Saturday, June 18, 2011
This is the kind of government spending we need to cut
Suppose you're a US House of Representative member and you tweeted some pictures of your body you shouldn't have so you had to resign. Sound familiar?
Okay, what do you suppose you'd get from the government.
Wonder no more:
Weiner sits on $1 million pension, offered ‘Hustler’ job
Democrat Anthony Weiner's immediate future may be uncertain, but thanks to congressional rules and the salaciousness of his scandal, things are already looking up for the disgraced New York congressman.
Upon his official resignation in the wake of a monthlong scandal involving Weiner's risque online communications with multiple women, Weiner will still be eligible for many congressional perks, including access to a sizable pension fund. (House staff have yet to announce they've actually received his resignation letter.)
The conservative National Taxpayers Union (NTU) estimates the 46-year-old congressman's pension to be worth $1.28 million if he retires at age 62 or $1.12 million at age 56. The group's computations assume that Weiner started his pension when he served as a congressional staffer for Sen. Chuck Schumer.
In addition, NTU notes that members also participate in a Thrift Savings Plan, which allows lawmakers to rake in matching contributions from taxpayers. "NTU estimates he may have as much as $216,011.96 in accumulated TSP assets," the organization reported.
It's a rule that all former members, even those convicted of felonies, may receive their pension funds.
And why not, right? Since they're their own bosses and they voted in these benefits for themselves.
Well, WE'RE they're actual real "bosses" and we should "unvote" these things in. Let's fire 'em all, take back the government, take away the automatic pay raises--they also voted for themselves--and these nearly automatice pensions and then put in true, stringent campaign finance reform so they can't take corporate money (read: bribes) any longer. Finally, let's make an entire campaign season 3 months long, like the Brits did so long ago. Only then will we get our government back "for the people, by the people and of the people."
Link to original story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110617/el_yblog_theticket/weiner-sits-on-1-million-pension-offered-entourage-hustler-jobs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
The pay and benefits of Congress is effectively irrelevant to our budget. Congressmen should be paid very well, and banned from much other income--and their retirement benefits should be contingent on ethical post-service employment. They should not be contingent on non-job related ethics.
I don't see how we could effectively restrict the campaign season to 3 months, without serious violation of freedom of speech. We've violated the bill of rights lots of times before, but that doesn't mean we should continue. England doesn't have the same constitution.
You're all for a disgraced representative getting--nearly automatically--a 1.5 million dollar pension? In what private sector job would that happen? If we can't do this, how can we ever expect to reduce spending?
On the 3 month campaign season, you're confusing violating freedom of speech with giving nearly unlimited freedom of speech. The candidates can say the same things--again and again--just within a 3 month time frame.
We actually don't seem to have the ability to evolve our government the way the Brits do and have, truth be told. That's why we may likely be doomed. We're dinosaurs that won't change.
A million dollar pension isn't really that much--Plenty of unionized municipal bus drivers and garbagemen have pensions worth that and more. I want congressmen paid well enough to reduce some temptation for corruption. I think we should be a lot less worried about our politician's sex lives and a lot more worried about violating the law, or ethics as they relate to government. Violating the war powers act is a lot worse than staining a willing intern's dress.
What's the difference between championing an issue and campaigning for office? What things would a candidate for office be allowed to talk about 4 months prior to the election? Would there be any restrictions on Sarah Palin's current speech?
The bill of rights means something. You can't just decide that since a violation is only temporary, or only applies to a certain class of people that it isn't really a violation.
We have evolved our government plenty, but in the wrong direction. Somewhere we lost the 9th and 10th amendments, and much of the rest of the bill of rights.
I don't know what you mean by suggesting something about a violation being temporary.
Any candidate could still speak on any subject for as long as they want, naturally and of course, as I said earlier. The only thing limited would be the length of the campaign. Everything would have to be done in those 3 months. It would be a vast improvement over the never-ending and super expensive nightmare we have now.
So what aspects of campaigning would be restricted?
I applaud your intentions here, but I cannot see this as doing more than shifting the advantage further towards incumbents, even if we could magically enact a version of this against their resistance.
If you call for restrictions on campaigning by current office holders, you might get me to agree with you
There would be no restrictions on campaigning. None. It's just that everything would have to be said and done within a certain time frame. I've proposed 3 months but twice that at 6 months total would be a vast improvement on our current system, too. There would be no restrictions to speech as to who can say what, where or whemn. In no other way would our current system change except it would be getting the money that buys our representatives out of the system. It would, as I said here several times, be best if we took the lobbyist's money out of campaign contributions, too, with true, stringent campaign finance reform.
The question I am trying to ask is what activity would be banned prior tob the official start of the campaign season, and who would the ban apply to?
There would be no ban. It would be just as it is now but the campaign would be limited to 3 months. If there is a ban of any kind, it would be a ban on spending for the campaign. It would be a ban on spending for advertising, that's it.
