Comment from a reader on Rant

“This is a "hot topic" and worthy of your talent to display "outrage",  You are so good at it.  Basically this is true what the e-mail said.  Their reasoning for this is that they are not ordinary people to begin with and since many could have had lucrative and more successful careers doing something else.  Eliminating a congressional pension from the entices of the job might convince many talented candidates not to seek office, especially those who are not wealthy. HA!!!!

 

There is, however, talk about term limits that suggests that the next Congress will face considerable pressure  to cut their own perks and privileges, at least to some extent.  I bet any changes or reductions will be minuscule at best.

 

Members of Congress do pay into Social Security. This became effective as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they entered Congress.  They supposedly pay 6.2% and 1.3% into the Federal Employees Retirement Fund.  They have the option of paying into the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or the option of not paying into any plan, which some of them do, or so they say.

 

 Nevertheless, it  is still obscenely generous for them to reap such benefits early since they can start collecting at the age of 50.  Of course, if one lives thirty or forty years the money is going to pile up and since they don’t pay into the system after they retire, our tax $$$$$$$ support them.  This is truly worthy of your "rant,"  I knew you wouldn't disappoint me!”                  

~~~ Thanks for clarifying. I thought  I’d read somewhere that there had been changes, I didn’t realize it went back that far. Apparently the original author of this piece, focused on the Congressmen who had been ‘grandfathered’ in under the previous system. I agree, this is still a sore spot for me. The health care insurance they have should also be available to the general public if they choose. ~~~ Eliza, still ranting!