Evening star., 1942-02-18
Readers Differ in Views
Of Congress Pensions
One Defends Retirement Pay
For Legislators, While Another
Critieizes Alleged 'Grob'
To the Editor Of The Star:

TO the Editor OF The Star:
There has been an amazing volume Of
tumult in connection with that portion
of the Ramspeck-Mead revision Of the
Civil Service Retirement Act which per-
mits inclusion of members Of Congress
within its scope, although upon the same
conditions as other public servants Per-
haps we may now be blessed with lull
which will enable us to examine the facts
and hear the "still, small voice" of
reason.
First, some questions: Why is retire.
ment upon an annuity requiring the pay
ment Of $500 year called q pension?
Why should members of Congress be the
only group OF Federal officers and en-
ployes in our country denied retirement
security, while liberal pensions are pro-
vided for the Federal judiciary and
officers and enlisted men in the Army
and Navy. without their making contri-
button of one cent? Practically all Federal
civil employees now are eligible to receive
retirement benefits and the trend in all
enlightened countries is to provide old
age or retirement benefits for workers
in industry Witness in our own coun-
try, the Social Security Act and the Rail-
road Retirement Act. In may be men
toned. too, in passing, that four States
New York, Ohio, Maryland and North
Carolina-include in their retirement
system elective officials.
1t is true that, under the Retirement
Act as now amended, members of Con-
gress who have had many years of service
would come in for something of a wind
fall; but they are exceedingly few in
number. and in few years time the
benefits the average Congressman could
derive would be little If any more than
he could obtain by the purchase OF an
annuity upon payment of $500 a year.
The act as amended follows the Gus
tomary practice of permitting retirement
benefits without requiring contribution
for past services. In this connection it
may be mentioned that upon the passage
of the original Retirement Act nearly
1000 Federal employees were at once re-
tired without one penny being deducted
from their salaries. AS other services
were later brought within the scope OF
the act their employees were made eligible
upon the same terms. The allowance Of
prior service credit to incoming partici-
pants has been an established principle
in retirement legislation for many years,
and accordingly was followed in the case
of members of Congress.
What point is there to the criticism
that they meaning the congressman
voted themselves these benefits?" What
other body in the United States has au-
thority to enact Federal legislation? 1t
is the duty of members Of Congress to
vote their convictions. If they believe
proposed legislation is right and meri-
torious, they should vote for it, regard
less OF whether they will benefit from
its enactment or be injured thereby. It
so happens that the provision which has
been the subject of adverse comment
by some was not added to the bill in
Congress-not even in committee-but
+ had heretofore received the approval
! of the Civil Service Commission and the
Bureau of the Budget. The bill was also
the subject of extended hearings and its
provisions were given much space in the
public press
If the present Congress supplies true
index of the operating cost of the retire
ment plan as relating to members of
Congress, such cost is small indeed.
Why is retirement plan wrong when
member of Congress is the beneficiary,
but meritorious when applied to other
public servants?
GEORGE A. WARREN.
To the Editor of The Star:
In The Star of February IL the fol-
lowing appeared:
Representative Norton, Democrat, of
New Jersey described the law as a good
one adding that she was glad it passed
Tim finishing 18 years in the House.
she said, and I haven't saved nickel
I'm not worried for myself, because I've
been informed by my constituents that
can stay here as long as want to-"
Here in few words is one reason why
the public is so outraged by the recent
pension grab in Congress and I call 1t to
your attention because it has been over
looked by our Representatives in their
arguments for and against their rights"
Most Of us solid citizens back at home
do not earn $4,000 a year. We earn
$4,000 or $4,000 On that we try to live
decently, educate our children, meet our
bills and, believe it or not, we start early
| to save for that distant time when we
hope to retire with a little something
left to live on. Il might say for your
information that it is done by doing
without) Personally I do my own
saving for old age, but for that very rea-
son I know what godsend q pension
Is to any one in the low salary group.
The pension Is never enough to live on
by half, but it makes saving q shade
easier and is some compensation for q
lifetime of poor pay.
Mrs. Norton has been in Congress Is
years and presumably has received
s180000 in salary, out Of which she has
been unable to save nickel. One
gathers that she is proud of it and does
not intend to start saving now as her
constituency will continue to support her
In the style to which she has become ac-
customed. Not being the saving kind
Mrs. Norton regards the pension law as
good one and is glad that it has passed.