Congress has the lowest approval rating in history. Now is the time for American Citizens to Reform Congress. We need this reform more than we needed Health Care Reform. This would have probably fixed the problems with the health care reform bill.
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
2. No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work..
6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
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, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work..
If you agree with the above, pass it on to all in your address list. If not, just delete.
Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
Moderators: Pike Ridge Beagles, Aaron Bartlett
Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
"Watch your dog and SHUT-UP"
-
Pine Mt Beagles
- Posts: 7803
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 6:01 pm
- Location: Pineville Ky
Re: Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
I AGREE WITH YOU TIM ================BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN==============
If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered
Re: Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
Make it happen............ Talk about sit back and do nothing.......... Your so dang vocal about was is best, so why don't you put it to good use and push this proposl???????????????
Re: Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
Pine Mt Beagles wrote:I AGREE WITH YOU TIM ================BUT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN==============
....BECAUSE IGNORNT VOTERS===LIKE ME======NEED OUR HANDOUTS TOO MUCH==========BESIDES ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT==ALONG==WITH KARL==ROVE==HALIBURTON=====REPUBLICANS SUCK TOO====BLAH BLAH=BLA=H
Shut up when the adults are talking Rufus.
The 1st amendment allows the usual liberal narcissistic "I think.." which is how they start all their sentences.
The second amendment protects us from implementing "I think"
The second amendment protects us from implementing "I think"
-
Chief Long Hair
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 8:42 pm
- Location: Greenwood, IN
Re: Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
Tim H. I agree with you on most of it. I had this same info sent to me and I past it on to OUR Senator Lugar. Here was his response to each and every comment.
Dear Mr. Leonard:
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate this opportunity to respond and noted your comments concerning congressional pay, retirement benefits, and term limits, among other issues.
Congress is charged with making final decisions regarding its pay by Article I; Section 6 of the Constitution. I have long believed that the system would be improved if an external commission were making decisions, or at least recommendations, on congressional compensation including pay, pension and benefits.
Under law, virtually all government beneficiaries, retirees, and workers receive an automatic annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). This includes Social Security recipients, retired federal workers, retired military, and current federal workers. In 1989, Congress made a bipartisan decision to include itself in this COLA process. It simultaneously imposed stricter limits on outside earned income and banned members from accepting so-called "honoraria" -- payments from groups for speeches or articles. This reform package, which was supported by Common Cause and some other government watchdog groups, was intended to prevent corruption and reduce the politicization of congressional salaries. Members would get an automatic COLA like all other federal workers, but there would be far less opportunity for potentially corrupting outside earned income or ad hoc pay raises.
Congress recently enacted legislation which blocks the automatic COLA for Members of Congress from going into effect for 2010.
The conundrum facing congressional COLA is clearly two-fold. On the one hand, it is important, from a recruitment standpoint, to maintain salary parity with the private and public sectors. I have been involved in the recruitment of candidates for many years, and I can attest that a large pay discrepancy between the private sector and public service will only encourage two types of candidates: millionaires who want to dabble in politics and lifetime politicians who have not made a living in any other way. On the other hand, compensation that is perceived as too generous risks the appearance of special privilege and fails to set the proper example of fiscal responsibility.
Through a commission or other means, we must thoughtfully balance the important goal of frugality with the need to attract the best possible candidates and a broad spectrum of professions to congressional service.
Furthermore, since 1984, all members of Congress have been required to participate in the Social Security system and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Congressional participation in Social Security was mandated in 1983, when Congress passed a bipartisan bill restructuring Social Security and extending the program's solvency. I voted in favor of that bill.
It is often erroneously said that members of Congress pay nothing toward their own retirement. In fact, members of Congress pay more of their salaries into their retirement than other federal workers. Members of Congress in the pre-1984 CSRS retirement system pay 8 percent of their gross salary into the pension plan. On top of that, they pay Social Security taxes. Other federal workers who are in CSRS pay 7 percent of their gross salary into the pension plan. But unlike members of Congress, they are exempt from Social Security. Members of Congress who are covered by the post-1984 FERS retirement system pay 1.3 percent of their gross salary into the plan, plus Social Security taxes. Other federal workers pay 0.8 percent of their gross salary into FERS, plus Social Security taxes.
Pensions vary greatly depending on time of service and contributions. Obviously, those members still covered by the older CSRS system who paid 8 percent of their salary into their retirement receive more than members who have paid 1.3 percent per year in the post-1984 FERS retirement system.
Knowing your interest in fiscal discipline, I am pleased to report that I have returned more than $5 million in unspent office funds during the course of my career. I believe that it is important to run an efficient office and to make good use of taxpayer dollars.
On a final topic, I have not been a supporter of term limit proposals because I believe they would limit the choices of voters, expand the influence of unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists, and deprive Congress of an element of historical experience that is important in current policy debates.
Term limits would place a restriction on the right of individual American voters to choose whomever they wish to serve in Congress. The only limits the Framers of the Constitution placed on that choice were age and citizenship. Not only would term limits tamper with the Constitution, they would imply that the American voter is incapable of telling the difference between a bad representative and a good one. I believe that we should trust the judgments made by the American people when they go to the polls to vote.
I also believe that term limits would have unintended side effects that could result in a less accountable government. Those members with the least experience tend to be the ones who are most dependent on advice and information regarding the legislative process. To the degree that term limits reduce experience in Congress, they would enhance the relative influence of those people who provide such advice and information: congressional staff, executive branch bureaucrats, and lobbyists who are in place in Washington in unelected and often permanent positions. I do not think advocates of term limits are seeking this outcome, but this would be one likely result of term limits.
