Why are elected officials above the "people"?

[Kearsen]

In essence, why do they pass laws designed to help or hinder the populace as a whole but stipulate differences for themselves.
The two biggies I can think of are health care and retirement.

Any real good reason why this must be so?

[runner pat]

Because they can.

And the voters don't punish them for the behavior.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Because they can.

And the voters don't punish them for the behavior.

Pretty much this.

I never gave it a lot of thought but occasionally I think a constitutional amendment should be made that ties what elected reps give themselves to everyone else. For instance their healthcare plan should be available to anyone who wants to buy into it at the same rate they do. Same with retirement benefits. Any pay increase for them must see an equivalent increase in the minimum wage and so on.

[Kearsen]

Pretty much this.

I never gave it a lot of thought but occasionally I think a constitutional amendment should be made that ties what elected reps give themselves to everyone else. For instance their healthcare plan should be available to anyone who wants to buy into it at the same rate they do. Same with retirement benefits. Any pay increase for them must see an equivalent increase in the minimum wage and so on.

Would this cover it?

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."

[Simplicio]

In essence, why do they pass laws designed to help or hinder the populace as a whole but stipulate differences for themselves.
The two biggies I can think of are health care and retirement.

Any real good reason why this must be so?

Congress has to pay into Social Security and will be required to buy insurance off the exchanges created by the Health Care Reform bill. So I don't really know what your talking about.

So short answer, "they're not". Indeed, in the case of health care reform, they went to sort of silly lengths to make sure they weren't exempt.

[Voyager]

Know why they have a decent plan? Because they are employed in important jobs, that is why.
Here (http://public-healthcare-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/health_care_for_the_us_congress) is a short description of their plan, from a site giving the same "why doesn't everyone have it" spin. It doesn't sound all that much different from the plan I have, to tell you the truth. Notice it is not a special plan for them, but part of a plan for all government employees.

Give this to everyone, and we have UHC. I'm sure some Congressmen would like that, and some wouldn't. However them getting this plan is no different from a guy with a good union job getting a plan, or an executive getting a plan.

I'm for healthcare for everyone, but this kind of comment pisses me off, since they are part of a larger set which seems to be unable to tell the difference between a guy, elected by the people of his or her state after a grueling campaign and dealing with complex issues, and a ditch digger. Any person in the country can apply for any number of jobs with benefits about this good. However, if they blew off school because that book learning will never get you anywhere, and never got a decent education of the degrees you need, tough. Everyone deserves decent basic coverage, but if you want more than that, work for it.

[Voyager]

Congress has to pay into Social Security and will be required to buy insurance off the exchanges created by the Health Care Reform bill. So I don't really know what your talking about.

So short answer, "they're not". Indeed, in the case of health care reform, they went to sort of silly lengths to make sure they weren't exempt.

Really? Are they in particular not covered by the Federal Employees plan anymore, or is that part of the exchange? Just curious.

[Kearsen]

What would it take to get that into law? A highly public campaign on behalf of the people, by the people? I don't see it being proposed by the House or the Senate.

[runner pat]

Time Magazine-Above Their Own Laws. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html)

[Voyager]

I'm curious about the political leanings of those who are worried about this kind of thing. Are they liberals, who want everyone brought up to the same high level as Congress, or are they conservatives, who want to say politicians are the selfish elite? I think Kearsen is relatively conservative - do you have any idea of the tax increase required to implement such a plan, or would you rather make these benefits less than the average engineer gets?

[Fear Itself]

Time Magazine-Above Their Own Laws. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html)Dated May 23, 1988

Must I document every change in government policy for the last 22 years?

[Simplicio]

Really? Are they in particular not covered by the Federal Employees plan anymore, or is that part of the exchange? Just curious.

No, the Health Care Bill forces them to drop their federal coverage and buy off the exchanges. As I said, this is pretty silly, since the Health Care bill was purposely designed to exempt people who get good coverage from their work anyways. So in order to please people like the OP, Congress basically bent over backwords and exempt themselves from the exemption that everyone else got.

Runner Pat, are you seriously citing an article from 1988. (also, I guessed the article would be from the 80's before I clicked, which I think tells you something).

[Kearsen]

I'm curious about the political leanings of those who are worried about this kind of thing. Are they liberals, who want everyone brought up to the same high level as Congress, or are they conservatives, who want to say politicians are the selfish elite? I think Kearsen is relatively conservative - do you have any idea of the tax increase required to implement such a plan, or would you rather make these benefits less than the average engineer gets?

Personally, I think the benefits for serving in a public office should be the type of transparent we have been promised but always failed to provide.
Pay should be the primary incentive (well, that and wanting to actually work for your country)
The back room deals, the private jets and whatever else that usually stays above the general public eye needs to be brought in line with what the general public feels a public servant should be getting as "just compensation".

Leaving it up to them seems to be an exercise in futility. People all over the world are self serving yet we expect them to be above that (and they should be)

Oh, my political leaning is conservative splashed with some liberal values and some libertarian ideals.

[Simplicio]

Keasen are you going to acutally tell us what problems you're trying to address? What laws are Congress exempt from that you feel they shouldn't be?

