Author Topic: Cut Entitlements.  (Read 1659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #15 on: December 11, 2012, 12:19:07 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22312
  • Tommy Points: 1018
Did you all know all they have to do is one four year term to qualify for some retirement?   That is crazy.

Congressional pension rules are crazy and should be addressed.  I do think that we should have learned a tough lesson about pension plans in recent years and I think the next generation of pension plans will be very different.  When I was a public educator I didn't have a pension, but rather, had the requirement to pay into a retirement plan -- like (and in addition to) social security --- managed by a plan administrator.  No matching funds, but assurance of a growing fund and monthly payouts upon retirement assuming you surpass 10 years of service (pretty reasonable I think).  Congress' pension has no such requirement for contribution or reasonable vesting and is  a costly gift for providing a pretty well-paid service.  It is a direct result of the fox guarding the henhouse and is an outrage.  And I voted for Obama BTW.

  Congressmen and senators shouldn't get a pension. They shouldn't be spending their entire career in those jobs.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2012, 06:55:02 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8410
  • Tommy Points: 596
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.
And when I'm rich and meet Bob Hope
We'll shoot some golf and shoot some dope

Quote
Can't read the entire thread but cone people.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2012, 09:59:08 AM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.
I don't like term limits because I think the people who vote have the responsibility to term limit their reps if they don't like them.

I do favor laws that limit the incumbency power in reelection.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #18 on: December 12, 2012, 11:00:35 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22312
  • Tommy Points: 1018
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.
I don't like term limits because I think the people who vote have the responsibility to term limit their reps if they don't like them.

I do favor laws that limit the incumbency power in reelection.

  You need term limits because congressmen/senators with more seniority have more power, like better positions on better committees. It's just another part of the system that's built to keep the current people in power.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2012, 11:06:07 AM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.
I don't like term limits because I think the people who vote have the responsibility to term limit their reps if they don't like them.

I do favor laws that limit the incumbency power in reelection.

  You need term limits because congressmen/senators with more seniority have more power, like better positions on better committees. It's just another part of the system that's built to keep the current people in power.
I'd rather see something like a first year salary of 300k (no special benefits) that goes down 10% per continuous year in office to a 50% of the original (applied at reelection). That would encourage high caliber people to come in for a term as a Sen or a term or two as a congressman, but not stay for ever.

One of the problems with too much turn over is you end up with a congressional staff that runs the place (although we basically have that now anyways.) Then you have unaccountable people doing the jobs of Sen/Reps. Less of a problem for the Senate than the people's house.


Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2012, 11:06:57 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6663
  • Tommy Points: 631
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.

I agree with term limits for Congressmen.

I'd put a reasonable limit at 12 years maximum (possibly less).

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2012, 11:10:33 AM »

Offline Cman

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10510
  • Tommy Points: 230
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.
I don't like term limits because I think the people who vote have the responsibility to term limit their reps if they don't like them.

I do favor laws that limit the incumbency power in reelection.

  You need term limits because congressmen/senators with more seniority have more power, like better positions on better committees. It's just another part of the system that's built to keep the current people in power.

Yes, but the trick is figuring out the term limits. If they are too short, then the politicians have little incentive to do what their voters want, since they'll be out of office anyway, and much incentive to pass laws that will help get them hired once they "retire" from politics. In short, re-election helps to increase accountability.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #22 on: December 12, 2012, 11:26:34 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22312
  • Tommy Points: 1018
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.
I don't like term limits because I think the people who vote have the responsibility to term limit their reps if they don't like them.

I do favor laws that limit the incumbency power in reelection.

  You need term limits because congressmen/senators with more seniority have more power, like better positions on better committees. It's just another part of the system that's built to keep the current people in power.

Yes, but the trick is figuring out the term limits. If they are too short, then the politicians have little incentive to do what their voters want, since they'll be out of office anyway, and much incentive to pass laws that will help get them hired once they "retire" from politics. In short, re-election helps to increase accountability.

  Re-election rates as high as they are don't increase accountability.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2012, 11:37:53 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Bob Cousy
  • **************************
  • Posts: 26856
  • Tommy Points: 1993
Cutting entitlements to those in Congress is a drop in the bucket that will never happen because there is no way that those in Congress will vote for cutting their own salaries or perks. And that's on both sides of the aisle.

Term limts is the way to go but there will need to be a grass roots wave of organization to get going in the states as a Constitutional Amendment as once again those in Congress will never vote to limit their own power.
2015 CB HISTORICAL DRAFT: COMING THIS OCTOBER
FORMAT:
3 players from 1960-73
3 players from 1974-86
3 players from 1987-00
3 players from 2001-Pres
1 player from any era

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2012, 12:50:00 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2988
  • Tommy Points: 72
    • Self Assay
Cutting entitlements to those in Congress is a drop in the bucket that will never happen because there is no way that those in Congress will vote for cutting their own salaries or perks. And that's on both sides of the aisle.

Term limts is the way to go but there will need to be a grass roots wave of organization to get going in the states as a Constitutional Amendment as once again those in Congress will never vote to limit their own power.
I think in a wave election it could happen. I also think you could get a bill related to public pension & welfare, where part of the deal was to cut out congress's pensions. I'm against low salary for previous reasons stated.

If the 17th amendment were revoked you wouldn't have to deal with Senators. Flipping state houses happens a decent amount and would almost certainly end a Senator's tenure. I'd favor a term limit amendment that repealed the 17th returning sovereignty for the Senate to the state houses and limited consecutive terms in the house - but not lifetime like POTUS. I actually think there are plenty of problems with term limits for POTUS, namely the lame duck last two years (if you think compromise is hard now, watch what happens in 2014 if the R's pick up seats in both houses like last mid term.) But FDR pretty much destroyed any chance to trust the dignity of presidents to step aside on their own, following Washington's noble example.

By the way as much as it's decried - outside money is one of the few things that help a challenger unseat an incumbent. Post citizens united - we've seen several "well tenured" pols lose primaries on the R side. Couldn't have happened unless they had support of outside groups.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2012, 08:50:34 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8410
  • Tommy Points: 596
Furthermore there should be term limits, as you see with Guv'nors and POTUS-ES.

When all you do is work to become re-elected, you're doing a disservice to the people who elected you.

I agree with term limits for Congressmen.

I'd put a reasonable limit at 12 years maximum (possibly less).

In a perfect world, I'd like to see caps of six years in the House (three terms) and twelve in the Senate (two terms).


On the Citizens United front--I don't jive with anonymous campaign donations, and I don't approve of the loopholes that exist to reroute that money. My home state elected an independent Senator who tried to get his major-party opponents to sign a pledge to avoid super PAC money, and I'm proud of that.
And when I'm rich and meet Bob Hope
We'll shoot some golf and shoot some dope

Quote
Can't read the entire thread but cone people.

Re: Cut Entitlements.
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2012, 08:55:40 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7716
  • Tommy Points: 454
I agree.

I don't think we should finance ex president's either by paying for their offices.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog