No, this post is not really about last week’s indictment of Senator Ted Stevens; he is innocent until proven guilty. Rather, it’s about the grim reminder to taxpayers that the 110th Congress’s ethics legislation (S.1) is not up to the job of protecting their hard-earned money. Substitute the name of any Senator or Representative for that of Ted Stevens, and one thing remains undeniable: the very first hypothetical test of the 2007 “no pensions for Congressional felons” law is a dismal failure. What message does this send to the American people, who according to some polls already rate Congress’s performance in the single-digits?

One reason for the problem is that S. 1, signed by President Bush in September 2007, deprives a lawmaker of his or her pension only for final conviction of certain offenses committed after the bill’s enactment. Most of the charges against Stevens are for offenses he allegedly committed before that time. Defenders of S. 1 point out that constitutional issues of retroactivity might arise if the provisions were written to simply apply to a final conviction after enactment, regardless of when the offenses occurred. This is not entirely an unreasonable position, though it would make for interesting litigation.

More importantly, however, none of the charges for violations he may have committed are among the 10 specific felony offenses (including bribery, conspiracy, and racketeering) listed in the ethics bill that would deny the pension benefit. So, IF Senator Stevens decides to step down in 2009, he would enjoy an immediate pension of $122,000, which in turn would rise with the cost of living in the future.

Throughout the development of S.1, we argued that Senators and Representatives would risk their credibility with the American people if they failed to construct a strict and thorough statute making conviction for most felonies a reason to be stripped of a pension. The first draft of the proposal was, ironically, even weaker than what was in the final bill. Thanks to pressure from Representative Mark Kirk and others, the law was improved, but not to the extent that Kirk’s stand-alone bill, H.R. 14, would provide. Notably, had H.R. 14 been enacted in early 2007, the law might indeed be relevant to the current controversy. According to the text of the bill, one reason for a lawmaker to be ineligible for a pension would be “An offense within the purview of section … 1001 (statements or entries generally) …”

From Dan Rostenkowski to Duke Cunningham, taxpayers are already on the hook for at least 20 convicted lawmakers’ pensions. While last year’s ethics bill was a step in the right direction, that list of shame is likely to grow unless Congress completes the job the American people demanded in the first place. Lawmakers who commit any kind of felony crime shouldn’t draw a pension on the taxpayer’s dime – no ifs, ands, or buts.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm and is filed under Politics, Economy/Budget .