Jim Cooper Proposes Ban On Death Gratuity For Lawmakers' Spouses
Source: Huffington Post
Jim Cooper Proposes Ban On Death Gratuity For Lawmakers' Spouses
The Huffington Post | By Ashley Alman Posted: 11/23/2013 6:08 pm EST | Updated: 11/23/2013 6:14 pm EST
Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) introduced a resolution in the House this week, proposing a ban on death gratuities for spouses of deceased lawmakers.
When a member of Congress dies in office, an item is inserted into the next appropriations bill, granting the equivalent of one year's pay to the survivors of the lawmaker.
On Saturday, Cooper told The Hill that members of Congress should not receive such "special treatment," but should secure their families' futures through life insurance, "like regular citizens."
"The death gratuity became customary starting in 1918 before the birth of modern life insurance (1924), the creation of Social Security (1935), the establishment of civil service pensions (1942), and health benefits under Medicare (1965)," Cooper said. "A lot has changed since 1918, and the gratuity custom should have been abandoned a long time ago."
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/jim-cooper-death-gratuity_n_4330544.html
Autumn
(45,120 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,364 posts)He will lose financial support for his campaigns fast
This is blasphemy in Washington
Mass
(27,315 posts)OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)..and I think getting congress a group life policy would be fairly cheap and consistent with what other Federal workers do.
Mass
(27,315 posts)If Cooper wants to become a populist, he can support increasing Social Security and minimum wage.
He can reform this as well if he really wants, but this is something that will do no good for nobody (how many congresspeople die in office every year?).
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)There are over 400 of them and they skew older.
I think Cooper would like to tackle an issue that actually has a chance of passing with bi-partisan support. If he's really interested in saving taxpayer money, he should champion defense procurement reform.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)A group policy would use actuarial tables to calculate the expected cost and they would build in some profit. As it takes some stamina to run for office - even for an incumbent, they may be healthier than a random group with the same demographics.
It is very hard to see where this saves much at all.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If congress secured their familie's futures like regular citizens (as suggested) they would get their own personal life insurance, not a government paid life insurance policy.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)life insurance - I did and still do as a retiree of a major company. In some ways, this is like the Republicans complaining that the government pays part of their health care insurance.
Lasher
(27,641 posts)I retired from a major US corporation. We once had a retiree life insurance benefit that was highly similar to the one in the OP - one year's salary equivalent to the last year that the retiree worked. This degraded over the last 3 decades along with pensions and medical benefits. By the time I retired I got a $10,000 death benefit instead of one year's salary. And younger folks retiring today from the same employer probably won't get a death benefit at all.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Federal employees (and most other large scale employers) do provide death benefits which provide a lump sump benefit to survivors which roughly equal the amount of a severance package. Many unionized businesses and other corporate entities also provide survivors with a years salary. So it's not as if the practice is unheard of.
I'm sort of on the fence about the issue. On the one hand, many (if not most) members of congress are independently wealthy. On the other hand, some aren't (Dennis Kucinich is a good example). I'm not really a big fan of cutting the pay and benefits of members of congress because this only means the only ones who can afford to do it are those who are independently wealthy.
elleng
(131,197 posts)through Met Life, and I assume (maybe mistakenly) that congressmembers can participate too. Its a good policy.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Let them participate in that....
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I think it's damn time for this 1918 perk to be gone.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)The benefit - a year's salary is typical of what some companies provide their employees. As is, it is as if the Congress is self insuring that.
If the average Congress person is healthier than the average person in his/her demographic group, then it may well be cheaper to leave it as is.
nikto
(3,284 posts)Until ALL Americans can get Single-Payer too.
elleng
(131,197 posts)do not have 'single-payer' health care, but very good insurance options through the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan.
http://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Let 'em have their stupid death benefits if they do things for the public welfare to earn it.
Double those death benefits if they pass Single Payer.
Quadruple the damn things if they significantly expand Social Security.
Give them to them eightfold if theyinstate an actual progressive income tax like we used to have before Raygun.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Politicians today are mostly VERY well off. They can save and/or have insurance like the rest of us. What companies pay widows a years wage? Walmart? Kmart? Target? Macy's? Not!
AzDar
(14,023 posts)jmowreader
(50,567 posts)Let's ban the party caucuses.