Is Congress really going to take on a congressional perk?
Prediction: The following bill would have near-universal public support. From The Hill:
While vast numbers of the private-sector workforce have seen their pensions vanish over recent decades and find themselves with precarious, market-based 401(k) plans, members of Congress receive both a pension and a quality employer-match plan.
According to at least two lawmakers, it’s time for elected officials to join the real world.
“If you compare the private sector to what the folks in the federal government get, in the federal government you not only get healthcare benefits, you get a 401(k) that has a higher match than most private-sector companies,” Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) told The Hill.
“Then on top of that you get the pension,” Griffin said. “Most private-sector folks don’t get a pension.”
In an effort both to identify cost savings amid the nation’s growing debt crisis and to give federal lawmakers more credibility in addressing related financial issues, Griffin and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) have recently introduced separate proposals for the elimination of pension benefits for members of Congress.
In mid-November, Griffin put forward legislation terminating congressional pensions for future elected officials. Two months earlier, Coffman introduced stricter legislation to eliminate lawmakers’ pensions.
I’ll believe this is more than political posturing when I see a bill actually become law — especially if said law applies to current members going forward, not just future ones. That said, I guess it’s a good sign of sorts that some pols believe there’s value in posturing this way. And a more solid reason for hope that this is part of a serious effort to fix the nation’s finances, not just score political points, comes later in the story:
Cutting member pensions and relying instead on the Thrift Savings Plan represents a savings of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. But, Griffin pointed out, that amount is just a drop in the bucket compared with the hundreds of billions that could be saved by eliminating pension benefits across the federal government.
“This for me is less about the money you save and it’s more about being credible when we take on the bigger issue of civil service pensions, because that is where the real money is,” Griffin explained.
More broadly, these kinds of efforts — again, if they are actually successful — represent perhaps a better option than term limits to curb political careerism. Make their retirement benefits more like those in the real world. Subject them to the same kind of insider trading laws imposed on people in the real world. Keep going in that vein, and maybe staying in Washington for decades won’t be so much more appealing than returning to the real world.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
195 comments Add your comment
Voice of Reason
November 30th, 2011
11:54 am
First?
Voice of Reason
November 30th, 2011
11:55 am
Ok. I always thought the “first” thing was lame, but it’s actually kind of satisfying.
On the article itself: Agreed. It would be a good thing, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
carlosgvv
November 30th, 2011
12:07 pm
Since the Republicans are the party of the rich, this is definitely just political posturing and will absolutely and positively never happen. You see, most of them are rich too.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
12:09 pm
carlosgvv: If they’re all rich, why do they care about getting a congressional pension?
a dad
November 30th, 2011
12:16 pm
Kyle – why do the rich care about getting a pension? Cause it’s more money. I’ll beleive they’re serious about giving up their perks when I see airborne swine. What really irks me those is our servicemen only get 50% of their pay, and they get shot at. What’s the worse thing on the Hill? Maybe a TV conference with their fly open behind the podium. Or an “oops” moment.
Jimmy62
November 30th, 2011
12:20 pm
carlosgv: And since the Dems are the party of dishonesty and have tricked you in to thinking they care about you, they won’t even bring this sort of thing up because they have no interest in in fixing anything but their own bank accounts. Something like this is FAR more likely to actually happen when someone submits a bill about it than when they don’t. Sorry you won’t give the GOP credit for something the Democrats will never do in a million years. Someone is hyperpartisan.
arnold
November 30th, 2011
12:25 pm
“Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
12:09 pm
carlosgvv: If they’re all rich, why do they care about getting a congressional pension?”
More, more more. The whole thing is an ego trip.
PeachPassPower
November 30th, 2011
12:27 pm
But how are Congress and the Government going to retain the best and the brightest if their compensation package isn’t competitive??? Oh wait . . .
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
12:32 pm
Kyle…..because Carlos believes if you make $100k per year that you are rich! haha.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
12:34 pm
Hey Carlos….Obama IS rich. Do you consider him evil as well? Great job!
Hootinanny Yum Yum
November 30th, 2011
12:46 pm
Carlosgvv writes: “Since the Republicans are the party of the rich, this is definitely just political posturing and will absolutely and positively never happen. You see, most of them are rich too.”
Carlosgvv, your comment illustrates the ignorance of many on the Left who believe everything they are spoon fed by liberal handlers and the media.
Not sure if Kyle allows links, but do us a favor and Google “congressional millionaires list 2011″. The top two returns are somewhat eye opening.
The first, from OpenSecrets.org, states that of the top 20 richest members of Congress are split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. The second, from NPR, states that of the top 13 richest members of Congress, 9 are DEMOCRATS.
Continue to drink the Kool-Aid my friend.
very xmas
November 30th, 2011
12:49 pm
and I think the “first” thing proves you’re all GOPeetards and morons.
commoncents
November 30th, 2011
12:49 pm
I’d like to see this. I’d also like to see representatives elected for actual terms, not a career.
Jefferson
November 30th, 2011
12:51 pm
You have to offer perks to get quality people…
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
12:52 pm
I’ll believe this is more than political posturing when I see a bill actually become law
Me, too. On the slim chance that it does become law, you can be sure it’ll have loopholes written in the fine print, to make sure that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
12:56 pm
because Carlos believes if you make $100k per year that you are rich!
Agreed that $100k a year doesn’t usually make one filthy rich but it is about 3 times the income of the average Georgian.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
12:59 pm
carlosgvv: Republicans are the party of the rich
———-
Guess you missed the story this week about who Obozo sees as his base–the rich and the parasites. To hell with the working and middle class.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:05 pm
Hillbilly, that may be true but again it certainly does not make you rich.
Jefferson
November 30th, 2011
1:08 pm
100k is well off, don’t fool yourself.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:12 pm
Jefferson….”well off”. It is a nice job but again it is not rich and many would not consider “well off” either.
williebkind
November 30th, 2011
1:18 pm
I want to see the insider trading rule voided for congress too!
Ross Perot
November 30th, 2011
1:22 pm
Hmm they make 100k a year and retire millionaires. Are they printing their own money too?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:24 pm
Ross Perot…..are you referring to the president?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:25 pm
Ross Perot….Hey Genius! Did I ever say they made $100k.
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
1:27 pm
Make their retirement benefits more like those in the real world.
I have a better idea. How about making private “real world” pension benefits more like those in government?
Such pensions were common in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s, before those running large corporations decided that their number one priority was to maximize upper management’s income (as opposed to maximizing shareholder wealth). As an example, my father left Honeywell in 1975 to start his own business. Nevertheless, 30 years after leaving Honeywell, they started paying him the pension he earned during his 14 years of employment with them.
Note that Honeywell is a private company, and before private companies paid their CEOs hundreds of times more than the average worker, they were able to afford competitive pensions for their workers while still maximizing shareholder value.
We don’t have a deficit problem in this country. We have a distribution problem. Most of the wealth is accumulating to those at the top, unearned, and Kyle’s answer is consistently to make the poor and middle class battle it out for the scraps.
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20060621/
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:31 pm
Bart…..”a distribution problem” spoken like a true Marxist. Great job. “unearned” that is even better. That is right. Those evil CEO’s at the top do nothing all day and are paid millions! Evil Evil Evil…..HAHAHAHAHA!
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
1:36 pm
For UGA1999
“…Richard Fuld, became the poster boy for Wall Street greed today as he defended the $484 million he received in salary, bonuses and stock options since 2000….Congressman Waxman also cited a request submitted to Lehman’s compensation committee four days before the firm filed for bankruptcy. The request, he said, recommended that the board give three departing executives over $20 million in special payments. ”
abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5965360&page=1#.TtZ29FZVUQo
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
1:36 pm
**hundreds of billions that could be saved by eliminating pension benefits across the federal government.
Great thinking going on there; let’s just have millions of old geezers become paupers. If the goal is to move backwards, I’d say the republicans are champions of that race.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:37 pm
Bart….your point?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:38 pm
Sailfish…..you do realize he gap between the classes has grown larger with Obama in office right? You do realize that Obama is “rich” right?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
1:41 pm
There’s no such thing as “unearned income”. Except for where government is involved, income happens in a mutually-agreed-upon exchange of money for some product, service, or other thing of value.
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
1:42 pm
Some more about UGA1999’s hard working executives…
“Mr. Cayne, who has also used bridge to help recruit clients, considers tournaments a welcome break, say people who’ve spent time with him at the events. He has played in at least three so far this year, staying from a few days to over a week at each.
Attendees say Mr. Cayne has sometimes smoked marijuana at the end of the day during bridge tournaments…
About this time, Mr. Cayne began his summertime ritual of taking a helicopter from New York City to Deal, N.J., on Thursdays to make a late-afternoon golf game at the exclusive Hollywood Golf Club, associates say. (He pays for the 17-minute, $1,700 trips himself, one person says.) After spending the night in his vacation home nearby, associates add, Mr. Cayne generally hits the golf course again Friday morning for another 18 holes,…
The following day, a Saturday, Mr. Cayne scored a respectable 88 at the Hollywood golf course, according to the golf Web site. But for Bear, things seemed to be falling apart that weekend.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387369474078336.html
Dumb and Dumber
November 30th, 2011
1:45 pm
The two GOP Congressmen know full well that neither the Republicans or Democrats in the House and Senate will ever pass any bill limiting their retirement bennies and perks. Its all posturing so they can claim to their constituents that they are “doing something” ….
You can find lots of examples where Reps and Dems made fortunes while in Congress (hullo, y’all miss the news on Congressional Insider Trading recently? Lots of dirty hands on both side of the aisle on that stinker). And then we have Charlie Ranngel (D – NY) who is almost in a class by himself, except not really. Former House Speaker Dennis Haster (R – Ill) made a fortune while in the House and he did it without falling asleep poolside at a luxury resort in Hawaii while on a lobbyist junket (that pic still gets air-time on Jon Stewart’s show) — look what you can find with a simple web search:
“Prior to his two-decade long career as a congressman, Hastert was a high school teacher in Chicago with a modest family income. Yet, somehow, he managed to become a multi-millionaire while in Congress: his financial net worth went from less than $270,000 in 1986 to an estimated $4 million to $17 million. No, this was not due to a rich wife or a sudden inheritance, nor was it due to winning a lottery….”
And Tea Party/GOP Congressman Andy Harris from Maryland famously whined about having to wait 30 days for gubmint supplied health care when taking office back in 2010. Clearly he is only against gubmint supplied health care for other folks, not him or his staff.
Partisanship is an IQ test, if you still believe that the Democrats or Republicans care about anything except getting political power, you failed.
OK, resume your name-calling.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:45 pm
bart….still waiting on your point. Not cut and past comments from someone else.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
1:47 pm
And Bart’s answer is consistently to point to received wisdom that lacks the benefit of being factual.
Let’s take Honeywell, since you mentioned it. In 2008, its CEO ranked No. 9 on Forbes’ list of the largest CEO paychecks, with total compensation of $28.7 million — a lofty ranking and a lot of dough, to be sure. Of this, $17.5 million was a bonus tied directly to the company’s performance. But let’s ignore that and act as if $28.7 million were the going rate for a Honeywell CEO.
Also in 2008, Honeywell had 122,000 employees. Now, let’s assume that Honeywell’s board decided that, to provide a good pension for all of its employees, it would reduce the CEO’s salary by 99 percent, to $287,000 a year, and put the rest of the money ($28.4 million) into a pension plan. That would come out to…
…drumroll, please…
…a little less than $233 per employee.
Do you have another “answer” for the decline in private-sector pensions, Bart? Maybe one that involves longer life expectancies after retirement age or increasing global competition?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:49 pm
Kyle….nice.
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
1:50 pm
I made my point at 1:27, UGA1999…no cutting and pasting. Since you rely exclusively on talk radio and Fox News for your misinformation, I thought I’d dig up a little backup to help you understand the point I made.
Puck
November 30th, 2011
1:50 pm
Funny that pensions are still popular in the upper echelons of many private sector companies. It is also interesting that those “precarious, market-based 401(k) plans” are what people like Kyle want to replace social security with.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
1:52 pm
uga1999
So, what’s your point? Isn’t obama the guy who wants to tax millionaires & billionaires a few points more because, drum roll please…..they are wealthy and can afford it? without putting nary a dent in their bentley.
Chuck Doberman
November 30th, 2011
1:55 pm
The goal has already been stated; give up congressional pensions so they may then proceed to abolish all federal pensions. It’s foresight on the part of these two congressman as it will be tough to sell that plan if they are still collecting. It’s a good move toward removing any/all major benefits that federal workers presently get cuz “that’s where the real money is”. Let’s face it, the vast majority of pols leave office far better off than they were when they came in. Even without the federal pension most will probably do just fine when they retire, so the sacrifice, while painful (and it will be painful for them to give up some of their holy trinity of money, power and influence even though it probably will not change their lives much… it’s the principle) is relatively minimal. Everyday federal workers, on the other hand, will very likely lose most or all of their retirement nestegg if this agenda is successful. These are the cuts the GOP wants
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:55 pm
Bart, actually no you didnt. You posted some articles with someone elses points. Did I say a word about “talk radio” or “Fox News”….more of your intelligent guessing I assume?
So do you believe that CEO’s make up their own salary?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
1:57 pm
sailfish…..”So, what’s your point? Isn’t obama the guy who wants to tax millionaires & billionaires a few points more because, drum roll please…..they are wealthy and can afford it?”
REALLY? Is that why Obama kept the Bush tax code that kept taxes lowered for the upper class?
How much do you feel the top 1% “should” pay in taxes? Is the current 51% not enough?
Also, you do realize you could go out and start a company, become a CEO and buy your own Bentley too dont you?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:01 pm
Sailfish….here is another question for you?
Ok, lets assume that we raise taxes on the wealthy….but in order to keep the company profitable he has to shed 3% of of his workforce. Was it worth it?
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
2:07 pm
Your math, Kyle, assumes that CEO pay is the only source of pension contributions (I certainly didn’t mean to imply that.) Of course, it’s not. But by highlighting Honeywell’s CEO pay, you supported my point.
In fact, my old man collects somewhere in the neighborhood of $233 per month from Honeywell (between $200 and $250). Again, that was for 14 years of employment with 30 years between the time he left and the time he began collecting.
They obviously got the money somewhere. And when such pensions are disappearing as Honeywell’s CEO pay is dramatically increasing, we see where some of the pension money went, your back-of-the-envelope arithmetic notwithstanding.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:15 pm
Kyle….Bart just doesnt get it. They never do.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
2:18 pm
Did anyone put a gun to Honeywell employees’ heads and force them to accept those horrible, low paid, poorly benefitted jobs?
Didn’t think so.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:21 pm
uga
You’re question is a non starter, we are talking about raising taxes on personal income – they can afford it.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:23 pm
Sailfish….Dont you realize that all comes out of the same bucket?? ESPECIALLY for small businesses and medium businesses.
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
2:23 pm
Incidentally, Kyle, CEOs aren’t the only members of upper management who receive ridiculous amounts of compensation–just shining a light on them since they symbolize what’s happening across the board in the upper ranks. You’ll find a little additional sources of potential pension contributions for the rank and file if you run the numbers for the members of the board, CEO, COO, CFO,…Executive VPs of this and that,…
Again, not the only sources, but it helps the cause.
(The CEO of Costco makes too much to, compared to the rank and file, but relative to CEOs of organizations with similar performance, he helps demonstrate what’s possible: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12397054#.TtaB3VZVUQo)
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:24 pm
uga
If my icome zooms upward, I have no problem paying more in taxes, I’m still making more money.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:25 pm
**Dont you realize that all comes out of the same bucket?? ESPECIALLY for small businesses and medium businesses**
That’s the myth that you have bought into – hook, line, and sinker
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:26 pm
Sailfish…..Your income my “Zoom” upwards but that doesnt mean that your profits do. You have made no clear distinction.
Jefferson
November 30th, 2011
2:28 pm
Many remarks show the lack of compassion for the majority of the workers in this country, futher showing how out of touch with reality many are. Kiss your dollars if you love them.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:29 pm
uga
What more info do you need? The more you make, the more they take – you’re still making more money, stop moaning about paying more taxes on it.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
2:29 pm
401K’s weren’t originally devised as a pension plan for the masses. They were devised as a way for CEO’s to avoid taxes. Didn’t take them long to figure out, though, that they could use it as an instrument to do away with defined benefit pensions.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/world/401k.html
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:31 pm
sailfish…that is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen on this blog. I thoujght you were better than that. If you make “more” money you DO pay “more” taxes. Now are you referring to percentages?
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:34 pm
hillbilly d
One of the lessons of the great depression was that there were so many elderly left poor and impoverished. There was a movement toward pensions being a reequired benefit, that ideal worked fine. Nowadays, its every man for himself and the problem with that is there is no money left over for retirement. The last thing left standing is social security and many want to get rid of that. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot and saying that there’s no pain.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:37 pm
**If you make “more” money you DO pay “more” taxes.**
Not necessarily, ask warren buffet, and yes I’m talking about percentages. The wealthy can afford 4 or 5 more points in taxation without barely a scratch to their bottom line.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:38 pm
Sailfish….SO you are saying that someone who makes $30k per year pays more in taxes that Warren Buffett??? HAHAHAHA. That is grand!
4 or 5 more points!?!?!?!?! Are you serious!?!?! HAHA did you ever take an economics class. BUSINESS IN AMERICA WOULD CRUMBLE nearly over night! So much for adding jobs!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
2:39 pm
sailfish, the millionaires and billionaires are already paying their “fair share” and most of yours, so quit your whining. Your greed is ugly.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:40 pm
uga
What about the job destroyers sending jobs overseas? Great patriots, the lot of them, money is their god.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:42 pm
lbb
My greed? Not seeing it, I do fine on my 80k, I would imagine that if I was making 800k, I’d be living even finer and would not whine about paying higher taxes – you guys are the sycophants for the rich – pathetic.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:43 pm
Sailfish….the job destoyers? You mean like Obama?
Question….why do you think companies are sending jobs overseas?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:44 pm
Sailfish….by making $80k some people would consider you to be “rich”. What if we raised your taxes 4 or 5 points?
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:45 pm
**Question….why do you think companies are sending jobs overseas?
Let me guess? Unions
The fact is during bush millions of jobs went overseas and millions of illgal immigrants waltzed in, the gates were flung open by an administration that regulated just about nothing,
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:46 pm
**What if we raised your taxes 4 or 5 points?**
No problem, maybe we could then start paying off unfunded wars.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:48 pm
Sailfish….Actually, not it is not ALL because of unions. That is just a small percentage of the problem. They are sending jobs overseas because of cheap labor and cheap material costs. SO, if you know that companies are sending jobs overseas because of high costs here in America. Do you really think it is smart business sense to raise taxes?
Here is a better idea. Place a heavy tax on any good made outside of this country. Force the companies to bring their products and services back to America. Provide them with TAX BREAKS to give them an incentive to bring the jobs back home.
Also you do realize that since Obama has taken office over 2.5MILLION private sector jobs have disappeared. Great job Obmaa. You can try to spin it on Bush all you want but facts are facts.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:50 pm
Sailfish….”no problem”….you can send your check to the IRS at anytime. Unfunded wars…..are you referring to Libya, Iraq or Afganistan? Get ready because Iran is on the radar.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:50 pm
**Here is a better idea. Place a heavy tax on any good made outside of this country. Force the companies to bring their products and services back to America. Provide them with TAX BREAKS to give them an incentive to bring the jobs back home.**
Excellent suggestion
Let’s not forget who to blame also – congress, they make the laws, the president executes them.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:50 pm
SailFish….you also realize that CLINTON signed NAFTA?? Talk about unregulation!
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:52 pm
uga
Actually, obama put the wars on the books, we are all responsible to pay for it and put away the china visa card.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:53 pm
sailfish…”blame congress” OK GREAT IDEA, LETS DO THAT. Being that Obama had the supermajority in the Congress for the first two years of his presidency and ran up more debt in that amount of time than any other president in history. Thanks for pointing that out.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:54 pm
Sailfish…….”Put away the China Vias Card” AMEN TO THAT! That is the EXACT message we are going to send to Obama in November of 2012.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:54 pm
uga
Good debate, thanks…I get the feeling that we’ll never agree on much but I do respect your passion and beliefs. We are all americans just trying to get over this miserable stretch of economics.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
2:57 pm
**ran up more debt in that amount of time than any other president in history**
Please don’t tell me you believe that myth, it is a bold faced lie, you have to be smarter than that?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:58 pm
sailfish…agreed…I do appreciate your opinions.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:59 pm
Sailfish…..”myth”….would you like to see the proof? It is posted everywhere. It is true. I thought you would have known that. He cannot hid behind his numbers. I just wonder what he is going to run on in 2012.
Honestly, my wife has a client that is a secret service agent for Hillary Clinton. She says that Obama is considering not running in 2012. WOuldnt that be interesting?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:02 pm
Sailfish….HERE is another fact for you. For the first time in history out debt has exceeded our GDP. Now, you do know what is happening in Greece right?
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
3:03 pm
uga
It is not true and I’m willing to bet Mr. wingfield would even back me up on that – how about it kyle?
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:04 pm
Kyle? Waiting on ya brother.
Sailfish….it is even easier to compare his spending versus the GDP that is the true picture as well.
sailfish
November 30th, 2011
3:05 pm
uga
We are not greece in any way, shape, or form. We can print our own currency and as bad as that would be in inflationary terms, it is still an option not available to the greeks.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:05 pm
I have a graph I want to post but I cannot attach a picture to this blog.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:07 pm
Sailfish….PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE dont tell me that you just said “we can print our own money”. Please tell me you do not believe that!
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:14 pm
Bueller?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
3:17 pm
Bushdebt: $4.9 trillion on eight years.
Obozodebt: $4.6 trillion in 2+ years.
Yeah, your known prince is doing great!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
3:18 pm
Heh heh…should read “klown prince”
ab
November 30th, 2011
3:20 pm
The secret service comment is cracking me up! You have used that one before and it made me laugh then too.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
3:21 pm
Place a heavy tax on any good made outside of this country. Force the companies to bring their products and services back to America
That part I agree with. The Founding Fathers must have thought tariffs were important, since they explicitly mentioned them in the Constitution. They weren’t exactly “Globalist Free Traders”.
I’d disagree on the tax breaks part, though. I don’t believe in tax breaks for anything. It automatically gives somebody who gets the break a leg up on somebody who doesn’t. We all know whoever had the most effective lobbyists would win the “tax break lottery”.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:23 pm
ab…nope sorry. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is not a fact.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:24 pm
Hillbilly….we will just have to agree to disagree then.
ab
November 30th, 2011
3:24 pm
Who says I didn’t like it? Don’t be so defensive! It was hilarious.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:26 pm
ab…oh ok, it was not meant to be a joke…
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
3:29 pm
we will just have to agree to disagree then.
Fair enough. If we agreed on everything, there wouldn’t be any need for both of us.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:30 pm
Hillbilly…..nice point. WOW this blog is really civil today.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
3:33 pm
“Place a heavy tax on any good made outside of this country.”
——-
That would likely be a violation of our WTO treaties. Are we to act unilaterally like cowboys now? Seems like that was a bad thing when the subject was defending the homeland.
