Political Animal
Blog
For a presidential candidate who wants to dismantle much of the government, slash much of the public-sector workforce, and eliminate many public-sector benefits, this should be a fairly significant political problem.
Rick Perry has done something his opponents have been hoping he’d do for years: retire. But it’s not what the governor’s detractors had in mind.
Perry officially retired in January so he could start collecting his lucrative pension benefits early, but he still gets to collect his salary — and has in turn dramatically boosted his take-home pay.
Perry makes a $150,000 annual gross salary as Texas governor. Now, thanks to his early retirement, Perry, 61, gets a monthly retirement annuity of $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net. That raises his gross annual salary to more than $240,000.
It’s a practice sometimes referred to as “double-dipping” — Perry is enjoying his generous, taxpayer-financed salary, and enjoying his generous taxpayer-financed pension at the same time.
If his presidential campaign fails, and Perry serves the remainder of his third term, he’ll also receive an even-more-generous pension, Social Security, and state-provided health care for the rest of his life.
The Perry campaign has emphasized that all of this is perfectly legal. As best as I can tell, that’s true.
But if the governor and his aides don’t see the problem here, they’re not paying close enough attention — Perry is receiving quite a bit of money from a public-sector benefits system Perry finds ideologically offensive and in need of a radical overhaul.
I suspect Perry, going forward, will have a very hard time working his way back into the top tier of the GOP presidential race, but if he somehow manages a comeback, this is a story the governor would have a tough time defending to his party’s far-right base.
Facebook
Twitter
Eeyore on December 19, 2011 11:31 AM:
Wait a second..... Perry and his ilk routinely whimper about those LAZY SHIFTLESS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES who rip off the taxpayers with outlandish pensions. So Perry is now ripping off the taxpayers with an outlandish pension?
WTF?
martin on December 19, 2011 11:31 AM:
I see no problem explaining this to the base at all. They're upset about unionized workers getting paid and getting retirement. They don't give a rats ass about their celebrity politicians making a few extra bucks at the public trough any more than they care about their lifelong politicians ranting against lifelong politicians.
c u n d gulag on December 19, 2011 11:31 AM:
Nice "not-work" if you can get it, too!
But I don't think this will bother the base too much.
After all, Perry worked for his money!
He was a Republican politician.
He wasn't like those public union leeches like the teachers, janitors, and police and fire workers.
danimal on December 19, 2011 11:34 AM:
As a public employee whose pension is under fire, I can assure you that Perry's problem won't just be with the far-right. There are plenty of moderates and liberals who are justifiably angry at pension abuse as well.
Shame on Perry; it's practices like his that threaten the retirement security for millions of people with a tiny fraction of Perry's income and connections.
kanopsis on December 19, 2011 11:34 AM:
this is a story the governor would have a tough time defending to his party’s far-right base.
Not really. This is something the far right base aspires to. They would do the exact same thing if they could. They only object to government largess because they aren't getting it and they believe someone else is. ie: welfare recipients, etc. Not they want welfare... they just believe someone else is getting the money and they're not.
beep52 on December 19, 2011 11:38 AM:
Don't knock Perry. That level of income makes him a job creator.
chi res on December 19, 2011 11:43 AM:
ONE PERCENTERS' FIRST COMMANDMENT
Thou shalt secure personal profit by whatever means necessary.
ONE PERCENTERS' SECOND COMMANDMENT
Thou shalt fuck they neighbor's spouse whenever possible.
ONE PERCENTERS' THIRD COMMANDMENT
Thou shalt shit on the poor at every opportunity.
(feel free to add your own)
flyonthewall on December 19, 2011 11:44 AM:
John McCain also fits into this category, including destroying a perfectly good jet. I bet there are dozens in Congress sucking on that gov't teat more than once.
bear88 on December 19, 2011 11:47 AM:
It's only going to cause problems with his far-right base?
This is the kind of crap that irritates me in my home state, with school district administrators who "retire" from well-paying jobs and then turn up in another district a few months later earning big bucks there. It's the kind of crap that liberals shouldn't defend, or act as if only crazy right-wingers don't like. It's basically welfare for overrated public officials who have gamed the system for themselves.
chi res on December 19, 2011 11:54 AM:
ONE PERCENTERS' FOURTH COMMANDMENT
Thou shalt ardently support racism, homophobia, misogynism and xenophobia in all forms and at all times, and remain steadfastly true to the cause of bigotry and exploitation of the non-elite.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on December 19, 2011 11:54 AM:
ONE PERCENTERS' FOURTH COMMANDMENT
Thou shalt use the Lord's name in support of commandments 1-3 and 5-infinity.
Sgt. Gym Bunny on December 19, 2011 11:55 AM:
Fifth commandment then...
aggie bee on December 19, 2011 11:56 AM:
Hey, lay off the guy. Aqua Net® doesn't grow on trees.
RalfW on December 19, 2011 11:57 AM:
I'm far left and I find this offensive.
It happens in other sectors, too. I have a life insurance policy with a Lutheran-affiliated, mutual insurance firm where a friend happens to work.
He's been retired twice and called back. Two juicy severance packages, and then back to work each time.
