Claim: Members of Congress receive lavish pensions but are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2000]
Something to think about. So that those who don't know, may.
Our Senators and Congressmen don't pay in to Social Security, and, of course, they don't collect from it.
The reason is that they have a special retirement plan that they voted for themselves many years ago. For all practical purposes, it works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw their same pay, until they die, except that it may be increased from time to time, by cost of living adjustments.
For instance, former Senator Bradley, and his wife, may be expected to draw $7,900,000, with Mrs. Bradley drawing $275,000 during the last year of her life. This is calculated on an average life span for each.
This would be well and good, except that they paid nothing in on any kind of retirement, and neither does any other Senator or Congressman.
This fine retirement comes right out of the General Fund: our tax money. While we who pay for it all, draw an average of $1000/month from Social Security.
Imagine for a moment that you could structure a retirement plan so desirable that people would have extra pay deducted so that they could increase their own personal retirement income. A retirement plan that works so well, that Railroad employees, Postal Workers, and others who aren't in it, would clamor to get in.
That is how good Social Security could be, if only one small change were made. That change is to jerk the Golden Fleece retirement out from under the Senators and Congressmen, and put them in Social Security with the rest of us. Then watch how fast they fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe one or some of them along the way, might be able to help.
How many can YOU send it to?
Nothing is worth more than this day
Variations: In May 2001 someone thought to combine the "Congressmen don't pay into Social Security" alerts with an existing screed about the Clintons charging the Secret Service rent by adding the following to the e-mail quoted above:
[Collected on the Internet, 2001]
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. Is Everybody Happy?????????
A debunking of that addition can be found on our Landlord of Misrule page.
Origins: This piece has been circulating on the Internet since April 2000. So much of it is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading, it's difficult to know where to begin.
It is not true that Congressmen do not pay into the Social Security fund. They pay into the fund just as everyone else does.
It was true prior to 1984 that Congressmen did not pay into the Social Security fund because they participated in a separate program for civil servants (the Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS), but that program was closed to government employees hired after 1983:
In 1983, P.L. [Public Law] 98-21 required Social Security coverage for federal civilian employees first hired after 1983 and closed the CSRS [Civil Service Retirement System] to new federal employees and Members of Congress. All incumbent Members of Congress were required to be covered by Social Security, regardless of when they entered Congress. Members who had participated in CSRS before 1984 could elect to stay in that plan in addition to being covered by Social Security or elect coverage under an 'offset plan' that integrates CSRS and Social Security. Under the CSRS Offset Plan, an individual's contributions to CSRS and their pension benefits from that plan are reduced ('offset') by the amount of their contributions to, and benefits from, Social Security."
It is not true that Congressmen "continue to draw their same pay, until they die." The size of their pensions is determined by a number of factors (primarily length of service, but also when they joined Congress, their age at retirement, their salary, and the pension option they chose when they enrolled) and by law cannot exceed 80% of their salary at the time of their retirement.
The figures given as an example for Senator Bradley ($7,900,000 over the course of his and his wife's lifetime, culminating in a top payout of $275,000) are simply outrageous amounts with no basis in reality. There is no conceivable way Senator Bradley could draw anywhere near that amount of money though his pension plan.
It is not true that Congressmen "paid nothing in on any kind of retirement," and that their pension money "comes right out of the General Fund." Whether members of Congress participate in the older Civil Service Retirement System or the newer Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), their pensions are funded through a combination of general tax provisions and contributions from the participants. Right now, members of Congress in the FERS plan must pay 1.3% of their salary to FERS and 6.2% in Social Security taxes.
As of 1998, the average annuity for retired members of Congress was $50,616 for those who retired under CSRS and $46,908 for those who retired under FERS. Not bad, but not the highway robbery this piece makes it out to be.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
