Just two years ago, I published the original commentary on July 16, 2013 concerning Congressional Salaries. This was the second of a two part commentary where on July 15, 2013, I discussed Term Limits. I have posted these several times because I believe that in order to resolve the “old boy” network in the Congress, and virtually no one in the Congress will vote for a loss of his or her “job”, it is time to have the States impose a required Term Limit on existing Members of Congress.
The Framers did not believe that these positions were to be for life, or for the most powerful or for those with the financial resources to keep their high esteemed positions. This was Public Service not Civil Service. Too bad this concept has become so misunderstood over time.
In addition, this was not supposed to be a position where a Member could profit from either during their time in office or in the time after they left, either by retirement, resignation, or election, and certainly not at the taxpayers’ expense.
Please find below the original commentary and the addition added last year as the movement Term Limits For Congress kicked off the drive to use Article V of the Constitution to have the States impose Term Limits on ALL Members of Congress. And please find my update posted yesterday called The Push For Article V and Term Limits. You can find both of these and many others either at TheMinorityReportblog.com, TheBoldPursuit.com or on my blogsite, Frankmchalesviews.com. Thanks for your loyalty and your comments.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Congressional Salaries (revisited)
On May 26, 2014, Term Limits for US Congress began the process under Article V of the Constitution to persuade at least 34 states (2/3) to call for a Constitutional amendment to limit terms of Representatives and Senators. On July 15 and 16, 2013, I wrote a two part commentary discussing Term Limits and also Congressional Salaries.
I have republished both of these yesterday and today in support of such an Amendment to the Constitution. As always, your comments are welcome. Thank you.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Congressional Salaries
Yesterday, I discussed Term Limits for Representatives and Senators. Essentially, we need to force Members of Congress to put forward and pass legislation which will prohibit any American from serving more than 12 years in either position.
There is, I admit, one flaw in my proposal that I failed to address and that is crossover. What I mean by this for example, if a Representative wishes to run for Senator and he hasn't exhausted the 12 year rule, he may run, and if he is re-elected and serves his remainder of 12 years as a Senator, he MAY NOT run as a Representative again. He has given more than enough to the country, with our thanks. Basically, the person serves up to a total of 12 years and that's it. At no time may the MC exceed 12 years between the House and Senate.
With regard to salaries, the 27th Amendment discusses how and when Congressional salaries are adjusted. Since Members of Congress maintain businesses outside their role in the Congress, there is no need to bankrupt the country with exorbitant salary increments. Instead, the salary increment may not exceed 1/2 of 1% of the average private industry increase.
This formula is pretty straight-forward. Remember that a Representative or Senator ran for this position to devote time to the country, not to get rich off the taxpayer. In addition, by limiting salary increments this way, one would want to leave and move on to other ventures, leaving room for new blood to take the reins of power. "Fresh minds have fresh ideas," Kirk said to Scott in Star Trek II, The Wrath of Khan.
Medical benefits would not be the high priced package that MC currently enjoys. Even if Obamacare is repealed and replaced, a congressional benefits package would be equal to that of an average American family, with co-pays, deductibles and employee paid premiums the rest of us pay. The benefits are lost when the Member leaves office, whether by election or retirement. There is no COBRA eligibility with a congressional position.
With regard to pensions, it is absolutely disgraceful that a Member of Congress continues to be paid his salary as a pension after he leaves office. Instead, since the MC will serve only serve 12 years, as in private industry there is vesting time to be applied to how the pension is awarded.
No pension is paid to anyone who serves less than 5 years, and since the MC can serve only 12 years, the most he or she will be awarded is 1/3 their average salary as a pension. And since an IRA participant generally may not receive the benefit without penalty before 59 1/2 years old, neither may the retired Member of Congress. But the pension will only be paid on a program of 10 Year period certain.
Finally, should the retired Member of Congress choose to take a position with a company, agency or any other type of employment or consulting that is recognized as one who is a lobby company to the Congress or any other Federal Department or Agency, the pension rights are lost forever.
With regard to existing and retired congress men and women, they will be affected by this change, as well. Effective at the time appropriate legislation is passed, the 10 year period certain will kick in for all, at 1/3 of their average salary for time served, up to 12 years. Again, if they served less than five years, any existing pension or pension rights will expire as of December 31 of the effective year. If they are lobbyists or other positions not permitted to get pensions, their payout will cease at the end of the month of enactment.
This legislation will begin to cut into unnecessary expenses that the country can no longer afford. And isn't everybody's goal to cut the deficit? Let's start with those who allowed this to happen.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment