Legislators Shouldn’t Collect Their Pensions Until They’re 66

Betcha didn’t know that members of Congress can start collecting their retirement pensions when they’re fifty.  I didn’t know it until this morning.  But it figures.  These are the same sheltered pampered VIPs who receive every taxpayer-funded (i.e. Socialist) benefit imaginable, while shouting “Bootstraps!” to the rest of us.

So it makes perfect sense — from their cozy little world of fundraisers and limousines — for them to start drawing their own retirement benefits at fifty while simultaneously trying to raise the retirement age for everybody else.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D—Ohio) has introduced the Shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011.  This would require lawmakers to wait until they’re sixty-six (instead of the current fifty) before they can collect their pensions.  Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Sherrod Brown said:

“…I hear lots of members of Congress, especially, particularly conservative members of Congress, say we should raise the retirement age for Social Security…So, my thought there was that members of Congress should not be able to get their pension…until any earlier than a Social Security beneficiary should get theirs.”

Even if this bill doesn’t pass, it’ll be entertaining to hear the rightwads trying to rationalize why they should be able to retire with full benefits at fifty, while the retirement age for everybody else should be raised to 67.  Or 70.  Or 72...or 77...85...

Republican “Public Option” Gimmick

Two of the dullest tools in the shed — Senators Tom Coburn and David Vitter — have offered an amendment that’s supposed to derail the public option. Their amendment would require all members of Congress to register for public health care if the public option becomes law.

The theory was that those elitist Democrats would be afraid to actually use this lowly socialized health program themselves, since they’re only pushing it for the riffraff.

Surprise! So far, Senators Sherrod Brown, Chris Dodd, Al Franken and Barbara Mikulski have added their names as cosponsors of the amendment.

Aetna has — unintentionally of course — just come forward with an excellent case for health coverage reform. As much blood money as Aetna “earned” in 2009, they realize they can “earn” even more next year. All they have to do is raise their premiums even higher and throw 650,000 sick people onto the garbage heap.

Aetna CEO Ron Williams said:

“The pricing we put in place for 2009 turned out to not really be what we needed to achieve the results and margins that we had historically been delivering. We view 2010 as a repositioning year, a year that does not fully reflect the earnings potential of our business. Our pricing actions should have a noticeable effect beginning in the first quarter of 2010, with additional financial impact realized during the remaining three quarters of the year.”

With millions of angry, desperate, armed and dangerous Americans out there, why isn’t this pukebag in somebody’s crosshairs?

And now let’s hear it for Comcast. They may be one of the villains on other issues (i.e. Net Neutrality), but they’re on the public’s side when it comes to health care reform.

Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has sent Obama a letter saying “enactment of comprehensive health care reform legislation is, in my judgment, critical to putting this country on a path of sustained growth and prosperity.”

Supposedly a lot of large employers are in favor of health care reform since it’ll reduce their own expenses. Let’s hope more of these companies start coming out publicly in favor of it.