Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (8720)	5/23/2001 8:13:36 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 59480

vermont@jeffords.senate.gov I sent an E-Mail to Jeffords telling him what I thought about him switching parties after the election. His change would switch the balance of power. If he were so honorable, why didn't he switch parties during the last election?

To: KLP who wrote (8720)	5/23/2001 8:14:08 AM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 59480

Yea, KLP! Excellent point! Many have been thinking the same thing, yet you voiced it, and so well. During the healthcare debates, in the early years of the previous administration (no need to name names), didn't everyone wonder where Teddy, Bill, Hill and family went for their healthcare? Did the get on the phone to be "preapproved"? Ha!

To: KLP who wrote (8720)	5/25/2001 9:30:44 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 59480

KLP, Congressional health care benefits. heritage.org Congressional Perks... heritage.org - Automatic Pay Hikes. These pay hikes are scheduled each year with no vote required, further boosting lawmakers' salaries, which already exceed $11,000 a month ($133,600 per year). Because Members' salaries are funded by a permanent, indefinite appropriation rather than through the annual appropriations bill, they are nearly invulnerable to legislative change when the rest of Congress's budget is under discussion. Congress should make Members' salaries a legislative appropriations line item and eliminate the automatic salary cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that, unless Congress acts, give each Member an automatic pay hike. Such an automatic pay raise violates the spirit of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that Members must stand for reelection before any pay raise they vote on takes effect. - Excessive Pensions. Congressional pensions far exceed most private-sector plans. Congress's pension system is up to twice as generous as those of most Fortune 500 corporations. Not only do these generous pensions burden the taxpayers, but they also promote political careerism by providing incentives for lawmakers to extend their tenure. - Over 250 Members of the 103rd Congress will become "pension millionaires," receiving pension income after their retirement in excess of $1 million. For instance, former Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-WA) is eligible for nearly $124,000 per year in addition to the pay he will receive from his job at a lobbying/law firm. The former Speaker could take in over $3 million in pension checks over the course of his expected lifetime. - COLAs are applied to congressional pensions as well as congressional salaries. Only one in ten private-sector pensions is adjusted for inflation, and many of those compensate for as little as a third of the inflation rate. This feature makes former Members of Congress among the wealthiest of retired Americans. - Members' office expense accounts are too high. The 1996 appropriation combined the three House Members' personal allowance accounts (staff salaries, office expenses, and official mail) into one appropriation, a positive step to increase flexibility and ease administrative burdens. However, the combined account was increased by over 2 percent, to over $360 million, due to increases in staff salaries and mail funding. A House committee has approved an additional 2 percent increase for the coming year, to an average of $887,337 for each House member. Although increases in postal rates and population may justify some adjustment of mail allowances, it is difficult to make similar arguments for an increase in the aggregate staff salary appropriation. During the debate at the beginning of the 104th Congress over the proposed elimination of House Legislative Service Organizations, advocates of abolition intimated that a substantial portion of the $5 million spent each year on LSOs would be saved. In fact, these funds were not cut, and even steeper staff cuts are justified. Audit of congressional practices by outside consultancy group. The waste, fraud and abuse is ridiculous. heritage.org WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TERM LIMITS!!