Je Pense, Donc Je Pension

Just because a professor openly expressed his full-fledged support on the reliability of Wikipedia today, I shall begin with a selection from the article on George Washington:

The 1st United States Congress voted to pay Washington a salary of $25,000 a year—a large sum in 1789. Washington, already wealthy, declined the salary, since he valued his image as a selfless public servant. At the urging of Congress, however, he ultimately accepted the payment, to avoid setting a precedent whereby the presidency would be perceived as limited only to independently wealthy individuals who could serve without any salary.^[97] The president, aware that everything he did set a precedent, attended carefully to the pomp and ceremony of office, making sure that the titles and trappings were suitably republican and never emulated European royal courts. To that end, he preferred the title "Mr. President" to the more majestic names suggested.^[98]

It's deemed a "good article" according to Wikipedia standards, but if I were to fully embrace the post-modernity theoretical framework as discussed in a class today or even a Rene Descartes propagation of rational skepticism, I would object to the single-truth romantic portrayal of Washington. Nevertheless, I must recognize the thoughtful honour in making a landmark decision regarding salaries after deliberation. Regarding salaries and pensions, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is launching another populist jackpot:

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says MPs have one of the cushiest pension fund programs in Canada and it's time to shut it down. The federation says with belts being tightened everywhere, it's time for a more modest system in which the government matches MP contributions to the plan on a dollar-for-dollar basis. As it currently stands, taxpayers kick in $23.30 for every $1 an MP contributes, the federation says. Officially, taxpayers contribute $5.80 for every $1 that MPs contribute, but the taxpayer group says it's actually much higher than that, because the government adds "interest" into the MP pension accounts at a rate of 10.4 per cent per year. MP pension funds are not invested in the market, like other pension funds. Instead, the "interest" rate is set by MPs and senators themselves. "These 'interest' earnings are in fact a massive top-up from taxpayers," the group says.

What's more, the 10.4 per cent interest rate, which is guaranteed in law, is outrageously high, says the group's federal director, Gregory Thomas. "Even during the market meltdown of 2008 -- when the Canada Pension Plan lost 18.6 per cent of its value, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan lost 18 per cent, the Quebec Pension Plan lost 25 per cent and the S&P/TSX total return index lost 33 per cent—the MP pension plan returned 10.4 per cent, just as it has every other year," Thomas said in a news release. "I'd bet there's a few million Canadians who would love to see a government-guaranteed 10.4 per cent annual return on their RRSPs." The result is that taxpayers contribute $248,668 each year to each MP's pension fund. That's more than a MP's base salary, which stands at $157,000. As well, MPs become eligible for the MP pension plan after only six years of service and can start collecting at age 55.

"Teachers, bus drivers, farmers, cops, small business owners, would all love to get a pension at age 55 after only six years of service," said Thomas. During those six years, MPs need only contribute $10,900 a year to get the minimum backbencher pension. The group estimates it would take a regular Canadian nearly 30 years to save as much as a backbench MP would get in their eventual pension payout after just six years. The group wants MPs to shut down the current pension scheme, and join the new Pooled Registered Pension Plan (PRPP). They also want to see taxpayer contributions capped at a dollar-to-dollar level. As well, they want to ensure that convicted fraudsters are barred from collecting parliamentary pension benefits.

When asked about pensions and his task of finding government savings, Treasury Board President Tony Clement said that MPs should be leading by example. "I think you've got to be fair to the employee, but you also have to be fair to the taxpayer," he told CTV's Power Play. While he refused to comment specifically on any plans to cut MP pensions, Clement said that he has "been tasked with putting some options forward" about how to manage the pension entitlements. The taxpayer report was dedicated to Preston Manning, who as leader of the Reform Party advocated cuts to MP pensions in the late 80s and early 90s. Ex-MPs Werner Schmidt and Lee Morrison, who had also refused their entitlements, were praised in the report. "These guys left a fortune on the table because that's what they said they would do," Thomas said. Ironically, some early Reform MPs are now collecting the very pensions they campaigned against, said Thomas.

This isn't the first time, as seen in my provocatively-titled post Politicians Are Underpaid. Aside from personal compensation, as seen in a discussion about the status quo tyranny of the majority result in referendums, politicians are often hated for bending to special interests or doing the hindsight revisionist-determined wrong thing. I don't know if President Barack Obama will be revered a century from now for appeasing environmental lobbyists who already support him anyway regardless of what he does by blocking the Keystone XL pipeline or if the Democrats suffer massive losses in the upcoming election this November. Then again, even though a considerable chunk of the Democratic caucus supports SOPA and PIPA, these bills would probably damage the Republican cause even more if the White House can somehow frame it as a confrontation between Lamar Smith and Mr. President.