Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
Every elected federal official — president, senator and member of Congress — has enough personal wealth to survive on a salary of $1 a year until the United States’ fiscal house returns to the “plus” status. In addition, the number of six-figure staff positions, the transportation perks and all other financial benefits demanded by our public servants in Washington should be equally curtailed.
It should be obvious to the most casual observer that as long as legislators and government officials wallow in the luxury of continuous “comfortable” income, there is absolutely no motivation or urgency to do anything about the decaying fiscal condition and controls for which they are responsible.
When you are poor and heavily in debt, it is unrealistic to spend money that you don’t have on exotic travel and gala dinners. For that you need deep pockets full of cash, as our government has by way of taxpayer dollars.
You and I earn $1 and we have $1 to spend. Our government officials don’t earn anything, but they tax a dollar and spend $1.25. You and I measure our expenditures according to our ability to afford them. Our elected officials are willing and able to take as much of our money in order to feed the glut of their own aggrandizement.
The ineptitude on the part of elected officials to come to grips with the responsibility to serve their constituents runs the gamut of federal, state, county and local governments.
As long as Congress is able to control its own purse strings and guarantee members’ salaries and perks, the dream of public servants serving the public might remain just that.
FACT
"The ineptitude on the part of elected officials to come to grips with the responsibility to serve their constituents runs the gamut of federal, state, county and local governments."
FACT
When will Obama lead on Spending limits on growth
Polls show that if tax go up over 80% of the people also want spending cut
Future,
Until both parties stop using 'baseline' budgeting, we will be offered spending cuts that are not really cuts. When spending for a government agency or department is automatically scheduled for a 5 % increase and the increase is reduced to 3 % and that is called a 'cut', we are doomed. This is nonsense.
Michael
The United States of America has a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR overspending problem every year. We have to deal with it or the fiscal cliff dive will take us to Europe.
CarmineD
In reply to Robert S. Tobias; under Article I, Sec.6 of the Constitution, Congress is entitled to a compensation package for its services. Under Article I, Sec. 7, the Congress, subject to the veto powers of the President, has the exclusive right to pass laws giving Congress, or themselves, these same outrageous compensation packages.
If the voting public in America really wanted to take away the right of Congress to grant itself pay raises, the Constitution would have to be amended. Since I'm quite sure this would require a two-thirds approval of both houses of Congress, I seriously doubt this would ever happen.
Why? The answer is simple. The American voting public is a combination of uninformed (negligence) and caught up in voting for a candidate who supports their own personal agenda of voracity.
Your letter to the editor, Mr. Tobias is full of complaints about our politicians, but I'd be willing to place a bet that you voted in the past election. In other words, Mr. Tobias, you assisted in putting these gluttonous politicians in office.
Get with it Mr. Tobias, even though Congress votes themselves pay raises, with the President's blessings, as usual, each subject Congressional raise doesn't take effect until the next session of Congress. Guess what? This gives voters the opportunity to vote these rapaciousness politicians out.
Does the American voting public take advantage of this huge window of opportunity? No way. Americans tolerate all kinds of misbehaviors in those that they vote for, and are still voting for them. Shame on you, Mr. Tobias, and the rest of the American voting public!
A QUESTION FOR THE NEVADA WHIG CHAIRMAN; MR. JIM BACON
Would any and all candidates of your political party that receives your endorsement be required to pledge their vote in favor of amending the Constitution in removing the right of Congress to grant itself pay raises? Would every Whig Party candidate support a popular vote only from the People should any requests for Congressional pay / benefit increases be introduced for consideration?
CarmineD says "The United States of America has a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR overspending problem every year"
We have a deficit problem, not just a spending problem. So, pretending that undertaxing does not contribute anything to the deficit problem ignores reality. According to the Congressional Budget Office, going off the fiscal cliff would reduce the budgret deficit by $590 billion in 2013. Does that appeal to you Carmine?
The fact is that reducing spending is not simply a matter of having the will to do it. There are consequences to every spending cut. If you want to cut a trillion a year in spending, submit a list of where those cuts will come from. We all need to be careful what we ask for. We might just get it and we probably wouldn't like it.
"We have a deficit problem, not just a spending problem..@ Jim Weber
US has a deficit and debt problem because we spend more than we have. And do so every year and into the future. Simple math and simple budgeting. You can't spend more than you have year after year without imposing a huge debt on the future generations of Americans. Think Europe. That's where the fiscal cliff dive for Americans is headed.
