Yes, she may have timed her announcement after she became vested, but in this case I wouldn't hold it against her. She was not ousted because of some scandal, she took a bullet to her head while performing her duties for her district. She has a long and expensive recovery ahead of her, and I won't begrudge her and her family trying to secure a plan for her now.
She did the right thing in retiring for herself and her district, and good wishes to her.
She did the right thing in retiring for herself and her district, and good wishes to her.
Spoken like a good little sheep. Tell me... what would you think about a military member with combat-related brain damage hanging out for five years on active duty unable to do his job just to get his full retirement? It makes much more sense to medically retire this person and take care of his combat-related injuries.
It says a lot about our society when we won't begrudge a legislator taking advantage of the system to get us to pay them an income for the rest of their lives but we would prosecute your average soldier who showed such hubris.
Yes, she may have timed her announcement after she became vested, but in this case I wouldn't hold it against her.
I agree. To me, this is the same as a worker's comp case. We the taxpayers, as her employer, should pay for an injury sustained at a work-related function. Let's give her a pass for staying until vested. She's resigning as soon as she possibly could after vesting and I applaud that action.