Friday, May 12, 2006
One of the ways we have to fix our country is to remove the sense of entitlement our lawmakers have regarding their importance. We have to rally together and demand all Americans get the same opportunity, regardless of class and we have to begin with our elected officials.
The federal government offers a level of benefits unmatched in most of the private sector; legislatures qualify for some of the government’s earliest and most lucrative retirement packages.
The following essay explains the lucrative retirement program of the lawmakers and why it is best for America that Social Security be the standard retirement program for all government workers including our lawmakers. How do we expect them to fix Social Security when they have no incentives or vested interests to do so? I will also introduce a new concept called the Wage Fairness Act so these legislatures cannot give themselves raises while they deny lower class Americans that same luxury.
Federal lawmakers' salaries have been a source of controversy since the early nineteenth century. When Congress passed its first pay raise in 1816, furious voters replaced nearly two-thirds of the House of Representatives -- a turnover rate unsurpassed until the controversies over slavery that led eventually to the War Between the States. The next Congress responded by repealing the pay raise. Perennial controversies over lawmakers' pay have led Congress to experiment with establishing independent panels to set pay scales, providing tax deductions for lawmakers' Washington living expenses, and attaching congressional pay raises to bills adjusting all federal workers' salaries. They put lots of effort into establishing how big of a raise they should get but almost nothing into also giving the poorest families a raise.
Currently, the taxpayer pays each member of Congress a base salary of $133,600 yearly. This can be increased for particular jobs within Congress. The "ethics reform" passed by Congress in 1989 provided for annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' index of wages and salaries in private industry so that lawmakers would never have to vote on politically explosive pay raises. (Note that the COLA raises for lawmakers violates the 27th Amendment but that will be explained in a different post.) Pensions are determined by a lawmaker’s age, annual salary, year in the office and other variables, so exact figures for each lawmaker are hard to come by.
Below are some examples of the pension packages enjoyed by our lawmakers, along with a look at what members in leadership positions would get if they retire at their current term. As you read through these consider what your retirement will be compared with theirs:
Senator Harry Reid, D-NEV
Senate Minority Leader
Length of service: 28 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $124,800 per year
As the top Democrat in the Senate, Reid earns a salary of $183,500. He was first elected to the House in 1982. He was first elected to the Senate in 1986 with his current term expiring in 2011. Although he is showing no signs of retirement he is easily eligible for a full pension payout of $124,800 per year. This figure would be supplemented by Social Security as well as any money he placed in his Thrift Savings Plan, the federal government’s equivalent of a 401(k).
Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
Senate President Pro Tempore
Length of Service: 40 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $139,100 per year
The Senate’s president pro tempore, who presides over the Senate in the absence of the vice president, is elected by Senate colleagues and customarily the senator if the majority in part with most continuous service. He is the longest serving Republican Senator and earns $183,500 annually. He would be eligible for $139,100 if he retires after his 2009 term expires. This figure would be supplemented by Social Security as well as any money he placed in his Thrift Savings Plan, the federal government’s equivalent of a 401(k).
Rep, Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
House Minority Leader
Length of Service: 19 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $54,000 per year
Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-IL
Speaker of The House
Length of Service: 20 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $63,600 per year
Any Senator with a length of service of 30 years would get an estimated pension of $109,500 per year.
Any Senator with a length of service of 16 years would get an estimated pension of $39,600 per year.
The maximum Social Security Benefits collected in 2003 by the American retirees regardless of their income earned is $12,466.80. You can find this information here. Notice the maximum Social Security benefits allowed for the American taxpayer is far below the pension of our political leaders.
It is comical that most of these Congressmen will receive more in retirement than full-time, working taxpayers. Remember the taxpayers pay these salaries. Is it any wonder the Congressmen want Social Security eliminated? They do not benefit from it so in their eyes it is not necessary. They do not understand the burdens working class families endure while retired.
I find it equally comical that many of these Senators and Representatives have called the Social Security system a form of “welfare” but yet continue to collect taxpayer’s money from their own “welfare” system. Their system is a true “welfare” program because they contribute nothing to it, but we pay into Social Security so technically it is not “welfare.” Apparently “welfare” is good for them but not good for the rest of the American taxpayers. These lawmakers have a mindset that is a sense of entitlement where they truly believe they are better than us and they deserve more than us. It is proven by legislation like this.
Instead of legislatures receiving their own special retirement program, all the programs should be combined into Social Security. Then they will be forced to fix the system if they want benefits. This will force our lawmakers to have a vested interest in Social Security instead of looking at it as another “welfare” program. Also, you only get back what you pay in so let’s end this free ride program.
We should also have a Wage Fairness Act to link the wages of the lawmakers to the minimum wage laws, so both wages move up or down together. If Congress gets a pay raise then the minimum wage also gets a pay increase.
Do you think our elected officials get too lucrative of a retirement package? Do you think if we rolled their retirement into Social Security they would fix Social Security instead of abandoning it? Do you think we need a Wage Fairness Act so if legislatures get a raise the minimum wage gets a raise?