Nice for my friend, but as a policy holder, a waste of my premium payment.
Likewise for Governor. Or any gov't staffer.
James on December 19, 2011 12:00 PM:
How is this any different from someone collecting Social Security and then getting a part time job as a greeter at WalMart? Is that "double-dipping"? One is entitled to collect a pension that he or she has earned, and to find and engage in other employment. Sorry, you are buying into the anti-public employee rightwing agenda.
Josef K on December 19, 2011 12:00 PM:
From aggie bee at 11:56 AM:
Hey, lay off the guy. Aqua Net® doesn't grow on trees.
Aqua Tofana, more like. This guy is poison.
Art Hackett on December 19, 2011 12:12 PM:
Pensions such as his (and mine) are taxed as ordinary income) So the taxpayers will get back whatever marginal tax rate he owes. A pension is payment for work already done (regardless of how good a job you think he did) so he's entitled to it.
Texas' pension plan, as I recall, is fairly well funded so there's no benefit to the legislature in killing the plan as is the case in Illinois and New Jersey where additional funding is needed to keep it solvent...It's just the joy of paying workers less and hoping they will put their 401 K money into whatever scam Wall Street is peddling at the moment.
jonas on December 19, 2011 12:19 PM:
I think it's fairly simple: Perry's a hard-working, Christian white man. Anything he gets was obviously earned fairly. Not like those -- let's face it, mostly minority -- public workers, sitting around on their asses all day collecting 10 different welfare checks on top of their pensions and using it to buy steaks in their Cadlillacs or whatever. That's completely different.
June on December 19, 2011 12:23 PM:
@James - the difference is, Perry is collecting a full-time governor's salary, plus a full retirement salary *at the same time.*
The guy at Walmart takes on a part-time job in the hopes of fleshing out his $14,160 a year in SS benefits a year - if he's even getting that much. The guy at Walmart is *not* still collecting a full salary from his last full-time job *and* collecting Social Security at the same time.
aggie bee on December 19, 2011 12:26 PM:
Josef K @ 12:00pm ~ "Aqua Tofana, more like. This guy is poison."
That would explain a whole lot of "oops."
(Full disclosure: I had to Google "Aqua Tofana.")
James on December 19, 2011 12:53 PM:
@June:
If you want to argue that the amount of his pension is too generous, that's an argument to have. But he is entitled to collect a pension that he earned when he becomes eligible, whether that is Social Security or a public pension, and seek other employment.
A retirement pension is not a "salary." A pension is deferred compensation. He earned the pension for work already performed.
James on December 19, 2011 1:02 PM:
And if I may say, you younger people are shooting yourself in the ass by being so ignorant about retirement and pension issues. Oh, I was the same way. It wasn't until I was nearing retirement age and started really doing the math that all of this kind of stuff started to make sense in a very, very vivid and compelling way. Thus, I and hardly anyone objected when politicians raised the retirement age on social security back in the 1980's, and committed other nickel and dime atrocities on the aging populace.
You all don't have to put up with this. But it requires that you get off your high horse and educate yourself, before they stick it to you even harder than they stuck it to me.
June on December 19, 2011 1:05 PM:
@James - outside of the fact that Perry's ideology is in direct opposition to this stunt that he's pulling - what you seem to be missing is that Perry is collecting his full-time salary at the same time that he's collecting retirement benefits - with the door open to actually not retiring, but resuming his governor duties - any bets on whether he would pay back the "retirement" benefits he's receiving in the meantime? The guy at Walmart necessarily cannot collect his Social Security check and still collect his full-time job's salary at the same time - that's the difference.
jsjiowa on December 19, 2011 1:25 PM:
Iowa's (Republican) governor is doing this, too. He's collecting a pension for his prior service as governor in the 80's and 90's, and collecting a salary for his current service as governor. He justifies it by saying that the pension was earned by his prior service, and that he shouldn't have to forgo that. He's meanwhile been critical of small increases to public employee salaries, claiming that private sector employees are doing much worse.
IDTT on December 19, 2011 2:13 PM:
ONE PERCENTERS' SIXTH COMMANDMENT
Thou shalt not admit or acknowledge hypocrisy. EVER!
James on December 19, 2011 2:24 PM:
@June:
"The guy at Walmart necessarily cannot collect his Social Security check and still collect his full-time job's salary at the same time - that's the difference."
Check your facts, dear. Yes he can if he is eligible for SS benefits, and millions and millions of seniors do. That eligibility is, 40 quarters of employment, at least 62 years of age.
I repeat, you should get off your high horse and educate yourself. Your old age security depends on doing that NOW.
booch221 on December 19, 2011 3:05 PM:
When it comes to public-sector benefits, Mr. Perry lives by the "do as I say, not as I do" rule.
Applies to his sex life too, I hear...
http://gawker.com/5868489/all-your-rick-perry-gay-sex-rumors-collected-in-one-handy-book
June on December 19, 2011 3:33 PM:
@James, dear - it's amazing to me that this being the internet you make assumptions about how old people are - you may not be correct in your assumptions.
