Convicted lawmakers to lose pensions

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_co/senate_ethics

Convicted lawmakers to lose pensions

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 19 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Members of Congress convicted of serious crimes would lose their taxpayer-paid pensions, sometimes totaling more than $100,000 a year, under a measure unanimously approved by the Senate Friday.

The 87-0 vote to deprive lawbreaking lawmakers of their retirement benefits was part of a comprehensive ethics and lobbying bill that the Senate has taken up as its first piece of legislation in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

"There's something that really grates in the notion that you can put the public's trust and the public's business up for sale and then walk away and have the people that you betrayed turn around and pay for you to be able to have a fat pension," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., author of the amendment.

Kerry said there were at least 20 lawmakers convicted of serious crimes receiving pensions, some as high as $125,000 a year.

Currently, a lawmaker can lose his or her pension only if convicted of crimes such as treason or espionage. The Kerry provision would extend that to cases of bribery, conspiracy to defraud the United States and perjury.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's see how many republics vote no

on that bill.....they are the ones to investigate.

[meegbear]

2. THANK YOU!!

:thumbsup:

[maddezmom]

3. K&R

now it needs to pass in the House, right?

[hippiechick]

4. Define "convicted" and "serious crime" ...

... Foley's not even been charged with anything, so we're going to pay that cretin's pension.

The others? :shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Serious crimes

has always been interpreted as a felony. As to not yet convicted, the year is young.

[Atman]

5. I asked about this before and was lambasted for it!

Several DUers said it wasn't important, that the senate has more important issues to deal with. I'm glad the senate felt otherwise. This is long overdue.

.

[Kolesar]

6. Perjury? Like lying about sex?

I don't know if I like this. Political wars could cost one's retirement pay

[Lance_Boyle]

10. No conviction there, so far as I know.

I thought censure was the end of that debacle. But was the censure the result of a conviction on the charge of perjury?

[Kolesar]

12. I am thinking of the next Democrat that gets in the way of the vast RW "ugly hate machine"

As opposed to our President who was not found guilty.

[Lasher]

15. That's right, Clinton was not convicted of anything.

Clinton was impeached (charges were brought) by the House on 2 charges: perjury and obstruction. He was found not guilty in the Senate.

The perjury allegations provoked the Arkansas Supreme Court to suspend Clinton's law license in April 2000. Clinton agreed to a 5-year suspension and to pay a $25,000 fine on January 19, 2001.

The following October, the US Supreme Court took separate action to suspend Clinton's privelege to argue a case before the SCOTUS. He did not challenge the US Supreme Court's action, so that ruling became permanent after 40 days.

At the end of the Arkansas Supreme Court's 5 year suspension, Clinton's law license was restored with only one limitation: He can not argue a case before the SCOTUS.

Even if he would have been convicted of a perjury, that would have been a misdemeanor and not a felony. But Clinton was not convicted of a crime by any criminal court.

The Republican partisan witch hunt lasted 12 years and cost taxpayers at least $91.3 million. And for all that, no Clinton Administration official was convicted of any felony. There were 32 such convictions of Reagan era officials.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Gladly gave it the fifth recommendation.

[Lugnut]

8. Good.

It's about time.

[lumpy]

9. Good news is always appreciated.

verily

[lindisfarne]

13. This should apply retroactively to ANY living congressperson who's

been convicted of ANY felony or white-collar crime (not sure if all white-collar crimes are felonies so I'm covering my bases) while in office. It should apply to ALL benefits (including health coverage - let them rely on medicare).

I suppose, though, the measure wouldn't have passed if they had tried to make it retroactive (protecting friends ....)

We have retired Americans and working Americans losing their pensions completely or having their benefits greatly cut left and right, without doing anything illegal.

Unfortunately, so many of the currently-living convicted congresspeople (reps and senators) are able to make huge amounts of money in jobs (which are essentially kick-backs for what they did in office), this won't hurt them the way it should.
============================
"Kerry's office said that by law Congress cannot take away pensions retroactively and the so-called "Duke Cunningham Act" won't affect the benefits of Cunningham or Ney. It would also not touch the military benefits of a veteran such as Cunningham.

Under current law, pensions can be forfeited only if a lawmaker commits crimes such as treason or espionage."
http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chron.com%2Fdisp%2Fstory.mpl%2Fap%2Fpolitics%2F4466445.html

SO CHANGE THE LAW. THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS DOES: WRITE LAWS!

[texpatriot2004]

14. Retroactive I hope! For Delay and Cunningham and friends nt

[Earth_First]

16. My thoughts exaclty! n/t