20 citizen groups urge ethics reform to deny of pensions to lawmakers convicted of felonies..YES!

[in_cog_ni_to]

I hope our Dems LISTEN!


Coalition Targets Convicted Lawmakers
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - More than 20 citizen groups are urging the new Democratic leaders in Congress to include in any ethics reform the denial of pensions to lawmakers convicted of felonies.

"We must end the practice of rewarding lawmakers who abuse the law with plush pension packages funded by the American taxpayer," the coalition wrote in a letter to be sent Thursday to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, who will become Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader when Democrats assume control of Congress in January.

The groups, led by the National Taxpayers Union, include Ralph Nader's Congressional Accountability Project, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

Currently, members of Congress don't forfeit pensions unless convicted of crimes related to treason and espionage.<snip>

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/11/29/531199.html

[valerief]

1. Yes, yes, yes! nt

[texpatriot2004]

2. I'll kick to that! Strip those CRIMINALS of the benefits. CRIMINAL

Bastards don't get pensions.

[Nicole]

3. Yes! Should have been done years ago. n/t

[blm]

12. Kerry submitted it last February - mostly ignored by media - here's the 411

“Duke Cunningham Act” protects Americans from paying for the culture of corruption in Washington

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) introduced ethics reform legislation that takes direct aim at the culture of corruption in Washington by denying taxpayer-funded pension benefits to Members of Congress who break the public trust and are convicted of crimes such as bribery, conspiracy, or other serious ethics offenses.
Kerry said, “It is disgusting that hardworking taxpayers are funding the retirement of convicted criminals like Duke Cunningham. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken. The American people are forced to send pension checks to criminals.”

The Congressional Pension Accountability Act – or “The Duke Cunningham Act” – was authored by Kerry and is co-sponsored by Senator Ken Salazar.

Under current law, only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, causes U.S. Representatives and Senators to lose their Congressional pensions. Members of Congress convicted of white collar crimes still receive these federal retirement benefits. The Kerry legislation will change existing law to insure that the Congress no longer rewards unethical behavior at the expense of American taxpayers.

It is the intent of the Kerry bill to stop all future payments of Congressional pensions to lawmakers convicted of these serious ethics crimes. “The only thing crazier than giving a member of Congress convicted of a crime a federal pension is the fact that we still need a bill to prevent a convict from receiving their pension. Any member of Congress who abuses their position of authority for their personal profit deserves a prison sentence, not a government pension,” said Senator Salazar.

In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s, former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham recently resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, Cunningham admitted a pattern of bribery lasting close to five years, with federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter. Unless the law is changed, Cunningham will be allowed to receive his Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year.

Under Kerry’s bill, the following offenses would cause a Member of Congress to lose his or her Congressional pension: - Bribery of public officials and witnesses (Section 201 of Title 18);

- Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States (Section 371 of Title 18); - Perjury committed under the statues of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy; and - Subordination of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual.

“Most Americans don’t get a $40,000 a year pension, in fact most Americans are working harder for less and less. These guys who abuse the public trust shouldn’t be allowed to continue to exploit the system at taxpayer expense,” Kerry added.

# # #

[The Doctor.]

4. It's a good start.

K&R

[Hepburn]

5. Ok.......if you flame me, I understand, but I have a question:

What about an innocent spouse?

I have no problem with the guilty Rep paying the price and feel that is justified, but some of these people are married and assuming the spouse had NO clue about what was going on, why should he/she be penalized? I am having some trouble with, for example, a woman who for many years helped her husband, is 60+ years old, has no pension or monies of her own, suddenly being out on the street while her husband is in jail.

And giving her the pension is really no a solution to the problem because if she remains with him, he benefits, too, once he is out of jail because the monies will be used to support him. In some states, like Calif, the spouses have a mutual duty of support and she would be required to support him regardless of the fact that he went to jail for a crime committed while an elected official.

:shrug: I have no solution to that problem, but I have some real bad feelings about harming an innocent spouse and I cannot figure a way around the convicted spouse benefiting if the money goes to the innocent spouse.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Not to be cold and callous, but

as the wife of a felon, wouldn't YOU expect no reward for his behavior? I wouldn't expect to get his pension after he used his position to commit fraud on the people he worked for. I'm not so sure I would feel "clean" taking it. These people are multi-millionaires when they leave Congress. I wouldn't feel too bad for them. I'm sure they all have several Cayman Island accounts their spouses can live off of. Do Congressmen's wives really think they can buy a YACHT when their husbands are paid $165,000 a year??? The spouses knew what was going on. They had to know when their life style was that of a Millionaire when the husbands pay was $165,000. JMCPO.