Further, I believe there is value in having some members who served in government during notable events of our recent history. Often such events are relevant to the problems before us.
Thank you, again, for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
RGL/cga
Do you receive The Lugar Letter? Send an email to newsletter@lugar.senate.gov to stay current with Senator Lugar's activities. The Lugar Letter archives are available at http://lugar.senate.gov/newsletter/
I don't know about you but this is living proof that they ALL need to go!!!!!
Dear Mr. Leonard:
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate this opportunity to respond and noted your comments concerning congressional pay, retirement benefits, and term limits, among other issues.
Congress is charged with making final decisions regarding its pay by Article I; Section 6 of the Constitution. I have long believed that the system would be improved if an external commission were making decisions, or at least recommendations, on congressional compensation including pay, pension and benefits.
Under law, virtually all government beneficiaries, retirees, and workers receive an automatic annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). This includes Social Security recipients, retired federal workers, retired military, and current federal workers. In 1989, Congress made a bipartisan decision to include itself in this COLA process. It simultaneously imposed stricter limits on outside earned income and banned members from accepting so-called "honoraria" -- payments from groups for speeches or articles. This reform package, which was supported by Common Cause and some other government watchdog groups, was intended to prevent corruption and reduce the politicization of congressional salaries. Members would get an automatic COLA like all other federal workers, but there would be far less opportunity for potentially corrupting outside earned income or ad hoc pay raises.
Congress recently enacted legislation which blocks the automatic COLA for Members of Congress from going into effect for 2010.
The conundrum facing congressional COLA is clearly two-fold. On the one hand, it is important, from a recruitment standpoint, to maintain salary parity with the private and public sectors. I have been involved in the recruitment of candidates for many years, and I can attest that a large pay discrepancy between the private sector and public service will only encourage two types of candidates: millionaires who want to dabble in politics and lifetime politicians who have not made a living in any other way. On the other hand, compensation that is perceived as too generous risks the appearance of special privilege and fails to set the proper example of fiscal responsibility.
Through a commission or other means, we must thoughtfully balance the important goal of frugality with the need to attract the best possible candidates and a broad spectrum of professions to congressional service.
Furthermore, since 1984, all members of Congress have been required to participate in the Social Security system and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Congressional participation in Social Security was mandated in 1983, when Congress passed a bipartisan bill restructuring Social Security and extending the program's solvency. I voted in favor of that bill.
It is often erroneously said that members of Congress pay nothing toward their own retirement. In fact, members of Congress pay more of their salaries into their retirement than other federal workers. Members of Congress in the pre-1984 CSRS retirement system pay 8 percent of their gross salary into the pension plan. On top of that, they pay Social Security taxes. Other federal workers who are in CSRS pay 7 percent of their gross salary into the pension plan. But unlike members of Congress, they are exempt from Social Security. Members of Congress who are covered by the post-1984 FERS retirement system pay 1.3 percent of their gross salary into the plan, plus Social Security taxes. Other federal workers pay 0.8 percent of their gross salary into FERS, plus Social Security taxes.
Pensions vary greatly depending on time of service and contributions. Obviously, those members still covered by the older CSRS system who paid 8 percent of their salary into their retirement receive more than members who have paid 1.3 percent per year in the post-1984 FERS retirement system.
Knowing your interest in fiscal discipline, I am pleased to report that I have returned more than $5 million in unspent office funds during the course of my career. I believe that it is important to run an efficient office and to make good use of taxpayer dollars.
On a final topic, I have not been a supporter of term limit proposals because I believe they would limit the choices of voters, expand the influence of unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists, and deprive Congress of an element of historical experience that is important in current policy debates.
Term limits would place a restriction on the right of individual American voters to choose whomever they wish to serve in Congress. The only limits the Framers of the Constitution placed on that choice were age and citizenship. Not only would term limits tamper with the Constitution, they would imply that the American voter is incapable of telling the difference between a bad representative and a good one. I believe that we should trust the judgments made by the American people when they go to the polls to vote.
I also believe that term limits would have unintended side effects that could result in a less accountable government. Those members with the least experience tend to be the ones who are most dependent on advice and information regarding the legislative process. To the degree that term limits reduce experience in Congress, they would enhance the relative influence of those people who provide such advice and information: congressional staff, executive branch bureaucrats, and lobbyists who are in place in Washington in unelected and often permanent positions. I do not think advocates of term limits are seeking this outcome, but this would be one likely result of term limits.
Further, I believe there is value in having some members who served in government during notable events of our recent history. Often such events are relevant to the problems before us.
Thank you, again, for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Richard G. Lugar
United States Senator
RGL/cga
Do you receive The Lugar Letter? Send an email to newsletter@lugar.senate.gov to stay current with Senator Lugar's activities. The Lugar Letter archives are available at http://lugar.senate.gov/newsletter/
I don't know about you but this is living proof that they ALL need to go!!!!!
I'VE GOT SOME DOGS THAT ARE GONNA HURT SOME FEELINGS!!!!! I just hope it's not mine. Home of Wild Hare Kennels and FC Creek Woods Blue.
Re: Reform Congress, Not Healthcare
Did Evan Bayh and Andre Carson not respond or were you only concerned with the Republicans response? 
"Watch your dog and SHUT-UP"
