One of the great ironies in an otherwise unfathomable universe is that events often occur in a way that serendipitously substantiates truth. Take for example yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision. In a 5-4 ruling, the high court in all but perspective rewrote campaign finance law, striking down a federal law that prohibited Big Money contribution to political candidates either directly or by [the] financial backing of campaign ads.
In the equating of such practices by the high court in terms free speech, proponents cheered the decision, hailing it as a victory which promotes the free exchange of opposing thoughts in the free market of ideas. The funny thing though is that most times, political partisans are rarely ever interested in anything in the way of “opposing ideas,” unless such ideas give them a Boogey Man to oppose during election cycles.
However, such “free speech” is yet another stab in the heart of the democratic process as we, the unconnected citizens, are forced to sit back and watch as Big Money contributions influence public policy through the innuendo of [the] reciprocity for donations to, and support of candidates for public office.
In yesterday’s posting (“Why the Republican Party is Better than the Democratic Party”), I lauded the Republicans for their ability to ostensibly take the moral high ground in politics by defining and framing political arguments—especially in political campaigns—which is why they are so successful in winning elections (but they are only as good at governing as the Democrats). If yesterday’s ruling has done anything, it has proven this point in spades. Without batting an eye, the conservative wing of the high court eloquently stated the logic of its position, totally ignoring the fact that they engaged in the same “judicial activism”—making law from the bench—they often accuse liberals of engaging in whenever one is nominated for a potential position, especially within the federal judiciary. And predictably, the ideologically impotent Democrats have failed to shine a light on this double-standard.
Outside of political partisanship, it’s a little difficult to understand the math behind the high court’s thinking; the everyday average citizen is supposed to benefit from giving Big Money donors more of a “say” in the political process? You’ll pardon me if I get up from my desk and walk out of class right about now.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Why The Republican Party Is Better Than The Democratic Party (...or, "My BS Is Better Than Yours.")
Republican Scott Brown’s Senatorial victory in yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts—a state that can arguably be called the most reliably Democratic-leaning out of the 50—is a testament to why the Republicans are better than the Democrats. Not in the ideological sense or as a governing entity, but as winners of elections; in terms of governing they are every bit as prone to corruption, excess, and incompetence as the Democrats…with a little more in the way self-righteousness. Simply put, the Republican Party in America is far better at packaging and selling their “product” than the Democrats.
Republican Senator-Elect Scott Brown
Republican Senator-Elect Scott Brown
Take the for example a chief issue that Brown rode into the Senate on, that of government spending…or rather overspending. A simple fact of electoral politics is if you say something often enough, people will begin to believe it. To this effect, since the election of President Obama last year, Republicans (and/or other conservatives) have been exemplary in shaping and mobilizing public opinion against Obama’s stated centerpiece policy of health care reform, a policy that Americans knew full-well that they were voting for when they unanimously elected him and a majority of Democrats to office last election. Somewhere, Republican strategists got the brainchild to focus on the costly amount needed to cover a majority of Americans with affordable health care. And just like that, one of them got a flash of inspiration; Eureka! Since our policies were not appealing enough to win power, let’s slander their policy proposals by focusing on how much it will the American people!
So, Republicans successfully managed to mobilize enough conservative activists in the form of the “regular every day Americans” who made up the crowds of Tea-Partiers, tax-protestors, and other anti-Democratic ideologues who shouted “overspending” to the heavens so often that many other Americans seized on the phrase and started to actuallybelieve it (in much the same way that Republicans actually believe that these "protesters" represented all Americans). And these individuals have been quite convincing with their babies, grandmothers, and dogs in-tow at high-profile anti-government spending allies. They have managed to convince the population at large that their view was a consensus shared by most. Take note though that the government spending on the war in Iraq—a war that should have never been fought to begin with and which has run up a tab of about $400 billion—was never mentioned during these protests. Nor did anyone grill these individuals on whether or not it was all “government overspending” that was at issue, or spending that they didn’t agree with? When Republicans and other associated activists “complain” that “the government is spending too much of my tax dollars,” do they mean just potential spending on the health care revamp proposals and government-sponsored bailouts, or do they include the tax dollars that their representatives bring back to their home districts in the form of pet pork barrel projects? Yes, there is the remote possibility that they managed to tap into some underlying discontent within the American electorate on this issue, but such “discontent” was hardly present during the elections of last year when the intentions of the Democrats were clearly telegraphed.
Now, ignoring the fact that when (not “if”) the Republicans re-take Congress (or a large chunk of it), are we to believe that irresponsible government spending will piously and suddenly come to a screeching halt? If the cycle of history is any indication, Republicans will behave themselves for a brief period of time once they retake power, “returning to their core values” of frugality with regards to government spending. After a time, when the ever-present trait of short-term memory of the American people comes into play, they will be off to the races, matching the Democrats’ penchant for power-tripping, corruption, and ignoring the will of the American people…just what they are saying that the Democrats’ rise to power in the last year has resulted in.
But such success should come as no surprise to the Republican Party, which is quite adept at turning a phrase of a policy aim to either make it seem more appealing and fair, or to paint it in the most negative of lights. For every instance of labeling an unpopular policy such as the federal estate tax a “death tax,” there is the successful promotion (and belief) in “death panels” as “proposed” by their opponents.
In a consumer-driven economy such as America, the Republican Party is the political party that is best able to successfully brand, package, and market both itself and those running for public office under its banner as what Americans want. But such a delusion is nothing more than a means and illustration for how some groups are able to perpetuate the regime of the ruling political class over those who allow their interests to be defined and manipulated by the ideologically-bound.
So, Republicans successfully managed to mobilize enough conservative activists in the form of the “regular every day Americans” who made up the crowds of Tea-Partiers, tax-protestors, and other anti-Democratic ideologues who shouted “overspending” to the heavens so often that many other Americans seized on the phrase and started to actuallybelieve it (in much the same way that Republicans actually believe that these "protesters" represented all Americans). And these individuals have been quite convincing with their babies, grandmothers, and dogs in-tow at high-profile anti-government spending allies. They have managed to convince the population at large that their view was a consensus shared by most. Take note though that the government spending on the war in Iraq—a war that should have never been fought to begin with and which has run up a tab of about $400 billion—was never mentioned during these protests. Nor did anyone grill these individuals on whether or not it was all “government overspending” that was at issue, or spending that they didn’t agree with? When Republicans and other associated activists “complain” that “the government is spending too much of my tax dollars,” do they mean just potential spending on the health care revamp proposals and government-sponsored bailouts, or do they include the tax dollars that their representatives bring back to their home districts in the form of pet pork barrel projects? Yes, there is the remote possibility that they managed to tap into some underlying discontent within the American electorate on this issue, but such “discontent” was hardly present during the elections of last year when the intentions of the Democrats were clearly telegraphed.
Now, ignoring the fact that when (not “if”) the Republicans re-take Congress (or a large chunk of it), are we to believe that irresponsible government spending will piously and suddenly come to a screeching halt? If the cycle of history is any indication, Republicans will behave themselves for a brief period of time once they retake power, “returning to their core values” of frugality with regards to government spending. After a time, when the ever-present trait of short-term memory of the American people comes into play, they will be off to the races, matching the Democrats’ penchant for power-tripping, corruption, and ignoring the will of the American people…just what they are saying that the Democrats’ rise to power in the last year has resulted in.
But such success should come as no surprise to the Republican Party, which is quite adept at turning a phrase of a policy aim to either make it seem more appealing and fair, or to paint it in the most negative of lights. For every instance of labeling an unpopular policy such as the federal estate tax a “death tax,” there is the successful promotion (and belief) in “death panels” as “proposed” by their opponents.
In a consumer-driven economy such as America, the Republican Party is the political party that is best able to successfully brand, package, and market both itself and those running for public office under its banner as what Americans want. But such a delusion is nothing more than a means and illustration for how some groups are able to perpetuate the regime of the ruling political class over those who allow their interests to be defined and manipulated by the ideologically-bound.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
It's Good To Be The King...Or Maybe A Congressman: Conclusion
As Christmas Day nears, those of you who have been following this recent topic of Congressional perks are already aware that for our federal legislators, the spirit of giving and receiving is a year 'round reality..
Even beyond the availability of [the] many Congressional perks such as paid daycare for legislators’ children and deep discounts for health club memberships (did I fail to mention those before?), perhaps the greatest amount of personal benefits that come from being a member of Congress are those that are derived from the traditional of lobbying. How much can and do Congressmen/women benefit from the system of legalized influence peddling we euphemistically call “lobbying?” Consider recent examples of the business-as-usual way special interests and/or big business gains access to our federal legislators:
*Republican Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. toured the vineyard & castle of Liechtenstein royalty, as well as spent the better part of a day at an Alpine ski resort—all on the dime of a group of European companies.
*Illinois Democrat Danny K. Davis received “the dignitary treatment” when a political donor flew him to Inner Mongolia to lobby for a new medical supplies factory in China.
