Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security and have a generous pension plan funded by exclusively by tax revenues.

See the email here.

No and yes.

No, members of Congress have paid Social Security deductions on their salaries since 1984.

Yes, members of Congress are obliged to participate in a pension fund, the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) and it is partly financed by taxes.

No, the FERS is not solely funded by tax revenues, Congressmen and other participants must contribute to the fund through payroll deductions.

No, the FERS and the Civil Service Retirement System (available only to federal civil servants, including Congressmen, prior to 1984) aren't exclusive to Congressmen or Senators. The FERS and CSRS serve other federal employees as well.

Federal civilian employees, including members of Congress, were covered by Social Security by P.L. [Public Law] 98-21 in 1984.

In addition to the mandatory pension funds FERS or CSRS, members of Congress and other federal employees can participate in the voluntary Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) that allows them to save between 5% to 10% of their annual salary into a tax deferred retirement investment fund.

So if a Congressmen was diligent, served in Congress for an extended period and also made contributions to the TSP, he or she could end up with benefits exceeding their Congressional salary. But the taxpayer funded portion of those benefits, the FERS or CSRS, could amount to no more than 80% of his or her ending annual salary.

So what do Congressional retirees get from their obligatory pensions? As of 1998, the 400 odd retired Congressfolk averaged an $50,616 for those covered by CSRS or $46,908 for those covered by FERS.

So it appears that the average Congressperson is pretty in the same boat as they average middle class US citizen. They both pay Social Security. They both have a variety of options on how they save for retirement. They both pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits.

Typical of outrage emails, this email conflates several issues. To equate political reform, Social Security benefits and pension fund benefits is disingenuous. Many, if not all, reap or will reap the rewards of both Social Security and private retirement benefits.

The specific claim that Congress has failed to reform Social Security because of their generous pension and lack of dependence on Social Security benefits is false because (a) Congress does pay into and receive benefits from Social Security and (b) Social Security reform generates intense political controversy and that controversy tends to cause reform to be easily deadlocked.

Would Congress be more accountable or willing to reform Social Security if it didn't have a publicly financed pension fund? Maybe, maybe not, though the political apathy that has prevailed for decades gives little incentive for Congress to undertake large reforms.

Should Congress have a pension bankrolled by taxpayers? It depends on your political leanings. If you consider service in Congress to be a privilege unworthy of lavish renumeration then a generous pension plan is not needed. If you think that serving in Congress is worthy of the same kind of compensation that a demanding job of great responsibility merits, a pension fund is not an unusual benefit.

These political questions are beyond the Urban Legend Zeitgeist's powers to resolve. However, the Zeitgeist would observe that forwarding email has little effect on the world compared to writing or calling your elected officials and participating in the political process.

The Zeitgeist votes, do you?

• "Capitol Questions" from C-SPAN.
• Congressional Pensions vs. Social Security from About.com
• Congressional Pensions from the Urban Legends Reference Pages

Got a new legend?
Got a question?
Send it to ulz@tafkac.org