Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

As Good a Place to Start as Any, I Guess

Radley Balko | 1.3.2007 7:37 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Nancy Pelosi is recommending that members of Congress convicted of felonies while in office lose their congressional pensions.

That's swell. But isn't it kinda' troubling that this isn't already the case?

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Wednesday Mini Book Review: Catch a Wave

Radley Balko is a journalist at The Washington Post.

PoliticsNanny StateCorruption
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (55)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Guy Montag   18 years ago

    Won't more of her own party be at risk than the others?

  2. madpad   18 years ago

    Won't more of her own party be at risk than the others?

    Takes a lot of nerve to be that pithy after the excesses of said "others" over the past 6 years.

    Besides, her party is still way behind the others for convicted pedophiles, sexual harrasers and basic deviants.

  3. Grant Gould   18 years ago

    I dunno, I hear that the Connecticut For Lieberman dudes can really party hard, if you know what I mean...

  4. thoreau   18 years ago

    Won't more of her own party be at risk than the others?

    Her party is better at not getting caught.

  5. Ted   18 years ago

    Thoreau, you're a cynical airhead, typical of libertarians who prefer the party of religious nutbars to any party that does not conform to the dogmas of your business-worshiping cult. Here's a news flash for you: Republicans are never going to abolish taxes. You have a better chance of experiencing libertopia with a crack pipe. In the meantime, why not support a party that maintains some semblance of the secularism that is at the heart of our great democracy? Oh, I forgot. Libetarians don't give a flying fuck about democracy. You want a country run Wal-Mart (in competition with other big box stores, of course).

  6. madpad   18 years ago

    Her party is better at not getting caught.

    I don't think that's accurate but just for giggles, which would you rather have...a competently corrupt politician...or an incompetently corrupt one.

    Points if you figured out that there's no correct answer.

  7. lunchstealer   18 years ago

    Awww, cute! And he's picking on the the most vocal of the liberaltarians!

    It's like JMJ is here all over again. Next he'll be calling joe a right wing schill.

    😛

  8. Kwix   18 years ago

    I dunno, I can't help but think this will just lead to further cover-ups and "legislative immunity".

  9. Ted   18 years ago

    Madpad

    There's no correct answer in the same way that you can't argue with a fundamentalist. Once you've demonized the (shudder!) state, then all politicians become evil. But even a casual observer of our species knows that the evils of the state are just one manifestation of the sort of stuff our species does. This may be a novel idea to you, but think about it: we just can't come up with a society that is free of oppression. We've come close in America, but not by buying into dogmatic political fanaticism. We've done it by a pragmatic disdain for communism, socialism, anachism, libertarianism, and all the other -isms that small minds need to feel self-important.

  10. Crusader Rabbit   18 years ago

    Ted, Ted ... Calm down, man. It's only a blog.

  11. Alan Vanneman   18 years ago

    Reason has complained loudly about the current federal policy that denies student aid to individuals convicted of drug offenses. Adding penalties for criminal behavior in addition to those inflicted by the court strikes me as petty and vindictive. Should all felons be denied pensions, SS benefits, Food Stamps, whatever?

  12. thoreau   18 years ago

    I don't think that's accurate but just for giggles, which would you rather have...a competently corrupt politician...or an incompetently corrupt one.

    I'll have whichever Ted prefers, just for giggles.

  13. Cab   18 years ago

    perhaps this can help

    http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/anger.html

  14. Ted   18 years ago

    Thanks, Crusader Rabbit. I needed that.

  15. isildur   18 years ago

    Alan: Come on, you've gotta try harder. Repeat after me: 'Drug offenses should not be felonies. In fact, they should not be crimes.'

    Ted: Whoa, did Ayn Rand piss in your Cheerios this morning?

    (oh christ, the mental image...)

  16. Ted   18 years ago

    Thoreau

    I prefer an honest, hardworking politcian. There are plenty of them. Little girls and airhead libertarians giggle. Real men laugh.

  17. madpad   18 years ago

    I'll have whichever Ted prefers, just for giggles.

    Which, by the way, did he prefer...I couldn't really tell. He kind of made a pseudopoint after inferring that I was some sort of anarchist.

    Ted, I think you took my post way too seriously.

  18. Cab   18 years ago

    Alan, I think the distinction is these are felonies perpetrated while the congressperson is in office. An office in which they took an oath to uphold the laws enacted by said Congress. If they break that oath, theoretically they didn't do their job. If they didn't do their job, they didn't earn a pension to begin with.

    yeah, it's a stretch. whatever.

    Also, real men know who the fuck they are talking to before they call him an airhead.

  19. Cab   18 years ago

    Alan, that last sentence wasn't towards you. Sorry for the confusion, if there was any.

  20. Ted   18 years ago

    Madpad

    You're probably right. I'm just trying to start an argument. Nothing is more boring than general agreement about the banal and obvious, which seem to be the specialties of this blog. I should move on to something more stimulating. Any suggestions? Of other blogs, I mean.

  21. Downward   18 years ago

    wow, someone that writes like you implying others are predictable, commonplace, and unstimulating. thats rich.

    You asked for suggestions. Here's one. Go back to democraticunderground and let some vapid sixteen year old tell you what to think about a subject. A few years from know, when he figures out he is wrong (and therefore you do to), come back.

  22. Ted   18 years ago

    Downward

    From know?

  23. Downward   18 years ago

    Pedantic much?

    (hint: look it up the same place you looked up banal)

  24. Ted   18 years ago

    Downward

    What? I was just pointing out a typo. This really is getting banal. C'mon, let's argue. I think taxation is a good thing, part of a social contract from which we all benefit. What do you think? Oops, did I hit a sore point( about thinking, I mean)?

  25. lunchstealer   18 years ago

    Yup. JMJ lives. Anybody wanna take bets on how long before Ted and Guy Montag make out?

  26. Ted   18 years ago

    Sorry, that was off thread. I think most politicians are honest and most CEOs are overpaid. Political corruption is overblown, at least in the U.S. Unregulated markets will sow the seeds of their own destruction. FDR saved capitalism. Nancy Pelosi will be a great speaker. Reagan was very dim.

  27. Downward   18 years ago

    I wasn't aware there were unregulated markets in the US.

  28. Ted   18 years ago

    Downward

    And it's a damned good thing we don't have unregulated markets. Do you agree?

  29. Jennifer   18 years ago

    Should all felons be denied pensions, SS benefits, Food Stamps, whatever?

    That's a good question. I'd say no, but I DO think pensions should be denied to those people who committed felonies while holding positions of legal authority over others--politicians, cops and judges.

  30. Downward   18 years ago

    it's a damned good thing we don't have unregulated markets. Do you agree?

    Yeah, pretty much. I'm not a "no regulation" type of libertarian, I'm a "no regulation unless it is absolutely necessary, epecially if that regulation purports on its face to usurp the rights of an individual" type of libertarian. You?

  31. Ted   18 years ago

    Jennifer

    How about CEOs, factory formen, and office managers?

  32. Ted   18 years ago

    Downward

    Me too. Do you think FDR saved capitalism?

  33. Not sure if I\'m being sarcast   18 years ago

    But if felony convictions are based on unjust statutes? Oh, yeah -- that'll incentivize legislators to repeal those statutes. The market does sort it all out!

  34. Ted   18 years ago

    Incentivize? You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

  35. I said I wasn\'t sure   18 years ago

    Ted, please explain.

  36. Ted   18 years ago

    Incentivize is such a goofy word. That's all

  37. Rick Barton   18 years ago

    airhead libertarians

    A rare type for sure.

  38. Pluto   18 years ago

    Oh, then I guess I was being sarcastic. Glad you cleared things up.

