Cunningham and Ney will get taxpayer-funded pensions

[quiet.american]

Anyone else tired of so-called "reform" legislation that is utterly toothless?

So the House passes a "reform" bill that says convicted lawmakers cannot collect a taxpayer-funded pension UNLESS they've already been convicted, in which case they're still eligible, oh, and if they are convicted once this bill is signed into law, they personally cannot collect the pension, BUT, their families can if they can demonstrate a need for it.

One has to shake one's head. Congress sure can take care of themselves, can't they?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012300890.html

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. the silver spoon crowd . . .

. . . knows how to look after itself.

[karynnj]

2. It is NOT toothless, it simply is not retro-active

That's because making a law retro-active has legal problems. Not to mention, think how it could be misused. Doesn't it appear Kafkaesqe to thing of the possibility of retroactive laws. You do something and then after the fact the penalties or even the legality itself changes.

The people who wrote the bill (Kerry in the Senate) did so because he was outraged. Making future occurances - and there will be some - have this penalty has merit. Would you want to keep it the way it is?

[quiet.american]

3. Must disagree.

I'm outraged, too, and this is where I see the toothlessness:

A convicted member of Congress cannot directly collect the pension, but his/her spouse can... so, said member leaves prison... the next day his/her spouse applies for the pension.... what's the difference?

Toothless. However noble the intention.