Senate Passes Bill Cancelling Pensions for Congressmen Convicted of Ethics Viol.

[mod mom]

Senate Passes Bill Canceling Pensions For Congressmen Convicted Of Ethics Violations...
CNN   |  Posted January 12, 2007 10:55 PM

The Senate on Friday approved a measure stripping taxpayer-funded pensions from members of Congress who are convicted of serious ethics offenses, such as bribery and conspiracy.

The vote was 87-0.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/12/senate-passes-bill-cancel_n_38559.html

[Poiuyt]

1. Excellent

I think we'll start to see a whole lot more Congressmen resigning before they can to trial.

[PsN2Wind]

2. Too bad

they didn't make it retroactive.

[magellan]

4. That would have been the right thing to do

Don't understand why they didn't. Who the hell wants slugs like Duke Cunningham collecting $64K a year off our backs?

[Wildewolfe]

14. One of the fundamental

... aspects of our legal system is a prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws... or laws written after the fact and applied retroactively. While there are times like this one that you just want to scream.... it is in all of our best interests that our government does not do that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. And, yet, there are literally millions of Americans who thought they

had a pension waiting for them at the end of their retirement, only to discover that Congress had changed the laws to allow their corporations wiggle room out of their pension commitments. To add insult to injury, personal bankruptcy got harder along the way. Where's the justice in that? I say, treat Congressmen the same way they've treated Americans in the past. Make it retro-active, for justice's sake.

[magellan]

16. I see your point

I've screamed often enough about BushCo doing the very same thing. Thank you for putting it into perspective for me. :)

[ThoughtCriminal]

8. Actually, if they had exempted anyone who retires by 2009

It might have prompted mass retirements by a large portion of the sitting GOP Congress.

[UrbScotty]

12. I think that would be an ex post facto law.

Which is unconstitutional.

[curiousdemo]

3. Say Bug Man....aka Tom Delay....

you may have to start killing bugs again. Your pension is about to go bye..bye..when you're convicted.

[VenusRising]

5. I'm guessing the not votings were in committee??

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00008

[Taoschick]

29. The "not voting"

List is interesting, to say the least.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

6. Does it cover presidential pensions?

prolly not, huh.

[catnhatnh]

7. We can make this bill better....

Please see my suggestion at...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3053834&mesg_id=3053834

[lligrd]

9. Slippery Slope

Will we next go after the pensions of government and private employees that are convicted of a crime? How about those that get fired for being inadequate? Pensions are benefits and are earned. It is just like taking pay away for a job already done. The real question is why a member of Congress is given a pension after serving just a few years.

[LostInAnomie]

11. I reluctantly agree with you.

Although it seems like the opposite of justice, it is still a slippery slope that we probably shouldn't tread on.

Although, anymore private industry seems to be allowed to opt out of paying pensions whenever they feel like it, so why shouldn't the government.

[lligrd]

18. And I Agree

That the theft of pensions by Corporations (and the governments allowance of such) is abhorant.

[magellan]

13. Revoking pensions for convicted felons isn't a slippery slope

It's a good idea, in both the public and private sector. Particularly where felonious government officials and CEOs are concerned.

[lligrd]

19. Then I Surmise You Think

the same should apply to 401Ks? How about the spouse's vested interest in such a fund?

[lligrd]

26. And Let's Not Forget That

a person convicted of a felony today, might not have been yesterday, or might be pardoned tomorrow.

[Selatius]

20. The problem is slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

We're talking about stripping Congressmen of pensions for major ethics violations or even legal violations. There is nothing in the bill about the civil service or civil service employees. This is like saying if we removed compulsory prayer from public schools, then eventually we're going to ban all religious expression in all aspects of life someday.

[lligrd]

24. Not At All

The slope is a part of it. You start with major violations and only Congress and it slopes where??? I am really amazed that some of the progressives on DU would fall for this simplistic solution and not see the repercussions. I don't appreciate the likes of Cunningham or Delay receiving my taxpayer dollars for life but I really feel this is a simplistic revenge tactic and not well thought out at all.

[Selatius]

28. Again, who said anything about the civil service?

Show me where there is a major movement to apply the same to the civil service. Show me where this is.

[Taoschick]

22. That's an easy one

The real question is why a member of Congress is given a pension after serving just a few years.

Because Congress looks out for Congress. Can you imagine them writing a law which states an employer must pay a pension to every employee who works for 5 years?

[lligrd]

25. Exactly! And That Is The Part

we need to work on. Of course, I think at present, we have greater concerns, but that is just me.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Ain't It Amazing, That Up Until Now They Actually Received Them?

I mean, holy mind boggling. This one's a no brainer.

[DarkTirade]

17. Whoa... so... they'll actually be held accountable for their actions now?

What a novel idea...

[SeattleGirl]

21. Wow! That's fantastic!!

:bounce:

[and-justice-for-all]

23. Haha!!! I love it...

Let the hammer fall!!

[ellisonz]

27. Dear CNN,

STFU.

NUff said.