Who Hijacked Our Country

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

A friend forwarded this to me.  Let’s hope it goes viral:

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011:

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.  All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.

Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message.

Maybe it is time.


Labels: ,


Blogger Jerry Critter said...

Sounds good to me!

October 30, 2011 at 7:30 PM  
Anonymous Jolly Roger said...

An absolutely excellent plan. Once upon a time, Representatives were attracted to service for reasons other than prestige and perks. Let's get back to those times.

October 30, 2011 at 9:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like #6, I always thought of starting an initiative in California for Minimum Sentencing for Elected Officials.

But in the Founding Fathers day congressmen would ride their horse and buggies to Washington and only work a couple of months of the year. Now it's almost full time and a lot of the reason why Congress begs for money is because their Washington (if their 2nd) residences are not covered, which is why many long term Congressmen (and Senators) don't like in their home states anymore.

I worry that if something like this passes, only the rich will be able to be representatives.

Plus they always fall back on this present Conservative Supreme Court to misinterpret the hell of it in their favor should it pass.


October 30, 2011 at 10:01 PM  
Blogger jadedj said...

Brilliant! This bears passing on, and I'm going to.

October 31, 2011 at 4:48 AM  
Anonymous Jess said...

Consider this passed on. Who knows, something might come of it, hey I can dream can't I?

October 31, 2011 at 10:14 AM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

Its a good start!

October 31, 2011 at 12:14 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jerry: Me too.

JR: It would be nice to bring back those halcyon days.

Erik: If the Supreme Court overturns this, it could be resubmitted in a way that answers the Court's objections. I think this is a good start at least; we'll see what happens.

jadedj: Thanks.

Jess: If we can't dream, what have we got?

Jeannie: I'm glad we agree on something.

October 31, 2011 at 1:22 PM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

Like most of the political e-mails circulating, this one has more holes than a Swiss cheese. It's superficially appealing, but if you think about it, not so much.

For example, if special-interest money is a cancer on our democracy, do I really want the Koch brothers buying health insurance for their favorite pols? Do I really want Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup competing to offer their favorite pols the most generous pension?

Congress already participates in the same health care system as the rest of us. The members and staffers choose commercial policies offered in an exchange. They go to regular private doctors and hospitals, unless there's an emergency.

By "no tenure" I take it the writer wants term limits. That's just what we need every two years: a roomful of rookies who have to spend their first nine months learning where the restrooms and cafeteria are. Especially helpful in wartime.

Pardon my skepticism, but I'd file this one with miracle cures for arthritis and "Herbal Vi*gra."

October 31, 2011 at 3:47 PM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

I don't get the same health care choices as Congress or my brother in another state.

October 31, 2011 at 4:19 PM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

I would think that whatever is offered to the pols must be offered to everyone.

October 31, 2011 at 4:21 PM  
Blogger Jerry Critter said...

Sounds like you are proposing a single-payer system. Everyone gets the same choice.

October 31, 2011 at 5:27 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

I was raised to believe that fairness meant not getting something simply because everyone else got it. It rather meant people got what they needed. But that's probably beside the point...

I think the best way for Americans to reform Congress is to get the intransigent "tea partiers" out of there. Congress has a historically low rating, and after all, everyone in the House is an incumbent. If people are really concerned about jobs, they will vote against those who have impeded job creation. The ones doing the impeding are the new House "tea party" members. So voting them out of office would be a great way to start reforming Congress. 8-)

October 31, 2011 at 5:42 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

SW: Since the Koch Brothers are already making multimillion dollar "contributions" to their favorite politicians, they might as well pay for their health care and retirement pensions while they're at it.

I don't agree with everything in this proposal, but it would make politics a less attractive career. I don't think Warren Buffett is pushing for term limits; he says "...citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work."

Whatever changes get made, they'll have to be from the ground up. Legislators, regulators and the industries they're pretending to "regulate" are all in bed together. They think everything is hunky dory the way it is right now. The only change will have to come from the rest of us.

October 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: I think most members of Congress are entrenched and totally comfortable with the status quo, no matter what their public statements are. And they keep getting re-elected because everybody talks about "throwing the bums out" while voting to keep their own representatives in office.

I'm not in favor of term limits, but if politics was a less lucrative and less cozy career, the field might attract people who are actually interested in public service, rather than just prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.

It's a theory anyway.

October 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM  
Blogger Jerry Critter said...

Our political system already has term limits built in. It is called VOTING.

October 31, 2011 at 9:53 PM  
Anonymous S.W. Anderson said...

Jerry, once again you nailed it.

Tom, don't get me wrong. The country desperately needs all sorts of reforms. Dealing with the excessive, corrosive influence of money, at least to the extent possible, should be job 1.

Snave wrote: "The ones doing the impeding are the new House 'tea party' members."

It's much worse than that. It's the Republican caucuses of both bodies of Congress plus a small but problematic group of conservadems, blue dogs or whatever you want to call them.

October 31, 2011 at 10:30 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

we will never get the same as the pols. Look what they get now.


November 3, 2011 at 4:46 PM  
Blogger Jeannie said...

JC- The problem with single payer is you only get 1 choice.

November 11, 2011 at 9:05 AM  
Blogger Jerry Critter said...

I don't have a problem with getting only one vote, but I think republicans do. It is the only way they can win.

November 11, 2011 at 9:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home