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:35 pm
Lil Barry…I think you and I actually agree on most things. That is not being a unilaterist. It is being fair. Do you really think China is not doing the EXACT same thing?
Also we should make our exports and imports a 1 to 1 ratio.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
3:37 pm
WOW this blog is really civil today
Be nice if was that way everyday. (And there are offenders on both sides, so not pointing fingers.)
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
3:41 pm
Hillbilly….agreed.
Dusty
November 30th, 2011
3:49 pm
This sounds like good news to me. Congress or a few congressmen are actually taking steps to prove that they mean business about cutting expenses in government.
I think we should encourage them greatly. That way they will know if they don’t follow up on this we Americans will be very unhappy.
They know we want to lower the debt. They know they better set an example. They also know that it will take cuts almost everywhere to even make a start. We should be prepared too.
Maybe we could even convince the president to stop throwing money into the air (stimulus) and act like he knows we have a debt. Now that’s a worthy goal also..
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
3:49 pm
Great interview with Elizabeth Warren about the history of pensions and the 401(k): http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/interviews/warren.html
(Thanks to Hillbilly D above)
As I said before, to the extent that government compensation is better than private “real world” compensation, an assertion that’s in dispute, then we should encourage private industry to raise their standards.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
3:50 pm
Bart @ 2:07: If you didn’t mean to imply that CEO pay is the only source of (potential) pension contributions, why don’t you tell us what some other sources are? Because your comment certainly seemed to pin all the blame on CEO pay.
Btw, $200-250 a month is a lot more than $233 a year. You’re going to need a lot more sources.
May I suggest, again, that the culprit instead has much more to do with increasing longevity (meaning companies have to pay those pensions for a great deal longer than in yesteryear, and they decided they can’t afford it) and increased global competition, both for the company (to sell their goods and products) and among workers (meaning workers are in a worse position to demand the kind of pay/benefits they once did).
ld
November 30th, 2011
3:53 pm
ANSWER: Lawyers & ‘fine print’ are decreasing benefits for employee class.
Most, if not all, “retirement” contracts w/employees/unions contain a ‘fine print’ ‘out’– benefits cannot be changed for anyone unless changed for the entire “class” of beneficiaries. When my dad retired from one of those ‘yankee’ companies that came south as textile and many other manufacturing companies went overseas in pursuit of lower wages, he and his co-workers believed they would have supplemental health insurance to pay for what Medicare did not. Within a few years after his forced retirement, however, and as soon as the vast majority of his age group that should have received those benefits had retired, they all received notice that the insurance was cancelled for ALL that wouldn’t start paying their own premium. Their not-very-strong and not-well-led union reps & counsel had let this ‘out’ be slipped in unnoticed or underappreciated while accepting LESS OF A RAISE THAN NEEDED TO KEEP UP W/CARTER ERA INFLATION TO GET THE RETIREMENT INSURANCE ‘PERK’. They were neither paid the wage they were worth nor long received the so-called ‘benefit’ for which they had foregone the wage increase.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
3:58 pm
sailfish, UGA 1999: Sorry, I’ve been writing my Thursday column. What exactly am I supposed to verify or refute here?
Nope
November 30th, 2011
3:58 pm
Kyle: carlosgvv: If they’re all rich, why do they care about getting a congressional pension?
Come on Kyle. That is WAY naive. The rich get richer by loopholes like this. You think rich people say “oh I’ve got enough money. I don’t need anymore.” Of course they do not. They want as many tax breaks and loopholes as they can get in order to grow their enormous wealth.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
4:03 pm
Nope @ 3:58: Sorry, left the /sarc off.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
4:03 pm
Perhaps we should try to decrease the effect of gravity while we’re at it. Would make airplanes more efficient.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:04 pm
I should have added ignorance and/or misplaced trust on part of employee class are decreasing their ‘benefits’. They are letting this be done to them by the way the vote–at the polls and in the union halls.
Though I’ve never been nor wanted to be a member of a union, unionizing may be the only way workers of the future can get fair wages–especially w/all the illegals competing for blue collar jobs that have flooded this country since Ronald Reagan et al gave them amnesty TO KEEP WAGES LOW. When the GOP starts imposing/enforcing $evere civil and criminal penalties on employers and landlords & others that ’support’ getting the illegals to come and stay here–the lure and crutches for their illegal activity–THEN AND ONLY THEN will I believe the GOP is serious about stemming this flood–a potential national security threat and, as they age, a looming drag on our ‘entitlement’ economy. Some now estimate the number of illegals here to be over a dozen million.
Oh wait. W/a Perry presidency (albeit unlikely) the ‘from-out-of-nation’ illegals could get college education cheaper than ‘out-of-state ‘ students so maybe those blue collar jobs will open up. (enter sarcastic sneer here)
Same ol' Song and Dance
November 30th, 2011
4:05 pm
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
12:09 pm
If they’re all rich, why do they care about getting a congressional pension?
Why do the rich care about a few percentage tax increase when it could be invested in America and help get our economy going?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
4:07 pm
If we’re going to require companies to pay more to their retirees, couldn’t we also pass a law requiring Bart Abel to hire some folks he doesn’t need and pay them above-market wages and retirement? It’s the same thing–fascism. And Obozo would love it.
Truth Squad
November 30th, 2011
4:10 pm
I support any bill that cancels the pensions of Congress and SCOTUS. They should do this before they start cutting the pensions of others as well as “reforming” Social Security and Medicare.
I also believe that members of Congress, as well as SCOTUS, should either receive zero health insurance from tax payers or nothing more than what those on Medicaid receive.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:12 pm
Kyle: may I suggest that pensions promised have not been as fully funded by employers as they should have been, especially since an increase in longevity has been predicted for decades and employers, who knew or reasonably should have known about it, have chosen immediate gratification of profit rather than meeting future obligations.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:13 pm
Truth Squad: (4:10 p.m.)
A M E N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
carlosgvv
November 30th, 2011
4:15 pm
Kyle – 12:09
1. I did not say they are all rich. I said MOST of them are rich.
2. The rich always want to get even richer. Few, including the rich, turn down free benefits.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
4:17 pm
May I suggest, again, that the culprit instead has much more to do with increasing longevity (meaning companies have to pay those pensions for a great deal longer than in yesteryear, and they decided they can’t afford it)
That’s a valid point but it begs a larger question: why were these companies allowed to go for so many years (decades even), underfunding the pensions they were promising? They gave the funds short shrift in the interest of puffing up the short term profit figures. There’s an awful lot of blame to go around there but they knew the entire time that they weren’t putting as much in the funds as they should have, to meet their promises. They were just kicking the can down the road, to be dealt with on somebody else’s watch. Borders on fraud in my opinion but the powers that be looked the other way the whole time.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:18 pm
Coffman might be a good VP pick; or maybe the GOP convention will take a look at the current offerings, have the same reaction as many of us—”ICK” and open it to new nominees that could include him–after all, his fellow congressmen are going to want him OUT of Congress after a suggestion THEY ‘tighten their belts’ in any way.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
4:18 pm
id
Sorry didn’t see your 4:12 before I posted. Didn’t mean to step on your line, so to speak.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:21 pm
Another reason is that while it is now more difficult for an individual to go bankrupt and clear all debts, the same is not true of businesses–many, including most airlines (now including even American Airlines) know that if they file Chapter 11 they can shaft the employee class which has little to no clout and little to no sympathy from judges–certainly not much, if any, from the GOP appointed ones..
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:22 pm
Hillbilly D
Great minds think alike.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
4:22 pm
In terms of gaining credibility, this makes sense. It would be even better if they shared the same healthcare as the rest of us.
For the record, and for everyone who says they are all crooks: Howard Coble of NC (Republican, I am a Democrat) has never participated in the congressional pension.
MarkV
November 30th, 2011
4:22 pm
As far as political posturing is concerned, there is no doubt that this is one. But that is only a minor point. Another minor point is Kyle’s prediction that such a bill would have near-universal public support. With the low opinion of Congress, that is a safe bet.
But there is a more fundamental issue here, and Kyle touches upon it at the very beginning it – I am sure unintentionally – when he calls the 401(k) plans “precarious.”
pre·car·i·ous: 1. Not securely held or in position; dangerously likely to fall or collapse.
2. Dependent on chance; uncertain.
That is an issue that really divides people of Kyle’s philosophy from others. They would love everybody who is employed, and especially federal employees, to be in a precarious position regarding the retirement. Pensions are a bane for them, because they are much safer. If you have a precarious retirement plan, you keep your mouth shut; you do not make waves.
It is a difference in philosophies. Some people would like everybody who works hard to have a safe retirement future. Others would like employees in all sectors to have their retirement plan precarious. “Maul halten und weiter dienen.”
Road Scholar
November 30th, 2011
4:23 pm
Also, have them pay the true cost of their health club. And put AlLL the operating budget under one pay item in the budget instead of hiding it amongst 20 different budgets.
UGA - yes it obvious where you got your degree
November 30th, 2011
4:23 pm
UGA1999
November 30th, 2011
2:53 pm
sailfish…”blame congress” OK GREAT IDEA, LETS DO THAT. Being that Obama had the supermajority in the Congress for the first two years of his presidency and ran up more debt in that amount of time than any other president in history. Thanks for pointing that out.
This shows your ignorance. Obama did not have a supermajority for 2 years. Dems had a window of a few months due to Minnesota Fraken, and before Ted Kenneday wasn’t healthy enough in his last few days to even vote in the Senate. Do your research.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
4:26 pm
There are two ways (or more) to approach this. One is to reduce congressional pensions and healthcare to the level enjoyed by the rest of us. A second approach is to create a national pension and healthcare plan that everyone participates in. Relieving business of pensions and healthcare should make them more competitive.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:26 pm
Can’t speak to norm, but in GA I know of a couple of judges that ran as Dems years ago before GOP came to majority/power here in Georgia but that, in private at least, acknowledged they were Republican and only running as a Democrat because, at that time, only Democrats could be elected. Also, in Georgia, these same judges are the ones that wanted the party label removed from the ballots so long-serving Democrats could be replaced with Republicans.
ragnar danneskjold
November 30th, 2011
4:30 pm
Funny, I have been thinking on this issue recently. Like the proposal. The direction I was planning to urge was a limitation on all Federal pensions, a cap of $50,000 per year for any individual, whether president or District Court judge or latrine cleaner at the NLRB (by coincidence, positions of roughly the same value.)
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:30 pm
Bill
Both ways are too logical for Congress to adopt.
But hope springs eteranal.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
4:32 pm
UGA is also wrong on several counts with the contention that Obama, “ran up more debt in that amount of time than any other president in history.” This is pure fallacy. The current debt to gdp ratio (raw numbers are meaningless) is around 100% and expected to level off next year. At the end of WWII, it was 120%. We did not cut, we invested. We invested in education and housing for GIs, in rebuilding Europe and Japan, in the space program, and the interstate highway system. What happened with all that spending? Debt to gdp dropped every year until about 1982. Since then, it has risen every year, except for a couple of years under Clinton. When GW Bush took office it was around 65%. When he handed the reins over to Obama it was up to 90%
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:33 pm
ragnar danneskjold
hehehehehehehehehe
the brain and the heart were arguing which of the two of them were the most important organs in the human body; the a..hole, tired of listening to them, closed up for several days and soon both the brain and heart decided the a..hole was the most important organ in the body.
If it were not for the people that clean up after the rest of us as well as themselves, what would our quality of life be like?
Great (last) point.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
4:43 pm
Mark V @ 4:22
Good point about the difference in philosophies. I’ve never owned a business but I have run businesses for other people. There is a similar difference in philosophies about how to pay people. One is that you pay your employees the least you can; the other is you pay your people the most you can. I always went with paying the most I could. I always felt like everybody suffered in poor times, so everybody should share in the good times. Happy, contented employees were always the most productive in my experience, so it was sound business, as well as just being the right thing to do.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:43 pm
Because of cost associated w/being a member of a country club, it’s a good bet many golfers (golf often thought of as ‘the rich man’s sport’) are GOP and understand the term, “handicap”.
The enormous deficit and crashing economy was a severe handicap that the Obama administration had that neither the Bush/Cheny nor the Clinton/Gore administration came close to having, yet most GOP want to tall/compare the numbers as if the playing fields had been equal.
While I’ve considered Obama/Biden administration seriously inept from the moment they supported repeating the bank bailout w/o conditions as Bush/Cheny had done, any unbiased assessment recognizes the obvious hole the current administration has been trying to climb out of before it can even get to leval ground.
Then, too, Bush/Chaney had SEVEN years of GOP US House, US Senate AND WHITE HOUSE. W/two wars off-the-books and tax cuts for the wealthiest not offset by any decrease in corporate wellfare or any other offset, it was mostly under that SEVEN years of the Bush/Chaney that this hole into which the flaming economy is trapped was dug.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:46 pm
During all the SEVEN years of GOP control, I do not recall any effort to offset the tax cuts w/ spending cuts for members of Congress.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
4:49 pm
Id@ 4:26
I’ve known of people like you, who said they were really Republicans but ran as Democrats so they could get elected. I’ve also known some who were the reverse. My area went from being one party Democratic to one party Republican in one or two election cycles. For nearly my whole voting life, if I want to participate in elections for local offices, I have no choice as to which primary I vote in. The primary is basically the general elction for most offices.
As far as your original point, the real lesson there is that most will do anything to get elected.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
4:49 pm
ID,
Good points. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to create jobs. Job growth was anemic throughout the administration. If we had not had those tax cuts, we would not have the debt problem (not crisis, but problem) today.
MarkV
November 30th, 2011
4:53 pm
Hillbilly D @4:43 pm
The world would be a different, better place if every employer had your philosophy.
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
4:54 pm
Bart…your comment certainly seemed to pin all the blame on CEO pay.
Yes Kyle, I can see how it did seem that way. I believe I clarified that.
I also believe that I did provide some other sources of pension contributions.You can also look to non-compensatory perks (corporate planes, corporate apartments,…), the employer 401(k) match, costs and debt associated with acquisitions (again, frequently for the benefit of upper management and at the expense of shareholders and consumers), and on and on.
May I suggest that you take a look at the PBS link to the Elizabeth Warren interview to see another reason why companies found that they couldn’t afford to pay the pensions (hint: they simply decided that they didn’t want to make the promised contributions anymore..so they risked the money for returns that didn’t pan out)?
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:56 pm
If at BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, ALL income from EVERY source were taxed w/same tax scale–a flatter tax leading eventually (when country is in the black) a near flat or flat tax and the ONLY exemption of any kind or nature were a PERSONAL/INDIVIDUAL exemption (equal to poverty level) w/everyone being required to file or have their guardian file for them as individuals and, except for extreme hardship (must be reassessed annually) everyone pay at least $1 in taxes
And I do mean taxing unemployment, INHERITANCE, CAPITAL GAINS — everything equally — too, same table; same personal exemption for each person (w/ 1/2 same deduction for each dependent)
ALONG W/a balanced budget amendment, w/only exception war declared by congress against a specific nation or group of nations
AND, IF (like, NOW) we could sever the link between individual congressmen and individual expenditures (w/block grants for catagories of expenditures to states which states must match w?% rather than Congress enacting massive omnibus bills) and end pork barrell spending and cronyism projects
Maybe we could eventually get prior debt paid off and not be leaving the handicap of massive debt to the next generation.
ld
November 30th, 2011
4:58 pm
“IF”
Bill
November 30th, 2011
4:59 pm
Kyle, RE: Bart’s point.
I think that in part, he is talking about the growing disparity in pay between CEOs and workers. In the 1960’s, CEOs made about 40 times what the lowest paid worker made. Now, it is more like 400 times.
You mathematical calculation related to redistributing CEO pay into employee pensions made me think of something Andrew Carnegie once said. He was asked why he paid his employees so little, but made big contributions to causes (Libraries, etc.) His response was, “If I pay them more, they will just eat a little more and drink a little more. This way I can make a real difference.” I think your argument is in this same paternalistic tradition.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
5:04 pm
Id,
I like much of your idea. However, to restrain the speculators that caused this mess, I think we need to treat capital gains differently. One of the things that hurts US competitiveness most is our penchant for short term thinking. This is driven by the demand for monthly and quarterly numbers from Wall Street. I would like to see a sliding tax on capital gains. If you hold your investment for less than one year, you pay a large tax on the gains. The longer you hold it, the less you pay, up to about 5 years. This would discourage speculators and day traders who add absolutely no value to the system.
ld
November 30th, 2011
5:08 pm
The best “regulation” to fix the ‘problems’ associated w/CEO pay is FOR ALL PUBLICALLY TRADED COMPANIES a law be enacted that requires that an exact amount be approved as annual salary for each position w/i each company that is a managment position, that NO bonuses or perks or benefits may be awarded until a minimum of six months into the next fiscal year AND that all such perks and bonus must, in specific detail, be presented to and voted on and authorized by the shareholders AFTER they see the job that the management has done. Also, that no retirement or benefit package can be awarded w/o shareholder vote and only after that management person has retired–they get only what their efforts prove to have been worth to the shareholders.
As it now stands, the click at the top vote each other salaries, perks, benefits over which shareholders have no say.
Family owned businesses and businesses not publically seeking outside investors would be exempt from this rule.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
5:13 pm
Id,
You also need a “Claw-back” provision that allows you to recover money if obvious problems occur outside the 6 month window.
Streetracer
November 30th, 2011
5:14 pm
Bill @ 4:32
Don’t know what the debt to GDP was when Bush took office, but I recently read that in the late fall of 2006 it was 62% of GDP. Since it is now more than 100% of GDP, the D’s have done an admirable job of debt creation; 60+% in 5 years. Pretty good growth rate.
Also a little perspective on Kyle’s assertion about adding $233 to the pension fund. If that $233 earned 5%/yr for 10 yrs, it would increase pension payment by $32/month for 1 year. Isn’t very much.
Problem with all pension plans (including Social Security) is that as life expectency increased, retirement age did not. When Social Security was enacted, and retirement age set at 65, average life expectency was more like 62.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
5:15 pm
Bill @ 4:26: “A second approach is to create a national pension…”
Social Security on steroids? Seriously?
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
5:18 pm
Andrew Carnegie was one of the grand hypocrites of all-time, in my opinion. Not only did he cut his workers pay, so he could give more away and make himself look good. He also worked tirelessly for arbitration as means to end war, all the while profiting from the build of the U S Navy, as much as he could. He talked a good game but he didn’t walk the walk.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
5:18 pm
Bill @ 4:59: Nothing paternalistic on my part, just mathematical.
retired early
November 30th, 2011
5:25 pm
Employees pay into their own pension plans the same way they pay into a 401K. These pensions in most cases are not “free”. I paid 8% of my gross income for 30 years to get a pension of 60% of my salary. The reason these pension plans have failed is the fault of the companies and government entities that administer them. Some, like the city of Atlanta and the state of California were far too generous with their benefits. This problem was exposed because of the stock market collapse in 2007. I “paid for my pension” thank you very much.
ld
November 30th, 2011
5:35 pm
Bill
My thinking would be that businesses, as an entity, would not be paying tax–shareholders would pay tax on their income distributed to them from the businesses. [NOTE; W/ above "CEO problem" fix (5:o8 p.m.) I would add that shareholders and tax law should determine more reasonable paremeters of expense accounts as well. Executives tend to 'expense' what the rest of us pay w/wages]
All “small businesses” would file financial statments –gross income less expenditures =net profit. Reinvested profit would not be taxed–all income distributed to investors from it would be taxed as income to the investor.
Some provision could be made for a business to “hold” a percentage of its profits in an emergency fund here in the US in a separate limited-use escrow account–w/limitations on uses permitted for any funds not taxed–not to be used as management salaries, bonuses, perks. Taxed if not used for limited use purposes–but rather used for reinvestment in the business in a manner that updates the business and/or makes maintains and supports jobs for the employee class here in the USA.
Money currently held overseas in personal, private or business accounts that is brought home (supposedly billion$) could be placed in a separate, limited-use escrow account and same provisions would apply–reinvest or shareholders pay tax on it.
Reinvestment must be an INCREASE in investment to qualify for business tax exemption.
If distributed to shareholders and shareholders receiving it would be taxed under new flatter– and at least temporarily– higher rate
If a business INCREASES its US investment in its business WITHIN THE US dollar for dollar (excluding management salary, benefits, perks–actual job producing investment or equipment/asset update investment) –any amount not reinvested would be taxed at rate applicable when earned and ‘hidden’ in the overseas tax shelter.
Maybe not fully thought out–may have some bugs–but at least worth considering. The idea is to encourage reinvestment to modernize and create jobs here.
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
5:36 pm
retired early,
Technically, employee contribution plans fall under the category of pensions. But generally, pensions are understood to be defined-benefit plans to which employers make the entire contribution and make the decisions about how to invest. You’re talking about another animal–the inferior kind that has led to lower retirement security for most Americans.
@@
November 30th, 2011
5:38 pm
Is Congress really going to take on a congressional perk?
Fatigue and conditioning. I read that as “…take on a congressional PERP?”
Bill
November 30th, 2011
5:38 pm
Streetracer,
I think the numbers you cite are a little off, but no matter. Not sure how you go from 62% to 100% and call that 60+% growth. However, my point is that if we look at it in the long term, we see three things. 1) This is not a crisis of unprecedented proportions. We have been in worse shape. 2) Cutting is not the answer. We need to invest in infrastructure and grow the economy. 3) Debt to GDP ratio improved from the end of WWII until the Reagan era. After supply side theories took hold, it has gotten steadily worse. As for the pension issue. I would agree that $32 a month is not very much, but that is not the point. How about if you give me $32 a month from your pension? After all, it is not very much money. It is the paternalism that is so distasteful.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
5:39 pm
Kyle,
You demonstrate a serious misunderstanding or social security. It is not and never was a pension plan. It was designed as a safety net. Most European countries have national pensions. It is not a radical idea.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
5:39 pm
“That is an issue that really divides people of Kyle’s philosophy from others. They would love everybody who is employed, and especially federal employees, to be in a precarious position regarding the retirement.”
———————–
Pure ignorance. People who know things know that people work and save over a lifetime, something like 40 years. Morons think short term swings in the market decimate a lifetime worth of saving and growth. Yeah, if you made one investment before a market drop and sold it when it bottomed out, you lose. That’s not how it works in the reality-based world.
Stop being stupid.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
5:42 pm
Hillbilly,
Andrew Carnegie’s hypocrisy is exactly my point.
ld
November 30th, 2011
5:47 pm
I have no problem w/ending all entitlements and government supported benefits for individuals at a very specific date certain at least twenty-five years hence IF
all gov’t employee perks, specifically including but not limited to perks for current an/or past and/or future elected officials ends first, as in NOW
all ‘corporate wellfare’ and gov’t support (embasy/treaty/war) to benefit busienss, specifically including but not limited to business operating and employing persons overseas, ends NOW HERE AND ABROAD
have the gov’t buy farm products and distribute them to poor support lower food prices for the rest of us rather than pay to not use land, etc.
all business perks–including INSURING mega-for-profit business, corporate farms, financial institutions (deposits & for-profit private loans, etc.) and stuff I cannot now remember ends first, as in NOW
all perks for the rich or stupid–gov’t subsidized insurance or other support to rebuild in flood zones, coastal area ends first, as in NOW
AND, i m p o r t a n t l y, everyone in the employee class is given that quarter century LOUD NOTICE of this irreverisble policy so the next generation(s) can lose that ‘the great society’ mindset and prepare for their own retirement
INCLUDING by demanding fair/just wages NOW since no pensions/perks will not likely be forthcoming later even if contracted or promised.