Almost annually, university and local government lobbyists—who are exempt from the rule which limits gifts by lobbyists to Congressmen to a $50 value maximum—bestow on many Democratic legislators (and their staff) college basketball tournament tickets in a ritual that has come to be called by some critics the “March Madness” loophole (http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/us/politics/07trips.html)
*A Political Action Committee (PAC) run by Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss hosted a $48,000 combination golf outing-fund-raiser in Palm Beach, Florida. The PAC also routinely “picks up the tab for fancy dinners and parties,” including $6,300 at a Washington steakhouse earlier this year. Money for these events is usually donated by lobbying and special interests groups (PACs are the chief means by which Congressmen are able to skirt rules outlining the limits by which legislators are ostensibly mandated to adhere to in order to give the public the impression of self-governing)
In any given recent year, more than 2.5 billion (that’s “billion” with a “b”) dollars have been spent on direct lobbying by various interest special groups. Such benefits, despite rules adopted in 2007 meant to limit corporate influence in Congress, routinely bend and/or breaks these rules and exploits loopholes…to the wink-and-nods of these elected officials. Needless to say, businesses and other interest groups are routinely opposed to more substantive proposal changes.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a citizen’s right to petition the legislature of the government (at any level)—in fact, it’s a Constitutional guarantee. The problem arises when Big Business, private organizations, and special interests groups—most of which have resources far and away more abundant than the average American—interject their influence into the legislative process to pervert the process democracy, especially in light of the observation that most of these influential entities tend to promote interests that are contrary to the general electorate. Surely, it shouldn’t take Einsteinian-level intellect for our biggest (or maybe our not-so-biggest) brains to devise a way to safeguard the Constitutional guarantee of access to our highest-elected law-makers by both the people (that’s you and I) and business. In a perfect (or even better) world, the voices of the more enlightened among Congressmen would become loud enough to rise above the din of gift-chatter to prick the consciouses—assuming they have them—of every member and guilt them into adopting the interests of the people who elect them to office as a priority, and not the monied interests who pervert the political process. The lack of such a necessary solution can only be attributed to a lack of will among Congress and business both.
As for the spirit of regal entitlement which seems to have possessed members of the House and the Senate, one can only guess at what it would take to exorcise this particular demon from the Hill. Outside of a divine intervention, the only possible solution is for Americans to grow the testicular fortitude to collectively act on the sentiment we have heard uttered time and again during moments of outrage at our legislators’ incompetence and corruption: “Throw the bums out!”
Watch CBS News Videos Online
(Better late than never CBS! From last night's CBS Evening News broadcast)
Even beyond the availability of [the] many Congressional perks such as paid daycare for legislators’ children and deep discounts for health club memberships (did I fail to mention those before?), perhaps the greatest amount of personal benefits that come from being a member of Congress are those that are derived from the traditional of lobbying. How much can and do Congressmen/women benefit from the system of legalized influence peddling we euphemistically call “lobbying?” Consider recent examples of the business-as-usual way special interests and/or big business gains access to our federal legislators:
*Republican Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. toured the vineyard & castle of Liechtenstein royalty, as well as spent the better part of a day at an Alpine ski resort—all on the dime of a group of European companies.
*Illinois Democrat Danny K. Davis received “the dignitary treatment” when a political donor flew him to Inner Mongolia to lobby for a new medical supplies factory in China.
Almost annually, university and local government lobbyists—who are exempt from the rule which limits gifts by lobbyists to Congressmen to a $50 value maximum—bestow on many Democratic legislators (and their staff) college basketball tournament tickets in a ritual that has come to be called by some critics the “March Madness” loophole (http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/us/politics/07trips.html)
*A Political Action Committee (PAC) run by Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss hosted a $48,000 combination golf outing-fund-raiser in Palm Beach, Florida. The PAC also routinely “picks up the tab for fancy dinners and parties,” including $6,300 at a Washington steakhouse earlier this year. Money for these events is usually donated by lobbying and special interests groups (PACs are the chief means by which Congressmen are able to skirt rules outlining the limits by which legislators are ostensibly mandated to adhere to in order to give the public the impression of self-governing)
In any given recent year, more than 2.5 billion (that’s “billion” with a “b”) dollars have been spent on direct lobbying by various interest special groups. Such benefits, despite rules adopted in 2007 meant to limit corporate influence in Congress, routinely bend and/or breaks these rules and exploits loopholes…to the wink-and-nods of these elected officials. Needless to say, businesses and other interest groups are routinely opposed to more substantive proposal changes.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a citizen’s right to petition the legislature of the government (at any level)—in fact, it’s a Constitutional guarantee. The problem arises when Big Business, private organizations, and special interests groups—most of which have resources far and away more abundant than the average American—interject their influence into the legislative process to pervert the process democracy, especially in light of the observation that most of these influential entities tend to promote interests that are contrary to the general electorate. Surely, it shouldn’t take Einsteinian-level intellect for our biggest (or maybe our not-so-biggest) brains to devise a way to safeguard the Constitutional guarantee of access to our highest-elected law-makers by both the people (that’s you and I) and business. In a perfect (or even better) world, the voices of the more enlightened among Congressmen would become loud enough to rise above the din of gift-chatter to prick the consciouses—assuming they have them—of every member and guilt them into adopting the interests of the people who elect them to office as a priority, and not the monied interests who pervert the political process. The lack of such a necessary solution can only be attributed to a lack of will among Congress and business both.
As for the spirit of regal entitlement which seems to have possessed members of the House and the Senate, one can only guess at what it would take to exorcise this particular demon from the Hill. Outside of a divine intervention, the only possible solution is for Americans to grow the testicular fortitude to collectively act on the sentiment we have heard uttered time and again during moments of outrage at our legislators’ incompetence and corruption: “Throw the bums out!”
Watch CBS News Videos Online
(Better late than never CBS! From last night's CBS Evening News broadcast)
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
It's Good To Be The King...Or Maybe A Congressman: Part 3
Continued from Part 2: http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/search/label/Congressional%20Perks
When it comes to the benefits of power, the elected federal lawmakers who make up the House of Representatives and the Senate—Congress—are without par; even former United States presidents cannot hope to match the level of excess, greed, sense of entitlement, and what I like to call the residual effects of public office that Congress offers its office holders. The problem is that such an extensive network of material and institutional benefits has seemingly created a sense of entitlement to the point where when viewed collectively, the perks that Congressional lawmakers receive are more reminiscent of royalty rather than elected representatives.
Consider the double-standard for criminal by which defrocked Congressional legislators benefit from. The recently convicted likes ex-Congressmen Duke Cunningham, Bob May, and William Jefferson Clinton not only get to keep their government pensions (which, unlike military retirement pay, may be revoked under only on conviction for a "high crime" such as treason), but if history is any indication, will likely parlay their Congressional tenures into private-sector opportunity with potential links to (you guessed it) government. This seemingly perennial propensity for Congressional lawmakers skirt or break the law creates—or maybe is born from—the sense of entitlement and above-the-commoner attitudes that many have with regard to the law. For instance, you know that law that makes it illegal for private- and government-sector employers to discharge, demote, or sanction an employee for having to fulfill their military obligations whenever they given orders to mobilize? Well, Congressional employers have given themselves an exemption from having to obey the same law; military enlistees can and have been given the boot for obeying orders to serve their country.
This sense of imperial above-the-masses thinking even applies to the smaller aspects of rules and laws. For instance, there are more than a few cases on record where Congressmen have had traffic tickets fixed (some after exerting the power and influence of their office) after breaking rules of the road for no good reasons, reflecting the belief that they believe themselves exempt from the same laws that govern the rest of us. Fortunately though, some Congressmen, most notably Senator John McCain have fought against the excesses and abuses of privilege and entitlement than many Congressmen routinely engage in
Lawmakers claimed the right to exempt themselves from [a] system of "fines" known to children across America -- those applying to overdue library books. In 1994, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the "Library of Congress Book Protection Act," in response to official estimates that 1/3 of the books on loan from the Library of Congress were overdue, and that $12 million worth of books were "missing." In many cases, Senators, Representatives, and Congressional staff members were implicated (Congressional Perks: How The Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers. National Taxpayers Union Foundation).
However, not all attempts to eliminate Congressional perks have been so unsuccessful. Below is a list of excesses that have been eliminated during the 1990s (mostly to the fact that their existence came to public light).
Despite this list, many other such questionable benefits exist for members of both houses such as:
* Annual general offices expenses allowances of $1.3 million for rank-and-file member of the House (with highest-ranking member expenses reaching $4.5 million) and $2 million for Senate members. The only restriction they face is the prohibition against using the money for campaigning.
* Congressional delegation trips—Codels—are available for members of Congress, their staff, often their spouses on government jets. Aside from the occasional fact-finding mission to the world’s trouble spots and to home districts, many codels are nothing more than junkets to exotic locales and well-established vacation spots (such as resort towns).
* Free unreserved (and not surprisingly) prime parking spaces at Reagan and Dulles International Airports.
* In addition to the traditional government holidays, members of Congress receive far more generous compensated time off. For example, during the Memorial Day holiday legislators get the entire week off. They also receive additional recesses, some lasting as long as a month. Members prefer to call these periods “District Work Periods” in lieu of “vacations,” despite the absence of requirements for them to be in their home districts during these times.
* Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens — all crafted by lawmakers themselves (example: a $3,000 annual income tax deduction for a maintaining a second residence).
* Health & life insurance approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers (previously discussed).
* Access to valuable (and in some instances priceless) artwork from the Smithsonian Institute to decorate the offices of Congressmen (and Congresswomen).
* The “Franking Privilege,” which gives members of Congress millions in tax dollars to—among other things—create a favorable public image by allowing free postal mailings to their constituents…while the US Postal Service is swimming in red ink.
Naturally this list is hardly exhaustive of the many perks of being a Congressman, but suffice it to say that there are many more lesser-known benefits of being a Congressman. However, there is one benefit that continues to thrive, despite calls for reform from many quarters. Stay tuned...
When it comes to the benefits of power, the elected federal lawmakers who make up the House of Representatives and the Senate—Congress—are without par; even former United States presidents cannot hope to match the level of excess, greed, sense of entitlement, and what I like to call the residual effects of public office that Congress offers its office holders. The problem is that such an extensive network of material and institutional benefits has seemingly created a sense of entitlement to the point where when viewed collectively, the perks that Congressional lawmakers receive are more reminiscent of royalty rather than elected representatives.
