Bill to Prevent Congress from Collecting Pensions Until Reaching Social Security Retirement Age

[Ian David]

Source: Press Release from Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Press Release

Sen. Brown Announces New Bill to Prevent Members of Congress from Collecting Pensions Until They Reach Social Security Retirement Age

In Wake of New Budget Proposal Which Would Dismantle Medicare and Leave the Door Open for Raising the Social Security Retirement Age, Brown Announces Bill That Would Require Members of Congress to “Walk in the Same Shoes” as Working Americans by Tying Pension Collection to Social Security Retirement Age

April 6, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Following yesterday’s release of a budget proposal that would dismantle Medicare and leave the door open for raising the retirement age on Social Security to age 69 or higher, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) held a news conference call today to outline new legislation he is introducing that would require Members of Congress to “walk in the same shoes” as working Americans.

Brown’s bill, the Shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011, would amend the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) and Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to directly tie the Social Security retirement age to current and future Members of Congress’ access to their federal retirement benefits. On the call, Brown released a county-by-county estimate showing the number of Ohio senior citizens that receive Social Security benefits.

“Raising the Social Security retirement age might sound fair to politicians who come to work every day in a suit and tie, but it’s a nonstarter for working Ohioans who stand on their feet all day long in a restaurant or on a factory floor,” Brown said. “Social Security is under attack by those who falsely think it adds to the federal deficit. These same politicians want to give extra tax cuts to the wealthiest two percent of Americans and tax breaks for big corporations and Big Oil while dismantling Medicare. It’s time for Washington politicians to make the same sacrifices that they’re proposing for millions of Americans.”

“That’s why I’m introducing legislation that would require Members of Congress to ‘walk in the same shoes’ as working Americans by tying their pension and retirement benefits to the Social Security retirement age. If these politicians want to ask Americans to continue working into their late 60s and early 70s before receiving critical retirement benefits, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t have to make the same sacrifices as well,” Brown continued.

Currently, Members of Congress can begin collecting pensions as early as age 50, while working Americans cannot collect full Social Security benefits until age 66. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members of Congress covered under FERS at age 62 or older with at least five years of federal service; at age 50 or older with at least 20 years of service; and at any age to Members with at least 25 years of service. For Members covered by CSRS, retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members age 60 or older with 10 years of service in Congress, or age 62 with five years of civilian federal service, including service in Congress.

Brown strongly opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security due to the high number of Ohioans who are engaged in physically demanding work—on a shop floor, production line, or farmland. Brown has long been active in efforts to protect Social Security from privatization, and has worked to ensure that seniors can continue to afford necessities like prescription drugs despite the lack of cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA) that Social Security recipients have faced for the past two years.

Brown, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has introduced legislation that would require a supermajority (two-thirds) vote in Congress to make any significant changes to Social Security. Brown also strongly pushed for legislation to give a one-time, $250 check to Social Security recipients to help offset the rising cost of prescription drugs and other necessities.

As of 2009, the median retiree Social Security benefit is $14,000. Social Security lifts more than half a million Ohio seniors out of poverty.

###

Read more: http://brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press_releases/release/?id=0bbd8299-63e6-4cdb-8957-75f5e0cf5da4

[Bragi]

1. Tea Partiers would agree to this, which tells you something

Frankly, harping on Congressional salaries and benefits fits within the right-wing anti-government meme perfectly.

[Demit]

3. Plenty of people here also would like Congress to 'walk in our shoes'.

I don't think this is a particularly left-right issue. Kudos to Sherrod Brown.

[Bragi]

5. This is an extension of the right-wing anti-government meme

I agree that many on the left are too often duped into supporting anti-government initiatives from the right wing.

This is a good example of it. This move would do absolutely nothing to promote democracy or good government.

[TBF]

14. lol - all of a sudden requiring rich folk to give up money is a "right wing meme" -

yeah, right. A right wing meme proposed by Sherrod Brown. :rofl:

Personally, I'd like to see the age lowered to 60 - or even lower given that folks have a damned hard time finding a job after 40. Obviously raising the age is not what any leftist would like to see happen and the quickest way to make sure it doesn't is to tie Congress to the same age. Personally I think Brown should be in charge. I like the way he thinks.

[truedelphi]

52. + My household. n/t

[tcaudilllg]

61. Agreed.

[sulphurdunn]

37. Promote democracy?

Promote good government? You do those things by punishing or abolishing bad government, and you do that any way you can. One way is to express your contempt for the excrement of the status quo. It's no accident that the approval rating of Congress is in the toilet. Now it needs to be flushed and the building sanitized. Living with shit is unhealthy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. It's not anti-government it's anti-hypocrisy and anti-entitlement.

[Enthusiast]

11. Exactly.

Congress could use a little eye opener.

[sabrina 1]

44. No, it is a fair way to let 'everyone share the sacrifice'

And if the right agrees with us, hey, that would a rare bi-partisan agreement and seems like a good thing to me.

[gateley]

4. Then we have areas of agreement. They (baggers) seem to

get more press and are more organized than we are, so if they get on board more people would likely be made aware.

I hope.

[sulphurdunn]

41. If 50 teabaggers

showed up to counter demonstrate against 1,000 progressives, the media coverage would be evenly divided or favor the pisbaggers. Plus, if the story survived until Sunday, the talking head shows would have conservatives outnumbering liberals (if there were any at all) by 5:1 in their commentary on it. Those who own mass communication and finance own the country, they aren't progressive and they know that half the population have 2 digit IQs. They fashion their message accordingly.

[gateley]

43. But if we AND teabaggers showed up to support the SAME THING --

that would be newsworthy and get a LOT of coverage, IMO.

[patrice]

15. OR - It fits into the Economic Justice meme: pay people what their Real Value is worth + Keep the

ratio of upper:lower salaries tighter, so that employees don't just do whatever to get more and more money, but decide critically upon the basis of what is best for the WORK.

[gateley]

2. Wow! Good for Brown! Fat chance, and if 'they' oppose this,

we HAVE to make sure it's all over the place and bang this drum relentlessly.

[Bragi]

7. They'll easily oppose it

They'll just say it isn't good enough, that Congressional salaries should be cut along with more cuts to benefits. It fits their anti-government meme perfectly.

[gateley]

45. Sigh. You're probably right. They spin EVERYTHING. nt

[Turbineguy]

6. A mandatory retirement age

might be more useful. Although there are exceptions.

[Bragi]

8. Why should voters choices be limited?

How does democracy benefit when voter's electoral choices are arbitrarily limited?

[TBF]

16. Actually it can work well -

in the legal field for example, most large firms require their partners to retire at a certain age (65 is common). It manages the flow so new up and comers can make partner in their 30s-40s, while also making sure clients have young energetic folks working for them. They have a nice pension, they are often offered shared office space if they'd like to come in occasionally - some continue to write and advise on cases. I think it's pretty brilliant - it would be nice if everyone had that kind of security as they aged.

[eridani]

24. Like being a professor emeritus/emerita

Takes advantage of valuable experience, while recognizing that ageing affects your overall decline in ability to deal with stress.

[Bragi]

32. Big diffference between lawyers and legislators

We elect legislators to pass laws that represent our interests and our will. They have power.

Lawyers we hire and fire at will. They have no power over us.

[druidity33]

39. that's weird...

when so many of our legislators are lawyers or formerly practiced law. Must be HUGE differences between the two.

:eyes:

[TBF]

63. That makes no sense -

My example was partners in law firms - yes they can be fired at will but even in today's economy that is quite rare. Yes, they'll pick up and move their business to a new firm sometimes, but that is their choice. With legislators we can vote them out - that is firing without a doubt.

If you were talking about Partners vs. Supreme Court Justices then you might have a more on-point example.

Why are you sticking up for the elite and powerful anyway? Why does it concern you so much that we might have a mandatory retirement age for congress?

[Bragi]

66. For me, it's about limiting people's democratic choices

I take the role of elected officials very seriously. I'm therefore opposed to arbitrary limits dictating who can present themselves as candidates to voters.

I oppose term limits for this very reason. Voters should have the freedom to choose who they want to represent them. If I want to vote for an incumbent, then I see no reason why my right to do so should be limited because he/she is "too old" or "too experienced".

As for cleaning up politics, I say do it in ways that don't arbitrarily limit voter choices. The problem with politics is with big money and lobbyists and big money and corporations and big money and right wing media, and did I mention big money's toxic impact?

That's the problem, not age and not experience levels.

[TBF]

73. Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. nt

[spooky3]

35. How does that not violate the Age Discrimination Act?

Mandatory retirement is permitted legally only in a few professions. I was not aware that professors or lawyers were exempted from protections.

[TBF]

49. Not sure - maybe someone will weigh in who knows. My guess is that it

is a provision they accept when they become partner.

[spooky3]

78. That doesn't trump statutory rights, which an employee can't be required to waive.

This article suggests that if someone is a partner, there may be circumstances under which it is permissible to force them into retirement.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/032510-mandatory-retirement-policy-age-discrimination.html

Since professors wouldn't qualify as partners/employers, that wouldn't apply to them. I don't believe that the law permits mandatory retirement for professors, as someone else suggested.

caveat: I am not an attorney.

[atreides1]

28. How does democracy benefit now?

Voters suffer from self imposed limitations currently...they vote because of name recognition, religious agendas, and other items that have little to do with the issues that matter!

[Bragi]

31. My point is more limited

I'm just saying I think voters should decide when a candidate is too old to support, not other legislators.

I'm certainly not saying that what passes for democracy today constitutes anything resembling an intelligent expression of opinion by informed voters.

[shraby]

74. I believe this thread has been hijacked..it started out being

a discussion on whether congresscritters can retire and get full pensions earlier than John Doe down the street who they are trying keep working until he is 67-70 before he can get full benefits at retirement. Nothing has been said in the OP about term limits or anything of that sort.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. So basically, your argument is that voters are too ignorant to pick good representatives

So therefore we should limit their choices. Am I correct?

[Bragi]

67. That's how I read it /nt

[booley]

9. there are differences between GOP and Dems

It bugs me when people say there are differences.

Not that Dems are perfect.

Not that there are DINOs.

But when's the last time a Republican proposed anything like this?

[Enthusiast]

10. See what I mean about Sherrod Brown?

Sherrod Brown is a REAL Democrat and I am proud to have him as my Senator.

[Peace Patriot]

12. GREAT bill, truly! But how about a bill to require vote counting in the PUBLIC venue,

and not in a "black box" with 'TRADE SECRET' programming code that the public is forbidden to review, with virtually no audit/recount controls, all over the U.S. in every state, run largely (80%) by ONE, PRIVATE, FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED corporation (ES&S, which bought out Diebold)?

...so that we have the power to prevent the Social Security age from being raised or benefits from being cut, by electing good people and throwing the bums out in transparent, verifiable, honest and aboveboard, publicly run, democratic elections.

Social Security was a good idea. So was public vote counting. We're losing the latter--along with so many other good things--because we've already lost the former--the bottom-line condition of democracy: transparent vote counting.*

At the least--like this bill to embarrass our congresscreeps regarding their own posh retirement package--a bill to require PUBLIC voting counting would force the creeps to state publicly that they oppose public vote counting and prefer a system controlled by one, far rightwing-connected corporation.

Then maybe the people of this country would WAKE UP and hold a REAL 'Boston Tea Party' to throw these diabolical election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' (so to speak)!

