Tweet
US Capital (Photo: Abeeeer/flickr)
I been seeing a lot of “Don’t Vote” diaries, lately, and in a recent one, it was implied that Congress critters who get fired (in the sense I defined it – dumping them via the ballot box) just go on and start collecting a pension. See how that works? You can’t really hurt them, or scare them, so why bother trying?
Not so (typically). In fact, one way to make sure that your lousy D/R Congress critter not only stops collecting 174K/year, at taxpayer expense, but also NEVER collects a pension for his/her Congressional ‘service’, is to dump the clown after their first or second term.
Regarding a Congress critter’s pension:
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they’ve completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
.
.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
So, firing (in the sense that I have defined it) a member of the House of Representatives, after a single term, means that they would NEVER get a pension, even if they waited until they were 62 years old.
Even the higher average retirement figure I quote – 60K – is far below 173 K.
In short, the idea that credibly threatening to terminate the career of a Congress critter is wrong-headed because they will then get a pension is ludicrous.
But you’re happy to just let these same clowns get re-elected, decade after decade, such that they WILL be entitled to a pension??
If your clown Congress critter is already entitled to a pension, well, boo hoo. Would you rather have somebody in a position of power, making 174K/year to betray you, or that same person making 60K/year, and not in a postion of power? Is this really hard to figure out?
Besides throwing the bum out, and cutting his/her government pay to less than half, or more, of what they were previously making, the public learning to flex it’s political, electoral muscles is a social good whose value can’t be expressed well in dollars and cents.
None of this concerns the “don’t vote” crowd, which is part of the reason I can’t take them seriously, or at face value.
12 Comments
Metamars, Thanks for posting this. I heartily agree with you on at least two counts. First, the public needs to learn to flex its electoral muscles, this is a social good whose value is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate. Second, the don’t vote crowd is ridiculous. Their most recent diary attacking Jill Stein backers as supporters of government -sponsored genocide was absolutely ridiculous. The diarist came across as mentally unhinged. The question I posed to them in the comment thread is that their entire boycott movement seems to be based on the premise that the powers that be crave the legitimacy that high voter turnout will give to election results. I do not share this assumption. Indeed, if the PTB crave such legitimacy, then why have they put so much work into voter suppression (the destruction of ACORN, voter ID laws in swing states, and now, intimidatitng billboards in minority neighborhoods)? I have asked the boycotters this question several times, and they always completely ingnore it, just keep repeating their talking points, and repeating them more shrilly with each post. I have stopped reading their posts altogether and have concluded that the boycotters have no interest in logical thought or discussion of ideas. Instead they are like someone standing on a street corner shouting through a bullhorn. I will vote for Jill Stein and I will focus all of my energy on discussions with people who intend to vote.
Well, they could be Republican shills, only concerned about demoralizing Progressives/liberals, who lean Democratic. That’s what some people are claiming. This scenario would mean that not only don’t they have a case, they’d be practicing deception.
This scenario is very plausible, because low voter turnout favors Republican candidates.
There’s actually little good that will come from just showing up on general elections, and voting for a lesser D/R evil. People need to organize and act and vote aggressively, as voting blocs.
However, to convince people not to even vote at all will help blind them even more to the tremendous opportunities that are collectively ours, if we would only organize, and act smarter and with a modicum of courage.
Americans who do vote are only doing 15% of what they need to do, to change things. Get more people to not even do that 15% won’t, by itself, make a lot of difference. But it’s clearly a step in the wrong direction.
A 15% step in the right direction, together with 85% steps of organizing so that we have decent options to vote for, is the way to go.
Deception is a possibility. When I wrote a blog n response to this boycott nonsense, I did add a mention of hey folks, troll alert! You do have to wonder about a boycott election group that seems to be targeting progressives. On the other hand, extreme studpidity is always a possibility.
As far as I’m concerned, people who advocate boycotting the vote, and at the same time attack anyone trying to organize third-party options to the 2-party monopoly system we have in place now deserve no part in the conversation at all. They have basically opted out of the conversation on all levels of participation.
You are correct that voting is only a small piece – but it is an important piece. People often equate a vote as if it is only a vote for the president and nothing more, and that seems like an exercise in futility for a lot of us. But politics is local and your vote for your city councilmember can have a huge impact on your life. Or your state legislator, or a local judge – many of whom are elected. A large number of states have propositions on the ballot.
And finally, a failure to vote actually IS a vote – depending on the state where you live, it can make the difference between one party and the other who wins in any one of these contests I mentioned, or even the presidential one.
So the boycott is a vote – a vote that they don’t care what happens to them, to their neighbors and friends and families, to their country, to the world. What an attitude. Unfortunately, we ignore people like that at our own peril.
How about health insurance? Somewhere among the blogs I once read that the citters get their health insurance for life if they last five years. Never fact checked it. But it seemed intuitive that they would cover their own asses while stiffing so many of the rest of us.
Hopefully the electorate punishes many of the first term Rethuglicans in this election. For starters, I am hoping that Joe Walsh and Alan West are soon retired.
The value of a vote is in direct proportion to what it personally costs a citizen to cast their vote.
I agree with lokywoky: Not voting is voting and advocating not voting is campaigning. Also agree with arcadesproject on the health insurance.
So-called “boycotting” the POTUS election seems totally futile to me, unless it’s somehow tied to a huge General Strike or something similar, which is highly unlikely. About half of eligible voters simply don’t vote, and it’s not the PTB give a shit or “learn something” from that.
As another commenter said, if the PTB are so “intimidated” or whatever by vote boycotts, then why do they put so much energy, effort, money, time and legislation into suppressing votes & disenfranchising voters????
There may be some otherwise well-intentioned citizens who actually believe in a vote “boycott,” but speaking only for myself, I’m *highly suspicious* of “boycott the vote” groups. I think they’re funded by the 1%, myself.
That said, this blog makes a good point about down-ticket votes, while alerting us that not ALL Congresscritters get pensions for life.
Always vote in elections, and if you are dissatisfied with your “representatives” in the House & Senate, work to get rid of them and have them replaced by hopefully better candidates.
Unsure about pensions at the State level, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were some restrictions on pensions at that level as well.
Always worth it to pay attention and vote at all levels.
As for POTUS: there are always third party candidates to consider. Some believe that’s just as stupid as boycotting & not voting. I disagree, but that’s JMHO, of course.
Thanks for the post. Recommended.
I’m not sure it is the PTB that are engaged in disenfranchising voters, etc. Currently, I see the Rep party engaged in these activities because it is important to them that their team win. The PTB, having bought off both teams equally, will benefit whether it is the blue or red team that gets the most votes.
In a direct democracy, voting is high on the list of valuable things that a citizen can do. In a representative democracy, where power goes to the highest bidder, the value of voting is quite low. The value of voting is further lowered by an electoral college that trumps the popular vote and by the incredible private expense of television advertising, which tells the majority of the citizenry what to think and do.
Perhaps the only reason to vote in a representative democracy where the representatives at the federal level are so thoroughly bought off is to vote out every incumbent. It is a very small way to push toward a balance of power, but it is better than nothing.