions of employee evaluation re- ports are best left to State’s manage- ment and human resources types. AFSA’s useful role is at a more general L E T T E R S