Nice details Ray. So I would think now that although factcheck provided a different view, or possibly corrections, there still remains a good deal of sense in the initial post.
-- Owen On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Parks, Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually Russ, the factcheck answers are not complete and shift the > argument. > > The salary collection point is pointless - of course Congress critters > only collect a salary while in office. > > factcheck is correct about the Social Security contributions. This > happened with the change-over from the Civil Service Retirement System to > the Federal Employee Retirement System. > > The factcheck article sidesteps the retirement point by shifting the > argument to whether ordinary citizens contribute to their own pensions. > Currently, Congress is covered under the Federal Employee's Retirement > Act, which is quite generous in it's pension guarantees (and costing the > taxpayer quite a large percentage of the budget for all the retired federal > employees). No matter how one shifts the argument, the fact is that > Federal employees have generous pension plans - Congress-critters or not. > Federal employees fall into the top 25% of workers when it comes to > retirement benefits. > > As factcheck points out, Congress has voted themselves an automatic pay > raise unless they vote to decline it. They have voted it down the last two > years. The process is based on cost of living in DC, which is a somewhat > circular process, and started after the base salary had been increased to a > point high enough that public criticism forced Congress to act. Basically, > they had voted themselves such high salaries that the public objected - so > they started from those high salaries and kept adjusting them up, > automatically, in response to the high cost of living in DC. > > The health care issue is a non-issue with the understanding that Federal > employee health-care benefits are much better than the average American > worker. > > factcheck is correct that Congress has grudgingly made themselves > subject to the same labor and employment laws as the rest of the country - > that process is still incomplete. However, Congress critters have not been > subjected to insider trading laws - which raises the valid point of whether > any laws which are strictly enforced on the rest of us can be enforced on > the people holding the purse strings of the enforcers. > > To answer the corporation point - I, personally, believe that > corporations should not be legally defined as persons - the shareholders > are persons. I also believe that the answer to campaign reform is to limit > contributions and discourse (i.e. union and corporate PAC ads) to those > eligible to vote in an election. I would place no limit on the amount of > contribution and allow contributions funneled through voters from others - > but those funds would be considered income. Also, no entity funneling > money through a voter could contract with them to do so - thus, they had > better trust their "contributors". > > On Jan 8, 2012, at 8:23 PM, Russ Abbott wrote: > > According to > this<http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/congressional-reform-act/>most of the > "problems" in the chain letter aren't true and don't need > fixing. > > *-- Russ * > > > On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Gary Schiltz > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Care to elaborate on 'we created small "crises" to create change.'? >> >> Don't remember where I saw it (bumper sticker, email...), but "I'll >> consider thinking of a corporation as a person when Texas puts one to >> death." >> >> Gary >> >> On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Paul Paryski wrote: >> >> And as long as corporations are considered to be legal persons who can >> make unlimited political contributions and create super pacs, nothing will >> change. I believe that, unfortunately, real change will only come with >> tragic, painful crisis and perhaps "collapse" (ref. Jarred Diamond). This >> was one of the conclusions a number of us in the UN came to and we >> sometimes created small "crises" to create change. >> >> cheers on a snowy day, Paul >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > Ray Parks > Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager > V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 > NIPR: [email protected] > SIPR: [email protected] (send NIPR reminder) > JWICS: [email protected] (send NIPR reminder) > > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
