Fed Pensions

[Topaz]

When the Reformers came to Ottawa they said they wouldn't take their Fed. pensions but its seems the present reformers/alliance/conservative are going in that direction. 52 will collect over 100,000 yearly with Harper himself collecting 150,222.00 and they can start collecting when they are 55 and the PM is 51 this year. Do you think this is fair that they will and the amount of thier pensions? http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100221/OTT_pensions_harper_100221/20100221/?hub=OttawaHome

[William Ashley]

I think that they should be held to their statements. It is a form of fraud for them to say one thing and do another.

Although I think they should of proposed legislation which removed their pension benefit and made it law. Hopefully the public will hold politicians accountable for their statements, at least in not reelecting them.

If parliament actually resumes then they could propose this. Write your MP today and ask them to introduce legislation removing the pensions of those who opt not to collect them. If they won't do it, don't vote for them if they said they would do it, they are liars.

Edited February 24, 2010 by William Ashley
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[ToadBrother]

I always thought it was the most idiotic of Reform positions (and one which, along with Manning's ultimately occupying Stornoway after making much noise to the opposite, embarassed a number of Reform MPs).

I think it's legitimate to debate the amount of the pensions, and in general MP salaries, but I think we get the politicians we pay for. In the olden days of the British parliament, MPs weren't even paid, and it lead to two undesirable phenomena; firstly that it greatly raised the potential for corruption, and secondly that it meant, by and large, that only the wealthy could ever hope to afford to have a seat in Parliament.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Michael Hardner]

It's fair that they get the pensions they're entitled to. It was also gracious of Chretien to give them the option to opt back in, which they took.

I think the important lesson here was that the dew was wiped from the eyes of the dreamy true believers of Reform during this episode, such that they took their steps to becoming whatever they are today. Not that that is a bad thing.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Shady]

I don't think that they should collect the full amount of the pension, considering their initial stance. That being said, they haven't collected even 1 cent of any pension money. So to criticize them before that makes no sense. Criticize them if they do, not if they might.

[scribblet]

Chretien wasn't being 'fair', he passed the legislation requiring MPs to opt in, in order to embarrass the Reformers, it worked and still is. Don't forget that when the Reformers opted out initially, they did so expecting to be able to put the equivalent amount of premiums ( 10 - 12% of gross) into an RRSP. Rev Canada ruled against them so they had a double whammy, no pension and no ability to put that money into an RRSP.

I would expect that if the CPC tries to cut back on civil service pensions, they will also cut back on MP pensions, and rightly so.

[ToadBrother]

Chretien wasn't being 'fair', he passed the legislation requiring MPs to opt in, in order to embarrass the Reformers, it worked and still is. Don't forget that when the Reformers opted out initially, they did so expecting to be able to put the equivalent amount of premiums ( 10 - 12% of gross) into an RRSP. Rev Canada ruled against them so they had a double whammy, no pension and no ability to put that money into an RRSP.

I would expect that if the CPC tries to cut back on civil service pensions, they will also cut back on MP pensions, and rightly so.

Chretien outmaneuvered them, to be sure, but bitching about pensions and such has a always been the worst aspect of the Reformer populist platform. Yeah, it gets people frothing at the mouth (them goddammed politicians always giving themselves money), but as a practical and meaningful political view, it was of no utility. I can tell you this, as a guy who lives in BC, if I went to Ottawa, spent large chunks of the year there, basically put my life on hold for four years, at minimum, in the service of my constituency, I wouldn't be doing it for nothing, that's for sure.

[Michael Hardner]

Chretien wasn't being 'fair', he passed the legislation requiring MPs to opt in, in order to embarrass the Reformers, it worked and still is. Don't forget that when the Reformers opted out initially, they did so expecting to be able to put the equivalent amount of premiums ( 10 - 12% of gross) into an RRSP. Rev Canada ruled against them so they had a double whammy, no pension and no ability to put that money into an RRSP.

I would expect that if the CPC tries to cut back on civil service pensions, they will also cut back on MP pensions, and rightly so.

In order to embarrass the Reformers ? Huh ? That would have been impossible, had they not done something as embarrassing as they did, going back on their word and all.

Reformers should thank Chretien for keeping their party's poor founders out of the poor house and keeping them in the bingo halls. Speaking of which... when is Stornaway being sold again ?

[Topaz]

Well, I thought Harper was high, now Chuck Strahl's is higher at $155,000 yearly, because he was a speaker? http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/23/adrian-macnair-chuck-strahl-s-pension-155-000-your-cp-pension-5-777-fair-huh.aspx

[scribblet]

In order to embarrass the Reformers ? Huh ? That would have been impossible, had they not done something as embarrassing as they did, going back on their word and all.

It's my understanding that they didn't have an option when the legislation was passed, they had to join. The only option was in buying back past service.

[August1991]

Chretien wasn't being 'fair', he passed the legislation requiring MPs to opt in, in order to embarrass the Reformers, it worked and still is.

I agree. And Danny Williams should have been stopped at the border when he flew to Miami.

----

Is anyone here surprised that politicians (left or right) say one thing in public but do otherwise in private?

Hypocrisy is not a weakness reserved solely to politicians. But hypocrisy is a good reason to distrust all politicians, and anyone who claims that the government can "solve a problem".

Leftists are right to believe that a good government can decide well for people. The error of Leftists is to believe that politicians are honest. (The most serious error of Leftists is to misunderstand how markets let ordinary people express their choices.)