More proof that politicians are just out of touch... - Page 2

FIREWALL · 12-11-09, 03:10 PM

Politicions live by the motto " Do as I say, Not as I do "

Platapus · 12-11-09, 03:33 PM

As I posted on a similar thread a good while ago, our founding fathers did not fully recognize the primary threat from congress.

They were convinced that the worst, most abuse of power would be that congress enacted a "bad law". Hence the rules of congress, an executive branch that can challenge laws, and a judicial branch with the power to overturn laws.

However, in my opinion, the worst, most abuse of power, would be that congress spends money. Alas there are few checks and balances to prevent congress from collecting and spending money.

My solution?

As much as I despise larger government, it is my belief that we need a fourth branch of government. This fourth branch would have the power (and only them) to raise/collect taxes. But they would have no authority to spend any tax money. Congress, therefore would continue to have the authority to spend money but can only spend the money allocated by the new branch of government. Congress wants to spend more money, they have to make their case to this new branch consisting of elected representatives.

There would be a series of checks and balances now between the four branches of government.

It is simply a poor idea to have one branch of the government with the power to raise taxes and to spend tax money.

Executive branch can not spend any money not allocated to it by congress.
Congress can not allocate any money that has not been collected by my new branch.

I guess our founding fathers were more familiar with tyrants and despots making repressive laws than scumbag congresshumans spending money.

But, since congress is the primary way to amend the constitution, what do you figure are the chances of congress voting to reduce their power/graft potential??????

Slightly less than zero I think.

Congress - A great theory of government, but a lousy in practicality.

August · 12-11-09, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Congress - A great theory of government, but a lousy in practicality.

Your 4th branch idea is interesting but what you're describing sounds more like a federal agency like the IRS or the FBI than a completely separate branch of government.

Respenus · 12-11-09, 06:12 PM

@Platapus

I don't know how far you are willing to push this "control spending" thing. While I agree both in principle and in practise that the people should have control over spending, or at least shown exactly what each citizen got out of his or her euro, while still enduring that no-one can decide arbitrarily to stop the welfare state. For example, such a guarantee is in our constitution, although its deconstruction has been going on for quite some time.

What worries me about your proposal is, that you cannot extrapolate that the same problem afflicting Congress (see Skybird's latest thread) will also affect any and all other agencies, being governmental or non-governmental in nature. That's the paradox of democracy. While some things might arguable be better done in a fiscally more restrictive environment, with democracy, no-one can take constitutional secured rights. The fourth estate in the classical public (see Habermas) was the media, before capital got its greedy hands on it and even then not everything was perfect. A fourth branch of government would have the same problems as Congress. A Congress directly controlled by the people, now that's the solution. One needs to find a balance between stability (limited yet almost irrevocable mandate) and security (irrevocable mandate). Yet that would be almost impossible to due on such a large scale as the USA, which brings us back to another of Skybird's idea about a smaller system with direct democratic rule, which again is a utopia in itself.

You'll have to accept the fact that the system is how it is, and changing it won't do a thing. Changing the people to which the system has given certain powers and prerogatives, now, that's the way forward. Again, then you have the question of how to ensure that the system will not be abused, the problems with representative democracy and elections and so on.

Sailor Steve · 12-11-09, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I think they should cap what these clowns earn. If you're going to push socialism, by god you're going to live by it too!

Congress should have nothing to do with their own pay. The want a raise, they should have to prove to the people that they deserve it and then the people should vote on it.

Congressidjits complain about corporate paychecks, but congress has the best pay and the best golden parachute going. Get yourself elected for two year and you're set for life!

SteamWake · 12-11-09, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Congressidjits complain about corporate paychecks, but congress has the best pay and the best golden parachute going.

Not to mention their health care.

But uhhh what is a "Congressidjit" ?

Platapus · 12-11-09, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Congressidjits complain about corporate paychecks, but congress has the best pay and the best golden parachute going. Get yourself elected for two year and you're set for life!

Why do you say that?

CaptainHaplo · 12-11-09, 10:29 PM

For the record - congressional pay raises work this way....

The raises are automatic unless congress explicitly votes in favor of NOT getting a raise. If they don't even bring up the subject, then they get one without lifting a finger. Usually any bill that would remove the yearly pay raise gets stuck in a committee to die. That way they can honestly say they didn't vote themselves a pay raise. While technically true, just goes to show how smart they can be when taking your money. Too bad they can't spend it with the same intelligence.

As for the pay and benefits:

Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.
Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...ress-benefits2

The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.
Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm

Overall, a congressional pension is more generous "by a factor of four" than the average private sector plan, concludes Dallas Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The NTUF estimates a lawmaker's pension adds another $60,000 a year in value to his or her salary.
Source:http://www.fa-ir.org/alabama/corrupt...20Benefits.htm

Now you see why its called a "golden parachute"?

Platapus · 12-11-09, 10:55 PM

But it is no different than any other federal employee. All are covered by the Federal employees Retirement System with a few still under the old Civil Service Retirement Plan.

Congress get's its health care from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.

It can be argued that these are better plans than are available to the public, but it is not correct to say that congress gets its own retirement and health plan. It is the same as every other federal employee.

Platapus · 12-11-09, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Overall, a congressional pension is more generous "by a factor of four" than the average private sector plan, concludes Dallas Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The NTUF estimates a lawmaker's pension adds another $60,000 a year in value to his or her salary.
Source:http://www.fa-ir.org/alabama/corrupt...20Benefits.htm

Now you see why its called a "golden parachute"?

I don't know where these numbers are coming from. But here are the numbers from the CRS

Quote:

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

I think you will find that these numbers are not all that different from industry.

And as for what Sailor Steve wrote, no you can't just get elected for two years and retire.

Quote:

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

Now I am not arguing that congress has a good deal, but it is not a inflated as some make it out to be.

Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm

SteamWake · 12-12-09, 08:32 AM

Inflated numbers and retirement packages are not the topic.

The topic is that during times of extreme financial 'hardships' the largest corperation in the world ... the US goverment deemed it appropriate to pile on to that debt and accept pay raises while the average citizen is either out of work or lucky to have a job. Let alone ask for a raise.

Sailor Steve · 12-12-09, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

But uhhh what is a "Congressidjit" ?

I've heard "Congressmen" expanded to "Congresswomen", and more recently "Congressbeings" and "Congresshumans".

"Idjit" is a slang contration of "idiot".

Probably not so true considering what they get away with.

Sailor Steve · 12-12-09, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

Why do you say that?

You're right - I overspoke. They do have to get re-elected a couple of times before they really start to make out.

SteamWake, you're right too. You brought up the pay increases for the staff, not the Congress itself. And it's also true that they make way too much money, especially considering that they get it directly from us.

AVGWarhawk · 12-12-09, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Inflated numbers and retirement packages are not the topic.

The topic is that during times of extreme financial 'hardships' the largest corperation in the world ... the US goverment deemed it appropriate to pile on to that debt and accept pay raises while the average citizen is either out of work or lucky to have a job. Let alone ask for a raise.

Which brings me to Mayor Dixon of Baltimore. Convicted of theft (misappropriation of funds). Or how it really is.....she stole from the poor. She is now in appeal as of Friday over some lame jury problems. This a-hole is only interested in retaining her $86000.00/year retirement. Nothing more. When she is sentenced in about 3 months she is removed as Mayor. The benefits go along with it. Here is a women who gets a home and transporation free. She can afford to have 2 of her kids in college at the same time yet she steals gift cards destine to the poor. Christmas gift cards at that. Scumbag. Also, not to mention this time last year she was b!tching about not getting a pay raise. "This job is 24/7 yadda yadda yadda." Well you took it honey. Enjoy! Now you know why Obama did not have her at his speach in Baltimore on inaugral day nor have her at the mayors meeting in Washington. She is a bad person to be hanging with. And to make things worse she feels the city of Baltimore should pay for her legal expenses. Go get laid honey.

Platapus · 12-12-09, 09:13 PM

Wow she sounds like a real bag-o-scum.

12-11-09, 03:10 PM	#16
FIREWALL Eternal Patrol Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: CATALINA IS. SO . CAL USA Posts: 10,108 Downloads: 511 Uploads: 0	Politicions live by the motto " Do as I say, Not as I do " __________________ RIP FIREWALL I Play GWX. Silent Hunter Who ???

