Philip Blumel: The Congressional Pensions racket. Crooks and clockwatchers game the system, you pay the bill. Hi, I’m Philip Blumel. Welcome to No Uncertain Terms, the official podcast of the term limits movement. This is episode 291, published on 9/14/2026.
Stacey Selleck: Your sanctuary from partisan politics.
Philip Blumel: Okay, so let’s talk Congressional pensions. To set the stage, we’ll start with a couple of stories brought to our attention by Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal in May. First, former California representative and term limits foe Eric Swalwell resigned last April under a cloud of sexual misconduct allegations. Now, whether he is convicted of anything or not, he is going to receive about $22,000 a year starting at age 62 for life. And this is because the type of sex charges he would face are on a special list of exemptions that Congress created so that disgraced Congress members could keep their pensions. That was convenient.
Philip Blumel: Next, Representative Corrine Brown of Florida served 24 years in Congress and was indicted and convicted on a stack of fraud and tax counts. Well, fraud counts aren’t on the special list of exemptions, so okay, the taxpayers dodged a bullet here. No, no. Corrine knew the ropes. She successfully appealed based on a technicality, an improper removal of a juror. Then she ended up negotiating a plea deal, but only on the charges that were not on the exemptions list. She was sentenced to five years in prison, but is collecting a $71,000 annual pension for the rest of her life.
Philip Blumel: Number three, Texas Representative Tony Gonzales resigned the same week as Swalwell last year after spending just over five years in office. Now, why did he wait until shortly after the five-year mark to resign? Well, because that’s the Congressional pension’s five-year cliff vesting schedule. That is, after the five years, you’re eligible for the pension. This disgraced Congressmember will get between eight or nine thousand a year forever. Nice going, Tony.
Philip Blumel: And lastly, what about the selfless Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who announced she would resign last fall due to important policy differences with the administration? Now, please note that Representative Greene did not actually resign until 46 days after the announcement. She held office for five years and three days. Gaming the Congressional pension is the norm. But more importantly, why is there a Congressional pension at all? And how would term limits alter the pension expense to taxpayers? Well, let’s discuss that in some detail in just a moment. But first, let’s hear a new video by US Term Limits titled ‘The Congressional Term Limits Movement: The History and the Path Forward.’ This four-minute video was floated on YouTube and is a great intro to what has been achieved and our next steps. You can find it on YouTube or in your social media feed. If you do, be sure to share it.
Jarred Davis: Hi, I’m Jared with US Term Limits. In this video, we’re going to talk about our plan to finally enact term limits on Congress, the history behind this movement, and US Term Limits’ long-term involvement in a movement that once came within a single Supreme Court vote of succeeding. We’re going to start with the history behind the term limits movement. In September 1990, Oklahoma became the first state to pass term limits, capping how long state legislators could serve. Two months later, Colorado went further. It became the first state to limit the terms of its own delegation in Congress. The movement kept growing. In 1992, 14 more states put Congressional term limits on the ballot to vote on. Arkansas was one of them.
Jarred Davis: Arkansas’s measure, known as Amendment 73, passed with nearly 60% of the vote. It limited governors and other executive officials and state senators to two terms and state representatives to three terms. It also limited Arkansas’s members of Congress, three terms in the U.S. House, two terms in the U.S. Senate. By 1994, a total of 23 states had passed similar limits on their own congressional delegations. But not everyone agreed. An Arkansas voter named Bobbie Hill sued to strike down Amendment 73’s limits on Congress. Congressman Ray Thornton, a sitting member of the Arkansas delegation, joined them. The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed and struck down the congressional portion of the amendment. U.S. Term Limits stepped in to defend it and appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in the U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton case that states could not impose term limits on members of Congress on their own. The decision applied nationwide, striking down the congressional term limits in all 23 states at once. It came down to a five-to-four vote, one vote away from ruling in favor. If we want term limits on Congress, it has to happen through an amendment to the Constitution. That ruling didn’t end the movement, it changed the path forward.
Speaker 4: Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual state, but rather, as have other important changes in the electoral process, through the amendment procedures set forth in Article 5.
Jarred Davis: So now you know the history behind the term limits movement, how long voters have wanted congressional term limits, and how close we came to gaining them. So today we’re pursuing a single-topic resolution to establish term limits for Congress. And Article 5 of the Constitution gives us two ways to get there. The first is through Congress itself. A constitutional amendment can be proposed if it receives a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. The second path gives states a way to put pressure on Congress themselves. Under Article 5, two-thirds of the states, 34 states, can apply for a convention to propose amendments. But here’s something important about our strategy. The goal is not to have the convention happen. The goal is to get Congress to act before it comes to that. If enough states pass the resolutions calling for the amendment, Congress has to decide whether it wants to act itself or risk the states reaching the threshold where they can take the next step. There’s precedent for this path working in the past when Congress is put under enough pressure. In the early 1900s, states began applying for a convention to force direct election of U.S. Senators, since Congress refused to pass this on its own. As applications from nearly 30 states piled up, just short of the two-thirds threshold, Congress proposed the 17th Amendment itself rather than risk a convention. It was ratified in under a year. And even if that threshold is reached, any proposed amendment would still have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states. That’s 38 states. So we’re pursuing both paths at once. We’re working to build support in Congress while also building support state by state with a single-subject resolution focused strictly on congressional term limits. If you enjoyed the video and support congressional term limits, give us a follow or subscribe.