That said, I suspect we will keep talking past each other, as I am aware there are restrictions on how much income you can have above $14,160 if you're collecting Social Security at age 62, or in Perry's case, age 61 (early retirement) and also work a job -- as of right now, Social Security's policy would "take $1 from your benefits for each $2 you earned above $14,160" -- so you still would not receive a full Social Security benefit plus your full salary.
But obviously, you have no problem with Perry making sure he's taken care of on the public dime, while he beats the drums for "entitlement reform" for the rabble out here. That is really why we keep talking past one another. I see Perry's position as completely hypocritical.
James on December 19, 2011 4:06 PM:
@June,
It is entirely true that after a retiree earns more than $14,160 in a year, the Social Security income is taxable over that amount. That is an entirely different issue than your original contention that the "guy at Walmart necessarily cannot collect his Social Security check and still collect his full-time job's salary at the same time". You were simply, factually wrong when you made that statement. You should admit your were wrong.
Generally, public pensions are based on both age and years of service, rather than a minimum number of quarters and a minimum age -- 40 q and 62 y -- that is the case with Social Security. If Gov. Perry -- whom I loathe -- had the years of service and the age, then he is entitled to collect his pension -- deferred compensation, remember.
What is with you anti-pension people? The Republicans attempt to drive a wedge between younger people and older people, who have been fighting tooth and nail for YEARS to preserve adequate pension for everyone, not just themselves. So right on cue, you people start with the bashing -- not bashing Republicans, who are out to steal your pension -- but the very people who are fighting for your pension. That's exactly how the mouthbreathing, Foxwatching dumbasses got to be so addle-brained, and here you are falling right in line with them on issues related to YOUR pension. Congratulations on being a budding rightwing idiot.
I suggest you educate yourself on pension issues. Your security in your old age depends on it. Or, stay on your high horse and be a dumbass, whatever.
June on December 19, 2011 4:28 PM:
@James - now I'm supposed to be "you anti-pension people"? Huh? I honestly don't how I've given you that impression. I've been talking about Perry's hypocrisy - I truly don't how the wrong impression was made upon you that I'm somehow "anti-pension." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Here is what I'm talking about with regard to the Social Security benefit in Social Security's own words:
"Let us say that you file for Social Security benefits at age 62 in January 2011 and your payment will be $600 per month ($7,200 for the year). During 2011, you plan to work and earn $20,480 ($6,320 above the $14,160 limit). We would withhold $3,160 of your Social Security benefits ($1 for every $2 you earn over the limit). To do this, we would withhold all benefit payments from January 2011 to June 2011. Beginning in July 2011, you would receive your $600 benefit and this amount would be paid to you each month for the remainder of the year. In 2012, we will pay you the additional $440 we withheld in June 2011. "
Fine, you would get your check, but not for the first half the year, which would not be a full Social Security benefit - you are enrolled in Social Security, but you're not receiving real money in your hand. The larger point is, though, that apparently in Rick Perry's world at age 62, you can officially "retire," and still collect your full salary as well as your full pension - real money - nothing held back - yet, Republicans are out there union-busting and entitlement-reforming in a effort to take away this type of safety-net from the rest of us.
That is my point. Rick Perry's hypocrisy is what I have an issue with. Not pensions or pensioners.
chi res on December 19, 2011 5:25 PM:
Hey James-- Stop being an asshole. You're insulting the wrong person. Take your meds and calm down.
Richard on December 19, 2011 10:39 PM:
When a public employee -- or indeed any employee -- covered by a defined-benefit pension plan retires, they start collecting their monthly check. They can then not work at all, work for a different employer, or (in some systems) go back to work for the same employer from whom they are getting the pension. The pension belongs to the employee, and they can spend the money anywhere they want, and they can work anywhere they want. If the employee had chosen to work more years before retiring, in most systems their monthly pension would be larger -- both because the size of the pension is proportional to the number of years worked, and because they (usually) are making more money toward the end of their working career and so the pension is calculated on a higher base. So, depending on the exact characteristics of the pension system, it may or may not make economic sense for someone to retire 'early' and return to the same or a different employer. But the important point is that the employee and employer have contributed to the pension fund on the employee's behalf, and the pension belongs to the employee. Collecting a pension and then continuing to work is not only not illegal, it is not in the slightest bit sleazy, even though Steve Benen suggests it is.
Please note that I have no sympathy for Rick Perry about most things. But I am, along with thousands of other public employees in Florida (which is NOT notably generous to its employees), am enrolled in DROP (Deferred Retirement Option Program). In DROP, my pension is paid into a fund to which I do not have access (and which pays interest) for up to five years while I continue to work. Then I must retire for real. If I had not enrolled in DROP, my pension would be calculated on 5 more years of work history, so I have accepted a lower monthly pension in return for starting it earlier. That's an actuarial gamble. For as long as I am in DROP, the agency I work for and I do not pay into the retirement plan on my behalf -- since I am already drawing my pension. This saves the state money. At the end of the 5 years the accumulated pension funds are paid to me as a lump sum or can be rolled over into an IRA. I could have retired from my state job, started collecting my pension, and gone to work for some unrelated employer. Would that be double-dipping? If not, why is it double-dipping for me to work for my same employer?