41 Comments - Bill - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:23 am: Yes, he should. He paid into the system, earned his credits, and was not convicted of crimes committed during his terms in those offices. Why shouldn’t he get it? - Ken in Aurora - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:27 am: Yes, until such time as he is convicted for corruption that occurred during the term he served as lieutenant governor. His conviction for corruption as SOS and Gov doesn’t make him a nonperson. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:27 am: Unbelievable. Since no one has the nerve to demand a punishment for this criminal, we are forced to hear hair-splitting reasons he wasn’t really a crook while earning his pension as Lt. Governor, a state lawmaker or as a Kankakee County official? Freakin’ lame. Ryan is a crook. He got caught while he was Secretary of State. He gets nothing, even if he wasn’t caught earlier in his career. Or, are we saying that George Ryan was just a normal guy who got corrupted in office? Wouldn’t that be a good reason for term limits and not allowing public servants to serve an entire career in office? Nonsense! - Capitol View - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:27 am: The issue is deterence. Risking one’s career pension rights is a reason for long term public servants to tread carefully and ethically. Most publlic servants have the most power and opportunity towards the end of their careers. But having said that, I can still see both sides of the argument. I’ll be curious to see how the Court rules as to what is “just.” - Thomas Westgard - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:30 am: This is a social policy opinion, not a legal one: We have so much corruption going on right now that we need more ways of punishing it. Crimes committed by people who are mostly poor and mostly black have massive no-tolerance attitudes behind them, including life sentences and extensive forfeiture provisions. If we expect ghetto crackheads to consider the consequences before committing crimes, we should hold our elected officials to the same standard. Corrupt officials, when convicted, should be dealt a crushing legal blow that leaves them permanently destroyed, just like drug dealers. Forfeiting a pension is the least of what’s needed to dissuade future violators. - The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:35 am: Nope. Crimes of corruption should invalidate any and all service time accrued as it pertains to pensions. In addition to the deterrence factor, which seems like a political no-brainer, one could make a reasonable argument that if not but for his previously held posts, he would never have been in a position to ascend to the ranks of SoS and governor. - Dan S, a voter and Cubs Fan - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:38 am: He’ll be on the dole no matter what. If you take it away he’ll end up on welfare. It’s a matter of what standard of liveing society wants him to have. - OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:39 am: No. It’s one pension, just because it was it his last job (or two) that was the one he committed the ‘crime’ during it should impact his entire pension. Using the other logic then any state employee should only lose their penison for fraud/corruption only starting from when they started their criminal activity. That is not the way I understand it works for joe blow worker. If you want to take advantage of one pension bucked for all of your state/local jobs then you take that risk. - George - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:41 am: I would be willing to let him keep his pension if we can seek restitution from it and his other holdings for GRF. - George - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:43 am: Funny - if George Ryan had a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan, he would have been able to keep it all. Oh, the irony. - Will County Woman - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:44 am: he earned it while committing no crime(s), he should keep it. VM, being vindictive undermines the credibility of our notions of just and fair, right? The Court made the right call here. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:45 am: Yes, let him have a pension. He is serving his time in prison. We don’t strip convicts of their social security benefits, nor should we. I understand the deterrance issue of stripping a public official of his/her pension, but in Ryan’s case, given his long record of service prior to these charges, the Lt. Gov and General Assembly pension should be paid. - Back-at-ya - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:01 am: He violated the public trust. The favor should be returned - and take it all. - OneMan - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:03 am: 47th ward. Social Security is not the same as a state penison. You get a defined benefit (that I can’t reduce due to the state constitution reguardless of the state’s financial state) as part of that deal I expect nay demand honest service from you. It seems quite the fair deal to me (who like millions and millions of folks my age, have never worked for a private company that had a defined benefit plan available to them). If you want to treat the pensions as ’seperate’ then they should each pay out on their own (time served in the county as one, time in the leg as a second, Lt. Gov time as a third) once you combine them then they are all subject to your acts in the ‘last’ job. