Congressional Reform Act, Part II

More readers than I expected have visited this blog looking for information about the Congressional Reform Act.


So that I can at least give them more information than I did last week, I’ve done a little research about the “act” email circulating the country. Here’s what I’ve found.

Richard Greener at the Huffington Post thinks that the people passing around the email are dolts who’ve forgotten their civics lessons. I certainly fit in that category.

Nonetheless, here are some more facts and my responses to what Greener writes.  The quotes from the "act" are in italics.

1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below. (it specifies the limits)

“Nobody "owns" a seat in Congress,” Greener writes. He disingenuously claims that the responsibility for limiting the number of terms rests on the voters.

Well, yes and no. The longer a representative remains in place, the more seniority and, hence, power, he or she accumulates. Our current election system is like a Prisoner’s Dilemma. Everybody wishes there were fresh blood in our House of Representatives and Senate—just not in their own districts. So they wish everybody else would throw theirs out of office, while they continue to re-elect their own. Even when their own are corrupt, like Charlie Rangel.

No one can deny that the longer a politician is in office, the easier it is to abuse the system. Just look at Tom DeLay’s gerrymandering in Texas. Mandatory term limits might not eliminate, but they would stem this kind of abuse.

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Greener writes, “The "reformers" appear to believe that Congressional pensions are both free and instantly available to anyone who's ever served.”

Greener attacks a straw man here. This article at congress.org explains that they may not receive full pensions, but that many congressional reps are eligible for at least partial pensions--including those reps convicted of felonies before 2007.

3. 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.

“Make Congress pay into Social Security,” Greener paraphrases. “Well, what is there to say about people who are that ignorant? 26 years. A generation! That's how long it's been, since 1984, that members of Congress have been paying their Social Security tax just like the rest of us.”

Perhaps he had a different version of the “act” than I have. My version above doesn’t deny that Congress participates in Social Security. I think the operative part of the statement is that the retirement funds in (2) above be folded into and administered by Social Security. Which, in my opinion, will never happen because we all know that Social Security will go bankrupt the year I’m scheduled to retire.

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

Greener writes, “Make Congress pay for their retirement plan. Please see above for the answer.” I respond, “Please see above for answer.” And I add that many former politicians seem to make plenty of money from speaking and consulting engagements. See #8 below.

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

“Congress has NEVER been able to raise its own pay,” responds Greener. "All pay increases voted by Congress must be for future Congresses, not for those currently serving.” True, but, given #1 above, enough politicians can count on re-election that even if they don’t receive the raise in that term, they expect to succeed and receive it in the next.

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

Greener writes “Where did the idea come from that members of Congress get free medical care?”

Hmmm, maybe from stories like this on ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/congress-health-care-clinic/story?id=8706655

When I was without health insurance I couldn’t just saunter in to a clinic and receive high-quality medical care. How can anyone who pays $503 a year for comprehensive medical care understand how uninsured people have to deliberate every medical decision?

Some of those congresspeople didn’t pay at all, but they still received care. Schweet.

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

Greener’s response: “It doesn't take very long to find out that the only laws Congress is exempt from are those that pose a constitutional dilemma if Congress were subject to the terms of those laws. We do have (remember?) something called separation of powers.”

I confess that I don’t understand this one. I’d like to come back to it in a separate post after I’ve given it due thought.

8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

This may be semantic, but “Congress should void all contracts made with former members,” as Greener puts it, just doesn’t mean the same thing. He continues, “In a list of strange demands, this one takes the proverbial cake. These "reformers" fancy themselves as defenders of the Constitution. But they apparently have never read Article I Section 10, which forbids the interference in any contract. That includes a contract with a former Congressperson or any contract at all with anyone. Contracts are constitutionally protected. Who knew?”

(Now I’m confused, because when I looked up Article I Section 10, it was about powers states were not allowed to assume. States can’t impose customs duties, for example, or declare war. Nothing about congressional contracts. I assume Greener’s fingers slipped and his editors forgot to double-check. Could happen to anyone.)

I think Greener reads the letter but not the spirit of the email circling the country. Nobody believes that they could wave a magic wand and dissolve all contracts with congresspeople (in their connections as congresspeople) as of a certain date. But they wish they could make it impossible for representatives to sign contracts while in office that offer benefits while out of office, or vice versa.

It’s easy to point out all the holes in someone else’s document. Writing this, for example, was very satisfactory. (Don’t take it personally, Mr. Greener. Your strong search results led me to conclude that that a lot of other people had already read and considered what you wrote, and perhaps dismissed the "act." Since yours was popular, it seemed like a worthy essay to contest.)

It’s harder to listen seriously to people who feel disenfranchised, to help them articulate their thoughts and then to make a plan of action that would benefit them and their communities. And that’s what we need to do.