Ney's pension will be $29,000

[partylessinOhio]

Ney, 52, is still eligible to receive his congressional pension. The National Taxpayers Union, which tracks pensions, said he would receive about $29,000 a year if he waited to draw it until 2016, when he turns 62.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_co/ney_corruption

How does a government pension compare to a Social Security pension?

The retirement age has been raised by Congress for SS recipients. They would have to take a cut to retire at 62. Will Ney's pension at 62 be for the full amount? How many years did Ney contribute? Did the govenment contribute to his pension also?

What is the maximum social security pension? What is the maximum congressional/government pension?

[jgraz]

1. Can't Congress block funds for that?

Along with DeLay's and Cunningham's pensions?

[Parche]

2. pension

Didnt they introduce in congress the bill that would deny pensions to these people?

[partylessinOhio]

3. I am not sure if the bill was truly passed and when it would go in effect.

The above article lists Ney as still eligible.

I found this on:

Presidential Pensions

The Former Presidents Act of 1958 established the first permanent retirement payment system for ex-Chief Executives of the U.S. Although Harry Truman left the White House in 1953 with only his Army pension as income, the 1958 law did apply retroactively to him and any other former President alive at that time who was not removed from office by the impeachment procedures of the Constitution. Thus, Truman and Herbert Hoover were the first two recipients of the pension, which was $25,000 per year. Later the pension was linked to the salary level of Cabinet officers, which has catapulted the amount past $160,000 per year. Other embellishments, such as travel expenses, have also been added over the course of time.

[madrchsod]

4. no pelsio said this morning they would not

seek retroactive because the legal problems may hold up or throw out the bill.

[babylonsister]

9. An amendment was passed but not retroactively, per Pelosi, because the

Constitution doesn't address this. So the amendment will only affect future crooks.

[jgraz]

10. No, no no -- forget the amendment, just never allocate the funds for Ney's pension

Congress can always decline to fund something. For example, they're not planning on repealing the IWR, but they ARE talking about de-funding the war. Can they not do the same thing with the pensions?

[babylonsister]

19. Would they have the time to take each case individually?

And imagine the timewaster that would be for each case. I think a blanket amendment from here on out works. Better late than never.

[jgraz]

20. Good point

With so many Rethug criminals, they'd be there for ever if they had to deal with each one. :evilgrin:

[3waygeek]

14. Specifically, the Constitution forbids

the passage of ex post facto laws.

[karynnj]

11. Kerry's amendment eliminates

the pensions in the future, assuming the House passes the same thing and President Bush does not veto it.

according to news accounts it is illegal to make it retroactive - (I'm not a lawyer.)

[partylessinOhio]

5. From The National Taxpayers Union:

Information on Congressional Retirement Benefits

Members of Congress began paying into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul. This is a requirement, and Members may not opt out of it. They then have the option of participating in one of two pension plans, depending upon when they were elected (most of them do). If elected before 1984, they participate in the Civil Service Retirement System; if elected 1984 and after, they participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System. These two plans are also offered to rank and file federal employees, EXCEPT that the Congressional plan's benefit is calculated on a more generous formula than that offered to most other government workers. The "accrual rate" is much higher, and lawmakers tend to be able to retire earlier with benefits than other federal workers (as early as age 50).

Also, Members of Congress may participate in the government-wide Thrift Savings Plan, which works like a federally-managed 401 (k) salary reduction plan. FERS participants are entitled to a government match of up to five percent of salary; CSRS participants may set aside part of their own salary, but they do not receive the match.

In both cases, Members of Congress do contribute to their pension plans, although the rates are somewhat complicated by the fact that since 1983, lawmakers have been required to pay into Social Security. Members elected before 1984 must pay 8 percent of their salaries into the pension plan, but may elect a "Social Security offset" provision that allows them to split the pay-in (6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.8 percent for the pension.) The result is that upon retirement, Members receive a pension that is reduced by the amount of Social Security that is attributable to Congressional service. Members elected in 1984 and thereafter pay 1.3 percent towards the pension and 6.2 percent to Social Security. This only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then live 10 or more years longer. This could include George Mitchell, especially after his post-Congressional government service. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million).