If you are saying the ban would only be on spending on advertising--that is an extreme advantage to incumbents, the very people we need to be rid of.
Who would an advertising ban apply to--would it be limited to the campaign itself, or would it apply to private citizens? Does it apply to issue ads, or only to ads that mention a specific party, or a specific candidate? Could I run an ad trying to get Penn Jilette to run for office--or would penalties kick in only if he accepted?
What would the penalties be?
What if I wanted to travel the country promoting vegetarianism for a year, and found people willing to support my travels--would that be allowed? What if later I decided to run for dog catcher on a vegetarian platform?
A ban that does not compromise my free speech rights will have so many loopholes that it will be completely ineffective. Part of the mess we are in now is that whenever a problem is perceived, there is a rush to make another rule to fix the problem, without thinking it through, without looking at the details. Good intentions aren't enough to counteract bad laws.
You're calling it an "advertising ban" and it's not a ban at all. It's just saying that this advertising has to happen within a certain time frame.
Combined with a lot of already-existing term limits, this could and would work well.
Americans will never do it, however, because we're so closed-minded and opposed to change, in sharp contrast to the Brits who, again, instituted just such a framework for themselves and who are good at evolving their government. We, by contrast, are horrible at it. In fact, we don't really change much at all. The corporations are in charge and they will stay that way.
Carolyn McCarthy has campaigned primarily on an anti-gun platform--If the NRA or the Brady Campaign run ads, would they be considered campaign ads, subject to a 3 month window? What if they are only in her district?
If the time limits only apply to direct campaign ads, it will merely shift things around--theoretically unaffiliated third parties will advertise instead. If third parties are also restricted, that opens a huge can of worms, trying to figure out what is campaigning, and what is advocating for a cause.
It also makes it much harder to challenge incumbents--they get publicity without running ads, they know how to work the complicated campaign rules, and how to use those rules to harass their challengers.
We need to throw the bastards out, (on both sides) not make it harder for their opponents.
Obviously ten thousand details would have to be worked out.
In the case of any candidate, the campaign should be limited. In the case of issues, again, that would have to be worked out. I'd think some 3-month window for them would be easier to set up, too.
If it's for a campaign, I'd think it should be limited to whatever time frame was set up, sure. And it should apply everywhere, whatever district a person is in.
The whole "unaffiliated third parties" paying for campaign advertising is insanity created by this Right-wing, loony bin of a Conservative, corporate-supporting Roberts Court. It's sick. That distorted the entire campaign process right there, taking power and voting strength away from you and I--the individual voter--and putting it squarely in the corporation's favor.
Tough, stringent, effective campaign finance laws, along with term limits and a set length for campaigns would get the incumbents out, over time.
Obviously ten thousand details would have to be worked out.
Ten thousand details indeed. With the current incumbents in charge of each one, you expect improvement rather than even more incumbent protection?
This in a nutshell is one of the major problems with liberalism--the idea that if only we have enough rules, everything will be fine. When that doesn't work, more rules, and more rules...
Come on, get real. Welcome to reality and the 21st Century. There are more than 350 million Americans in the country. In order to function, we need laws. When things don't work, like our political system, they need to be fixed, re-worked, if you will. Clearly our political system is not working well, right, sanely or fairly and these changes I and others are proposing would go some way to do just that--that is, fix the system. We need to get the money out of our government and political system. It could happen--but it won't because Americans can't and/or don't fix things any longer. We used to but now we don't.
I no more believe you can "legislate to Utopia" than that I can fly to the moon but I do think that if something is broken, you should fix it.
And these changes could happen and we could get the big, ugly, corrosive money out of politics but it won't because it has to come from the people. We have to demand it and too many people either don't know, don't care or just disagree on any solutions.
Unfortunately, it will take things getting really bad for any such changes. Sadly, we're getting there.
The political process is too complex already. Complexity inherently favors both the wealthy and incumbents--they have practice or can hire experts to navigate. This is true even before they tune the complexity to further entrench their power.
We need laws of course, including election laws. However we need far fewer laws and regulations, with far fewer exceptions and exemptions. A simpler system is more transparent and less easily manipulated--money and position count for less. People of ordinary intelligence should be able to find out what is legal and what is not--that is not currently true.
While I know it's not what you're suggesting, this sounds dangerously close, however, to the paramountly ignorant statement Herman Cain said about making laws pages long, tops. (Let me make clear---I am not now or at any other time saying you're ignorant or that your statement is).
Regardless of complexity, I repeat, we need to get the corporations' and wealthy people money out of our government, however we do it. Tough, stringent campaign finance seems to be the only way. That and shortening the unnecessarily--insanely?--long campaigns would also be a help. We won't do it, I don't imagine. Britain has both this and universal health care and both work very well but we refuse to consider the benefits.
Post a Comment