Consider the double-standard for criminal by which defrocked Congressional legislators benefit from. The recently convicted likes ex-Congressmen Duke Cunningham, Bob May, and William Jefferson Clinton not only get to keep their government pensions (which, unlike military retirement pay, may be revoked under only on conviction for a "high crime" such as treason), but if history is any indication, will likely parlay their Congressional tenures into private-sector opportunity with potential links to (you guessed it) government. This seemingly perennial propensity for Congressional lawmakers skirt or break the law creates—or maybe is born from—the sense of entitlement and above-the-commoner attitudes that many have with regard to the law. For instance, you know that law that makes it illegal for private- and government-sector employers to discharge, demote, or sanction an employee for having to fulfill their military obligations whenever they given orders to mobilize? Well, Congressional employers have given themselves an exemption from having to obey the same law; military enlistees can and have been given the boot for obeying orders to serve their country.
This sense of imperial above-the-masses thinking even applies to the smaller aspects of rules and laws. For instance, there are more than a few cases on record where Congressmen have had traffic tickets fixed (some after exerting the power and influence of their office) after breaking rules of the road for no good reasons, reflecting the belief that they believe themselves exempt from the same laws that govern the rest of us. Fortunately though, some Congressmen, most notably Senator John McCain have fought against the excesses and abuses of privilege and entitlement than many Congressmen routinely engage in
Lawmakers claimed the right to exempt themselves from [a] system of "fines" known to children across America -- those applying to overdue library books. In 1994, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the "Library of Congress Book Protection Act," in response to official estimates that 1/3 of the books on loan from the Library of Congress were overdue, and that $12 million worth of books were "missing." In many cases, Senators, Representatives, and Congressional staff members were implicated (Congressional Perks: How The Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers. National Taxpayers Union Foundation).
However, not all attempts to eliminate Congressional perks have been so unsuccessful. Below is a list of excesses that have been eliminated during the 1990s (mostly to the fact that their existence came to public light).
Click on Image To Enlarge Chart Image
Despite this list, many other such questionable benefits exist for members of both houses such as:
* Annual general offices expenses allowances of $1.3 million for rank-and-file member of the House (with highest-ranking member expenses reaching $4.5 million) and $2 million for Senate members. The only restriction they face is the prohibition against using the money for campaigning.
* Congressional delegation trips—Codels—are available for members of Congress, their staff, often their spouses on government jets. Aside from the occasional fact-finding mission to the world’s trouble spots and to home districts, many codels are nothing more than junkets to exotic locales and well-established vacation spots (such as resort towns).
* Free unreserved (and not surprisingly) prime parking spaces at Reagan and Dulles International Airports.
* In addition to the traditional government holidays, members of Congress receive far more generous compensated time off. For example, during the Memorial Day holiday legislators get the entire week off. They also receive additional recesses, some lasting as long as a month. Members prefer to call these periods “District Work Periods” in lieu of “vacations,” despite the absence of requirements for them to be in their home districts during these times.
* Exemptions and immunities from tax, pension, and other laws that burden private citizens — all crafted by lawmakers themselves (example: a $3,000 annual income tax deduction for a maintaining a second residence).
* Health & life insurance approximately 3/4 and 1/3 of whose costs, respectively, are subsidized by taxpayers (previously discussed).
* Access to valuable (and in some instances priceless) artwork from the Smithsonian Institute to decorate the offices of Congressmen (and Congresswomen).
* The “Franking Privilege,” which gives members of Congress millions in tax dollars to—among other things—create a favorable public image by allowing free postal mailings to their constituents…while the US Postal Service is swimming in red ink.
Naturally this list is hardly exhaustive of the many perks of being a Congressman, but suffice it to say that there are many more lesser-known benefits of being a Congressman. However, there is one benefit that continues to thrive, despite calls for reform from many quarters. Stay tuned...
