New Wiener Scandal
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
June 17, 2011 5:46pm CST
It seems that a disgraced Congressman can receive up to $1.2 million in a Golden Parachute at age 62. This would be less if he starts drawing at age 56 he would receive $25,000 to $32,000 ($25,000 Congressional and $7,000+ for being an aid to Senator Schumer) a year for life with a cost of living yearly adjustments. If he waits until 62 he would receive $35,000 to $46,000 ($35,000 Congressional and $11,000+ as an aid) a year for life with a cost of living yearly adjustments. Compare this to the average worker who will retire (if he is lucky) with an average of $14,100 a year on Social Security. Can we afford to pay the ruling class this type of golden parachute?
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Weiner-pension-1-2million-Congress/2011/06/17/id/400414?s=al&promo_code=C759-1
2 people like this
3 responses
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
18 Jun 11
Yup, because Democrats are against Golden Parachutes. LOL!
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Jun 11
As to Weiner, he's got more scandals than he can handle. There's the matter of the unpaid parking tickets, the swapped license plates and the failure to register his car...
But as to pension and retirement for elected officials... I think the problem is that they are in charge of their own destiny. They vote on their raises, their pensions, their benefits. We've heard a lot about public sector unions getting sweet deals that cost the taxpayers but the Congress doesn't need a union, doesn't need to negotiate or anything. They just take a vote.
Obviously, if serving in Congress is a full time job, then the members of Congress need to have some kind of pension plan in case they stay there through their productive years, or as in the case of Anthony Weiner, they have no other marketable skills. Maybe the key is to make the job part-time, with fewer perks, shorter hours, periodic meeting and let them all work real jobs the rest of the time.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
18 Jun 11
The problem is that congress does not vote for their raises they are automatic unless a majority votes not to get the raise. This allows secure congressmen to vote to allow the raise while congressmen who are in a tight fight to vote against the raise congress wins and the taxpayer loses.
The idea was to have congress be a part time job with very little pay. Somehow they found that they thought they were too important to be part time. It takes a full time congress to really mess things up. As long as they were so good at doing this that they needed a raise and better benefits.
@nzinky (822)
• United States
29 Jul 11
I don't think disgraced Congress men shouldn't receive a cent...If they can't keep it in their pants then they shouldn't be allowed to get any money.....Don't you think it's a little strange he is a sick puppy......Don't let him have a nickle..