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:14 am: –Since no one has the nerve to demand a punishment for this criminal,– He’s in prison. And given your posts the last couple of days, you’re not really calling anyone out on “nerve,” are you? To the question, if the law is ambiguous, then I think Ryan’s position should prevail. He’s been taken down pretty hard, given the nature of his conviction. Justice tempered with mercy. As a deterrent, I would support legislation that would be unambiuous: Convicted of any felony, any time in office, and you lose all public pension and health benefits. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:21 am: Thanks Oneman, Yes, I realize social security is not the same as a public pension. But since Ryan can’t get social security, what public interest is served by having an old man live out his last years collecting cans or begging for handouts? Odds are the taxpayers will be providing him with food stamps and medical care, so we’re likely to pay for his care anyway. Might as well use his pension to provide him some financial means for the time he has left on earth after prison. - The Doc - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:35 am: 47th Ward - if I understand you correctly, we should award him with a partial pension for humanitarian reasons? If you’re sympathetic to his potential quality of life post-prison, it stands to reason that you would be more sympathetic to those in the lower class; those without jobs or any income, and those without homes. The list goes on and on. Should we bestow pensions upon all of them as well? Most of them didn’t commit felonies, I reckon, and even fewer leveraged their public office for personal gain. - one day at a time - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:44 am: He should forfiet all government pension benefits as for being convicted of offenses as a government official. As should all others convicted of crimes involving official misconduct. Should the Supremes give George his early “non-indicted government service” years pension the the IL AG and US AG should garnish them to repay the costs of prosecution and imprisonment housing fees for his later “indicted and convicted” years of government service. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:45 am: He should be treated no differently than anyone else. When a police captain is convicted of a felony is he/she allowed to maintain the pension rights from the time before the crimes committed? Didn’t think so. The idea that he should get preferential treatment because he may be old or ill is preposterous. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:46 am: ===preferential treatment=== The question isn’t about preferential treatment for an old person. The question is the question. Answer it or don’t bother commenting. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:54 am: Doc, the point I was making was that, in the absence of a pension and social security, the odds are that George and Lura Lynn will apply for other public benefits for which they are entitled: food stamps, health care, etc. ===Should we bestow pensions upon all of them as well?=== Many of these people would be covered under social security. If not, they’d almost certainly wind up on the dole, costing taxpayers again. My point, similar to the court’s, is that Ryan’s pension from his county employment, general assembly and Lt. Governor’s office should be paid. Not for humanitarian reasons at all, because they were earned. And again, what public purpose is served by forcing the Ryan’s into poverty? - bourbonrich - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:55 am: If the firefighter from Chicago can keep his full pension after being convicted of arson, I don’t see any justification to penalize George Ryan. I think his sentence was extreme and vindictive. People need to let it go. - Levois - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 11:58 am: I will offer this unless it was proven that there was corruption before his terms at SOS and Gov. - anon - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 12:07 pm: He should keep the parts of his pension from before his terms at SOS and as Governor. When he gets out of prison he will have fulfilled his punishment for the crimes he was convicted. That should be enough. - TaxThePoor - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 12:18 pm: Sure give him his pensions. Then turn right around and fine him over and over and over and over for every penny of the taxpayers he wasted. Every cent of George Ryan’s should go back to taxpayers he stole from, and people like the Willis’ that were hurt. - BIG R.PH. - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 12:25 pm: Yes he should get his “earned” pension. Yes he should be charged “room and board” for his stay in prison. Theoretically it will be a wash. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 12:29 pm: If Juan Lopez, Mary Jones, or Stanley Kupchick were 20 year state employees, were convicted of the same crimes as Ryan, and did time, would they get to keep any portion of their state pension? All of it? Only for the years they did not get convicted for? None, because the conviction takes it all? At least half because they are now older? Ryan should be treated the exact same way as everybody else. - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 1:03 pm: I’m not going to lose any sleep over this no matter which way the court decides. George will never be remembered for any good he has done - only for the crimes committed. Let’s take this disgustingly evil snake and start at the top by cutting the head off. Let’s make sure Dan Rostenkowski doesn’t get his $125K pension per year, compliments of John Q. Taxpayer. Taxpayer’s money is taxpayer’s money, whether it comes out of the Fed coffers or State. If you are a convicted U.S. Rep or Senator, you still get your pension (segment on ABC I think it was last night). All laws should be strengthened so we don’t have to take each and every political crook to court to determine if/when they get any/some/all of their pensions. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 1:09 pm: The retirement group that may have to pay the firebugs’ pension is appealing the decision. The judge who made that ruling was in error. He said Boyle didn’t learn about arson from his job as firefighter (?!?!?!) even tho Doyle, himself, testified that he did. I certainly hope that is overturned. As far as Ryan is concerned, he may end up with his pension but shouldn’t. Deterrence is the key issue here. If you stand to lose the whole kit and kaboodle maybe you would think twice. In any event, I have little sympathy for Ryan and his family. They couldn’t be unaware of his dealings and they benefitted from it. For shame. - Little Egypt - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 1:25 pm: Let me clarify that the Federal law exempted those who were in Congress when the law was passed. All of the other “new kids” might not be so lucky as to keep their Federal pensions if they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 2:06 pm: Yes, let him keep his pension for the offices that he wasn’t convicted. If you want to take those pensions, then convict him of something in those offices. “Honest services fraud” is such a made-up crime that I’m sure Fitzgerald can find something if he wanted to. Otherwise, don’t flay the pound of flesh beyond what the criminal law has already taken. If you want to take all pension, change the law. - nice kid - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 2:14 pm: I would wager that vurtually all of the opinions posted on this topic are based on intuitive and emotional notions of right and wrong (not that there is anything wrong with that). However, the supreme court will be ruling on what the law says. Whatever the court rules, keep in mind that it will be based on the law as written and not whether George was a good guy or actually “deserves” his pension in the practical sense. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 2:16 pm: nice kid, we’re not idiots here, thankyou. - still thinkin' - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 2:17 pm: He should get what pension was apportioned prior to commission of the offenses. Bitter people make poor judges of others! - SIGal - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 2:48 pm: I’m not bitter, nor do I make it a habit to judge others. No, he should not get this pension. He was found guilty of criminal acts. Federal government employees receive no pension when they break the law, neither should he. - Moving to Oklahoma - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 2:58 pm: == nice kid, we’re not idiots here, thankyou. == speak for yourself. I am a proud idiotic contributor to this blog. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 3:22 pm: Rich, You could start a new section in the blog. Call it “Ask a lawyer/nice kid” or “What is the law, nice kid?” Could be a crowd pleaser. - downhereforyears - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 3:50 pm: Absolutely he is entitled to these benefits. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 9:34 pm: Yes, but the law needs to be changed so that anyone convicted of a felony needs to surrender their pension (to Wumpus). - Lynn S - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 10:31 pm: - anon - Tuesday, Nov 17, 09 @ 12:07 pm: He should keep the parts of his pension from before his terms at SOS and as Governor. When he gets out of prison he will have fulfilled his punishment for the crimes he was convicted. That should be enough. Six innocent children burned to death on a Wisconsin expressway as a result of George Ryan’s corruption. Six years in the federal pen isn’t even close to a sufficient punishment for his crime. And no, he doesn’t get to keep any part of his pension. When the GA agrees to keep each level of government pension (county, legislature, exec. branch) separate I will agree that he gets to keep his SOS and gov. pensions. And we shouldn’t forget he was a pharmacist. I’d be willing to bet he’s got some Social Security somewhere, in addition to all the $$$$ he saved when Udstein, etc., were giving him “walk-around” money. (for those who have forgotten, part of the case against Ryan included the fact the Feds ran his bank records and found few to no ATM withdrawals for cash.) - steve schnorf - Wednesday, Nov 18, 09 @ 12:17 am: 6 innocent children didn’t burn to death because of any corruption by George Ryan. And, yes, he should keep those parts of his pension that previous law and case law make him entitled to. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.