A cousin to the usual e-mail comes across my desk today from my Arts Editor, who in turn received it from a member of the extended family. It’s not so much poisonous as, well, mis-informed and misleading. I’ll take it apart piece by piece this time ’round, but first let me note that, while surveying the web for precise answers to certain questions, I ran across other dissections. Regardless, I will continue with this as an example of recognizing and researching an exercise in triggering System 1 thinking, which is the fight or flight reflex, rather than rational assessment.
President Trump is asking everyone to forward this email to a minimum of 20 people, and to ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in the United States will have the message. This is an idea that should be passed around, regardless of political party.
The TRUMP Rules: Congressional Reform Act of 2017
I did some searches of the Web to attempt to verify President Trump issued this call to faux-sanity, but failed to find any indication that he does. That, of course, is not dispositive, but given Trump’s habit of using a trumpet for popular political messages, I’d have expected to see it as a prominent subject of discussion if he was backing this email.
So let’s go on to the meat of the subject.
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they’re out of office. And, no more perks go with them.
Let’s be picky, because that may tell us something about the author. Tenure has an interesting definition, according to Merriam-Webster:
- : the act, right, manner, or term of holding something (such as a landed property, a position, or an office)
especially : a status granted after a trial period to a teacher that gives protection from summary dismissal - : GRASP, HOLD
Clearly, no tenure suggests an absurdity, election to office without actual occupation of the seat, with respect to the first part of the first definition, while the second has no application to an elective seat. If this is indicative of the intellectual acuity of the author, it’s a negative, and readers should treat the balance of this anger-inducing screed with appropriate caution.
With regards to pension, Congress members receive a pension if they perform five or more years of service, so for the House of Representatives, they must win election to 3 terms, while Senators need only win one (assuming completion of terms).
But how about no pensions? This is an interesting question because it plays into citizen anger at Congress. It reinforces it because there’s no presentation of an opposing viewpoint. So let me present one to the open-minded reader:
The lack of pension for former members of Congress will lead to a more plutocratic membership. Former members of Congress don’t get free food & housing, they must find the funds to pay for them once they’re back in private life. Just like real people – because they are real people – they have to plan for a future in which their skills are outdated and they’re retired. If there is no pension, then the regular Joe may consider a run for Congress to be a mistake, because it’s difficult or impossible to work at your regular job when performing the public business. It wasn’t true in 1800, but these days the business of government is a huge undertaking that requires the full attention of both the bureaucracy and the elected overseers.
Think of being 6 years out of your regular line of work. Could you go back to it without retraining or updating? I probably couldn’t. Sure, a ditch digger could – but most ditch diggers aren’t going to win runs for Congress.
A pension can be argued as being a way to persuade the non-millionaires to take a shot at public service. We know the plutocracy of America has a strong interest in being in control of the United States government, because we see the huge donations from the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and many, many more than fly beneath the radar for the GOP, plus a smaller number for the Democrats, such as Tom Steyer. Then add in those who are directly in the front lines, such as Rick Scott (R), Senator-elect of Florida, or Senator Mark Warner (D) of Virginia. It’s not hard to see how removing pensions, which rich people don’t need, makes it easier to attain a seat in Congress. Now they need only beat another millionaire.
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 must purchase their own retirement plan, just as ALL Americans do.
This has a couple of problems.
- Congress has participated in Social Security since 1984, according to AARP. This is not difficult to discover, really. This, in reality, is about inducing anger at Congress, fallaciously widening the abyss between OUR government and ourselves.
- ALL Americans purchase retirement plans? A ridiculous statement. Some do, some are too rich to do so. This vague statement serves to bind the angry reader with everyone else, the beginning of the assemblage of a cult.
- I presume “It may not be used for any other purpose” refers to Congress borrowing from the Social Security reserves without restoring the funds. In fact, I believed that at one time. But it’s not true. Here’s a Motley Fool article on the topic. For those unfamiliar with the Motley Fool, they are an investment advice website of some 20 or more years standing. They are a-political advocates, generally, for long-term investing. That requires investors to understand reality – not buy into political myths. Give it a read if you’re doubtful.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
While this is a topic that could be discussed from either side for hours, it makes more sense to step back and ask why is this brought up? Perhaps their salaries sound large, although it’s important to keep in mind that the members must find living quarters in Washington while also maintaining residency in their home state.