The federal government offers a level of benefits unmatched in most of the private sector; legislatures qualify for some of the government’s earliest and most lucrative retirement packages.
The following essay explains the lucrative retirement program of the lawmakers and why it is best for America that Social Security be the standard retirement program for all government workers including our lawmakers. How do we expect them to fix Social Security when they have no incentives or vested interests to do so? I will also introduce a new concept called the Wage Fairness Act so these legislatures cannot give themselves raises while they deny lower class Americans that same luxury.
Federal lawmakers' salaries have been a source of controversy since the early nineteenth century. When Congress passed its first pay raise in 1816, furious voters replaced nearly two-thirds of the House of Representatives -- a turnover rate unsurpassed until the controversies over slavery that led eventually to the War Between the States. The next Congress responded by repealing the pay raise. Perennial controversies over lawmakers' pay have led Congress to experiment with establishing independent panels to set pay scales, providing tax deductions for lawmakers' Washington living expenses, and attaching congressional pay raises to bills adjusting all federal workers' salaries. They put lots of effort into establishing how big of a raise they should get but almost nothing into also giving the poorest families a raise.
Currently, the taxpayer pays each member of Congress a base salary of $133,600 yearly. This can be increased for particular jobs within Congress. The "ethics reform" passed by Congress in 1989 provided for annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' index of wages and salaries in private industry so that lawmakers would never have to vote on politically explosive pay raises. (Note that the COLA raises for lawmakers violates the 27th Amendment but that will be explained in a different post.) Pensions are determined by a lawmaker’s age, annual salary, year in the office and other variables, so exact figures for each lawmaker are hard to come by.
Below are some examples of the pension packages enjoyed by our lawmakers, along with a look at what members in leadership positions would get if they retire at their current term. As you read through these consider what your retirement will be compared with theirs:
Senator Harry Reid, D-NEV
Senate Minority Leader
Length of service: 28 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $124,800 per year
As the top Democrat in the Senate, Reid earns a salary of $183,500. He was first elected to the House in 1982. He was first elected to the Senate in 1986 with his current term expiring in 2011. Although he is showing no signs of retirement he is easily eligible for a full pension payout of $124,800 per year. This figure would be supplemented by Social Security as well as any money he placed in his Thrift Savings Plan, the federal government’s equivalent of a 401(k).
Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska
Senate President Pro Tempore
Length of Service: 40 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $139,100 per year
The Senate’s president pro tempore, who presides over the Senate in the absence of the vice president, is elected by Senate colleagues and customarily the senator if the majority in part with most continuous service. He is the longest serving Republican Senator and earns $183,500 annually. He would be eligible for $139,100 if he retires after his 2009 term expires. This figure would be supplemented by Social Security as well as any money he placed in his Thrift Savings Plan, the federal government’s equivalent of a 401(k).
Rep, Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
House Minority Leader
Length of Service: 19 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $54,000 per year
Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-IL
Speaker of The House
Length of Service: 20 years
Estimated Pension Eligibility: $63,600 per year
Any Senator with a length of service of 30 years would get an estimated pension of $109,500 per year.
Any Senator with a length of service of 16 years would get an estimated pension of $39,600 per year.
The maximum Social Security Benefits collected in 2003 by the American retirees regardless of their income earned is $12,466.80. You can find this information here. Notice the maximum Social Security benefits allowed for the American taxpayer is far below the pension of our political leaders.
It is comical that most of these Congressmen will receive more in retirement than full-time, working taxpayers. Remember the taxpayers pay these salaries. Is it any wonder the Congressmen want Social Security eliminated? They do not benefit from it so in their eyes it is not necessary. They do not understand the burdens working class families endure while retired.
I find it equally comical that many of these Senators and Representatives have called the Social Security system a form of “welfare” but yet continue to collect taxpayer’s money from their own “welfare” system. Their system is a true “welfare” program because they contribute nothing to it, but we pay into Social Security so technically it is not “welfare.” Apparently “welfare” is good for them but not good for the rest of the American taxpayers. These lawmakers have a mindset that is a sense of entitlement where they truly believe they are better than us and they deserve more than us. It is proven by legislation like this.
Instead of legislatures receiving their own special retirement program, all the programs should be combined into Social Security. Then they will be forced to fix the system if they want benefits. This will force our lawmakers to have a vested interest in Social Security instead of looking at it as another “welfare” program. Also, you only get back what you pay in so let’s end this free ride program.
We should also have a Wage Fairness Act to link the wages of the lawmakers to the minimum wage laws, so both wages move up or down together. If Congress gets a pay raise then the minimum wage also gets a pay increase.
Do you think our elected officials get too lucrative of a retirement package? Do you think if we rolled their retirement into Social Security they would fix Social Security instead of abandoning it? Do you think we need a Wage Fairness Act so if legislatures get a raise the minimum wage gets a raise?
posted by DarthImmortal at 8:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home