Just saying, those that have depended on promises should have those promises kept.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
5:49 pm
Bill @ 5:39: Thus the “on steroids.”
ld
November 30th, 2011
5:51 pm
A a relative of mine retired and liquidated his 401K and bought into an annuity; if he’d waited one day later to do it, he would have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $125,000. his holdings were diversified.
ld
November 30th, 2011
5:53 pm
Privatizing SS in the present form and investing it in the stock market like Bush et al wanted would have been and would be disasterous–mostly because of the degree greed and corruption of those involved with the stock market as compared to someone who has never even tried to learn about it–the kind of people that retire w/only SS to depend upon.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 30th, 2011
5:55 pm
They’ll just find new ways to scam the system, like buying a company and kicking back grant money to it. Like Team obozo does, for instance.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
5:55 pm
If you believe the return on your SS contributions approaches what you’d get in the stock market, you aren’t very bright.
Look before I leap...
November 30th, 2011
5:58 pm
Just did some simple math:
If all members of congress were to leave office next year and all members had 20 years service and all were over the age of 50, the total pension payout per year is about $30M. If all of them live for 100 years after leaving office, cancelling the existing pension plan saves us $3B over 100 years.
In a federal budget of $1.2 TRILLION for just one year, $30M is a rounding error.
So even if this passes and it never will, it accomplishes little. I’d rather they focus on correcting some of the bigger issues.
Ironically, when the original congressional pension plan was enacted in 1946, one of the justifications was that it would encourage the old-timers to leave office, clearing the way for younger, “fresher” minds to enter federal politics.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
5:58 pm
Barry, SS is not an investment vehicle. That is not what it was designed for.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
5:58 pm
@UGA1999 November 30th, 2011 12:32 pm – Kyle…..because Carlos believes if you make $100k per year that you are rich! haha.
*******************************************************
Yes that is rich!
Ask a senior citizen who gets only $19,000 a year..
Ask a single mother with children.
Ask an unemployed worker whose benefits have expired.
Ask a child who goes to bed hungry.
Ask a homeless veteran.
Lets not be UNGRATEFUL! To a lot of people $100K is rich!
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
ld
November 30th, 2011
5:58 pm
The USPO is dying; if those post offices were more diversified, including a United States Treasuary Bank office/ATM for cash (and debit card) transactions only and people were able to keep their ’savings’ in their ‘citizen’ account there w/zero interest or separate “savings bond” account for longer held accounts, then the US taxpayers would not need to insure the private for-mega-profit financial instuitutons — FDIC; FSLIC — and never need to bail them out again.
The USPO–US Public Offices could also do the census–even on an ongoing basis: who knows the community better than the postal carriers who have delivered mail for years?
The USPO, diversified, could also be the polling place for national elections–President, VP and members of the US Congress.
A security photo ID would be required and only US citizens would be permitted to use this US National Treasury Bank.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
6:00 pm
Sorry Bill, I couldn’t help correcting the bit of ignorance that appeared, implying that SS provides a better retirement than investing in the stock market.
Streetracer
November 30th, 2011
6:02 pm
Bill:
100% minus 65% is 35% and 35% is well over 50% increase. It is ninth grade general math (or at least was way back when I was in school).
As far as $32 out of my pension, I don’t have a pension. I am well past 65 but still working. I will continue to work as long as I can for two reasons. 1) I like my job, and 2) had an injury that kept me at home where I couldn’t do much but feed myself and turn pages of a book. Much as I love my wife, that was just to much togetherness.
Kyle Wingfield
November 30th, 2011
6:10 pm
Look before @ 5:58: The fact that this measure alone wouldn’t save much money, relatively speaking, was in the OP.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
6:11 pm
The Republicans (Party of the Rich) want to freeze federal salaries, layoff federal workers and kill jobs to extend the payroll tax cut. This will hurt middle income families.
They have no shame. They protect the rich by all cost.
Nothing is trickling down but MISERY!
ld
November 30th, 2011
6:19 pm
just saying, insuring the banks has proved to be a very real perk for mega-for-profit PRIVATE-OWNED BUSINESS in the current and the prior administration.
In an ideal world:
outlaw hedgefunds
outlaw PACS and any and all entities that permit annonomous donations to campaigns
outlaw lobbyist–permit only those individual persons who can vote for a member of congress to “lobby” a member of Congress–an owner of any business that lives w/i the state where the business is based could lobby
only those that would be eligible to vote to fill an elected position would be able to donate to a political campaign for that office–keep campaigns as local as possible and, therefore–at least hopefully– less expensive
all persons running for public office would be required to list on their official website all campaign contributions that total more than a specific (relatively small) amount and could not be permitted to keep any contribution for which they do do not have full name and street address of donor
prohibit out of state interest$ from being involved in any election w/i each state–ads
yeah, dream on
then there’s the presidental campaign
but, since “public airways” and/or the internet–developed w/gov’t funding– are used for campaigning, some demand of time from every major provider to vet candidates for president in exchange for the use of the airways and internet would be reasonable. Take the most of the $ out of politics and take much of the corruption out of it? [ IF "pork barrel" authority of Congress --their authority to vote on specific projects of cronies and/or" pork barrell"nature is also removed via elimination of omnibus bills & use of block grants instead.] We might even make Congress PART TIME.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
6:20 pm
It is the Democrat party that is pushing hard to extend the payroll tax cut.
Still think that will “kill jobs” and “hurt middle income families”?
Look before I leap...
November 30th, 2011
6:23 pm
@To those whom… 5:58P
I beg to diifer, while $100K is certainly a handsome income, especially compared to someone who is below the poverty line, it is by no means RICH.
I earn well in excess of 100K. I am a single parent with 2 kids in college. I pay approximately 36% in income taxes plus another 14% in FICA (I am self-employed). I drive a car that is 10 years old and I shop at GAP and WalMart. I don’t own a plane or a yacht or a villa in Monte Carlo. I put away about 15% into retirement and another 10% into savings. I live within my means and have about $45K left over to pay my mortgage, roughly $15K per year for my kids college expenses, pay insurance (health and auto for me and my kids), some charitable donations and I have a few bucks left over each to month take a vacation a couple of times a year.
Am I comfortable and blessed? Yes I am, but I am by no means “rich”.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
6:23 pm
The Republicans should be ashamed that 21 million school children need free lunches.
46 million people live in proverty. Millionaires and billionaires could pay more!
Republican policies sqeeze the middle class and protect the rich.
Who do you stand for?
ld
November 30th, 2011
6:25 pm
Reforming Congress would mean ending their ability to award grant money to a company they or any of their cronies bought–cut the link between Congress and individual “pork barrell” projects w/block grants for catagories of projects–not specific projects–and any fed $ that go to states in block grants for catagories of spending must have some state matching % of funds. Local people can see the effect their matching funds do and do not have and are, therefore, likely in a better position to inflict political retribution for wasted funds?
ld
November 30th, 2011
6:30 pm
In my experience, women who begin to carry larger purses don’t have more room–they just fill it up w/more stuff. Same is true w/budgets. Most people spend most of what they make–instant gratification rather than planning for a distant future. That is why any ending of entitlements, SSA, Medicare, gov’t pensions, etc., MUST be made according to a schedule that is IRREVOCABLE and takes place in the reasonably distant FUTURE, by dates CERTAIN—so future generations will not get caught up in and current generations of people can lose the ‘great society’ mindset and plan and save for their own future AND ACT NOW in that interest–as in demand better wages now in lieu of ‘benefits’ they will not ever get .
