Congress is cashing out, and taxpayers are footing a hefty $38 million annual bill for their pensions.
As a wave of lawmakers, including high-profile names like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced they won’t seek re-election next year, and the spotlight turns to the generous retirement benefits they’ll collect at public expense, as the New York Post reports.
This isn’t just a handful of politicians stepping back -- it’s a record number opting out of the next term. Their departures have reignited a fiery discussion about whether Congress should even have such a cushy pension system. And with costs clocking in at $38 million yearly, according to 2022 data from Congressional Research Services, it’s no small change we’re talking about.
Under federal law, any member of Congress who serves at least five years qualifies for these annual pension payouts. That’s a low bar for a lifetime perk, especially when many Americans in the private sector are scraping by with no such safety net.
Take Greene, who started her term on Jan. 3, 2021, and will exit on Jan. 5, 2026 -- just over the five-year mark to lock in her benefits. Her pension, starting at age 62, is pegged at $8,717 yearly under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), potentially totaling over $265,000 in her lifetime based on actuarial estimates. It’s not a fortune, but for a short stint in office, it’s a nice little bonus courtesy of taxpayers.
“I can’t read her mind, but it certainly seems as if it was timed to make sure she got vested,” said Demian Brady, vice president of research for the National Taxpayer Union Foundation. Well, isn’t that convenient? If you’re going to play the game, might as well secure the prize before heading for the exit.
Then there’s Nancy Pelosi, whose retirement in 2027 will net her an estimated $107,860 per year -- one of the largest pensions on record for any current or former FERS member. Her hefty payout reflects nearly four decades of service, boosted by her time as House speaker and pre-reform rules that made benefits more generous. It’s a great contrast to the average FERS annuity of $45,276 in 2022.
Compare that to the older Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), closed to new members since 1984, where 261 enrollees averaged $84,504 annually in 2022. Back in 2018, with more CSRS members and fewer in FERS, total payouts topped $53 million. These numbers aren’t just statistics -- they’re a reminder of how deep the taxpayer burden runs.
While members also accrue benefits through the separate Thrift Savings Plan, it’s the defined-benefit pensions that stick in the craw of many conservatives. Why should elected officials get a guaranteed payout when most workers are left to fend for themselves with 401(k)s -- if they’re lucky? It’s a question that demands an answer.
Enter Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a vocal advocate for scrapping congressional pensions entirely. He’s gearing up to reintroduce legislation that would end FERS eligibility for House lawmakers and make participation optional. It’s a bold move in a town where self-preservation often trumps principle.
“To tackle out-of-control federal spending, Congress must lead by example by ending defined-benefit pensions for Members of Congress,” Massie declared. Hear, hear -- nothing says fiscal responsibility like cutting your own perks, though don’t hold your breath waiting for D.C. to embrace that logic.
Massie isn’t alone in this fight; Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a former congressman, has long pushed for reform, even pledging in 2013 to reject his own pension benefits. He once co-sponsored legislation with Massie to dismantle the system. It’s refreshing to see leaders willing to walk the talk, even if the road is uphill.
Yet, resistance remains strong among career politicians who see pensions as their just reward for decades of “service.”
With total costs to taxpayers already staggering, the idea of reform feels like a pipe dream when so many in Congress are counting on that golden parachute.
Brady put it bluntly, noting the main obstacle to change: careerists who cling to office for decades and expect a payout at the end. It’s a culture of entitlement that clashes with the citizen-legislator ideal our Founders envisioned. If Congress wants trust, they might start by living like the rest of us -- saving for retirement without a taxpayer-funded cushion.