CarmineD
"If you want to cut a trillion a year in spending, submit a list of where those cuts will come from. " @Jim Weber
Simpson-Bowles. 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases. I would add one more entitlement to S-B recommendations: Obamacare.
CarmineD
CarmineD
"US has a deficit and debt problem because we spend more than we have."
If you wrote the US has a deficit and debt problem because we spend more than we PAY, I'd agree.
There is nothing quite like the cleanup of a perfectly good monitor having coffee sprayed all over after reading the usual cast of suckups who post here before the sun rises.
This mornings laughter explosion moment came during the always long winded drama queening of BC. Here Bradley, catch up: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register... "A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)." This is after the house and senate in DC meet the 2/3 threshold. Yeah Brad, shame on us. That's the answer.
Then we get a question offered up as FACT:
"FACT
When will Obama lead on Spending limits on growth"
With regard to the letter to the editor, its premise is another in a long line of "A guy sittin' in a bar tryin' to solve the worlds problems" letters to the editor published here.
I am sure the author means well, but it is a position that has as much of a chance of passage as Carmine admitting he was wrong about Mitt Romney being elected.
You right wingers are a hoot.
JeffFromVegas: "You right wingers are a hoot."
Yeah, this forum at the left leaning Sun has become the go-to place for GOP whiners who ignore the election results, pretending it was their candidate (whatshisname?) who won 332 Electoral College votes, not President Obama. Nothing can infringe on a rich, fact-free fantasy.
Grouchy old white men banging on keyboards for hours on end is no way to live. Try stepping outside the bubble for a breath of fresh air.
Michael et al:
The reason the President and the Demas are pushing tax increases over spending cuts is as I explained.
First, Obama wants to divide the GOP on taxes because he wants cover for mid-terms in 2014 for raising taxes by saying the GOP was on board.
Second, Obama and the Dems don't want to gut/cut entitlements on their watch. It's unpopular with the people and mid terms are coming.
I've said what the GOP should do with the fiscal cliff dive. I said give into the President on tax increases on the top 2 percent to save the tax rates on the 98 percent which includes middle and working classes. Then the new Congress and the President can work out the grand bargain next year.
President can relax the automatic spending cuts and tax rate increases IF HE WANTS as he said in the Presidential Debate with Romney. Recall the President's words: It [sequestration] will not happen. Remember he told the Defense Department not to send out the WARN letters to contractors. The law requires WARN letters mailed 90 days in advance.
CarmineD
"If you wrote the US has a deficit and debt problem because we spend more than we PAY, I'd agree." @Jim Weber
And if you said we pay less than we spend I'd agree with you. In either case until the two are the same, pay and spend, we dig ourselves into a bigger hole NOW and in the future. Each taxpayer is on the hook for $60,000, and increasing, of the US debt. Whoever dies before his/her share is paid, passes it onto their heirs.
CarmineD
If you really want to understand the challenges we're facing with our economy, here are the two most important facts:
(i) Corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are at a 70-year high.
(ii) Total wages as a percentage of GDP are at a 70-year low.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-rei...
The real fiscal cliff we're facing involves staggering income inequality. Spending cuts -- which will involve such things as defunding job training programs and making higher education less attainable -- will make our long-term prospects worse, not better.
Austerity is not the answer. Rebuilding the middle class is.
Is the letter writer joking or what? In the United States people and businesses spend trillions more than they take in. He obviously doesn't follow private sector debt expansion and bankruptcy statistics in the United States.
$900 billion an outstanding school loans.
Close to $800 billion an outstanding credit card debt.
Our Las Vegas casino industry is sitting on $46 billion in debt.
123 million emergency room visits this year. In areas like Nevada a huge percentage of the people tht visit emergency rooms refuse to pay a dime.
Debt, bankruptcy and delinquency are part of the American way of life.
"chance of passage as Carmine admitting he was wrong about Mitt Romney .." @ Jeffery
Same as you admitting you were wrong on Benghazi.
CarmineD
The US as a deficit problem because of hyperinflation in medical care. If we brought our medical costs down to the next most expensive nation we would save between $60 trillion and $80 trillion over the next few decades. If you look at all the unfunded liabilities going forward the overwhelming majority of it is in medical care.
I will continue to stand by my commentary posted at 5:11 AM.
It is just plain, pure wrong for especially, Congressional representatives to have the almost free passage to grant themselves increases in their own compensation packages.
