Congressional Amendmant to Constitution

[punisher73]

I get this every so often, many people have talked about amending the Constitution with a new addition for how Congress and it's members operates.

Here is what is suggested, what are your thoughts?

Congressional Reform Act of 2011
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.
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.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. 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.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is 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.

 

[granfire]

whoever drafted that is too liberal for the US...


I mean, it's sensational, but it will never pass....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is also factually incorrect in a number of ways. The person pushing this is actually wrong about how Congress pays for their retirement, health care, and other items. I don't have time at the moment to list all the ways it is wrong, but suffice to say, it's junk.

NOTE: And as it turns out, my internal BS indicator was right again:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

 

[Steve]

I might agree to term limits, but there are some common myths mixed in there, specifically items 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

Congressmen and senators pay into social security just like the rest of us. They were, up until 1984, covered under CSRS like every Federal employee. At that time, ALL Feds moved to FERS (the Federal Employees Retirement System) that includes a pension based on service, a Thrift Savings Plan (functionally the same as a 401k), and Social Security.

Like every other federal employee, congressional staff can take their retirement only if they've had 20 years of covered service (military service can count if it's not already being used to calculate a military retirement) and are at least 50 years old.

More on FERS can be found here: http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp

With regards to health care, Congress also has access to the same health care as every federal employee. It's good, but not great. The choices include plans from GEHA, Blue Cross and other common carriers. They have a choice between HMOs, PPOs and consumer driven plans.

More on the health care options federal employees have can be found here: http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/index.asp

Item 7... I'm not aware of any immunity that Congress has. Do they have some kind of special immunity to the laws of the land?

Point is, there is a popular myth about their benefits that is partisan in nature. Just because you hear it on Fox news doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Steve]

It is also factually incorrect in a number of ways. The person pushing this is actually wrong about how Congress pays for their retirement, health care, and other items. I don't have time at the moment to list all the ways it is wrong, but suffice to say, it's junk.

NOTE: And as it turns out, my internal BS indicator was right again:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

Good old Snopes.

 

[Steve]

Congressmen and senators pay into social security just like the rest of us. They were, up until 1984, covered under CSRS like every Federal employee. At that time, ALL Feds moved to FERS (the Federal Employees Retirement System) that includes a pension based on service, a Thrift Savings Plan (functionally the same as a 401k), and Social Security.

Reread this and want to be a little more clear. All federal employees hired after 1984 are covered under FERS. Employees hired prior to 1984 are grandfathered. While they could opt into FERS, most didn't. There are some Federal employees still covered under CSRS (and so not under Social Security), but not many. This would include some Senators and Congressmen who were first elected prior to 1984.

I also wonder what #6 is really referring to. I mean, "same health care system as the American people." What health care system are you referring to? I am not aware that we have a National health care system. I wish we did. My impression is that this was conservative propaganda, but #6 seems downright liberal.

 

[crushing]

Some people see term limits as a limitation on the elected official. I used to see it that way too. I've changed my mind. Now I see term limits as a limit on people's right to keep in office the person they may feel most qualified to represent them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Well, there are many misconceptions about Congress, and I certainly have no love for them. They're mostly ego-maniacal, egocentric, megalomaniac, criminal, disreputable, dishonest, unethical, greedy, self-centered bastiches. Give or take a couple decent ones and many who start out that way but quickly become corrupted.

It is quite understandable that people would tend to believe misconceptions about these slime-balls. I dislike them as well (can you tell?) but I hope to base my enmity on facts rather than fiction.

As to the one item on the list that actually has some merit, term limits, I have given the matter a lot of thought. I guess on balance I'm against them.

The problem from my perspective is this; despite the intention of our founders that politicians not become a profession in and of itself, it has. One must understand the workings of government to be able to make it function. Elder elected officials show the newly-elected members the ropes, from where to park their cars to how to cast a ballot and what it means when a proposed law is titled one thing but means another. It's a world of intricacies, intrigues, and dirty-dealing back-stabbing, underhanded crooked card deals, one after another. And without a guide, a neophyte is utterly lost and ineffectual.

Now, one could say that well, all this nastiness and dishonesty should be done away with, and then anyone could do the job! I agree, but I don't think it will happen. Given the current clime and place, I have to say that it takes a crook to work in a crooked system effectively.

Imagine if all politicians were new every six years or so, or twice that if there were term limits. Ugly. You know who would be running things? The functionaries and bureaucrats who now already have too much power, that's who. Unelected career do-nothings, pouncetrifles, and paper-pushers who generally have nothing but malice in their hearts for the rest of the nation and who answer to no one. They'd have to be the ones showing the perpetually new Congress persons how to do their jobs, and you'd better believe they'd show them to do evil.

Imagine also the states themselves who elect the career politicians and keep sending them back again and again despite their horrible qualities. Why? Because they do two things when they've been around a long time. One, they bring home the bacon for the home state. Two, they get to serve on committees where they control massive appropriations and power. The new guys don't get access to that pig trough.

And of course, if you enact term limits - as some states have done - you end up with politicians just trading jobs anyway. The Senator becomes a Governor, the Governor becomes a member of the House, the House member becomes a Senator, and the music plays on...

And in any case, most of the politicians quickly discover that once they have learned the ropes and established themselves on Capitol Hill, they can leave office and make more money as lobbyists anyway; feeding back into the trough they once supped at, but for even more money personally.

Frankly, I'd prefer professional crooks to amateur crooks, if we have to have crooks. And I think we do, sadly.

 

[punisher73]

It is also factually incorrect in a number of ways. The person pushing this is actually wrong about how Congress pays for their retirement, health care, and other items. I don't have time at the moment to list all the ways it is wrong, but suffice to say, it's junk.

NOTE: And as it turns out, my internal BS indicator was right again:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

I should have been clear, I was just listing those as an example as a starting point for discussion. I don't believe chainmail letters as facts.

As a whole, I would like to see somethings changed with how Congress works and how they are still paid after their terms of service are done. But, I don't know the answer.

 

[punisher73]

Reread this and want to be a little more clear. All federal employees hired after 1984 are covered under FERS. Employees hired prior to 1984 are grandfathered. While they could opt into FERS, most didn't. There are some Federal employees still covered under CSRS (and so not under Social Security), but not many. This would include some Senators and Congressmen who were first elected prior to 1984.

I also wonder what #6 is really referring to. I mean, "same health care system as the American people." What health care system are you referring to? I am not aware that we have a National health care system. I wish we did. My impression is that this was conservative propaganda, but #6 seems downright liberal.

As the Snopes article pointed out, when I first saw this type of email (I've probably gotten variations around 3-4 times) it was when they first started pushing the healthcare reform. Many people believed that Congress would be exempt from this reform and would have better insurance than everyone and not pay for it at all.

 

[Steve]

I should have been clear, I was just listing those as an example as a starting point for discussion. I don't believe chainmail letters as facts.

As a whole, I would like to see somethings changed with how Congress works and how they are still paid after their terms of service are done. But, I don't know the answer.

They're paid after their terms of service only if they have served long enough to qualify for a pension. Just as if you serve in the military, work for any other government position, or become vested in a private pension system. What would you change?

Thrift Savings (tsp.gov) functions almost identically to a standard 401k, with up to 5% matching for FERS employees. So, if they are paying in and become vested, it's their money.

Social Security also works the same way as it does for everyone else.

Regarding the health care reform, if we went to a national health care system, I'd agree wholeheartedly that they should also participate.

 

[granfire]

Some people see term limits as a limitation on the elected official. I used to see it that way too. I've changed my mind. Now I see term limits as a limit on people's right to keep in office the person they may feel most qualified to represent them.

But as past history shows, after a decade or so in office even the best people are outlived by the changing times.

 

[crushing]

But as past history shows, after a decade or so in office even the best people are outlived by the changing times.

Then they are no longer the best and it is up to someone else to get elected, if the voters so choose.

 

[Xue Sheng]

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Careful about the wording here, the legislature and assembly of NYS do not vote themselves a pay raise either...

If no one votes... it passes automatically.

The Feds may just end up loving this one if it were ever an amendment

 

[jks9199]

That's actually how the congressional pay raise works now, too. Unless the Congress affirmatively rejects it -- they get a raise. Even if the rest of the government's pay is frozen.

Regarding Congressional Immunity -- that exists. See HERE for a quick summary of the limits -- but broadly, Congress members may not be arrested while Congress is in session. The logic for this is similar to the logic for diplomatic immunity: you wouldn't want a Congress member to be arrested to prevent them from going to vote.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You asked, so here goes...

1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

I agree with Bill on this one. There are too many things that these politicians need to know in order to correctly do their jobs. (I say that with the caveat that I believe that Congress has far exceeded it's Constitutionally allowed scope, but it is what the Courts have allowed).

Not only that, but, as Crushing says, it really only limits the ability of the electorate to vote in whomever they want. That is the antithesis of a Republican democracy, the ability to elect someone to represent you in the way that you so desire.

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

This seems to already be in place. I'm fine with it, though I can see some potential problems if we really wanted an "ideal" candidate. After all, why would, say, a successful business man who could provide a boon to the citizens by participating in government choose to do so when he would basically have to take "time out" from his life in order to do so.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

Congress does participate in Social Security.

Members
are now covered under one of four different retirement arrangements:

! Full coverage under both CSRS and Social Security;

! The “CSRS Offset” plan, which includes both CSRS and Social
Security, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by
Social Security contributions and benefits;

! FERS plus Social Security; or

! Social Security alone.

​

​

​

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

Congress does purchase their own retirement plan, but through the government like most employees.

Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($97,500 in 2007). Members covered by FERS also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $97,500 of salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

​

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Congress can't vote themselves a pay raise now. They can only vote the next Congress, of which there is no guarantee that they will be a part, a raise.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

As has been said, there is not "health care system of the American people."

7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

They are already subject to the same laws. However, I think that we can certainly agree that due to their position, they are not held as liable as the everyday citizen. I think this needs to stop, as, personally, I would take great satisfaction in arresting any politician on any given day for even the most minor of offenses.

But, there were some specific protections put into place to prevent politicians from screwing each other over to prevent rivals from voting, and other mischief.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

What contract?

Serving in Congress is 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.

This is not necessarily true. In fact, although they may not have spent their entire careers in any one branch of Federal government, many of the Founders moved back and forth amongst the various branches. So though it may not have been "intended" that they stay forever, neither did the Founders prevent it (intentionally), nor did they all practice "going home at the end of their term."