 |  |
 |  |  |  |  |
My profile........My blog........My articles........My galleries........License my content........
|
In the interest of accuracy, I invite your comments on this story, including any facts you might provide.   For Your Information “Capitol Questions,” features answers to common questions by C-SPAN's resident congressional scholoar, Ilona Nickels. Robert Longley's article provides an historical perspective on congressional compensation. Salaries of Congressional Leaders compared to rank-and-file members and other government officials. Salaries of Senators and House Members as of 2001. |
|
I received an email recently, one of those making the rounds on the Net, containing some claims about U.S. Congress members' pensions. Some seemed too generous to be true, so I did a little digging and came up with some facts to refute some and support others.
Pay Hikes on Demand The email began by asserting that the U.S. Congress voted themselves a raise. This is something I hear all the time, and intuitively, it makes sense to me that the legislators who create the laws and approve the national budget would have the power to decide their own salaries. Who among us wouldn't want that power? Why do we permit such a lack of accountability? Though obviously a senseless practice, I have not been able to find any evidence to the contrary. So for the time being, I think it may be true that U.S. Congress members do in fact vote themselves pay raises. Generous Pensions Another claim by the email was that, in order to receive a pension of more than $15,000 per month, a member of Congress need only serve a single term. This was really troubling to me, so I dug around and came up with several sources that do not support this. One was Ilona Nickels, congressional scholar at C-SPAN. According to Nickels, this is not the case. Nickels explains that though members are vested, or eligible for a retirement pension, after only 5 years in office, they qualify for a full pension only under the following conditions:
• Members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; Pensions vary for each member of Congress, and depend on a complex formula. Nickels points out that, as of 1998, the annuity for retired members averaged a minimum of $46,908. Social Security According to the email, Congress members are not eligible to receive Social Security retirement benefits, since they are not required to pay into Social Security while serving their terms. I questioned this immediately, because federal employees do in fact contribute to Social Security. What could possibly make members of Congress different? Again I turned to Nickels, who confirmed that since 1984, members of Congress have paid Social Security taxes while in office. If I may add my own impressions, I don't think our Founding Fathers would recognize the government we have today as having anything to do with their intentions. For one thing, they weren't professional politicians; for Pete's sake, George Washington kept begging to be allowed to go back to his farm in Mount Vernon. The idea that statesmen would be allowed the bloated salaries and blatant entitlements would represent a betrayal of the principles and people they were supposed to be serving. What about you, gentle reader? Do you think it's right that government officials should receive a pension? Are they paid too much? Should they be permitted pensions at all? What about term limits? And in any case, should they be allowed to decide their own compensation?
Do you know of any facts that might complete the picture, or any thoughts you'd like to share? If so, please email them and help set the record straight. |