Friday, November 27, 2009
It's Good To Be The King...Or Maybe A Congressman: Part 2
Continued Part 1 (http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/2009/11/its-good-to-be-kingor-maybe-congressman.html)
Whenever I think of the level and extent of the various non-compensatory benefits that our Congressional representatives receive—especially in relation to the week-to-week struggles that the rest of us must endure in these lean economic times—I am reminded of a now-famous line from Mel Brooks’ 1981 “History of The World, Part 1.” In one segment of the comedy classic, Brooks portrays King Louis XVI, lampooning the French Monarch’s penchant for personal excesses (such as demanding sexual favors in relations in return for requests from the peasantry) by repeating the phrase, “Its good to be the king” whenever he receives “compensation” for services rendered. So in the contemporary, if a member of the political class can be paid for their “service” with an amount that puts them in the top 10% of wage earners in the country, and receive an additionally valuable compensation such as affordable health insurance and health care while just one of the same is out of reach for 30 million or so of those they represent, what Congressperson wouldn’t be able to say “It’s good to be a Congressman/woman
For many Americans, myself included, we live with a reality that is markedly different from those we vote to represent us in the halls of Congress. For many of us, part of our week-to-week routine includes the difficult choice between paying for medicine or food, or going without basic health care altogether due to its inaffordability (and the ideologically intractable belief that the Free Market will eventually remedy this inequity). To be fair, the members of Congress receive the same health care plan choices that the other approximately 9 million plus federal government employees are offered. The most popular offering from Blue Cross/Blue Shield cost each individual member $175.08 per month, “with the government contributing an additional $363.16. The hypocrisy in this setup is that many of the same members of Congress often assert that if the government were to similarly subsidize health care for you and I, it would be an example “socialism;” apparently a practice that would herald the coming of Satan himself insofar as those who favor the notion that market forces will solve this dilemma (ignoring the fact of course, that if such were possible, in all likelihood it would have already happened). And in much the same way that 3/4ths of the actual cost of health insurance for members of Congress is subsidized by taxpayers, the life insurance options for the lawmakers is also likewise subsidized to the tune of 1/4th of the total cost to the average American.
Additionally, members of Congress don’t see the long lines outside emergency rooms one usually finds in [the] hospitals that dot lesser affluent areas of the country; they receive “free VIP treatment at military hospitals” without the wait. There is also the little known health benefit of on-the-Hill medical treatment by the capital-based Office of the Attending Physician of the United States
For an annual fee of $503, House and Senate members can designate the official congressional physician to be their primary care doctor—meaning they never have to deal with crowded doctor’s offices or be subject to the same type (lack of care) from a doctor as the rest of us (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Lawmakers Get Bounty of Benefits." http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/lawmakers-get-bounty-of-214897.html
Despite this service being purely optional among Congressmen, it is an existing option that many of us common folk can only dream about.
The retirement schemes for members of Congress are even more—if one can believe it—favorable for this elite club of legislators. While many Americans have to face the very real possibility of having to delay retirement due to the plummeting net worth of their various retirement plans in the current crippling recession, members of Congress enjoy a taxpayer-sponsor variation of the corporate “golden parachute” which addresses the problem of post-retirement income for the aged. Like their salaries, Congressional pensions are determined by a combination of time in office, age at retirement, and the current salary of each member at the time they leave (or are voted out of) office. The rates at which these pensions accumulate value are second only to the pension value of the president in terms of generosity. Moreover, for many career members of Congress, the longer they have served the earlier they are able to collect pensions…an option unheard of among the majority of American employees, even within the federal government. According to the National Taxpayers Union, the end result is that, between the generous accrual rates, the eligibility of early retirement collection, and the likelihood that many members will serve multiple terms totally 10-20 years (or longer), today’s members of Congress can collect a million dollars or more in pension security…less than the luckiest corporate CEO, but significantly more than what the average American will make over their active working lifetimes. What’s more, members of Congress do not lose their pensions upon violations of the law, whether they are found guilty of misdemeanors or felonies; they are allowed to even keep the incremental cost of living increases they receive during their retirements (just ask those convicted former Congressmen who have no worries about their retirement futures). So the 1.3% of their salary that members of Congress must pay toward their government pension plans yields far more in bankable returns than the earnings liability it appears to be on the surface. And this pension scheme doesn’t even include earnings that could be collected if members of Congress participate in a separate 401(k)-style savings plan, which allows them to set aside part of their salaries with a 5% government match. If you’re not outraged yet, stay tuned…
To Be Continued…
Whenever I think of the level and extent of the various non-compensatory benefits that our Congressional representatives receive—especially in relation to the week-to-week struggles that the rest of us must endure in these lean economic times—I am reminded of a now-famous line from Mel Brooks’ 1981 “History of The World, Part 1.” In one segment of the comedy classic, Brooks portrays King Louis XVI, lampooning the French Monarch’s penchant for personal excesses (such as demanding sexual favors in relations in return for requests from the peasantry) by repeating the phrase, “Its good to be the king” whenever he receives “compensation” for services rendered. So in the contemporary, if a member of the political class can be paid for their “service” with an amount that puts them in the top 10% of wage earners in the country, and receive an additionally valuable compensation such as affordable health insurance and health care while just one of the same is out of reach for 30 million or so of those they represent, what Congressperson wouldn’t be able to say “It’s good to be a Congressman/woman
For many Americans, myself included, we live with a reality that is markedly different from those we vote to represent us in the halls of Congress. For many of us, part of our week-to-week routine includes the difficult choice between paying for medicine or food, or going without basic health care altogether due to its inaffordability (and the ideologically intractable belief that the Free Market will eventually remedy this inequity). To be fair, the members of Congress receive the same health care plan choices that the other approximately 9 million plus federal government employees are offered. The most popular offering from Blue Cross/Blue Shield cost each individual member $175.08 per month, “with the government contributing an additional $363.16. The hypocrisy in this setup is that many of the same members of Congress often assert that if the government were to similarly subsidize health care for you and I, it would be an example “socialism;” apparently a practice that would herald the coming of Satan himself insofar as those who favor the notion that market forces will solve this dilemma (ignoring the fact of course, that if such were possible, in all likelihood it would have already happened). And in much the same way that 3/4ths of the actual cost of health insurance for members of Congress is subsidized by taxpayers, the life insurance options for the lawmakers is also likewise subsidized to the tune of 1/4th of the total cost to the average American.
