Like a lot of people, I’ve been wondering why Larry Craig would be staying on in the Senate. I have to think that once his arrest came out, his chances of landing a cushy lobbying job with the Repub-leaning firms on K Street diminished precipitously, and by staying, he only diminishes his chances further, no matter what happens in the Senate Ethics Committee. I don't think he will ever be able to "repair" his reputation enough for them, unless he gets Christian-style "ungaying" therapy, and he doesn't strike me as the type to do that.
It seems to me that Senator Craig is destined to return to Idaho, not stay in Washington, and he probably knows it by now. So what has he got to lose by staying that he hasn’t lost already? I think nothing; it is really unlikely that he would be expelled from the Senate for disorderly conduct (if that were the standard, Jesse Helms and Alfonse D’Amato would have been gone in a hot second). What has he got to gain? Plenty, of money, that is.
The Congressional Research Service has provided some handy information on Congressional Retirement Benefits here.
Senator Craig was elected to Congress in 1981, so he has had the option of taking his retirement under either the old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), or the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) which began in 1984 (there is a Social Security component, but it would most likely offset the retirement benefit in the same way under either plan).
It is possible (though unlikely) that Senator Craig elected to convert to FERS from CSRS during an open enrollment period in 1987. He would have paid in less, and accordingly would receive less in benefits. I say it is unlikely that he chose to covert, because he was within a "donut hole" because he had not earned a pension prior to January 1, 1984, and he would miss out on his CSRS credit.
In either case, the outcome for Senator Craig would be proportionally the same, so I am going to assume he chose to stay with CSRS. Both plans depend on a determination of the "high-3," the participant’s three highest consecutive years of salary (which includes the current year when the participant retires), the years of service, and a coefficient called the "accrual rate."
As to the high-3, Congressional salaries in the last few years are as follows:
2005 $162,100
2006 $165,200
2007 $165,200
2008 $165,200 - $169,600 (Congressional pay will go up between 0% and 2.7%, depending on what Congress decides. Last year, Congress, under Democratic control, declined its raise for the first time since 1998.) You can check Congressional pay here.
If Senator Craig had kept his word and left on September 30, or if he leaves before 2008, his high-3 would be $164,167. If he stays into 2008, his high-3 will increase to at least $165,200 (assuming no increase this year), and could be as high as $166,667 (assuming a 2.7% increase).
Under the CSRS, the benefit is calculated as follows:
[high-3] x [years of service completed] x [accrual rate of .025] = annual pension’
So, if Senator Craig quit this year, he would have completed 25 years of service and his yearly pension would come out to:
$164,667 x 25 x .025 = $102,917 per year, or $8,576 per month.
However, if he were to wait until sometime next year, he’d complete another year of service, AND his high-3 would increase too:
Assuming no increase in 2008 - $165,200 x 26 x .025 = $107,380, or $8,948 per month.
Assuming a 2.7% increase in 2008 - $166,667 x 26 x .025 = $108,334, or $9,027 per month.
AND, if he fills out his term into January of 2009, it gets better:
Assuming no increase in 2008 - $165,200 x 27 x .025 = $111,510, or $9,295 per month.
Assuming a 2.7% increase in 2008 - $169,600 x 27 x .025 = 114,480, or $9,540 per month.
Senator Craig turned 62 this year, and he can collect the whole pension at any time. All he has to do is wait out his term, and he would receive close to $1,000 more each month. Who can’t use an extra grand, especially if he has to pay expensive Washington lawyers?
Also, since he’s pretty much like toxic waste to his own party now, he’s going to have little or nothing to do for the next 13-1/2 months, so he’s pretty well "retired" already. The only difference now is that he will be getting a "pension" of $13,767 ($165,200/12) per month, rather than $8,576. Had he kept his word, he would be down by $77,865 ($5,191 x 15 months) at the end of his term. After that, if he lives to his life expectancy, he would be about $130,000 ahead in present dollars.
Who would give up $200,000 (which will go a long way in Idaho)? To me, this is a no-brainer, and Larry Craig hasn't survived as long as he has what with all the rumors swirling around him by being stupid. He's no James Inhofe.
Oh, I almost forgot. Senator Craig had about $550,000 in his campaign war chest at last report. I wonder what will happen to that now?
All in all, I have to say I'm in the wrong business. Even though I'm pretty well paid, my current retirement plan is basically to work until I drop dead. This sounds better. I think everyone should have it as good, don't you? Maybe I'll contact my representative about that.