Skip to main content

While our legislators are whacking away at corporate greed...

... leave us not forget the cushy pension deal they've crafted for themselves.

For purposes of reference, please realize that if you pay the maximum Social Security tax for 30 years, the government says you will start with a maximum annual benefit of $25,440. If you happen to be under 65, and then earn more than $1,800 a month, you will lose $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn (a 50% marginal tax rate).

This is from that notorious libertarian, neo-con source: CNNMoney:

Members are eligible to start collecting at age 62 if they have at least five years of service. If they have 20 years of service under their belt, they can retire at 50. With 25 years of service, they can retire any time.

What they get depends on a formula based on years of service and average pay(natch, right?).

So a congressman with 22 years of service and whose average salary for the top three years was $153,900 gets $84,645. A current congressman ending up with six years of service (it's two-year terms, after all) would get at least $16,503 (at age 62, of course).

In actuality, the average congressional pension payment ranges between $41,000 and $55,000, based on 2002 data from the Congressional Research Service.


Congresscritters and their staffs kick in 8% of their annual salary [on top of Social Security] for this benefit, which has in common with SSI that it doesn't pay for itself. We do:

These payments cover about one-fifth of the actual cost of their pension, according to the Taxpayers Union.

So Congress folk get a better pension and don't have to pay for all of it. They also have the equivalent of a 401k program (complete with a 5 percent employer match). In some cases Social Security kicks in. And given their medical, dental and travel benefits, plus expenses paid by the office, members of Congress have plenty of opportunity to save for retirement. (And if they get into trouble, as they sometimes do, the pension often isn't up for grabs). At $165,200 a year (after their raise this month), seems like they have some money to do it with too.


That's right: get elected to Congress at least three times (or, just make it through one full term as a Senator) and at age 62 you are eligible to collect not only Social Security, but also a legislative pension that can be nearly four times the size of the largest SSI payout, with no earning restrictions.

And Congressional contributions pay for only 20% of their own benefits....

So when we're talking about transparency and accountability for folks who take Federal tax dollars, let's keep in mind that all of these pontificating bastards and bastardettes have either voted themselves into (hello, Joe Biden) or happily ensconced themselves (hello, Ted Kauffman) in a system that provides them healthy retirement benefits 80% underwritten by Federal tax dollars.

But--strangely--this issue never seems to come up....

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...