In reading this article today in the Chronicle about the continuing shameful saga of Judge Samuel Kent's plea bargain, I was shocked to read the following paragraph:

Federal judges get a very generous pension, 100 percent of their salary at the time of retirement. At this point that amounts to $169,300.

So regardless of the length of service, our paychecks continue to be confiscated to pay the entire salary for the rest of each judge's life.  Apparently we can add "government pensions" to death and taxes as the only things in life that occur with certainty.  This prompted from me the following letter to Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Representative John Culberson:

Like most citizens, I have been disappointed to learn of the shameful behavior and subsequent plea bargain of U.S. Judge Samuel Kent.  However, I learned today of another shocking fact, one that remains true for all federal judges:  if a judge serves until retiring at age 65, he or she continues to draw a pension for the rest of his life equal to his entire salary at the time of his retirement.  This means that money is confiscated from my paycheck not only to pay for judges currently serving the public — a valid government expense — but I'm also being charged for judges who are no longer serving the citizenry.  I find this unacceptable, particularly in the current climate of economic instability and unprecedented government deficit spending.

I urge you to submit legislation that would restructure the pension program for federal judges, moving away from a defined-benefit pension payment and establishing a program similar to a 401(k) or 403(b)-type account to which the judges could contribute on a tax-deferred basis, or a program whereby they could contribute to a Roth-style IRA account.  Perhaps there could even be a match up to 3% or so, as is often present in private sector programs.  That's fine — programs like that encourage people to invest with an eye towards retirement, and whether the money goes into stocks, bonds, CDs, or other investment vehicles, it benefits the economy.

While I understand the idea of paying the judges well enough to attract competent, talented jurists to the bench, it is not acceptable for taxpayers to pay judges not to judge.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX