August 17, 2007
Waiting for Kay Bailey

I think Perry and Greg have already commented on most of the main points regarding this fluffy story about the life and times of our senior Senator. But there is one thing that I need to say:

"Before I retire, I need to have financial stability," said Hutchison, 64, raising the option of leaving public service after being asked about the always-swirling speculation about her political plans. "I could certainly see another career in the private sector. ... I certainly would like to make money. I think I've given up a lot of earning potential being in public service."

In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Hutchison said she loves public service but she also likes business. She has a law degree, was a television reporter, worked in banking and owned a candy company, besides serving in the state House and then state treasurer before the Senate.

Her bond-attorney husband, Ray Hutchison, 71, has done very well, she said, but they have the responsibility of providing for their adopted children, Bailey and Houston, both 6.

If after that career path, plus thirteen years of drawing a Senate salary and the benefits that go along with it, not to mention having a successful bond-attorney husband, if after all that KBH lacks financial stability, then she's got to be the biggest wastrel I've ever encountered. To put it another way, if someone in her position isn't financially stable, and doesn't think she's made any money, then what hope does anyone in a lesser position than her have?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on August 17, 2007 to Show Business for Ugly People

Six years ago when KBH adopted her son, the newspaper reported that her husband was 68. Now he is 71?

Posted by: AaronSmith on August 17, 2007 11:46 AM

From the link, the income:
1996 -- $133,600 per annum

1997 -- $133,600 per annum

1998 -- $136,700 per annum

1999 -- $136,700 per annum

2000 -- $141,300 per annum

2001 -- $145,100 per annum

2002 -- $150,000 per annum

2003 -- $154,700 per annum

2004 -- $158,100 per annum

2005 -- $162,100 per annum

2006 -- $165,200 per annum

Kinda makes you wonder. I understand house rents in DC are killer, but unlike, say, the Clintons, she doesn't have a lot of legal bills piled up.
And like all Congressmembers, she does have excellent health care, paid for. If she completes her term, won't she be eligible for retirement?
And won't her Social Security be a pretty substantial payment should she choose to retire at 65? Certainly she's eligible for that, and since it's figured on one's 3 highest years of earnings ... (here:
I'd think that by any reasonable definition, her financial security ought to be assured!

Posted by: The_Other_Sarah on August 17, 2007 12:28 PM

Hard to imagine how Kay Bailey could have done a poorer job of demonstrating her connection to her constituents. Not too many of us earn 160k per year, much less be married to a wealthy attorney. She should have kept quiet - unless it was her intention to remind voters how Republican really don't get it.

Posted by: Dennis on August 17, 2007 1:53 PM

I have no idea what KBH may, or may not, have invested in outside retirement funds, but wouldn't her (even fat) pension end when she dies? If most of her income after retirement is government pensions/social security etc, that doesn't extend to her children after her death. That may be what she's talking about.

Posted by: Reader on August 17, 2007 3:07 PM


Posted by: John cobarruvias on August 17, 2007 4:27 PM

You guys know I'm not apt to defend Republicans. Take it from someone paying DC rent, it's ridiculously pricey. My rent is about 2.5 times my parents' mortgage. Having said that, I'm not sure why she can't make some high $$$ at a law firm for a few years between leaving public service and actually retiring.

Posted by: Justin on August 17, 2007 8:32 PM