There are lots of bodies of water in the U.S.A. Thousands of lakes. Mighty rivers. Millions of small ponds and creeks. And many harbors on the great oceans. Hardly anybody is far from a big or small puddle into which to toss an ES&S/Diebold 'black box,' symbolically, so to speak. Could be the greatest party we ever held. Bring us together, you know? Land of the free, home of the brave. Could be the beginning of American Revolution II: throwing off corporate rule!

Peace :patriot:


----------------------------


*(The 'TRADE SECRET' voting machine coup d'etat occurred in the same month as the "Iraq War Resolution"--Oct '02--enacted by the same body, the Anthrax Congress--and, believe me, the two things were/are intimately related. The IWR insured U.S./U.K. corporate control of Iraq's oil, grand theft by the war profiteers and government bankruptcy to end all social programs, and the "Help America Vote for War" Act (aka, HAVA) insured that we would have nothing to say about any of this, or anything else, ever again. HAVA provided a $3.9 billion electronic voting boondoggle to spread these election theft machines all over the U.S. very fast--2002 to 2004--to lock down the voting system for the Forever War. To unlock it, we must restore vote counting to the PUBLIC venue--which is still a doable thing. The election theft machine coup was accomplished entirely by filthy lobbying and corruption. There is NO federal law requiring private corporate vote counting. Voting method is still a local matter--and ordinary people have much more potential influence at the local level. It is doable. And we MUST do it. We must!)

[spedtr90]

13. April 6 - right after the Ryan Plan - Democrats had an opening

and Brown's bill was a perfect response. But it didn't get much attention. I wish Dems had pushed this and had similar responses in every state; then never let up with the facts and getting out to the people.

[TacticalPeek]

17. Great press release.

And five months ago it was Latest Breaking News.

:shrug:

[kestrel91316]

18. We ought to require that they struggle in the medical insurance open market

just like the rest of us, also. Most of them have "pre-existing conditions", I am sure, and couldn't get a decent policy.

[avaistheone1]

20. Important point.

:thumbsup:

[Matariki]

19. Thank the gods of democracy for the likes of Senators Brown and Sanders.

[GOTV]

21. That's my Senator

[Auntie Bush]

42. Mine too! nt

[kiranon]

22. Yes! And, end their health care entitlement so they can buy it on

the open market and, in so doing, learn how hard and expensive it is to get. Sarcasm added for effect.

[Sirveri]

23. So instead they'll be more easily courted by big business.

After all, everyone has to eat right, and a nice cushy job at a big lobbying firm is better than getting nothing. Step in the wrong direction, we shouldn't be looking to take things from our civil servants, but looking at better ways to reduce their ability to be corrupted. I don't think this bill performs that task.

[sammytko]

25. There has been talk of doing the same to the military pension age

Right now you can retire at 20 years and get a pension, so someone as young as 37 can retire and then work another gig. I wouldn't like this.

[Sirveri]

36. Military pensions are different since military personnel can't affect policy.

Bribing a soldier is fairly pointless, it won't achieve anything major in our current setup. Bribing a politician on the other hand...

It's all about keeping them honest. I would much rather pay a few politicians if it keeps them from getting bought out by lobbyists and then going into lobbying themselves. Sadly however that isn't what's happening because the lobbyists have money to burn due to an elevated GINI coefficient.

I agree with the military pension increase because they typically re-enter the workforce and still can claim that pension, if they can't for whatever reason then I see no reason they shouldn't collect their VA disability plus pension.

[Vincardog]

26. Why not just make them PAY IN TO SS and retire on it?

[julian09]

34. They wouldn't take the cut in benefit , for part time job they do

What is the scale of money paid from five years to forty years service, plus life time health care.

[plumbob]

60. Yes, and Medicare as well.

Why should they receive more or better than the rest of Americans? Are they special in some way?

[Kingofalldems]

27. Teabaggers should be all for this one

[valerief]

29. GRRRREAT! Of course, it won't pass. **sucks** When I first read this,

I thought, Why would Centerfold Brown introduce this bill? Then I read it was Sherrod and it all made sense. He's a REAL senator, not a Playsenator.

