What follows is an angry email I received, and my reasons for not agreeing to spread it further without revisions:
No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, and only get 50% of their pay. While Politicians hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, and receive full pay retirement after serving one term. It just does
not make any sense.
Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.
Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever.. The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply
equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."You are one of my 20+
"If you choose not to decide ~ you still have made a choice"
2:02 PM (3 minutes ago)
 | | |||
Dear Friends,
Like most of you, I am plenty mad at Congress.
However:
Several reasons why I cannot spread this email proposal any further -- at least not yet.
Its anger & frustration are fully justified, IF better targeted.
In fact, notice yesterday's front-page article about how our Constitution is losing its appeal around the world, unless amended. [Google it, or, here's the link:
Now, the reasons why we must clean up this original email, however admirable its animus:
1. Most glaring mistake: "it takes only 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention." Not true, it's easier than that! A careful reading of Article V of the original seven-article unamended 1787 Constitution says, there are 2 ways for a new amendment to get "proposed"; then, once that happens, there are 2 ways that the new amendment can get "ratified."
One route to "proposed" has never been used before: When "the legislatures of
2/3 [NOT 3/4] of the several states shall call a Convention for proposingamendments . . . [etc.]" If that ever happens, then it will take 3/4 of either special state conventions, or of the regular state legislatures, to "ratify" that Constitutional Convention's 28th amendment, thereby putting it into effect.
Otherwise, a new amendment must be "proposed" the way all previous 27 amendments were: by a 2/3 majority of both Houses of Congress -- a tough road, during our current ideological polarization.
2. Now hold your fire, but: There may be a legitimate reason why 20-year veterans get only 50% of their pay, up front [with the rest paid later?]. In 1932, the famous "Bonus Army" of WWI veterans marched on Washington to get their bonuses paid before scheduled in 1941. Not sure, but I think Congress's original intent for paying in installments was to help giddy young veterans avoid blowing it all at once, especially in the spending orgy before 1929-1932. Whatever Congress's intent, then & now, should we not research it, to see if it is based on a legitimate concern?
3. The second paragraph, below, confuses: "the staffers of Congress family members"? Does it mean to say, "family members of Congressional staffers"?
I hope so, because that is maddening enough. If not, "they learned" exactly what, "Monday on Fox [N]ews"? And who is "they"?
4. Same paragraph: "This will get national attention if other news networks willbroadcast it." Actually, Fox News is already powerfully national. Its ratings dwarf those of ABC, CBS, NBC, and crush the absurdly liberal MSNBC. Trouble is, the author's implicit frustration in her/his words "if other news networks will broadcast it" stems from the unhappy fact that Fox News has earned just as unreliable a reputation as MSNBC, but in the opposite direction. Roger Ailes himself, pre-Fox, marvelled at the huge market of what he called "angry white conservative males," and built Fox Network to reach that market. [We guys won't complain, but, ever notice the bevy of short skirts on Fox News in the mornings? If we want morecredibility for our favored Fox News -- as implied in the frustrated sentence above -- Fox has to move halfway, right?] Sad truth is, the only brief window, when our national TV news came from sources that at least aspired to be impartial, was the postwar years dominated by ABC, CBS, NBC, a la Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite ["the most trusted man in America"].
5. "Members of Congress could retire with the same [beginning-scale? senior-scale?] pay after only one term." Look, Congressional insider-trading, lavish perqs, ANY salary, infuriate me too. And, the first two of these should indeed get abolished. But, consider the alternative to salarying our Representatives and Senators. The Founding Fathers hated British Parliaments filled with wealthy gentlemen who did not need any salary; we wanted at least some representatives with a modest background, who needed a salary just to get by. Today, Congressional salaries are the most modest things about them!
6. "[Congress] specifically exempted themselves from many ['all'?] of the laws they have passed . . . " I, too, loathe proven sexual harrassers, etc., in Congress, and they should pay big-time for their crimes after their term of office
-- and without statute of limitations. But remember, the Founding Fathers put such Congressional protections in the 1787 Constitution, because they felt that no duly elected people's representative, during term of office, should be intimidated from serving his constituents by opponents' efforts to muzzle or accuse with possibly trumped-up charges. Such tactics had certainly impaired representation back in 18th-century Europe!
7. As for Congress's exemption from Healthcare Reform: "Somehow, that doesn't seem logical." But the Founders feared that tempted legislators might lard up anybill, on any subject, so that Congressmen themselves would benefit from its provisions during their terms. Besides, if ever there would be proof that "Obamacare" is too cushy & extreme & expensive, it would be in the circumstance that Congress would want to replace its own current sweet coverage with Obamacare.
But the fact is -- and we all know it -- members of Congress enjoy a far cushier, more comprehensive, taxpayer-funded health coverage. So, either they should have to pay the same future skyrocketing healthcare costs & private-sector insurance rates that we do, OR, we should get their state-of-the-art superior coverage they have, WHILE figuring out a better way to save us, our grandchildren -- AND our duly elected representatives -- with better solutions than either Democrats or Republicans have so far devised. Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic -- their better, cheaper methods may be on the right track. The trouble with Obama, and Romney, and their opponents, is that all of them have barely scratched the surface of a future problem that will bring everyone down soon.
Instead of demonizing Tea Partiers, or Romney, or Obama, let's study Congresspersons' own healthcare coverage, see why they prefer it, and then figure out how to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad & obscenely expensive parts!
AFTER THE EMAIL AUTHOR CORRECTS THESE 7 PROBLEMS, THEN I'LL EAGERLY TRY TO SPREAD THE REVISED VERSION, TO THE FEW FOLKS WHO ADMIT TO BEING MY FRIEND.
Respectfully,
Edwin G. Quattlebaum
Retiree with too much time on his hands
A superb deconstruction! There is a lot of bologna flying around the Internet, some of which sounds extremely, or even liberally, plausible.
ReplyDeleteGood job with that link!