“why not put them on Social Security, instead of their generous pension plan our reps get(I believe after one term!)?”
From Wikipedia:
“Members who participated in the congressional pension system are vested after five (5) years of service. A full pension is available to members 62 years of age with 5 years of service; 50 years or older with 20 years of service; or 25 years of service at any age.”
They are incentivized to stay longer to increase their retirement. If term limits ever pass, retirement incentives should be changed to cap out at the term limit.
I think that the bottom line is that Congressional pensions are sweeter, but roughly in line with senior Federal Government norms and D.C. cost of living - except for the shorter timeframes to qualify. Having no pension other than Social Security would be a hardship on candidates who are not wealthy. Although they get a sweeter deal under FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System) than other employees, they get a lot less if they serve 5 years, than if they serve 30.
From Wikipedia:
“As of November 2014, senior Members of Congress who have been in office for at least 32 years can earn about $139,000 a year.”
...and of course, Cadillac health care.
Yes, and part of the problem is public sector unions -- they 'negotiate' with politicians for higher salaries and pensions at the expense of a third party (the taxpayer). The unions back the politicians (almost always Democrats) for election in exchange for cooperation in fleecing the taxpayers. If the politicians need more money, they raise taxes on the third party (taxpayers). The politicians never run out of other people's money so the wages and pensions keep climbing. With a private corporation funds are limited -- the corporation can only raise the price of their goods a limited amount before the competition puts them out of business -- so the union gains are constrained by market forces.