In moderation, it could be feasible should Congress adopt a basic standard table of compensation for junior Congressmen and a "undefined" table of salary and benefit adjustments for the more tenured politicians.
In specific, there should be absolutely no Congressional pay and benefit increases until such time as the federal government has a solid balanced budget. At the time a balanced budget is reached, (don't hold your breath on that one), should deficits reoccur, an across the board commensurate pay and benefit reduction for Congress would be in order. However, in the opposite spectrum, should budget surpluses appear, Congress should be appropriately rewarded for this specific timeframe with temporary pay increases until the next determined fiscal review.
I'm well aware that the Democrats find it extremely difficult to accept their guaranteed "nest eggs" being disturbed. However, this is America. We are a capitalist nation and will remain that way.
"Rotten eggs should be removed from the nest."
>B. Chapline<
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; are you capable of comprehending a subtle hint?
The federal government hasn't had a sound balance sheet since 1835.
Congressional compensation is about what a first-year graduate from atop 14 law school makes. Chicken feed! Try to raise a family and maintain two residences on 150K a year. It is pretty difficult if not impossible. some of these guys sleep on the floors in their office. Great!
How about paying these guys millions which is what their private sector counterpart would make and maybe we'll get better people.
Comp committees have awarded top-tier private sector executives millions in pay for decades now. They say they have to give these people astronomical amounts of money and compensation to get good people even though executives in other parts of the world make demonstrably less.
If it takes millions to get a decent private sector executive what makes you think you can get a top-tier public sector administrator for 150K a year?
Bradley:
There is a germ of agreement we have here:
You said:
"In specific, there should be absolutely no Congressional pay and benefit increases until such time as the federal government has a solid balanced budget. At the time a balanced budget is reached, (don't hold your breath on that one), should deficits reoccur, an across the board commensurate pay and benefit reduction for Congress would be in order."
I say:
There is nothing that commits us in any way, shape or form to provide retirement benefits or health insurance to members of congress, a salary is called for, as you have mentioned previously.
I think we would never have had the health care debacle we are currently going through if congresscritters had to pay and be eligible for their own retirement and health care.
These changes can be had by public pressure, rather than the time stands still amendment process. I favor a "union busting" approach with congress, let em fend for themselves. Now is soon enough.
Regarding any differences you have with me, can't help you there, you are who you are, I am who I am, and you have demanded no private messages to find agreement to disagree. I have respectfully not bothered your inbox.
Jeff.. They do have to pay for a substantial amount of their retirement and healthcare. I don't know where people get this nonsensical information.
Obama needs help from his experienced team of leaders. It's time for 73yo Harry Reid, 72yo Nancy Pelosi, 73yo Steny Hoyer and possibly throw in 70yo Joe Biden to get with Obama to discuss government spending cuts. We know Obama is having a tough time with his liberal base but if all the democratic leaders work together it just might give Obama the political cover he needs to put forth the spending cuts to his "Balanced Approach" that he ran on during the election. Obama shouldn't walk the plank alone.
Gerry:
Nonsense? Look in the mirror. They should have the same challenges as a small business owner grossing about 300k a year. No subsidies for the small businessman in America, no more for congress.
They get preferred pricing (group rates) As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through TAXES and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
Health care: While about 15 percent of the population is without health insurance, members of Congress are all covered. Their plan is similar to the subsidized plans offered by big companies. In this case, the government pays about 70 percent of the cost of coverage, while legislators pick up the remaining 30 percent. In addition, they have access to dental insurance, vision care, health savings accounts, life and long-term care insurance--that's similar to the cacophony of lucrative benefits offered by the best American companies.
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2...
Bradley,
There are a couple of facets to your question.
First, with regard to requiring pledges from candidates, I know that I would never advocate that, and I doubt very much that the national Executive Committee would do so. The reasons for not doing so are the same as the ones people gave for opposing the Grover Norquist "No tax increase!" pledge. The only pledge that should be required is the one to uphold the Constitution.
Second, having sensible compensation for members of Congress falls squarely in line with our principle of fiscal responsibility.
Ultimately, it is up to the membership to decide/approve policy and to select candidates and party leadership who will honor our basic principles. I would expect that any official who ran on one thing, and did the opposite, would find themselves looking elsewhere for support come next election. Also, any person is only as good as their word. If they say they are going to do X, and do Y instead, what good would a "pledge" do?
