Reforming the Entitled

In recent decades (yes, decades), much has been said about reforming the cumbersome entitlement programs that have ballooned since first inception. A few dabbles at reform have been relatively successful, but political posturing especially during election periods reveals a lack of honesty and will when it comes to REAL reform.

That being said, the entitlement reform that is the topic of this post is “political entitlement.” Performing a few hits on a search engine, I learned that the politicians, serial killers, and sociopaths share several similar traits. One of these shared traits is a “grand sense of entitlement.” I give you Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and Charlie Rangel.

Not only do politicians in Washington feel they are entitled to keep the seats held by their respective states, but they also vote for themselves rather extravagant benefits at the expense of the taxpayer.

Though it’s oft told, it is not true that our elected officials are not participants in Social Security. Since the early 1980s they have been. As well, the 1980s brought reforms to the basic retirement options in which they can participate. What IS true and alarming is that after five years of service, a member of Congress will be entitled to a retirement check. Of course, rules apply based on age, years of service, and so on. In final analysis though, “Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.”

Many of you may remember (SHOULD remember!) the President stating that all Americans should have the healthcare insurance options that those in Washington have. Ahh, to be so fortunate. They actually get:
• a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state.
• special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities
• access to their own pharmacy, doctors, nurses and medical technicians in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers (for a few hundred dollars a month).

“In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.”

Not only do we need to change the faces in DC, we need to change the employment laws on the books for these folks. We need to return the legislators to their home communities to continue to serve at the fire department, a church, or a PTA. Rather than spending a full career gathering power and perks at the expense of the American electorate, they should leave Washington to earn a salary and retirement pension that doesn't gouge the taxpayer.

Read more about Congressional Retirement Benefits

Julie Ranson is a college professor, wife, and mother who lives in Virginia.

The Right to Fair Representation by Julie Ranson

This blog was created to examine the citizen’s place in our American republic, including our responsibilities and rights. Of late, we’ve been looking at our individual rights, so here’s another one. We have a right to fair representation in Washington DC. "A representative government [is] a government in which the will of the people will be an effective ingredient." (Jefferson, 1816) Yet imagine what they’ve been up to in just the past week!

1)Approved “activist” David Hamilton to 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Hamilton has a pretty clear leftist political record and was rated 'not qualified' by the ABA when President Clinton nominated him to the federal bench because his experience at that time was almost purely political, as opposed to legal and judicial. We need to read his decisions carefully to make definitive pronouncements, but it's clear that at least some of his work on the bench demonstrates his willingness to embrace judicial activism.
Here's the Roll call vote

2) Started to spin the Senate HealthCare bill. Yes! They are covering more people and saving money to boot. It’s a daggone miracle…. or sleight of hand, depending on your grasp of reality and basic logic. As my 17-year old daughter just asked, “If more than half of the country is against this, how can Washington vote for it?” Hmmmm, not a bad question from my Patrick-Henry-esque teenager.

Did you know:
 that the Senate bill begins to raise revenue (penalties and taxes) in 2010, but does not initiate the coverage provisions until 2014?
 that the Senate bill (like the House bill) offsets costs with “cuts” and “savings” that will never be enforced?
 that certain expensive healthcare changes have been removed from both bills because they cost too much? They are now in separate bills which will increase the deficit if passed because they cannot be paid for.
 that the Senate bill covers abortions?
 that the Senate bill will raise taxes by $370 B over ten years.
 that healthcare expenditures will rise, not go down as promised.
 that millions will lose their employer provided insurance under the proposed plans.
 that 8.5 million seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage coverage (and then be forced to buy AARP's cash cow of medi-gap insurance; hence, AARP’s endorsement)

3) Obama admits he is taking on unpopular actions, but that’s just because he cares about what HE THINKS is right for the country.

4) Another Treasury nominee has tax problems. Is it, like, a pre-requisite?

5) Senator Leahy pooh-pooh’s the need to interrogate bin Laden if he’s captured. Well, he’s just a common criminal anyway, right?

More Washington foolishness! Is it any wonder stock prices for poster board firms are climbing?

Recently, on a mountain ride, Daren met some citizens who shared their feelings about what's currently happening in our country. Check it out: