Senators and Congressmen receive public pensions...

[kentuck]

...just like teachers, firemen, and policemen?

If they want to insist that these public servants give up their pensions, should they not be asked to do the same??

Who do they think pays for their salaries and pensions. It is the same taxpayers that pay for the pensions of our teachers and firemen and policemen. Who in the hell do they think they are to ask other public servants to sacrifice when they are acting like hogs at a feeding trough??

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. They should be the FIRST to take cuts.

I think their pay should be cut by a large measure and they should contribute a large sum to their pensions and health benefits.

I also think their pay raises should be voted on by the general public; hence they should only get raises about once every two years. Let them tell us how much they want, then let us tell them no.

Lastly, I think they should be subject to term limits without a limit on how may terms they can serve. Three terms and out for at least one, then let them run again if they so choose.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. My Rep refuses his raises and uses the monies to offer scholarships to displaced workers....

You should ask yours why they do not do the same thing...

[KoKo]

5. He might be the "minority" though. It would be good if any Dem Progressive Group would

get on this and make it an issue.

The Repugs are so good at getting "memes" and slogans that get picked up. We need to do better.

Surely there are some Congress Critters who do good stuff...but, what about the rest.

[kestrel91316]

2. Legislators' pension deals should be directly linked to other public servants'

pension deals, so they can't screw others without paying dearly themselves.

[KoKo]

4. Why can't we get this driven in the MSM?

After all this time...why isn't it a Democratic Talking Point to counter the RW Crazies?

[Egalitarian Thug]

6. They think that they are better than you, that's who. They think that they are the ruling class and

that therefore the rules do not apply to them.

They think that the most valuable skill on earth is the ability to stand before an individual or large groups of people and lie straight into their faces, then turn around and stab them in the back while lifting their wallet.

And finally, they think you are dumb enough to, not only let them get away with it, but to send them money and work to ensure that they can do it again and again.

I'm not entirely sure they are wrong. I mean, look at the record.

[nineteen50]

7. No pension no special medical care. S.S and medicare at 65.

40 hour work week with 2 weeks off per year. No raise unless the minimum wage is increased. Reduce their pay by the % the deficit grows each year.

[pinboy3niner]

8. Members of Congress contribute to SS and retirement plans like other federal employees

Viral emails have spread a lot of lies and distortions about legislators' benefits. These mostly come from RW sources and is part of their demonization of 'big government.' These attacks are regularly debunked by factcheck sites and other sources. Here's one example, from a federal employees' group, that addresses false claimes about congressional retirement:

...


3." …he or she (the named senator or representative) paid nothing in on any kind of retirement, and neither does any other senator or congressman.”

FALSE. Although members of Congress participate in the same retirement systems as all other federal civilian employees, their contribution requirements are higher than for other civil service workers, and their retirement computation formulas are more liberal than most others. That is because the average tenure of a member of Congress is significantly shorter than other federal employees. However, members of Congress under CSRS are required to contribute 1 percent more of their salaries than General Schedule employees to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF), while those covered by FERS are required to contribute 0.5 percent more. CSRS-covered members of Congress presently contribute 8 percent of total salary to CSRDF, and FERS-covered members contribute 1.3 percent. This is in addition to the 6.2 percent of the first $102,000 of salary they all pay to Social Security.

4. “This fine retirement comes right out of the general fund: our tax money.”

This statement omits crucial information about the financing of the federal retirement system. When federal employees and their employing agencies make contributions to the CSRDF, such money is deposited in the general fund, and a government security of equal value is created and credited to the CSRDF. These securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and have the same standing as U.S. Savings Bonds. When funds are needed to pay retirement benefits, securities credited to the CSRDF are converted to cash with money from the general fund.

...


http://www.narfe.org/departments/guest/articles.cfm?ID=408

[EC]

9. They should also be put on a hourly wage

to encourage them to WORK.

[kentuck]

10. This bunch of characters...

with the exception of a very few, have sold out to the corporations of their choice. They win a race for Congress and automatically become career politicians. They start campaigning for their next election. They start looking for donations in exchange for favors.

Many of them get paid better than they have ever been paid in their lives. Even though most of them are of average intelligence or less and deserving of much less than they are being paid. Then they work for 2 or 3 days a week before they go home or on vacation. We are to assume they are working if they are in Washington?

They forget that they are public employees. We pay their salaries. We are their bosses. They answer to us. The gall of some of them to attack "public employees" like teachers, firemen, and policemen as somehow less important than they? They are scum on the surface of our government. We need to take a ladle and skim them off the top.

[Sirveri]

11. Not unless you want to insure only the wealthy hold those jobs.

The response shouldn't be to take benefits away in response, but to remove the politicians who vote to remove them in the first. Limiting the ability of others who aren't moneyed to be able to get into those offices is NOT the solution.

[kentuck]

12. The wealthy would have to win the election.

They are not appointed.

[Sirveri]

15. And if the job pays no money, how many poor folk would run to get it?

How many of them would be encouraged to take kick backs.

The goal is not to jump on the bandwagon to take away benefits, but to stop that train before it leaves the station. To improve the benefits of those who have none.

[kentuck]

16. I can remember when they were paid less than $50K per year...

Somehow they survived. Perhaps they were still corrupt but we did not have as many millionaires then as now.

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. Thing is, the (comparatively) wealthy already DO hold those jobs.

As Washington reels from the news of 10.2 percent unemployment ((this was written in 2009)), the Center for Responsive Politics is out with a new report describing the wealth of members of Congress.

Among the highlights: Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html

I've yet to shed a tear over some poor (ha!) overworked (ha!) congresscritter.

[kentuck]

14. And I would venture a bet...

...that the majority of those become millionaires after they reach Congress??