But, for me, if you’re going to talk about outrage at the money in Washington, then ask about the budget. The aggregate Congressional salary is, rounding up, $100 million (529 members @ $174,000 per, with rounding accounting for extras for Speaker and other special positions). Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? If you nodded, you’re not paying attention. The Federal budget is in the BILLIONS. Congressional salaries are out of control? Try military spending. Congressional salaries aren’t even an eye-drop.
In reality, I view this as just another wedge being driven into the granite of the United States citizens, generating outrage at our own Congressional members through income disparity. They have to travel, maintain at least sleeping quarters, etc etc, and yet we’re going to bear down on their salaries. While it may seem dubious to let them set their own pay, which is their responsibility under the Constitution, the truth of the matter is that we should be electing Congressional representatives that will be responsible with our funds in the first place. That’s OUR responsibility, and shirking it by requesting a law that would supposedly do that work for us is, well, shirking.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
According to this CNN article from 2017, lawmakers are required to use the same options all Americans do.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people (i.e. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING!!!).
Members of Congress are already required to do so. Thus, we have had various allegations and even indictments of members of Congress over the years.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these contracts by and for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor and privledge NOT a career.
My first inclination is to proclaim puzzlement, as I don’t know what this babble is about. But then note the final line – NOT a career.
Look, it sounds all fine and grand to promulgate term limits as a way of stopping corruption and that sort of thing, but every time a Senator or Representative retires, resigns, or is defeated, a wealth of experience walks out that door. This is important. These people have learned how to get things done in the governmental context, and that is a context far different from, say, a business context.
Now, it’s true that, except for those who pass away, former members can still be available for consultation, and certainly their aides also have a modicum of knowledge. Many former members are, in fact, consulted as I understand it.
But it’s worth considering the flip side of this coin as well – the amateurs who fill the seats of those who leave. Over the last two years, as long time readers of this blog know, we’ve had a full-on display of Republican amateurism, and it’s been a dismaying example of the failings of a group of second and third raters who can’t be troubled to debate in public, to fulfill their responsibilities, to monitor the Executive, or do really anything effectively.
To a great extent I blame it on former leaders of the GOP being run out on a rail because they failed to pledge allegiance to a set of principles that became more and more extreme as the years passed. See my RINO reasoning.
If the performance of Congress has displeased my reader – and I differentiate between performance and adherence to ideological principle, which is an entirely different thing – let me suggest that entry into Congress is not the precipitating event of their incompetence.
I think it’s far more reasonable to suggest it starts with the party from whence they came. If you’re unhappy with a member of Congress for being a fumbling, rubber-stamping fool, consider the possibility that this is what their Party and its backers have wrought.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work … not get all kinds of freebies. NO WONDER THEY’RE FIGHTING EVERYTHING HE TRIES! Pass it on!!!!
Anyone watching Congress and Trump is well aware of the compliancy of the GOP members of Congress to Trump’s wishes. Hell, FiveThirtyEight runs a continuing monitor of Congress called the TrumpScore, which rates that compliancy for every member of Congress. Most GOP members rate over 90%, which is appalling given the incompetency of President Trump, both in terms of policy and operationality.
To suggest Congress is battling Trump is laughable.
Let’s help TRUMP drain the swamp!! Just hold your finger down then hit forward and send it to everyone you know. Let’s help trump get the country straightened out.
And so we find that this mail, of which various similar version have floated about since 2000, is an adaptation by someone trying to promote a Trump re-election in 2020. Sounding an official theme of his 2016 campaign, it seeks to cast the blame for one of the most corrupt Administrations in history on Congress. A Congress that was completely controlled by Trump’s own party for 2 years, and the Senate will remain under GOP control for the second 2 years.
It’s important for the reader to remember names like Zinke, Ross, Pruitt, Sessions, all members or former members of the Trump Cabinet, because Trump owns those names, and those names will go down in disgrace in history as objective assessments come to the fore. The Senate GOP approved them, but Trump put those names forward, and therefore, despite his efforts to disown some (and, no doubt, all of them at some point).
But, more importantly, this is another effort in the vein of alienating Americans from their own government. Assessed as one of the more successful forms of government world-wide, or at least so I think, that makes it a target for subtle campaigns such as this one, and it’s important for the casual reader to be aware that their buttons are being pushed by mail such as these.
Beware.
