Possible debunking of email needed please

[Crunchy_Frog]

I got this in email recently, and I don’t know that much about the financial workings of Congressmen, so could someone with some more knowledge than I debunk or verify this?

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 congress person 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!! n 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.

How many people can you send this to?

Now I’m a bit skeptical, thinking that if this were 100% true, something would have been made a little more public before now. But I have no idea where to go looking for this information.

[nineiron]

Anything that ends with “How many people can you send this to?” (or any other request to forward it) is a hoax, guaranteed. I have no cite to prove this, but I don’t think I need one (do I)?

[Ross]

I’m afraid I don’t know anything about the e-mail you’re concerned with, but it’s not really much if considered in the light of everyday government patch-ups in the UK. And we’re considered a relatively well-run country. Check out Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. The plotlines therein were fictionalised true stories.

I see no reason to doubt the e-mail; nor any reason why you should be able to challenge it publicly. These guys look after themselves. Such is life. If you decide to try, though, I’m with you, for what it’s worth!

[Sterra]

The last line does make it sound like a hoax, but I don’t see why the actual content of the article seems fishy.

Really, when they can vote themselves a payraise how does this come as a suprise?

[jk1245]

Snopes says it ain’t so. Not that I’d put something like this past those jagoffs (congresspeople, that is. Not Snopes). I know they vote themselves payraises every year or two.

[Crunchy_Frog]

Ah good old Snopes. A search didn’t come up with what I was looking for though. I must have been using the wrong keywords.

And since this was sent through my work email, I can simply click “Reply All” and send everyone that Snopes link.

Thanks again.

[Tedster]

Congress is smarter and sneakier than voting themselves a payraise. It’s automatic- I think they have to vote against a payraise; which of course never passes, and also allows a few people to vote against a payraise and look good to the hometown folks.

Our local congresscritter years ago was known as being staunchly anti-pork, so when it came time to hand out the goodies, we always came up short. We were the largest city in the country without interstate service for years.

[Enderw24]

*Originally posted by jk1245 *
**Snopes says it ain’t so. Not that I’d put something like this past those jagoffs (congresspeople, that is. Not Snopes). I know they vote themselves payraises every year or two. **

Which they only get if they’re reelected. While I’m sure you’ve read this before, I thought I’d link to it anyway.

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/amendments.html

Scroll to the bottom.

[lurkernomore]

Pretty sure the congressional benefits do depend on how long they were in office. And the Postal Service has put any new hires in the SS system since Reagan almost 20 years ago.