CONGRESSIONAL PERKS: GETTING THE FACTS

The recent story in the Southeast Missourian about congressional pensions raised some eyebrows. It showed congressmen and senators from Missouri are eligible for annual pensions from $24,727 (for Sen. Christopher Bond) to $80,430 (for Rep. Harold Volkmer). And it showed total pension payouts, based on life expectancy charts, could range from $535,499 (for Sen. Bond) to $3,007,441 (for Rep. Bill Emerson of Cape Girardeau).

Emerson responded to the report by observing that his pension is based on more than his years in Congress. His federal employment started when he was a congressional page, and later he became a congressional staff member. In all, he has a total of 27 years of federal service, including 14 years as a congressman. Moreover, Emerson says he has never voted on his pension, to the best of his knowledge, and it is pretty well known that he has turned down some pay raises and used the money for scholarships at Southeast Missouri State University.

The story about the congressional pensions also raised this question: What is fair for an elected official's pension? One gauge is the private sector. Salaries of representatives and senators don't appear to be out of line with business executives and others in decision-making jobs. And, depending on the employer and the pension plan, the federal pensions don't appear to be out of line either.

The difference, of course, is that taxpayers feel the federal pensions are coming out of their pockets. Well, look a little closer. First, federal employees contribute to their pension plans just like pension participants do in the private sector. Second, who do you suppose pays for the perks in private industry? The consumers of products and services created by those companies. Those consumers are the same as the taxpayers who, by the way, are the voters who elect our congressmen.

It is an interesting circle of involvement in the issue of how much elected officials should be paid or what kind of pensions they should have. Voters (remember, they are taxpayers and consumers too) have the power to do something about the cost of government every time they go to the ballot box. But they rarely do. Instead, most folks complain about freebies enjoyed by Washington officials.

There is another misconception that needs to be put to rest. It is unfortunate that the news article about congressional pensions also referred to other perks such as free parking, subsidized meals and free haircuts. Mentioning these perks is designed to raise the blood pressure of well-intentioned constituents, but in fact they don't exist. There are no free haircuts. The free parking for congressmen means there is no reserved parking (which costs). And the cost of a hamburger, says Rep. Emerson, in the House cafeteria is much higher than the most expensive burger in Cape Girardeau.

With this information in mind, voters (taxpayers, consumers) must decide for themselves what is fair. Should someone who has enough support to be elected term after term to Congress also have support for equitable pay and a decent pension? Every voter (taxpayer, consumer) will have a different answer, but the only meaningful response will be the one at the ballot box. If voters choose to re-elect their representative and senators, it is one indication they approve of the package.