[NorthCarolina]

30. This bill will go nowhere. nt

[Magginkat]

33. Pensions, etc.

And while they are at it, they should have Payroll taxes,(Social Security & Medicare) should be withheld on all income.

We should immediately cut off those glorious lifetime pensions, secret service, transition funds, office & staff, etc. for ex presidents and their spouses. Give them two weeks severance pay and they are on their own. Most of them leave office as millionaires or billionaires and immediately start getting astronomical fees for speaking, even George Bush (the 2nd) who is the world's biggest goofball.

[Marrah_G]

38. This will never make it to a vote and will be forgotten by Monday

[Juche]

40. I'm sure congressmen need the money

That is the problem, even if you raise the age most are wealthy and have no idea what it is like to have a $1300 monthly check be the difference between life and death.

[Auntie Bush]

46. Seems fair to me! Way to go Brown. Love Brown and Sanders. Two of the best!

[WinkyDink]

47. Can't agree. I've been retired since age 52, with a pension.

[Bjorn Against]

48. I would also like to see Congressional pay tied to the median income

If we tied Congressional pay to median income and only paid our members of Congress what Americans in the 50th percentile make you better believe they would fight a lot harder for the working class, if we don't get a raise they don't get a raise and if we go down they go down with us.

[Canuckistanian]

50. None of them would really miss it, anyways

They're almost all multi-millionaires.

[Liberal_in_LA]

51. [phone]

[Guilded Lilly]

54. Massive Cheers!!!!

[Riley18]

55. Yes and let them pay full price for healthcare. All benefits end once out of office.

[MrMickeysMom]

56. Say it with me....

YES! YES! YES! YES!
:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[Chisox08]

57. I love this idea.

Too bad a lead balloon has a better chance of floating than this bill has of passing.

[midnight]

58. K&R This is brilliant.

[bertman]

59. REC. Thank you Senator Brown. nt

[rucky]

62. Yeah, like that'll ever pass.

Good on Sherrod for bringing it up, though. I'm so proud to have him as my Senator.

[orbitalman]

64. Go For It !

[SoCalDem]

65. How about NO PENSION unless they work 20 consecutive years

..and why not make it means tested too since they often enrich themselves AFTER they become congresspeople/senators..

and NO medical either in retirement.. let them find their own on the "open market"..

[Disorientedx3]

68. Remember those "unintended consequences"?

I'm a nurse covered by FERS. As it is, to retire with full benefits I'll have to work until I'm 60.... and I'm not sure my body will make it that long... changing FERS will harm a lot of federal workers, and most of those guys are all gazillionaires already; it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to them.

[Javaman]

69. Get rid of the pensions. That would be step toward getting rid of professional politicians.

serving as an elected official, should be an honor and a privilege, not a career.

90% of the members of congress are millionaires. They have zero in common with most of us.

[SHRED]

72. if we can get rid of professional lobbyists...

...then I would tend to agree.

Limiting our right to vote and retain who we want to represent us is fool-hearty in my opinion.

Let's get to the root and back publicly funded elections. No PAC's and no corporate personhood.

[Javaman]

75. And the lobbyists as well.

anyone that makes a living off of politics is part of the problem.

To be clear, I'm after the life long careerists. That deem personal ego more important than the people.

[SHRED]

71. Kneejerk wrong direction

I understand the sentiment here but tearing down any retirement system in this country accomplishes nothing.

A Bill should have been put forward that grants all citizens what congress has.
What is accomplished by this other than harming the working-class Federal workers and setting the bar lower for all of us?


Think people...think.

[sammytko]

77. thank you! it would be a slippery slope

mentioned military pensions - they have already talked about moving the retirement age to 60 or whatever. Yes, you retire at 40, but have to wait to get your pension.

[mother earth]

76. About time! K & R

[Quantess]

79. Too late to recommend.