12-11-09, 03:33 PM	#17
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,386 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	As I posted on a similar thread a good while ago, our founding fathers did not fully recognize the primary threat from congress. They were convinced that the worst, most abuse of power would be that congress enacted a "bad law". Hence the rules of congress, an executive branch that can challenge laws, and a judicial branch with the power to overturn laws. However, in my opinion, the worst, most abuse of power, would be that congress spends money. Alas there are few checks and balances to prevent congress from collecting and spending money. My solution? As much as I despise larger government, it is my belief that we need a fourth branch of government. This fourth branch would have the power (and only them) to raise/collect taxes. But they would have no authority to spend any tax money. Congress, therefore would continue to have the authority to spend money but can only spend the money allocated by the new branch of government. Congress wants to spend more money, they have to make their case to this new branch consisting of elected representatives. There would be a series of checks and balances now between the four branches of government. It is simply a poor idea to have one branch of the government with the power to raise taxes and to spend tax money. Executive branch can not spend any money not allocated to it by congress. Congress can not allocate any money that has not been collected by my new branch. I guess our founding fathers were more familiar with tyrants and despots making repressive laws than scumbag congresshumans spending money. But, since congress is the primary way to amend the constitution, what do you figure are the chances of congress voting to reduce their power/graft potential?????? Slightly less than zero I think. Congress - A great theory of government, but a lousy in practicality. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-11-09, 06:12 PM	#19
Respenus Ace of the Deep Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,169 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	@Platapus I don't know how far you are willing to push this "control spending" thing. While I agree both in principle and in practise that the people should have control over spending, or at least shown exactly what each citizen got out of his or her euro, while still enduring that no-one can decide arbitrarily to stop the welfare state. For example, such a guarantee is in our constitution, although its deconstruction has been going on for quite some time. What worries me about your proposal is, that you cannot extrapolate that the same problem afflicting Congress (see Skybird's latest thread) will also affect any and all other agencies, being governmental or non-governmental in nature. That's the paradox of democracy. While some things might arguable be better done in a fiscally more restrictive environment, with democracy, no-one can take constitutional secured rights. The fourth estate in the classical public (see Habermas) was the media, before capital got its greedy hands on it and even then not everything was perfect. A fourth branch of government would have the same problems as Congress. A Congress directly controlled by the people, now that's the solution. One needs to find a balance between stability (limited yet almost irrevocable mandate) and security (irrevocable mandate). Yet that would be almost impossible to due on such a large scale as the USA, which brings us back to another of Skybird's idea about a smaller system with direct democratic rule, which again is a utopia in itself. You'll have to accept the fact that the system is how it is, and changing it won't do a thing. Changing the people to which the system has given certain powers and prerogatives, now, that's the way forward. Again, then you have the question of how to ensure that the system will not be abused, the problems with representative democracy and elections and so on. __________________

12-11-09, 10:29 PM	#23
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	For the record - congressional pay raises work this way.... The raises are automatic unless congress explicitly votes in favor of NOT getting a raise. If they don't even bring up the subject, then they get one without lifting a finger. Usually any bill that would remove the yearly pay raise gets stuck in a committee to die. That way they can honestly say they didn't vote themselves a pay raise. While technically true, just goes to show how smart they can be when taking your money. Too bad they can't spend it with the same intelligence. As for the pay and benefits: Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers. Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...ress-benefits2 The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm Overall, a congressional pension is more generous "by a factor of four" than the average private sector plan, concludes Dallas Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The NTUF estimates a lawmaker's pension adds another $60,000 a year in value to his or her salary. Source:http://www.fa-ir.org/alabama/corrupt...20Benefits.htm Now you see why its called a "golden parachute"? __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

12-11-09, 10:55 PM	#24
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,386 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	But it is no different than any other federal employee. All are covered by the Federal employees Retirement System with a few still under the old Civil Service Retirement Plan. Congress get's its health care from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. It can be argued that these are better plans than are available to the public, but it is not correct to say that congress gets its own retirement and health plan. It is the same as every other federal employee. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-12-09, 08:32 AM	#26
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Inflated numbers and retirement packages are not the topic. The topic is that during times of extreme financial 'hardships' the largest corperation in the world ... the US goverment deemed it appropriate to pile on to that debt and accept pay raises while the average citizen is either out of work or lucky to have a job. Let alone ask for a raise. __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

12-12-09, 09:13 PM	#30
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,386 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Wow she sounds like a real bag-o-scum. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.