Look before I leap...
November 30th, 2011
6:32 pm
@Kyle 6:10P
The OP was misleading in that it did not specify that “hundreds of millions of dollars” was over a period of 10 years.
After re-reading the OP though, I realized that the effort is not about congresssional pensions, but the fact that Congress is going after the beauracrats (”where the real money is”).
Good luck with that!!! The beauracrats can shut this country down faster than a dirty bomb in Lafayette Park.
ld
November 30th, 2011
6:33 pm
We should all be ashamed that many of our military’s enlisted personnel w/families need food stamps.
It’s all about income/asset inequality–that will end up being at the core of the 2102 elections. “It’s the economy, stupid.” updated and personalized.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
6:35 pm
@Look before I leap… November 30th, 2011 6:23 pm – I earn well in excess of 100K. I have a few bucks left over each to month take a vacation a couple of times a year. Am I comfortable and blessed? Yes I am, but I am by no means “rich”.
*************************************************************************
I meant rich compared to what others have.
There are people who DO NOT have a few bucks left over each month.
There are people who CANNOT take a vaction a couple of times a year or even take one vacation.
There are people that are NOT as comfortable or blessed as you are.
To them you are rich!
People should not be so ungrateful because they could be in someone else’s shoes.
MarkV
November 30th, 2011
6:39 pm
There are some ideas, such as universal health insurance and universal pension, which have two things in common. One is that they evoke strong adverse reactions; the other is that they are inevitable. They are called progress. People who fight them are people who never learn from history. Child labor laws, limited hours in a working week, universal suffrage … those are only a few items in a long list.
Streetracer
November 30th, 2011
6:40 pm
To those whom etc:
A Georgia Tech grad engineer could get a job with the State. After a year they do a good job, they can get a promotion (10% pay increase) and after another year another promotion (another 10% increase). If they have a stay-at-home spouse and two school age children, those children qualify for free or reduced price lunches in every district in the metro area
Look before I leap...
November 30th, 2011
6:43 pm
Well to me, someone who owns a Lear jet, has a 100 foot yacht, owns homes in Aspen and Cannes and South Beach and has millions left over is rich. A matter of perspective and I don’t begrudge those who are better off than I one little bit.
I am not sure if that “ungrateful” comment was directed to me or not. If so, you need to shut your pie-hole. You don’t know me or the road I have hoed to get where I am.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
7:00 pm
ID,
Insuring banks came out of the depression, and it was a good idea that worked, as long as the related regulation was in place. Beginning in the 1980s, through republican and democratic administrations, we have systematically deregulated the banking industry, and I believe that is the source of our economic calamity.
Bill
November 30th, 2011
7:03 pm
Regarding the “who is rich” question:
If you survey people, almost no one believes they are rich. It doesn’t matter if they make 100k, or a million a year. They do not feel rich. Similarly, if you ask people if they are middle class, the vast majority will say they are, whether they make 30k or 300k.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
7:10 pm
@Streetracer ovember 30th, 2011 6:40 pm – A Georgia Tech grad engineer could get a job with the State. After a year they do a good job, they can get a promotion (10% pay increase) and after another year another promotion (another 10% increase). If they have a stay-at-home spouse and two school age children, those children qualify for free or reduced price lunches in every district in the metro area
*****************************************************
I know a single mother of two and she was DENIED! You probably make a lot more than she does!
Lunch is the only meal some children get.
Look before I leap...
November 30th, 2011
7:26 pm
@Bill 7:03
Possible because “rich” is not a well-defined word.
It is a relative term and there is a human tendancy to guage one’s worth by what others around you have. I have tried to be fiscally disciplined and avoid “keeping up with the Joneses” with mixed success. Usually my failure was centered around my kids. Not sure I did them any favors by indulging them as I sometimes did.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
November 30th, 2011
7:40 pm
21 million school children need free lunches.
46 million people live in proverty
—————-
On whose watch?
Your klown prince Obozo is an America-hating failure.
Streetracer
November 30th, 2011
7:54 pm
To Those ETC:
The threshold for free and reduced pice school lunches in this area is 2 to 3 times the poverty level (which I belive is over 20K) depending on the School District. The single mother you cite either makes pretty good money or couldn’t fill out the paperwork correctly
Michael H. Smith
November 30th, 2011
7:56 pm
Still waiting on marxism to produce something other than a inevitable collapse – e.g. U.S.S.R. Strange how China gave-up on Maoist communism in a return embrace of their less fascist version of our own near absolutely controlled federally over regulated economy?
Oopsy, maybe carlosgv will now discover the true definition of a “fascist economic system”. Oh gee would that be like a GUB’MENT that regulated everything without actually outright owning it? Uh, kind of like it was in National Socialist Democratic Worker’s Party(a.k.a. “progressive”) Germany.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
8:07 pm
@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward) November 30th, 2011 7:40 pm – 21 million school children need free lunches. 46 million people live in proverty
—————-
On whose watch? Your klown prince Obozo is an America-hating failure.
__________________________
On everybody’s watch! The fact is 21 million school children need free lunches. 46 million people live in proverty.
This is NO time to call names and lay blame. We are all guilty of not doing our part to help those who need help.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
November 30th, 2011
8:33 pm
What, no baseless racial smear jobs on Herman Cain from the drive by lib media today?
Did they run out of bimbos?
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
8:41 pm
“@Lil’ Barry Bailout (Revised Downward) November 30th, 2011 7:40 pm – whose watch? Your klown prince Obozo is an America-hating failure.
__________________________
I will pray for YOU.
Your stupidity gets in the way of a rational discussion.
The bible says,
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
The vexation of a fool is known at once, but the prudent ignores an insult.
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Amen!
Ronnie Raygun
November 30th, 2011
8:58 pm
If these two CONgresmen really want to get rid of congressional perks they are more than free to refuse to take the pensions and 401ks themselves. Ain’t gonna happen though.
BTW: what about all of the other millions in perks congress gets? Franking (free postage), free healthcare, free private gym, etc, etc etc. What aren’t they suggesting getting rid of any of those wastes of taxpayer money?
GOP: Socialism and government handouts for the idle rich 1%ers. Social Darwinism for those of us that work 40+ hours a week to support our families.
Hillbilly D
November 30th, 2011
9:09 pm
Franking (free postage), free healthcare, free private gym, etc, etc etc.
Wonder what the Founding Father’s would think about what’s happened to “citizen legislators”?
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
9:19 pm
@ Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…
November 30th, 2011
8:33 pm What, no baseless racial smear jobs on Herman Cain from the drive by lib media today?
Did they run out of bimbos?
****************************************
The bible says,
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
A fool’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.
“To those whom much is given, much is expected.”
November 30th, 2011
9:56 pm
Looks like we are going to have a 3rd party (The Justice Party) formed by Rocky Anderson former Salt Lake City Mayor a candidate for President.
We have the Republicans to BLAME because they just could not get along with the Democrats.
Maybe now we can have a civilized discussion on issues that affect this country!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
December 1st, 2011
9:36 am
ld: The best “regulation” to fix the ‘problems’ associated w/CEO pay is FOR ALL PUBLICALLY TRADED COMPANIES a law be enacted that requires that blah blah.
——–
Unless you’re a shareholder, CEO pay isn’t any of your business.
Keep your fascism off our markets and businesses.
That Black guy
December 1st, 2011
2:10 pm
Bart Abel
November 30th, 2011
1:50 pm
I made my point at 1:27, UGA1999…no cutting and pasting. Since you rely exclusively on talk radio and Fox News for your misinformation, I thought I’d dig up a little backup to help you understand the point I made.
Bart, how do you know where a ramdom poster on a blog gets their information? Do you personally know them? Are you peeking in the windows of people that you “think” are repubs?