's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

social security and congress, etc.(6 posts)

social security and congress, etc.Sam W.
Jan 23, 2002 11:06 AM
This is worth reading, short and to the point!

Our Senators/Congressmen do not pay into Social Security, and, therefore they do not collect from it. Social Security benefits were not suitable for them. They felt they should have a special plan. Many years ago, they voted in their benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes, their plan works like this:

When they retire no matter how long they have been in office, they continue to draw their same pay until they die, except it may be increased from time to time by the cost-of-living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey) and his wife may be expected to draw $7,900,000.00 over an average life span, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000.00 during the last year of her life.

Their cost for this excellent plan is "0," nada, zilch. This little perk they voted in for themselves is free to them.

You and I pick up the tab for this plan. Our tax dollars at work! Social Security, which you and I pay into every payday for our own retirement, with an equal amount matched by our employer, we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month. Or, we would have to collect our benefits for 68 years and 1 month to equal the Bradley's benefits.

Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable, a retirement plan that worked so well, that Railroad Employees, Postal Workers, and others who were not in the plan would clamor to be included.

This is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change was made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan out from under the Senators/Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us. Watch how fast they fix it!!!

If enough people receive this maybe a seed will be planted, and maybe good changes will evolve.

Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, thanks to the infinite wisdom of New York State voters, now comes under this Congressional Retirement Plan.

Talking about the Clinton's, it's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million + house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting!! A residency had to be built in order to house the Secret Service agents.
The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service rent for the use of said residence, and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage, and it's all perfectly legal.

You gotta luv it.
It would be outrageous if it were true,TJeanloz
Jan 23, 2002 11:18 AM
Unfortunatly, it is not. Pure Urban Legend, for full details and debunking:
Your using the wordnm
Jan 23, 2002 11:51 AM
"unfortunately" (misspelled as it is) tells it all. You guys need to get over your obsession.
Excellent site. (nm)Sintesi
Jan 23, 2002 1:32 PM
re: social security and congress, etc.wsexson
Jan 27, 2002 5:34 PM
I will not make an excuse for why the congressional pension plan is so lucrative, but there is a reason why they are not part of Social Security. Social Security is administered by the executive branch of the federal government. Congress feels that they cannot be subject to the executive because of the constitutionally mandated "seperation of powers".

I am not going to touch the Secret Service protection for former presidents issue.
Enough of the rumors,TJeanloz
Jan 28, 2002 9:05 AM
Congress pays into Social Security just like everybody else. They do not have a particularly lucrative pension scheme. This article was pure internet rumor.