[runner pat]

Dated May 23, 1988

Must I document every change in government policy for the last 22 years?



Runner Pat, are you seriously citing an article from 1988. (also, I guessed the article would be from the 80's before I clicked, which I think tells you something).

Sorry about that, the Google search showed a different date and I didn't notice the actual date.
Above Their Own Laws - TIME
Nov 3, 2009 ... Congress has exempted itself from equal-employment laws that might ... Workers there complain that they are sometimes forced to labor ...
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html -

[Mr Smashy]

As Voy suggested, I think that they have incredibly difficult jobs, and deserve the extra scatch/bennies. With all the fundraising, constituent services, and travel, they are probably working 6-7 days a week, 10-14 hrs a day. The pay may seem good at a buck 74 a year (http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm), but that's really not all that much, especially considering most of these guys (and gals) are lawyers and could make as much or more in the private sector, with a lot less headaches. I know that my congressman had to quit, not run for re-election in 2008, because he said he needed to make more coin (The moderate T. Davis, for those who are interested).

Also remember that these guys need to maintain both a residence in their home district, and get a place somewhere close to Capitol Hill.

At the end of the day, I have no problems with the good retirement plan and any extra healthcare fringe they get. (Although the real 'retirement plan' is the connections they make on the hill, for when they get out and either consult, lobby, or work for a gov contractor).

[Voyager]

Personally, I think the benefits for serving in a public office should be the type of transparent we have been promised but always failed to provide.
Pay should be the primary incentive (well, that and wanting to actually work for your country)
The back room deals, the private jets and whatever else that usually stays above the general public eye needs to be brought in line with what the general public feels a public servant should be getting as "just compensation".

Leaving it up to them seems to be an exercise in futility. People all over the world are self serving yet we expect them to be above that (and they should be)

Oh, my political leaning is conservative splashed with some liberal values and some libertarian ideals.

Pay for high office is pretty pitiful in general, thanks to pressure from the press and those who don't understand industry pay scales - not even CEO ones. I know someone very high up in state government (was on TV all the time) who was responsible for billions of dollars and made peanuts. When the administration changed and he went into private industry at last, he doubled his pay overnight - and for a much less stressful job.

As for backroom deals, the healthcare summit illustrated what front room deals look like - posturing for the voters. Complex negotiations in industry are not done in front of employees or stockholders - why should political deals be done this way?

[Kearsen]

Keasen are you going to acutally tell us what problems you're trying to address? What laws are Congress exempt from that you feel they shouldn't be?

I'm guessing any that are distinctly different from what they themselves would be willing to use.
The two I listed were health care and retirement. The health care one seems to have an answer (I'm doing some research on it). What about the retirement one?
This also seems to bring many other details out in the open as any good discussion would, I suppose.

I know that runner pat has a pretty substantial list, have all of those been adjusted for in recent years?

[Kearsen]

Pay for high office is pretty pitiful in general, thanks to pressure from the press and those who don't understand industry pay scales - not even CEO ones. I know someone very high up in state government (was on TV all the time) who was responsible for billions of dollars and made peanuts. When the administration changed and he went into private industry at last, he doubled his pay overnight - and for a much less stressful job.

As for backroom deals, the healthcare summit illustrated what front room deals look like - posturing for the voters. Complex negotiations in industry are not done in front of employees or stockholders - why should political deals be done this way?

To answer you simply, because they affect each and every one of us. Are you now advocating that government should be run like a corporation?

[Simplicio]

I'm guessing any that are distinctly different from what they themselves would be willing to use.

The two I listed were health care and retirement. The health care one seems to have an answer (I'm doing some research on it). What about the retirement one?

What do you mean "retirement". Assuming you mean Social Security, Congress has to buiy into Social Security just as everyone else does. This is another case in which they forced themselves to not exempt themselves even though an exemption would've actually made sense, since federal employees already had a government insured pension plan. So again, I think the reality is the opposite of what you guess, Congress actually tends to take pains to not exempt themselves from their own legislation, even when such an exemption would make sense.

Frankly, its a little bizarre to start a post suggesting a remedy for a problem that you "guess" exists, but have no actual evidence for.

[Voyager]

To answer you simply, because they affect each and every one of us. Are you now advocating that government should be run like a corporation?

In the sense that government should realize that they are in competition with business for good people, yes. If you pay politicians crap, you'll get those who are rich and don't care about the money, failures in private life, or expecting to make connections to cash in when they leave. In plenty of countries they pay cops a pittance, and the cops make up for it through bribery or theft. Is that how you want government to work?

[5 time champ]

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."

Hmm- I love it, free USPS mail service for everybody. Well, for everybody's "official business". The franking privilege is one of the biggest perks MCs have.

[Kearsen]

I am not talking Social Security.
I'm talking about the Federal Employees' Retirement System. Where can I get some of that action?

[Kearsen]

In the sense that government should realize that they are in competition with business for good people, yes. If you pay politicians crap, you'll get those who are rich and don't care about the money, failures in private life, or expecting to make connections to cash in when they leave. In plenty of countries they pay cops a pittance, and the cops make up for it through bribery or theft. Is that how you want government to work?

