‘Pension reform,’ with a twist

April 5, 2006

This gave me a crazy idea.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who is no longer running for reelection and is leaving Congress shortly, should do well in the private sector — as long as he doesn’t get convicted of anything serious. The immensely profitable — ask Bill Clinton — speaking circuit awaits, along with perhaps a book, teaching, a radio talk show and whatnot.

In addition, he’s eligible for a pension of a bit over one-third of his $183,500 majority leader’s salary, or about $65,000 a year, complete with health benefits and cost-of-living adjustments.

As opportunities for demagoguery go, this strikes me as a pretty good one.

Tom DeLay, under indictment in Texas and under investigation in DC, resigns from Congress in disgrace. But next year, and for the rest of his life, he’ll still collect a taxpayer-financed salary that’s higher than that of most Americans.

It would likely be pretty contentious, but what if Dems unveiled a proposal to limit DeLay’s pension until he’s exonerated? And if he’s convicted, he loses the pension altogether.

Sure, everyone if innocent until proven guilty, but I’m looking at this more in the context of political theater — and I just want to see how House Republicans would vote on such a measure.

Over the top? I’m just throwing this out there….

I believe members of teh military who are dishonorably discharged do not get their benefits, correct? So, shouldn’t congress have a similar rule? If you are booted out or leave in disgrace they lose the whole thing. Done deal.

  • Didn’t someone propose this as the “Duke Cunningham rule?” I think I remember a Congressman saying that taxpayers shouldn’t have to send Duke a big check every month while he’s in jail for stealing their money.

  • A similar opportunity exists in Philadelphia, where the chicken-shit city council has failed to act on it. Current Councilman Rick Mariano was recently convicted of taking bribes and influence peddling. But his sentencing is not until June, and the Council does not consider him to be convicted until he is sentenced. So he has refused to resign, and the other members will not force him out. So for the next few months he will continue to receive his $102,000 annual salary at taxpayer expense. Frustrating.

  • Way over the top, IMO.

    As you noted, Tom DeLay, just like anyone else in the US, is innocent until proven guilty. We shouldn’t dismiss that principle just because it suits us.

  • Pension reform is not a new idea. Recent history shows how pension funds have been robbed time after time. The Regan administration sanctified it in the name of “money just going to waste” as they encouraged corporations and corporate raiders to loot them. They call that reform. They get their morals from a prove hoax, the Bible which they always use to justify their thievery. Jesus said,” The poor you will have with you always.” This shows how important poor people truly are. Without the poor there can be no rich just like without down there can be not up.

    The Bible being a hoax takes a little getting used to. It’s catching on as people who have known about the discovery for a while are now coming around. See the proof at http://www.hoax-buster.org and start getting used to it. It’s the kind of news that won’t ever go away. It could reform a few Republicans that are in desperate need of being reformed. Turning the government over to the Jesus freak set is not a good idea in any event.

  • It’s uncomforatbly close to being a bill of attainder. In any case you wouldn’t get many dems to vote for it either, as they aren’t going to want to start messing with their own pensions, I’d guess.

  • I don’t feel good about trying to withhold his pension until he’s proven innocent (or not, obviously) but I think Dems should work tooth and nail to negate the pensions of any lawmaker convicted of a felony – ESPECIALLY if that felony was perpetrated while in office.

  • Re DeLay or Cunningham, it /does/ sound like a Bill of Attainder, but as a general policy, it sounds fine to me.

  • It sounds too much like a distraction. And it would save the government … $65K/year! I don’t want the Democrats wasting Senate time on this. They’ll be accused of playing politics, and rightly so.
    How about we stop subsidizing oil exploration, and save billions a year? Or demand restitution from Halliburton overcharges? Lots better ways to spend the time and get the money and political points.

  • I agree, it’s a waste of time and comes off as a petty personal attack. HOWEVER…if GM and other automakers can eliminate their pension liabilities, it makes sense for American taxpayers to eliminate the pork that is Congress’ pension system. Granted, most of these geezers are about 80+ when they finally get voted out of office/retire (see Strom Thurmond). But the least they could do is deny pensions to convicted members of Congress (Cunningham, etc.)

    As an aside, here’s a nice cartoon taking a shot at DeLay today.

  • What exactly is a Bill of Attainder, and why is it bad? I haven’t heard that term since high school civics class and that was way too long ago for my brain to retain it.

  • I don’t think the Republicans care if the common people lose their pensions, so why should they care when the person is guilty of serious breach of the public trust and just happens to be one of their own? That’s a rhetorical question. I know they will do nothing because it hits too close to home. One would think that “to the one who much is given, much is expected.” I have given up, however, expecting much from Congress. By the way, I too, have forgotten what a Bill of Attainder is and would love to re-learn.

  • Something that crossed my mind. If DeLay, or any other lawmaker for that matter, goes to jail and continues to receive their pension, the state that they are incarcerated in will be responsible for the cost of their imprisonment. I think I’ve read the numbers for prisoner upkeep run in the range of 20 – 30 thousand per year, per prisoner. If DeLay is convicted and sent to prison he could effectively end up costing the taxpayers close to a 100 grand a year.

    Another factor to consider is that states are increasingly trying to recoup some of the costs of incarceration from the prisoners themselves. Maybe if the bug man gets locked up the state of Texas will be able to recoup some of their expenses.

  • Cancelling paiement of pension to Tom Delay would be a bill of attainder (law punishing a specific person).

    Cancelling paiement of pension to persons sentenced for felonies and crimes commited in their charge would not be one, even if applied to convictions or facts prior to the enactment of said law. It would be a retroactive law, always disgraceful, but retroactive laws have already passed the SCOTUS.

  • Thanks, Will and Fifi, for clearing up the BofA thing. And I totally agree with Fifi that a punishment directed toward anyone convicted of a sufficiently heinous offense would not violate any rule of law if it was applied equally to everyone and not just a single person.

  • Clearly, since the essence of the Republican revolution has been about ending dependence on handouts from the federal government, and promoting personal responsibility, we need a bill that will redefine pension benefits for all former Congress members.

    Obviously, we want to honor the devoted public service of our former Representatives, but we need to cut expenses. The airlines and car companies do it, why not the government?

    I suggest, as a start, we end payments to any former Congress members who have been elected in districts created midway between decennial censuses, should they be involved in criminal legal proceedings of any kind, including indictment.

  • Won’t his pension be automatically attached to whatever prison he ends up in? Anyway, I don’t see anyone in Congress supporting this, unfortunately; they won’t want to set a precedent that could end up biting them, or their party.

  • How much money are they talking about? $65,000 a year for retiring?
    Look up the rates for pension for the Veteran’s Administration and then tell me that this is not worth “wasting Senate time” on.
    Just to give you an idea, a 100% service disabled veteran, married, with two dependent parents and a dependent child, is eligible (not necessarily awarded, but eilgible, meaning that he/she still has to apply for it) for $2,844 a month.

    That is LESS THAN HALF of what they are talking about giving DeLay.

    I know that the $65,000 is not necessarily something to make a stink about, but this violates every principle of good government I know about. The folks in the armed forces are the ones who actually serve the country, right? Actually putting their ass on the line for freedom and justice and the American Way, right? And they are constantly backstabbed by corporate political weasels like this, for which we will give them the privilege of not qualifying for the tax cuts we gave to the rich guys, while at the same time making it damn near impossible to acquire accurate information about the benefits they are entitled to.

    And no, I never served. But If our government coughs up $65,000 for Tom DeLay at a time when the VA is coming up short by SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION dollars, I’ll grab a goddamn gun and shoot somebody.

    • Comments are closed.