Additionally, members of Congress don’t see the long lines outside emergency rooms one usually finds in [the] hospitals that dot lesser affluent areas of the country; they receive “free VIP treatment at military hospitals” without the wait. There is also the little known health benefit of on-the-Hill medical treatment by the capital-based Office of the Attending Physician of the United States
For an annual fee of $503, House and Senate members can designate the official congressional physician to be their primary care doctor—meaning they never have to deal with crowded doctor’s offices or be subject to the same type (lack of care) from a doctor as the rest of us (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Lawmakers Get Bounty of Benefits." http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/lawmakers-get-bounty-of-214897.html
Despite this service being purely optional among Congressmen, it is an existing option that many of us common folk can only dream about.
The retirement schemes for members of Congress are even more—if one can believe it—favorable for this elite club of legislators. While many Americans have to face the very real possibility of having to delay retirement due to the plummeting net worth of their various retirement plans in the current crippling recession, members of Congress enjoy a taxpayer-sponsor variation of the corporate “golden parachute” which addresses the problem of post-retirement income for the aged. Like their salaries, Congressional pensions are determined by a combination of time in office, age at retirement, and the current salary of each member at the time they leave (or are voted out of) office. The rates at which these pensions accumulate value are second only to the pension value of the president in terms of generosity. Moreover, for many career members of Congress, the longer they have served the earlier they are able to collect pensions…an option unheard of among the majority of American employees, even within the federal government. According to the National Taxpayers Union, the end result is that, between the generous accrual rates, the eligibility of early retirement collection, and the likelihood that many members will serve multiple terms totally 10-20 years (or longer), today’s members of Congress can collect a million dollars or more in pension security…less than the luckiest corporate CEO, but significantly more than what the average American will make over their active working lifetimes. What’s more, members of Congress do not lose their pensions upon violations of the law, whether they are found guilty of misdemeanors or felonies; they are allowed to even keep the incremental cost of living increases they receive during their retirements (just ask those convicted former Congressmen who have no worries about their retirement futures). So the 1.3% of their salary that members of Congress must pay toward their government pension plans yields far more in bankable returns than the earnings liability it appears to be on the surface. And this pension scheme doesn’t even include earnings that could be collected if members of Congress participate in a separate 401(k)-style savings plan, which allows them to set aside part of their salaries with a 5% government match. If you’re not outraged yet, stay tuned…
To Be Continued…
It's Good To Be The King...Or Maybe A Congressman: Part 1
It’s Black Friday, the shopping debacle that marks the day immediately after Thanksgiving. And unless you’re one of the federal lawmakers we vote into Congress to represent us every 2-to-4 years, you’re probably one among the besieged masses of this current economic climate struggling to not only find the money to even buy your loved ones a present, but to—at the same time—maintain the necessities of a marginally decent livelihood. But if you are a member of Congress, these are great times. Despite being the authorities who determine how much we as citizens are to contribute in taxes, the amount to be appropriated to operate the government from year-to-year, and whether or not the rest of us are to even have access to affordable health care, the members of Congress not only don’t have such concerns, but enjoy a level of benefits above and beyond what can reasonably be attributed as fair compensation for their “service.” What’s more, the plethora of perks that permeate almost every part of Congressional lawmakers’ professional lives seems to create an atmosphere of entitlement thinking in and around Washington D.C., which translates into a double-standard between this “political class” and the rest of us serfs.
Although the idea behind my criticisms of Congressional perks has been in the back of my mind for some time, yesterday’s article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (“Lawmakers Get Bounty of Benefits." http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/lawmakers-get-bounty-of-214897.html) provided me with the motivation to chronicle this long overdue revelation. In the article, reporter Bob Keefe highlights among other things the basic salaries of Congressional lawmakers, which start $174,000 for “rank-and-file House and Senate members,” and puts them firmly among the top 10% of income-earners in America. In and of itself, this is not an unreasonable amount of compensation. However, considering the fact that many members of Congress are quick to label their positions as “public service” and that 237 members of Congress are already millionaires, this level of compensation amounts to one among many perks that lawmakers enjoy beyond their duties. And for higher-ranking members of Congress the financial perks even sweeter; the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives receive about $193,000 annually, with the speaker earning even more. Additionally, members of Congress can and do vote themselves pay raises, even though the majority of Americans have become victimized by stagnant wages during the last decade. Sadly, although money seems to be at the root of most perks, it is hardly the only one.