  39. Rick Barton   18 years ago

    Do you think FDR saved capitalism?

    Yeah, in the way that a lobotomy saves sanity.

    Accepting that FDR saved capitalism means believing that sans FDR, limitations of economic liberty that are some combination of more sever and/or longer lived would have been the alternative-quite unlikely. Especially since FDR's policies prolonged the depression.

  40. Rick Barton   18 years ago

    Pluto,

    You've already been defrocked of your designation as a planet. Watch it or we'll kick you out of the solar system altogether!

  41. Pollux   18 years ago

    H&R has a very poor track record for kicking out undesirables... who describe, it may be pointed out, more deviant orbits than mine (with some, or at least one, drawn to my levitational pull). But my task is finished here, and I have other fruit to fly.

  42. Castor   18 years ago

    )

  43. Ted\'s Uranus   18 years ago

    *

  44. Bob\'s Uruncle   18 years ago

    That's a backhanded response to being )'d?

  45. citizengnat   18 years ago

    Ted

    I hope you stick around. Shut up for awhile and above the noise you might learn something.

    Nate

  46. Lowdog   18 years ago

    "How about CEOs, factory formen, and office managers?"

    If they commit a felony that is somehow related to their job, I don't see why not, and that would also include politicians.

    My thinking is along the lines of what Cab already said, but I haven't thought much about it before.

    I mean, it could be a part of a contract that you sign that says if you are convicted of X, Y, and/or Z you lose your pension because it affects the bottom line somehow, or something along those lines. For politicians who somehow abuse their authority, as Jennifer mentions, I could probably get behind that, too, although again, I haven't given it much thought.

  47. Lowdog   18 years ago

    Crap, I forgot to close italics...everything that is after the quoted sentence should not be italicised - as if no one could figure that out...

  48. madpad   18 years ago

    H&R has a very poor track record for kicking out undesirables

    Townhall, by contrast, has a great track record. And they suck. Mightily.

  49. Eric   18 years ago

    CEOs, Factory Foremen and Office Managers don't have authority in the same way that legislators, presidents, cops and judges do. The former only have recourse to deny raises, dismissals, or at the very most, breach of contract suits (which are civil matters).

    The latter have the authority to impose their wills through physical force.

    Therefore, if people commit felonies while in positions of legal authority (not before or after taking office), I think it's entirely reasonable to deny them pensions and jobs.

  50. +   18 years ago

    Whew, who cut the cheese?
    Worse...thread...ever.

  51. Jennifer   18 years ago

    I agree with Eric. That's why I specified denying pensions to those who abuse their legal authority over others.

  52. Troy   18 years ago

    I, giggle, welcome our Wal-Mart overlords. Now excuse me, they have a 2-for-1 sale for shaving cream.

  53. VM   18 years ago

    Rick!

    Peter Schilling will escort Pluto away...

    🙂

    (Troy: excellent! Now Ted's mom can shave her back again!)

  54. PJ Doland   18 years ago

    I don't know about this. I can imagine instances of legitimate Civil Disobedience that might result in felony convictions.

    When you've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, should violating an unconstitutional law put your pension in jeopardy?

  55. Qbryzan   18 years ago

    When you've sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, should violating an unconstitutional law put your pension in jeopardy?

    Absolutely, since at that point you've already violated your oath by not repealing the unconstitutional law.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Destroy Thousands of Acres of Tomato Crops in Florida

Autumn Billings | 5.12.2025 5:14 PM

Defenders of Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order Offer an Implausible Take on a 127-Year-Old Precedent

Jacob Sullum | 5.12.2025 4:52 PM

Why DOGE Failed

Eric Boehm | 5.12.2025 3:20 PM

The Indian-Pakistani Ceasefire Is What U.S. Diplomacy Should Look Like

Matthew Petti | 5.12.2025 12:11 PM

Republicans Want To Redefine Obscenity

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 5.12.2025 11:45 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!