Philip Blumel: Okay, back to pensions. Now, what are we referring to when we talk about the congressional pension? Because they actually have three retirement plans. They qualify for Social Security just like all citizens do. They pay the same taxes into it and claim the same benefits under the same rules as all of us. There’s no problem there, surely. They also have access to the Thrift Savings Plan, TSP. This is basically a federal 401(k). They contribute with deferrals from their own paychecks like we do in our 401(k)s and SIMPLE IRAs at work. The government gives them a match and a 1% annual bonus. This account is theirs. I don’t think many people object to this either. It’s a perk of the job, but not out of line of what most Americans have access to. Then they have what is known as a defined benefit pension. This is the kind of old-fashioned pension that has disappeared from American life largely. And this is the controversial one. Once they qualify, they get a check for life. They vest after five years and can start collecting at age 62 and thereafter get a cost-of-living adjustment every year for life. And this is what we’re talking about when we say the congressional pension.
Philip Blumel: The defined contribution retirement plan, like a 401(k), is ubiquitous and is owned by the employee who can take the account with them as they switch jobs. The old-fashioned defined benefit pension, like the congressional pension, is designed for careerists who stick with the same firm after a long career and retire with a big defined benefit for life. The amount you get is based on, get this, your length of service. You could say that this pension pays you to stay. It rewards careerism. If you play the game and stay in office, you win big. Strassel cited Demian Brady at the National Taxpayers Union Foundation on an extreme but interesting case: Joe Biden. If you stack a long Senate career, the vice presidency, and presidency, you can clear $440,000 in taxpayer-funded retirement pay. Now, this is not the norm, but it’s something for career politicians to aspire to. The average pension paid out to FERS participants, that’s what it’s called, is about $45,000 a year. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. For those who stay for decades, pensions range between $85,000 and $110,000 a year.
Philip Blumel: Now, I’ll take a moment to say that I’m willing to suggest that the congressional pension should not exist at all and that they should continue to participate in Social Security and their version of the 401(k) as working Americans do. That’s really sort of outside the scope of this podcast, so I won’t carry on any more about it. More relevant to us here is how would term limits affect the equation? Well, term limits cut the years. A three-term House limit, six years, a two-term Senate limit, 12. The mega-pensions would disappear. No one would serve 36 years anymore in the House and Senate. House pensions would shrink to small deferred checks. Remember, you can’t collect until you’re age 62 and separate from service. Even Senate pensions stay mid-sized, not dynastic. Careerism loses one of its largest financial prizes, maybe its biggest.
Philip Blumel: Now, you might think that rotation in office without changing the pension system would lead to far more pensioners over time as there’d be so many more people running for and holding office. And you’d be right about that. But when you crunch the numbers, it’s clear that the cost to the taxpayers, currently about $38 million a year, would drop. Lots of tiny pensions do not add up to a fewer number of large ones. It’s not even close. And our confidence in this projection is bolstered by the fact that there were no pension explosions or anomalies in any of the 16 states that currently have term limits in effect on their state legislatures. North Dakota’s term limits were approved by voters, but they haven’t gone into effect yet. That would be number 17.
Philip Blumel: So beyond this, though, some states did pass pension reforms along with term limits, as in California where the pension was simply halted. In Michigan, they went from an old-fashioned defined benefit, like the congressional pension, to a defined contribution plan like a 401(k). They did this a few years after the term limits went into effect. Other states made no changes at all and still they saw reductions in pension payouts on inflation-adjusted dollars as a result. Clearly, the congressional pension cements the current system in place. It’s another incentive, and a big one, for politicians to cling to their positions, play the game instead of serving the people, and opposing term limits.
Philip Blumel: Next, we’ll finish on a whimsical note. Internet polls are anything but scientific, but they’re fun. And thenationaldesk.com is sponsoring a poll right now on their website that has attracted over 24,000 respondents. Should there be term limits on members of Congress? Well, as of September 4th, 97% said yes, 3% said no, and there were 24 days left in the poll. Thanks for listening.
Stacey Selleck: Like the show? You could help by subscribing and leaving a five-star review on both Apple and Spotify. It’s free.
Philip Blumel: Thanks for joining us for another episode of No Uncertain Terms. The term limits convention bills are moving through the state legislatures. This could be a breakthrough year for the term limits movement. To check on the status of the term limits convention resolution in your state, go to termlimits.com/takeaction. There, you will see if it has been introduced and where it stands in the committee process on its way to the floor vote. If there’s action to take, you’ll see a Take Action button by your state. Click it. This will give you the opportunity to send a message to the most relevant legislators, urging them to support the legislation. They have to know you’re watching. That’s termlimits.com/takeaction. If your state has already passed the term limits convention resolution or the bill’s not been introduced in your state, you can still help. Please consider making a contribution to US Term Limits. It’s our aim to hit the reset button on the US Congress and you can help. Go to termlimits.com/donate. Termlimits.com/donate. Thanks. We’ll be back next week.
Stacey Selleck: Find us on most social media @ustermlimits. Like us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and now LinkedIn.
S?: USTL.
