Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 567

Should Former Members of Congress Who Become High-Paid Lobbyists be Cut Off From Their Federal Pensions?

Argument in favor

Former members of Congress who go and become lobbyists to sell their influence for over $1 million per year don’t need or deserve their federal pension and health benefits.

Gjhigs's Opinion
···
11/20/2016
Those who make a lot of money after retirement do not need pensions. These funds should be reallocated to other social programs.
Like (62)
Follow
Share
Leo's Opinion
···
11/20/2016
This is a step in the right direction for combating the outsized influence of lobbyists.
Like (50)
Follow
Share
Murphy's Opinion
···
11/20/2016
Anything to put more distance between special interests and legislators.
Like (48)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Former members of Congress who become lobbyists are entitled to these pensions and health benefits regardless of what they do or earn after leaving Capitol Hill.

Loren's Opinion
···
11/20/2016
The revolving door and the influence of lobbyists is a huge problem, but I don't see how this bill really solves the issue. While I think the bill is a net positive, I am skeptical that it will discourage former members of congress from lobbying in a neutral manner. The companies that hire them could pay them just under a million dollars which would allow them to make a lot of money while still getting their pensions. I suggest that we brainstorm other ideas for reform, such as increasing the amount of time they are prohibited from lobbying to four or six years, long enough where their influence is diminished.
Like (100)
Follow
Share
Richer's Opinion
···
11/20/2016
While the business of lobbying and politics shows a disturbing potential for corruption and quid pro quo, an individual's choice of employment should not disqualify them of their earned rewards of political service. That being said, this should be taken as an opportunity to open the talk about lobbying and its massive effect on the politics of Washington D.C.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
Megan's Opinion
···
11/21/2016
A person's employment choices after government service should not affect the benefits they were promised after years of service. I also don't think it fair to put restrictions on what they can and can't do after leaving congress. This goes against our fundamental value of freedom to work. While in this case it may seem unfair, it does set a dangerous precedent. Will Verterans who obtain lucrative employment after service be next?
Like (8)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Administration
      Committee on Oversight and Reform
    IntroducedJanuary 27th, 2015
    Those who make a lot of money after retirement do not need pensions. These funds should be reallocated to other social programs.
    Like (62)
    Follow
    Share
    The revolving door and the influence of lobbyists is a huge problem, but I don't see how this bill really solves the issue. While I think the bill is a net positive, I am skeptical that it will discourage former members of congress from lobbying in a neutral manner. The companies that hire them could pay them just under a million dollars which would allow them to make a lot of money while still getting their pensions. I suggest that we brainstorm other ideas for reform, such as increasing the amount of time they are prohibited from lobbying to four or six years, long enough where their influence is diminished.
    Like (100)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a step in the right direction for combating the outsized influence of lobbyists.
    Like (50)
    Follow
    Share
    Anything to put more distance between special interests and legislators.
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    I recommend to change it from receiving $1,000,000 from the the lobbying firm enticing them, to any amount more than their max salary they received while in office. That would encourage these formal policy makers to actually continue to attempt to work for the people or causes they deem worthy. It would also force them to make a hard choice on the opportunities presented to them after their term.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a great idea... I couldn't agree with it more
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm not sure if this would completely solve the revolving door between capitol hill and lobbying firms but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    While the business of lobbying and politics shows a disturbing potential for corruption and quid pro quo, an individual's choice of employment should not disqualify them of their earned rewards of political service. That being said, this should be taken as an opportunity to open the talk about lobbying and its massive effect on the politics of Washington D.C.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    It seems like becoming a lobbyist after you finish your political career could be a conflict of interest.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Conflict of interest.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    This is just another way for them to get rich with money from the federal government. They should not get their pensions if they become lobbyists. The federal government needs that money to pay for other services and employee salaries. They will make plenty of money from their lobbying firms.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    If you are going to be a lobbyist, you shouldn't keep getting a govt. pension
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    A person's employment choices after government service should not affect the benefits they were promised after years of service. I also don't think it fair to put restrictions on what they can and can't do after leaving congress. This goes against our fundamental value of freedom to work. While in this case it may seem unfair, it does set a dangerous precedent. Will Verterans who obtain lucrative employment after service be next?
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The people have no faith in congress anymore. The appearance of corruption because of lobbyists and Super Pac's and the inability of congress to work with a president and each other is because of paid influence. The only way to correct this is to remove these temptations. Another thing is to change the pension system to be more in line with plans for every other person in this country. We only get a percentage of our retirement wages. Social security has been robbed by congress so we only get about a third of what we should get. So why should you get full pensions. Why should you be so privileged. You should have to go onto Medicare like the rest of us and not get a full pension unless you have put in your thirty years. Thirty years entitles you to a 60% pension.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Those Congresspersons who leave the people's business for private bosses can look to those paymasters for the long-term benefits they desire.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    When you leave Congress, you go back to being a private citizen. It is not the federal government's place to punish private citizens for what they do with their time. This bill sets a dangerous precedent for federal government overreach.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to limit corporate interests in the government.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I really like Countable member GrumpyMSgt's opinion: "Yes with one caveat....the pension will be reduced based on lobbyist earnings. If their earnings exceed their pension then the amount paid by the TAXPAYERS is zero. In a tribute to liberal fairness, those years where nothing is received from the TAXPAYERS they would receive a nice lapel pin. Subsequent zero payment years could be rewarded by adding small dollar signs to the tribute to the TAXPAYERS lapel pin."
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    It's unethical and a waste of federal dollars. If we can't bother to take care of war veterans because there's not enough money, why do retiree Congress get lifetime healthcare and retirement? Double standards much?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    YES! As pensions disappear for the majority of Americans, I see no reason to continue to pay one to overpaid lobbyists. I understand the original intent was to prevent congress people from selling their votes, but this has not been a deterrent, has it?
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE