Posts
Kansas City Crime Scene: More Gunfire & Car Chase Postscript
23 minutes ago
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
An email going around about changing Congress
Have you received this email on changing our Congress? The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple. The people demanded it.
That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc. We can now communicate with one another far quicker.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.
All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just like the rest of us.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this current contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress should be an honor, not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
I have to say, it seems like a great idea to me and, I'd bet, to most Americans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.
Honestly, I'm the same way and would, too. This is one of those rare emails that seems true and not flaky.
Recycled acrimony. And there's lots of duplication in this list. Here are some specifics to issues raised by these "solutions" (all pulled from factcheck.org):
Q: What type of health insurance do members of Congress receive? Is it a single-payer, government-run system?
A: Members of Congress are covered by private insurance under the same system that covers all federal workers.
Members of Congress have good health insurance by any standard, but it’s not free and not reserved only for them – and it’s not government insurance. House and Senate members are allowed to purchase private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which covers more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.
Q: Do members of Congress pay Social Security taxes?
A: Yes, ever since 1984.
All members of Congress, no matter how long they have been in office, have been paying into the Social Security system since January 1984.
Q: Does a United States senator receive his full pay upon retiring?
A: No. A member of Congress can’t receive more than 80 percent of his or her final salary upon retirement, and the average is much less.
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.
Change may be needed , but let's make sure we identify the correct problems. To toss this up to the populus as a valid list of grievances only plays to the gut and not the head.
Absolutely recycled acrimony, I don't deny it at all.
But the fact is, on all these issues, they have a better, more guaranteed system for health care and pensions than the average working man on the street and therein lies the resentment. And the biggest resentment, I think, comes from the undeniable fact that they did, in fact, vote themselves automatic pay raises, years ago.
I didn't put it up so much as a "valid list of grievances" as I put it up as something going around that shows how a lot of people feel. That said, I do want to put up true, legitimate data and not "feelings" or just resentments so thanks for the input.
"have a better, more guaranteed system for health care and pensions than the average working man" Arguable, but it begs the question from other side of the coin: should we take away from all government employees or see to the elevation of all citizens? What are the numbers: defined private retirement plans vs. those negotiated through organized labor vs. govt. employee plans? (rhetorical)
The pay raise thing is surely a burr under the blanket; no question from this end.
Your point, question, is a good one and, I think, has two parts, at least to me.
I don't want to "take away from all government employees", at least in this case. I just want to see it taken away from Congress, from our Representatives and Senators, so they're on a more equal plane, so to speak, with the rest of America, the rest of us and so they don't get cozy up in Washington and figure they'll stay there forever, first.
Second, I'm all for elevating all Americans situation, absolutely and for sure. I think--and a lot of people do, from what I read and hear--that we should strengthen and increase the middle class--again--for the benefit and strengthening of the entire nation.
Post a Comment