To Be Continued…
Although the idea behind my criticisms of Congressional perks has been in the back of my mind for some time, yesterday’s article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (“Lawmakers Get Bounty of Benefits." http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/lawmakers-get-bounty-of-214897.html) provided me with the motivation to chronicle this long overdue revelation. In the article, reporter Bob Keefe highlights among other things the basic salaries of Congressional lawmakers, which start $174,000 for “rank-and-file House and Senate members,” and puts them firmly among the top 10% of income-earners in America. In and of itself, this is not an unreasonable amount of compensation. However, considering the fact that many members of Congress are quick to label their positions as “public service” and that 237 members of Congress are already millionaires, this level of compensation amounts to one among many perks that lawmakers enjoy beyond their duties. And for higher-ranking members of Congress the financial perks even sweeter; the majority and minority leaders of the House of Representatives receive about $193,000 annually, with the speaker earning even more. Additionally, members of Congress can and do vote themselves pay raises, even though the majority of Americans have become victimized by stagnant wages during the last decade. Sadly, although money seems to be at the root of most perks, it is hardly the only one.
To Be Continued…
Monday, November 23, 2009
Death & Taxes...OK, Just Death Then.
So I’m watching CBS’s 60 Minutes last night, and right off the bat, the very first story catches my attention; “The Cost of Dying.”
The piece was about how the average American is willing to incur tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical fees and costs in the hope that medical science can (vainly) stem the one immutable universal fact of existence—eventual death—despite being irreparably ill in many of the cases. On last night’s broadcast, the producers focused on the cases of two older individuals who were suffering from different but mutually advanced medical conditions that required extensive hospitalization. That in turn, consisted of constant and virtual round-the-clock attention, which was apparent by the array of monitors, ventilators, and a host of other medical machinery the individuals were connected to. The conclusion is that, in addition to the high financial costs, many Americans are willing to pay for a few precious weeks or months of life by trading quality of life for a marginal existence. The subject got me to thinking about the issue of end-of-life care in
Watch CBS News Videos Online
First, as someone who is a stern advocate for affordable universal health care, I realized that every American has not only a stake in such an endeavor, but a responsibility as well. Our demand for good health—despite our unhealthy and overindulgent lifestyles—contributes to the high cost of health care, which in turn contributes to the prohibitive costs of health insurance for those who simply cannot afford it. For some insane reason, we tend to ignore the fact that what we eat, our vices, and the stressors we allow to creep into our lives is how we ultimately end up like the individuals showcased on last night’s 60 Minutes piece…straining for a few more moments of life in spite of the cancers, cardiovascular, and other lifestyle-related diseases we inflict on ourselves. It’s somewhat analogous to another aspect of our paradoxical obsession with maintaining our health in the face of counter-productive behavior; we are too quick to go to the hospital for every little sniffle, sneeze, and paper-cut, over-medicating ourselves despite knowing that what will be will be. In order to make insurance affordable, we have to put an end to unnecessary procedures, medicines, and paranoid-inspired office/hospital visits; that includes wasting time with questionable practices such as putting frail 90-year-olds on transplant lists, which leads to a second observation.
We Americans need to change our perspectives on the end of life. As I watched last night’s piece, I became somewhat annoyed at the fact that the individuals who were fighting to vainly prolong their lives knew that they had only a couple months left under the best of circumstances, and that all of the medical personnel, monetary, and other resources were essentially being wasted. We need to understand that death is a natural progression of the natural order; we all die, it’s just that simple. Obviously I’m not saying that we should just walk freely into the night simply because it’s out ultimate destiny. What I am saying is that we should embrace our destiny with a different attitude, one that allows us to readily accept and come to terms with our mortality. We fear too easily and struggle too vainly against something which we have ultimate control over. Catastrophic illness is the way of things…it always has been, it always will be. I know that I wouldn’t my life extended vainly, especially if it cripples the quality of my life. Being connected to yards of hoses and wires, and to various machines while just laying in bed 24/7, trying to stave off an inevitable death is no “life” at all. Unless there is a decent chance for recovery and for a modicum of a normal life, we should just accept that death is the reward that awaits us all, which leads to a third perspective.
In lieu of wasting valuable resources on (the) hopeless efforts of trying to purchase a few mere moments of life for those who are in irreparable in poor health, we should place more of an emphasis on hospice care. For those who feel so inclined, physician-assisted measures to ensure that death-with-dignity should also be an option (although personally, I would only favor this as an option only if someone’s eventual demise will consist of pain and/or suffering, such as in the case of certain cancer patients). The conclusion is that we should consider more options when it comes to end of life treatment for those who have little time left, options which allow us to divert resources and save money in the long run. When it comes to the prospect of bettering our health, perhaps we should start with how we view and face the end of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