All that being said, I don't see national opposing a desire to enact new limits on how Congress sets their compensation, and they might well nudge a policy discussion in that direction.
In reply to "Jeff from Vegas"; you stated in reference to me, personally, "You have demanded no private messages to find agreement to disagree. I have respectfully not bothered your inbox."
Your point is well taken, Jeff. I admit to being the "rotten egg" on this. It was a mistake to make such a demand. Since I proclaim myself to be a devout Independent, a personal ultimatum given that closes a path of communication and dialog was certainly a wrong move on my part. The "rotten egg" that I created here has been removed. You are welcome to e-mail me at any time. From this point on, you are assured I will read with due diligence and respect your political reasoning's and positions.
Sometimes your insulting nature in your posts are true of me, and at other times they are not. I expect of you to keep this type of pressure up on me with the commentaries that I write. Although I am my own worst critic, you have the knack of cleverly highlighting my periodic literary and political errs. You are my perfect "check-n-balance" to every word I write in these Las Vegas Sun discussion rooms.
I look forward to your e-mails, Jeff. Sincerely, BChap
Congress is going to become the playground for the superrich. No one else will be willing to take the abuse for 150K a year. You will continue to see loopholes that help the rich minimize taxes while at the same time they're going to want waitresses to work until their 70. As it is Congress is seeing more and more mega millionaires and election spending is going into the stratosphere.
$2 billion for a presidential election. Give me a break. Politicians all over the country are spending millions to secure positions in government. I think Bloomberg spent tens of millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars to be the mayor of New York. Great system!
In reply to "Boftx" and "Jeff from Vegas"; after reading both of your replies, those were some excellent "common sense" approaches and reasoning's.
Although I will now abandon my views as written in my 5:11 AM post, I still maintain that Congress is overpaid, and does not at this present time earn their salaries and benefits that they are provided with.
I can compromise all the way to the point where our system of paying our elected officials does not cross into the contagion fields of rewarding politicians for their failures. I believe, we sit in the midst of that field today.
It is my hope that the "Whig" political party would hold these same values. Sincerely, BChap
Speaking in general, Michael Casler is right to a large degree when he says we have only ourselves to blame. We are the ones who ultimately vote for the creatures in Congress. It is we who allow a relative handful of others to select the choices we have among creatures to vote for.
If the people want to see different behavior, then the people *must* take an active role in finding candidates and electing them to office.
Contrary to all of the baby whining that's going on I think Congress is giving the American people exactly what they want. Entitlements and low taxes! The deficits are nothing more than a byproduct of the above.
That's why some of these folks have been in Congress for decades.
zippert1,
You might very well be correct.
I can't help but feel that Ike and JFK would not recognize the country today. I am tempted to draw the line between their America and ours today at LBJ and Nixon. LBJ and Nixon, with the Great Society and opening trade with China, made significant strides for their respective parties, but at the same those strides have set on a path of greater and greater division.
"Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension." Jeffery
Wrong. They have to serve 5 years to be "vested" in FERS. They [Federal Employees and Congress members] have to be 62 AND eligible for Social Security to receive a reduced pay out from FERS for 5 years service.
CarmineD
"they have access to dental insurance, vision care, health savings accounts, life and long-term care insurance" @ Jeffery
The coverage for dental and vision are part of premium coverages and cost Federal employees and Congress more. These are not covered under the standard policies. Long term care is also extra and Federal employees and Congress may opt to take out these policies requiring additional premium payments. Life insurance is extra and also costs Federal employees and Congress extra. None of these health care coverages are part of the job and all these are optional and cost extra.
CarmineD
Not only should Congress members be taking a cut in pay...their pension should be eleminated. They should just get SS like everyone else.
As far as other cuts...elminate the DEA..and end the WAR ON DRUGS. Last year alone the Feds spent 24 billion on the war on drugs (across the board)...this includes enforcement, locking people up and giving $$ to the states for same. Does America still have drugs? Yes. Are Americans still using drugs? Yes. Apparently the war on drugs is working for the past 40 years or so.
Mr. Tobias: could we get this rolling right away? Let's start right now by cutting local, state, and school district compensation down to reasonable levels. Every time a union contract is up, we go with the prevailing wage in PRIVATE INDUSTRY for similar jobs. Step 2 should be done concurrently: enact legislation to limit benefits from any and all government (and non-profit) programs to American citizens. I.D. theft results in deportation or incarceration.