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.


___________

Congress persons get a decidely better deal than SS recipients. It really isn't fair for them to be able to sit and make decisions to cut SS benefits while they are adding more to the national debt with their fat pensions. From above: "a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more"

[partylessinOhio]

6. From The National Taxpayers Union:

The Benefits of Being a Lawmaker

At first glance, the issue of Congressional compensation would seem straightforward. Rank- and-file lawmakers are currently paid a salary of $141,300. The Speaker of the House earns $181,400, while the Senate President Pro Tem and the Majority and Minority Leaders each earn $157,0001. The total annual cost to taxpayers to pay Members of Congress is thus roughly $75 million. All of these salaries are subject to periodic increases depending upon the actions of lawmakers. But as with any position, the salary is only a part of the total compensation package.

Certain perquisites for Members of Congress are intended more for their personal comfort than to enhance their ability to do the nation's business. Although these perks tend to have counterparts in the private sector, many of them come with frills or subsidies that even similarly-salaried executives in the private sector would envy.

Pensions - Platinum Parachutes

By far the single most personally valuable perk to a Member of Congress is his or her pension plan. Lawmakers began coverage under the government's pension system in 1942, but suspended their participation until after World War II. The rules can be complex, but extremely rewarding.2

Basically, Congressional pensions are determined by tenure in office, other federal service, age at retirement, and the average salary upon leaving Congress. The "accrual rate," the amount by which lawmakers build their pension benefit, is the most generous in the federal government short of the President of the United States.

For lawmakers who were elected before 1984, the pension formula upon retirement is the average of the three highest years' salaries, multiplied by years of Congressional, federal, and active duty military service, multiplied by 2.5 percent. The first year's benefit may not exceed 80 percent of final salary (but subsequent Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) can boost the figure well past 80 percent). The retirement age can be as early as age 50, depending upon years of service. This plan is part of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) that covers many other rank-and-file federal civilian workers. ...

Today, a sitting lawmaker who retires at age 60 with 15 or 20 years of service will likely collect at least a million dollars in inflation-compensated lifetime pension benefits. Some will collect four or even five times that amount. In 1997 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported that 400 lawmakers were receiving pensions, at an average benefit of just under $47,000.4 Based on a subsidy rate of 80 percent, this would amount to an annual taxpayer cost of approximately $15 million. ...

http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343

[antigop]

7. Yep. And these were the guys who passed "pension reform" last year

The pension reform bill legalized cash balance pension plans. Companies can now legally screw their workers and not be liable for age discrimination.

But Congress gets their golden plan.

And take a look at Congress' retiree medical plan.

[partylessinOhio]

8. Yes, we must give them the best health care while many Americans have none:

But life and health care for lawmakers does not end with insurance.

The Attending Physician's Office is a $1.8 million-per-year operation that encompasses three separate facilities employing nearly twenty doctors, nurses, and technicians in the U.S. Capitol (some of whom are part-time workers). The clinics are open to Members of Congress and Legislative Branch employees. Until 1992 lawmakers were entitled to receive acute care, lab tests, and other clinical work free of charge.

Since that time, an annual fee has been instituted, which this year is reportedly set at $332 for House Members and $520 for Senators. At this rate, the annual taxpayer subsidy for the Attending Physician is still at least $1.6 million. However, Americans may take comfort in the fact that their subsidy has personal value -- Capitol visitors who fall victim to medical emergencies may receive treatment as well.

One medical benefit for lawmakers that even other Congressional employees can't obtain is the combination of outpatient care at the Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital -- along with inpatient care at the minimum flat daily rate even if intensive care treatment is required.

[antigop]

12. It stinks -- and as long as they have their golden plans,...

they have NO idea how most of us live.

It's disgusting.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaineDem]

15. Advocating the rape of anyone is just wrong. n/t

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

16. Unless its funny, which in this case, it is (n/t)

[MaineDem]

17. Rape is NEVER funny!

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

18. To Bob Ney?

You and I obviously have very different definitions of funny.