[Hepburn]

7. Actually....

...having worked as a lawyer for a long time, I have seen the devastation on the families of those who were caught doing wrong. Unfortunately, there are some innocent spouses out there who are and were totally clueless as to what the other spouse was doing. Yes, there are some who have NO clue what was going on. Some times the things of value wrongfully received are nothing that is really visible or the spouse is just totally out of the loop and has been given an explanation which he or she does believe. Unfortunately, there are a lot of naive and stupid people out there. If not so, we would never have con men who successfully take advantage of others.

It is not just elected reps either. I distinctly recall a case that dealt with a police dispatcher that got caught taking bribes from drug dealers for a heads up on raids. The spouse had no clue. There were minor children involved as well. The dispatcher was disciplined and let go by the police department and the pension was lost because of the wrongful conduct. If the dispatcher has been discharged under other circumstances, the pension could have been rolled over and used at a later time. There were a lot of years involved in this pension fund that covered not just one year of wrong doing. The innocent spouse was damaged because of conduct in which there was no involvement ~~ hell, there was not even any knowledge and the shock was so great, the spouse filed for a divorce.

When a spouse is employed, at least under Calif law, the monies and benefits earned belong to the community not just to the employed spouse. In this case, the loss of that pension was to a middle class family and it will have devastating effects at the time of retirement. The innocent spouse divorced the one caught taking bribes and generally upon a divorce, the pension is divided or reserved for later division.

It is not a matter of guilt or guilty feelings in some cases ~~ it is a matter of survival at retirement age for a spouse who had nothing to do with the crimes and clearly knew nothing about them.

Yes, those who are guilty of wrong doing in public employment and in any official capacity should be punished. However, I would like to find a way to punish the wrong-doer and not the spouse or family who had nothing to do with the criminal conduct and who is already suffering because of what one member of their family did.

In the case I am talking about ~~ it was a long term marriage with long term employment. The pension would have been one of the major assets of the marriage and it rightfully belonged one-half to the innocent spouse. The case was resolved because there were other assets and the innocent spouse was given assets to off-set what the conduct of the wrong-doing spouse had lost to the community.

I just have seen too many things in my career where a "bad" spouse has caused horrible damage to the "good" spouse and loss of assets is one area that seems to hit the entire family and not just the one who deserves to be hit.

All I would like to see is some manner in which if there is an innocent spouse involved ~~ particularly if the wrongful conduct led to a divorce action by the innocent spouse ~~ that he/she is not punished for conduct in which he/she was not involved. I am just looking at this in an equitable manner.

JMHO

[elehhhhna]

8. You make quite a point there but isn't the welfare of the spouse and children

rightfully the responsibility of the idiot who risked it all for a bribe?

If the spouse sues for half the pension, and can prove their ignorance (quite a hurdle, that--good effing luck, Mrs. DeLay!) then perhaps arrangements should be made.

Several years ago I met a judge who'd been stripped of everything, after Operation Greylord in Chicago convicted him for taking bribes on the bench. I have never in my LIFE heard such a pathetic whiner. It was all about the loss of his fat pension...although he still had a million dollar house and gobs of assets, plus, although he;'d been disbarred, he was working under the table for some lawyers, anyway.

This stupid, selfish man humiliated his entire family. By choice. Now his daughter has the audacity to write and publish books entitled "Set for Life: A Financial Planning Guide", and "Retire Rich: The Baby Boomer's Guide to a Secure Future". For some reason I find this hysterically funny.

[Hepburn]

15. Sure the wrong doer is the one ultimately responsible...

...but that does not do much for a spouse who is not in a position to support him/her self after a long marriage and who had NOTHING to do with the wrongful conduct and had no knowledge of it. Let's say it is one bribe at the end of a long career, OK? A 30 year record of good service and an innocent spouse who is not in a position to support or take are of him/her self and is now at a point of having no retirement him/her self and most likely is not in a position to be gainfully employed or having marketable skills.

I have problems with the innocent person paying for the conduct of the guilty person. In a community property state, a pension belongs to both husband and wife for the portion which was earned from the date of marriage to the date of any separation. Why should a spouse of 30 years have his/her life turned upside down because the other person did something totally illegal? The wrong-doing spouse is going to prison most likely and under these circumstances there is NO way for him/her to be responsible ~~ even if there was a desire to so act.

You know, not everyone is like that whining judge. Yes, he is an asshole. And his daughter's book sure as hell looks inappropriate. But what if there is an innocent spouse who had no clue? She should just fall down the rabbit hole because she happened to be married to a total dishonest asshole? (Assuming here that she had no knowledge of what he was doing.)

I have NO problem of any nature whatsoever with a guilty person ~~ particularly ones in a place of authority ~~ paying for whatever crime was done. However, I have a problem with seeing an innocent person suffer the consequences of the conduct. I am looking at some manner in which if a spouse of a wrong doer is totally innocent, that he/she is not punished. The IRS has provisions for this and if these bastards can make such a provision, then other systems should be able to do the same.

JMHO

[elehhhhna]

22. Essentially, we agree. IIRC the city that the BTK killer worked for

voted to grant his pension--which they could have suspended due to his commission of crimes on city time-- to his unknowing wife. Seems fair to me.

The Judge ref'd to in my post, above, was long divorced. His wife blew out w/plenty of cash before he checked into the Fed pen.

[Hepburn]

27. IMO,

seems like equity was done in both cases! Nice to hear that once in awhile things function as they should!

I truly feel so sorry for the BTK killer's family. What a horror that must have been to live through something like that. As for the judge ~~ screw him. What an asshole ~~ and to bitch about not getting his pension? What a whiny asshole!

JMHO

[elehhhhna]

28. Yep, hep...plain old Chicagostyle politics at its best...makes the

DeLay 'machine' down here in TX22 look like a flippin' tinkertoy.

[SemperEadem]

19. the police dispatcher is non sequitur to this issue

Sorry for her, but we're not talking about her; we're talking about US Congress/Senate.

For the wife of a US rep/US senator---it's hard to not notice that there is a new Rolls Royce sitting in your driveway that you didn't buy and your husband didn't buy and you didn't lease it; or a brand new persian rug in your foyer and you know you didn't buy it and you know your husband' salary doesn't afford you to buy it, and you didn't rent it from rent-a-rug. How does it get by her that her daughter's got a lavish graduation party for which she nor her husband had the $$ to afford?

[Hepburn]

24. True...as to the specifics of that case.

I practiced law for a very long time and I am now retired. My partner did a very heavy practice in criminal defense. You would be amazed at what one spouse did not know about the other one's activities. I can tell you that over many years, I have seen some VERY stunned spouses. I did family law ~~ and the same applies to that.

I am specifically NOT talking about the Cunningham case. IMO, Mrs. Cunningham had to have been in a coma to NOT have seen what was going on. I am speaking SOLELY of an innocent spouse. I do believe in equity and that the courts are specifically under laws which require them to do equity.

[SemperEadem]

18. innocent?

she has to be comatose to not notice Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for her daughter.

No, the wife is not innocent, as she's the beneficiary of these gifts, also. She's spending the money, also. Not unless she goes on the record and makes her views known that she doesn't want any part of that money when it first starts coming in is she innocent.

[Hepburn]

25. Did I say anything about Mrs. Cunningham?

I am talking about INNOCENT spouses. If she does not fit the category, assume that she is not someone to whom I referred, OK?

My only comment on this ~~ and it seems that this has become blown out of proportion ~~ is that basically there should be a provision that protects an innocent spouse. I am NOT referring to any well known case in saying this and/or to any case in specific. It would be, of course, a matter of factual proof on claiming "innocent spouse" status. Just like with the provisions the IRS has for being an innocent spouse.

I don't think a person who proves up that he or she had no knowledge of the facts and who did not in any manner participate in a crime should suffer the consequences of the person who did the wrong doing. That is just an equitable principle that the law in every jurisdiction strives to do equity. It is nothing new, nothing extreme and nothing that is that outrageous or innovative. And, in NO manner does it excuse the wrong doing spouse ~~ it merely protects someone who is truly innocent of any involvement.

If your spouse did something wrong and you did not benefit and had no knowledge of it and did not participate, do you think you should be punished for his/her deeds?

I don't ~~ but I would just say that is a matter of opinion. If you feel differently, I can understand your thinking. I, for one, just do not care to see someone who is innocent suffer for the deeds of another.

Again, JMHO

[Lance_Boyle]

30. How is the spouse being punished?

It is not the spouse's pension that is being denied. It is the criminal's pension. As far as I know, "married to a congresscritter" does not automatically entitle one to a federal pension. :shrug:

[Hepburn]

32. Well, maybe it is just me, but...

...if I had been married to someone for a long time and I lost my interest in his pension because HE (note: NOT ME) had done something wrong and I had to forfeit my interest in what we earned together during our marriage...I most certainly see that I was being punished/penalized for something with which I had no connection whatsoever ~~ assuming I am an innocent spouse.