Can we separate what the entitlements are? Are we now talking about a pay scale? I was talking about how deals get done. Since those deals transcend the Congress, why should they be private?
Talking about the rights and privileges of Congress goes far beyond pay. Do teachers get what they deserve? They do far more for this country than Congress (for far less)

[Simplicio]

I am not talking Social Security.
I'm talking about the Federal Employees' Retirement System. Where can I get some of that action?

By becoming a federal employee. You're complaining that you don't get the same job benefits as employees of the federal gov't, and that's somehow unfair? I mean, I don't get the same benefits as the employees of Microsoft either.

Plus, I don't really see how your Amendment would fix that. I seriously doubt that any Judge would read that Amendment as affecting how Congress compensate its employees.

I mean, Congressional salaries are set by law to. Do you honestly think that everyone should be mandated by the Constitution to get paid the same as their Congressmen? That seems, well, kinda communist.

This thread is getting silly.

[Kearsen]

It is your stance then, that no differences exist?

[Simplicio]

It is your stance then, that no differences exist?

I already named one difference, Congress members have to join the Health Insurance exchanges when they wouldn't have to if they were non-Congress folks with similar benefits. So obviously there are differences. They just aren't difference created to create the kind of unfair perk you seem to invision in your OP.

My stance is that we're on post #26 and you still haven't articulated exactly what the problem is you're trying to solve. You guess that there must be laws that apply to us that don't apply to congress, but your not sure what those laws are or why they're a problem. You are, however, of the opinion that we need an Amendment to prohibit this thing which may or may not be happening.

So again, what law exempts Congressfolk that you feel is unfair and justifies a constitutional Amendment?

[Fear Itself]

It is your stance then, that no differences exist?It is my stance that differences do exist, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Is it your stance that everyone should make as much as a Congressman?

[Honesty]

Would this cover it?

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."

Oooo. Why hasn't this passed?

[Little Nemo]

Credit where it's due. Closing congressional exemptions like this was one of the things Newt Gingrich worked on when he was Speaker of the House back in the nineties.

[Voyager]

Can we separate what the entitlements are? Are we now talking about a pay scale? I was talking about how deals get done. Since those deals transcend the Congress, why should they be private?
Talking about the rights and privileges of Congress goes far beyond pay. Do teachers get what they deserve? They do far more for this country than Congress (for far less)

First, teachers don't get paid enough, not by a long shot, but I think an individual congressperson can do more good (and more bad) than an individual teacher. That is not knocking teachers in the slightest.

Do you think the nations business would be done better with all negotiations televised? How many people actually have the time (and the training) to understand the issues. How many people have aides to brief them on issues, and to read and summarize bills for them? People respond to sound bite and simplistic labels - see Death Panels. People who don't have to deal with the direct consequences - most of us - won't see the benefits of compromise, which is what politics is all about. With no compromise we can easily go to extremes. If negotiations are open, any member of a party compromising will get beat up by the extremists (happened with the Republicans who were working out a health care compromise) and so they will harden their stance for political survival.

In California we have let the people vote directly on way too many laws, and the people are swayed by ads and lies and soundbites. It's been a disaster. Is that what you want for the country?

[Sage Rat]

Would this cover it?

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."

Cool. I'm looking forward to that $50k a year salary, research staff, guard detail, and expensed flights!

The reason that government officials have a health care plan is for the same reason that 99% of everyone has a health care plan. The organization they work at has one. This isn't particularly remarkable.

[sqweels]

What kind of benefits do state representatives or small town mayors get?

[Markxxx]

One huge factor is that politicians are for the most part, lawyers. This means they all have been trained to "think alike." I don't mean they're all robots but they come from the same "School." Think of it like kids that go to Catholic School vs Public School. Certainly you can get the same educations but there's a method to the teaching that still comes through.

Because most politicians are lawyers they go through that methodology to get their law degrees. This influences them when they go into politics.

Now-a-days it cost so much to run for an election. It's estimated to cost about 20 million on average to RUN for a US Senate seat. This is not counting the primaries before.

So you don't need to be rich, but you need a rich backer, or Oprah Winfrey or in some cases both :)

I agree that all government officials should be offered the industry standard in terms of wages and benfits.

Of course the logic is, "But then the best candidates won't run." Well the "best" don't run now.

All we have now is politicians that know how to manipulate a system to get elected. Voters don't care because in reality there's not that much difference. Even though the Republicans and Democrats fight a lot, if you compare side by side, there's not much difference. This is because as soon as one party falls out of favour it simply adopts whatever platfor the "in power" party opposes.

We lack visonaries in this country. It's too easy to promise then say "Sorry, couldn't deliver, and the voters time and time, forgive this." And when you have an honest candidate who points out the person won't be able to deliver, they are ignored. And even later when proved right, the voters don't care.

Henry Clay once said, “I'd rather be right than President."

Can you imagine anyone in today's poltical climate saying that? :D

[Voyager]

Henry Clay once said, “I'd rather be right than President."

Can you imagine anyone in today's poltical climate saying that? :D

They'll all say it.

They won't mean it, but they'll say it.