Why should a totally INNOCENT spouse forfeit his/her share of a pension when the OTHER spouse did all the wrong doing?

:shrug:

Assets earned during the course of a marriage are assets of the community. They belong to BOTH spouses.

[Lance_Boyle]

33. So if I'm married 20 years, and

one day (unbeknownst to my spouse) I decide to up and quit my job, would you believe that my spouse is entitled to continue receiving my former paycheck? After all, she had no idea I was going to quit my job, and she was expecting to continue receiving the benefits of my paycheck...

Also, I'm no law-talking-guy, but how can a pension count as an asset? It's the promise of an asset, not the thing itself. And the past decade has proven time and again that these "promised future assets" can be reduced or outright taken away at the whim of the company and the courts.

I do, to some extent, sympathize with your point of view on this. Perhaps we have identified a situation in which fairness to an individual must yield in favor of fairness to society?

[Hepburn]

34. A future pay check is not a present asset ~~ a vested pension is.

To the extent that a spouse earned an interest in a pension and it is vested, it is an asset of the community that belongs to BOTH the husband and the wife. If you don't think a pension is an asset, see ERISA. I have divided pension rights in divorces for about 23 years ~~ both as a practicing atty and doing paralegal work for other attys in producing what is called a QDRO ~~ Qualified Domestic Relations Order. What a QDRO does is after the pension plan is joined to the divorce proceedings, and if it is an asset to be received in the future or being presently received by one of the spouses, the QDRO is the judgment that provides for the future division of those funds between the spouses. It is served on the entity paying the pension after they have been duly joined to the proceedings and they are directed as to how those funds they hold will be paid in the future if the pension is not at that time being received by the spouse who earned the pension or if they are being paid now, how they are to be paid to the respective spouse.

Yes, absolutely, a pension is an asset of the community. It is divisible in a divorce. No doubt in my mind. I taught law school and my subject matter was community property. Pensions are an asset.

Btw: To be more clear about a future pay check ~~ if the money was earned after the marriage and prior to the separation of the parties, even if the funds are received by the wage earner spouse after the date of separation, that is still an asset of the community and subject to division upon a dissolution proceeding or legal separation proceeding. Things like accrued vacation pay, over time on the books, sick leave, etc. ~~ if earned date of marriage and prior to separation, they are also divisible if they represent a monetary sum that can be used by the employed spouse in the future.

I hate to say, trust me, but on this one, please do trust me. I know this area of the law extremely well.

[Lance_Boyle]

35. I'll trust your legal expertise, sure.

Nevertheless, if the pensioner forfeits his/her legal right to the pension through criminal conviction (which was the original topic of discussion prior to my/our tangent ;-) ), I do not see how even community property statutes (which vary from state to state, right?) can justify providing the forfeited pension to the spouse. The pension is forfeited, not just the pensioner's interest in it.

Like I said, I do sympathize with your view on this, and perhaps there should be some mode of accomodation available for the spouse who is truly ignorant of the criminal activity from which s/he unwittingly gains - a trial to establish spousal knowledge (or lack thereof) of the criminal activity. In reality, I think that would represent a miniscule number of cases, and granting the spouse rights to the forfeited pension by default would result more often than not in knowing accomplices to the criminal activity being rewarded for that activity. Maybe we are mostly in agreement on this, as it seems to come down to what should be the default status of the former pensioner's spouse WRT the forfeited pension. And I guess insofar as the standard is to prove guilt and not innocence in our legal system, the default should be that the spouse is entitled. But it should definitely be possible (even *easy*, IMO) to see that a spouse who knowingly profited from criminal activities is denied any benefit from those activities. Mrs. Duke Cunningham and Mrs. Kenneth Lay come to mind. This just seems like a tremendous burden on the courts for what I honestly believe would be a TINY minority of cases in which that spouse is truly ignorant of the crimes. But then maybe that's just the way our legal system has to crumble, given the presumption of innocence (or in this case, the presumption of ignorance).

See? You changed my mind. Sort of. ;-)

[Hepburn]

36. I agree....

...that it may only apply in cases where there is in fact an innocent spouse. Just like with the IRS laws ~~ I would hope that there would be a provision in the new law that the innocent spouse is not harmed. There are fed courts ~~ like the US tax court ~~ that try issues like this all the time. IMO, it's a matter of legal proof and if a spouse can prove up that he/she was NOT involved and had NO knowledge ~~ then IMO, their portion of the pension should survive the criminal conduct of the guilty party. It's is IMO only equitable. You have to remember, too, there are cases where a spouse divorced the wrong-doer prior to the criminal activity and in the divorce judgment he/she was awarded a portion of the pension ~~ and possibly gave up rights to other assets because of the importance of having this available in the future as funds necessary to survive when elderly and retired. I see no reason why a truly innocent spouse should suffer harm because of the wrongs of the other spouse. If this is determined on a case by case basis ~~ that has to be the way to do it ~~ then all those in need of protection from the wrong doer are protected. Just like the public is not burdened with the payment of a retirement to someone like this, the party who had not part in it is not harmed.

Just seems fair to me ~~ to use an old legal term!

Thanks for the discussion, btw! :hi:

[denverbill]

29. Walmart always needs greeters. n/t

[magellan]

9. K&R

[blm]

10. Kerry submitted that bill - remember, he called it the Duke Cunningham Act?

.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. I didn't know that!

:thumbsup: to John Kerry!

[blm]

14. Here's the bill from last February - hopefully more people will realize the media

really is blocking the public from knowing what it needs to know about Kerry while it pushes BushInc's lies about him.


“Duke Cunningham Act” protects Americans from paying for the culture of corruption in Washington

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) introduced ethics reform legislation that takes direct aim at the culture of corruption in Washington by denying taxpayer-funded pension benefits to Members of Congress who break the public trust and are convicted of crimes such as bribery, conspiracy, or other serious ethics offenses.
Kerry said, “It is disgusting that hardworking taxpayers are funding the retirement of convicted criminals like Duke Cunningham. No wonder people look at Washington and know this city is broken. The American people are forced to send pension checks to criminals.”

The Congressional Pension Accountability Act – or “The Duke Cunningham Act” – was authored by Kerry and is co-sponsored by Senator Ken Salazar.

Under current law, only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, causes U.S. Representatives and Senators to lose their Congressional pensions. Members of Congress convicted of white collar crimes still receive these federal retirement benefits. The Kerry legislation will change existing law to insure that the Congress no longer rewards unethical behavior at the expense of American taxpayers.

It is the intent of the Kerry bill to stop all future payments of Congressional pensions to lawmakers convicted of these serious ethics crimes. “The only thing crazier than giving a member of Congress convicted of a crime a federal pension is the fact that we still need a bill to prevent a convict from receiving their pension. Any member of Congress who abuses their position of authority for their personal profit deserves a prison sentence, not a government pension,” said Senator Salazar.

In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s, former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham recently resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, Cunningham admitted a pattern of bribery lasting close to five years, with federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter. Unless the law is changed, Cunningham will be allowed to receive his Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year.

Under Kerry’s bill, the following offenses would cause a Member of Congress to lose his or her Congressional pension: - Bribery of public officials and witnesses (Section 201 of Title 18);

- Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States (Section 371 of Title 18); - Perjury committed under the statues of the United States or the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy; and - Subordination of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual.

“Most Americans don’t get a $40,000 a year pension, in fact most Americans are working harder for less and less. These guys who abuse the public trust shouldn’t be allowed to continue to exploit the system at taxpayer expense,” Kerry added.

# # #

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Oh, I just LOVE Salazar's point here:

“The only thing crazier than giving a member of Congress convicted of a crime a federal pension is the fact that we still need a bill to prevent a convict from receiving their pension.

This is wonderful. I hope the Dems take this on after they're sworn in. How many Congress people would chance losing their Pension by committing fraud? NOT MANY.

[blm]

23. It should be the same for ALL of taxpaid DC workers and their staff, too.

.

[porphyrian]

11. Abso-fuckin-lutely. - n/t

[progressoid]

16. Dit-fuckin-to!!

[jarab]

17. Great idea! But, will never happen. n/t

...O...

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. Why not?

What could possibly be their excuse for NOT passing this?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

26. IF they were to do this

It could go a long way to deter future corruption in our government. The only real bottom line most of those corrupt politicians know is money.

[SoCalDem]

31. We don't even need that./ we just need term limits/.

I think we should shake it ALL up. In a country the size of ours, there's no reason to think that the crop we have now is the best of the best.

Our founders never intended for there to be LIFETIME LEGISLATORS.

They WANTED the constant influx of new ideas...new people..

Serve a while and then return to your "real life"..

Senate should be 4 years (2 terms, like the presidency) House should be 3 yrs..3 terms limit..

"Pensions" should not even be offered, since these jobs often propel people into way more lucrative jobs down the line anyway, and they are SERVICE-TO-COUNTRY jobs anyway.

Eliminating the "cozy" nature and camaraderie with lobbyists is a GOOD thing..