by Jack
NEWS from last week: Congressional staffers get subsidized premium healthcare. Many were worried that the subsidies would stop if if they were forced to into Obamacare. New rule was introduced to allow a continued subsidy of 75% of their healthcare premium, thus maintaining their status quo. Few legislators opposed this new exemption rule for fear that it could result in a sort of brain drain, i.e., staffers leaving D.C. for better jobs elsewhere. I think this is not likely – it’s just more self-delusional aggrandizement that seems enemic to Washington.
——————————————————
Why is it that the most principled and rational voices in Congress come from Freshmen? Could it be because they are still connected to the hearts and minds of their constituents and they have not yet knuckled under to the corrupt temptations rampant in Washington? Case in point… Freshman Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) on Wednesday accused GOP leaders of “colluding” with Democrats on a plan to exempt congressional staffers from higher insurance costs under ObamaCare. DeSantis said the GOP should be fighting this exception, which he said makes Congress and their staff a sort of “ruling class.”
“[W]e… have leaders in the Republican Party, some of the establishment folks who have kind of agreed, ‘Hey, we’re not going to touch this issue. We’re just going to kind of let it go,'” DeSantis said on the Rusty Humphries radio show Wednesday.
“So they’re colluding with the Democrats on that. I think that’s a huge mistake.”
“As a member of Congress and the staffs, we’re supposed to be part of servant class,” he said. “We serve the American people. We represent them, instead of a ruling class with different sets of rules.” This is a view not shared by enough in Congress to make any significant reforms and instead we see too many times where our founding moral principles are sold out for the path of least resistance and self-serving opportunities.
“The Obama administration released a proposed rule Wednesday that said the federal government could continue subsidizing the health coverage of about 11,000 congressional staffers, even after those workers access health insurance from new health insurance exchanges.
ObamaCare requires congressional staffers to buy insurance from the exchanges starting next year. But as the exchanges are designed to offer coverage to individuals who do not receive it through their work, the law does not provide a clear way for employers like the federal government to make a traditional premium contribution to workers’ healthcare.
The possibility of ending subsidies led some to worry that many staffers would leave Capitol Hill for other jobs. Under the current system, the federal government contributes 75 percent of premiums for congressional staffers.”
For more on this story click here.
Maybe ALL of Government needs to review both the Constitution and the Golden Rule!
Both sides of the established elected need a wake up call. I might suggest the Tea Party gets the message along with some freshmen.
Seems that voters need to wake up at the polls also, with fresh thinking about candidates
Given the performances by many of the RINOsaurs & Taxocrats in Clowngress, I don’t see ANY incumbent getting my vote.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote. Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your Constitutional rights to the U.N. As voters we need to start the process of eliminating Senators that think like that in our own State, SO which of these are in your State?
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal(D-CT)
BARBARA BOXER (D-CA)*
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell(D-WA)*
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)
DIANNE FEINSTEIN(D-CA)*
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand(D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar(D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill(D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)*
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller(D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse(D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
AS far as I”m concerned they should pay for their own health insurance like most Americans. Public pensions and benefits are KILLING taxpayers and these guys who are off 239 days this year while earning $174,000 sure don’t deserve premium insurance. They passed it, they should live with it just like the rest of us.
AMEN!!!
There is no “exemption” for Congress. Almost the exact opposite is true. Members of Congress and their staffers are now subject to a legal requirement that no other Americans are subject to: give up their employer-provided health insurance and go into the new exchanges, which were designed for people without employer-provided healthcare coverage.
This was the idea of Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Democrats accepted Grassley’s amendment (one of many Republican contributions to a law that no Republican ended up voting for), which meant that members of Congress and their staff would be kicked off of their current insurance programs and forced into the exchanges for no good reason.
This created a problem, since it essentially amounted to a huge paycut for Congress members and staff, and the amendment provided no way to deal with that problem. So the new compromise is that Congress members and staff, unlike all other federal employees, still have to give up their current insurance and go onto the exchanges, but the federal government will continue paying for part of their premiums. That is fairly reasonable.
So yes, Congress is being treated differently from other Americans, but only in that they are being given a weird disadvantage that others in the same income bracket aren’t subject to. For conservatives to attempt to twist this into an “exemption” shows how removed from reality they have become on the issue of Obamacare.
Sources:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114284/congress-exempt-obamacare-latest-lie-wont-die
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/25/no-congress-isnt-trying-to-exempt-itself-from-obamacare/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/obamacare-congressional-coverage_n_3697021.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Harold, you’re an idiot. The UN Arms Treaty does not do anything to undermine the Second Amendment. It explicitly reaffirms the sovereign right of each nation to make their own gun laws according to their own constitutions. Its purpose is to curtail international arms trades to terrorists. Only North Korea, Iran and Syria refused to sign the treaty. Apparently that’s the company today’s conservative likes to keep. I’ve seen a lot of conservatives praising Russia’s restrictive anti-gay laws lately as well, even though those are clearly oppressive of free speech. Apparently to many conservatives, Obama is a greater enemy than our actual enemies.
Harold you are brilliant!
The Attorney General of Texas agrees. Among his objections are things that the UN Arms Treaty fails to do. He wrote the President about it:
The UN is suffering from mission creep. It’s original purpose long ago abandoned by those nation representatives who see the body as a social engineering and global control machine.
Sad. The most tried and true method for achieving peace and fundamental equality is freedom made possible by republican government, capitalism, and the rule of law.
The language used to make Obama’s tweaking seem reasonable is just a piece of legal trickery.
This excerpt is from a Wall Street Journal article that posted Aug 8, 2012:
Liberals love to abuse language…particularly legal language.
Slimeballs!
This law was sold as being a model of fair insurance for everyone and yet projections are that thousands will still be without insurance. It was sold as being inexpensive and yet premiums will continue to rise. It was sold as being the savior of the healthcare industry…instead it is destroying much of it. We were told it would not interfere with our doctor patient relationship and yet doctors are already dropping out or refusing to carry some patients and some insurers are leaving areas like California.
This law should be repealed and the problems that can be fixed should be fixed without a big expensive and complicated government takeover.
It was written for power and control. Government cannot deliver good, affordable, healthcare. the private sector can with a few simple changes in the (prior to Obamacare) laws.
Tina, we’ve been through the bullshit conspiracy-mongering over the UN Arms Treaty before. I’ll address your lies point-by-point, not because I think you’ll be more receptive to the facts this time, but just because they are so EASY to demolish. The esteemed AG of Texas claims:
“That treaty:
– Fails to recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms or the right to defend one’s family, person, and property;”
It is not the job of the UN to do that. Many member countries, unlike the U.S., do not recognize this right; for the UN to recognize this right would actually make it the imposing, sovereignty-violating busy-body that people like the AG of Texas claim it already is.
HOWEVER, the treaty does clearly state that it is “the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.”
That means that the treaty will respect each nation’s constitutional and legal obligations regarding gun laws. It does not in any way overrule current U.S. law, and does not require us to take any additional steps.
“- Empowers a new UN bureaucracy focused on firearms restrictions that will be run by international bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people of the United States;”
This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. The AG intentionally leaves out what these “firearms restrictions” actually are. Since they mostly focus on guns trafficked across borders, these restrictions do not in any way violate the second amendment.
“- Employs vague and sweeping language that could be used for any number of future restrictions on Second Amendment rights;”
False. See my response to the first point. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution overrules international treaties. If an aspect of the UN Arms treaty does violate the Constitution–which it seemingly does not–it would be overruled.
“- Places no defined limits on the UN’s power to interfere with Second Amendment rights.”
False. See response to number one. The portion I quoted clearly sets limits on the UN’s power to interfere with the Constitution and laws of any country, including the U.S.
The American Bar Association explains that the treaty is consistent with the Constitution and current U.S. gun laws here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/612012-aba-white-paper.html
“The language used to make Obama’s tweaking seem reasonable is just a piece of legal trickery.”
“Obama’s tweaking” merely restores the original intent of Chuck Grassley’s proposal. In the original language of the amendment, Grassley mentioned that Congress members and their staff could still get subsidies for their premiums from the federal government. (I’ll let you Google that one for yourself.)
You believe so much that is not true, and you choose to believe it even after it has been proven false.
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Editorial: ‘Scarelore’ and the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty
Here’s a useful term: “scarelore.” It covers the wild misinformation that flies around the Internet and leads credulous people to believe things that simply are not true.
Scarelore existed before the Internet, of course. It’s why people burned witches. But the Internet, combined with the rise of echo-chamber mass media, makes propagating scarelore much easier.
Which brings us to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on April 2 and signed so far by 81 nations. Sometime this month, while Congress is in recess, President Barack Obama is expected to sign it on behalf of the United States. However, ratifying a treaty takes a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
Why? Scarelore.
The arms trade treaty sets out international standards for the sale of weapons of war — everything from warships and jet aircraft to missiles and grenade-launchers to small arms. Sellers would have mad e the case that the weapons would be used by buyers in accordance with international rules of warfare.
Black market arms sales have long been the source of weapons for terrorists, dictators and would-be dictators. The idea is to make it harder for thugs to lay their hands on items like shoulder-launched missiles or for 12-year-olds in Uganda to carry AK-47 rifles.
Sound like a good idea? Yes, it does, unless you’re the government of North Korea, Iran or Syria, the three nations that voted against the treaty, or the National Rifle Association. NRA scarelore claims the “Obama-U.N. collusion is a freedom-crushing disaster.”
Actually, the treaty is very useful for the NRA, which has been using the non-existent threat it poses to the Second Amendment as a fundraising gimmick all summer. It’s a scarelore hat-trick for the right-wing: Barack Obama, the U.N. and a gun-grab.
In fact, the treaty wouldn’t have much impact on the already strict way the United States regulates its international arms sales. Nor would an international treaty, even if it were ratified (which, to repeat, it won’t be) provide a way to bypass the Second Amendment. In 1957, in Reid v. Covert, the Supreme Court — the famously liberal Supreme Court of Chief Justice Earl Warren — ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties.
Finally, the language of the treaty itself recognizes the right of nations to control arms within their own territory and acknowledges the “legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of conventional arms for recreational cultural, historic and sporting activities.”
In short, if facts mean anything, this is not a U.N. gun-grab, and anyone who says otherwise is (a) simply misinformed or (b) trying to fleece you.
Unfortunately, whether the United States is a signatory or not, the treaty is not likely to make much of a dent in the $85-billion-a-year international arms business. Russia and China, two of the world’s biggest arms suppliers, abstained from the vote.
Russia supplies most of the weapons being used by the Assad government against the uprising in Syria. China has aggressively marketed cheap weapons in 16 nations in sub-Saharan Africa, less for political reasons than economic reasons — China is trying to build market-share.
The United States is the world’s biggest arms dealer. It has imposed far stricter rules on foreign sales than most nations. It should be a beacon to the rest of the world. Nations that govern fact-free don’t make much of a beacon.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-scarelore-and-the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty/article_255d6e01-9b95-5035-bf8e-4690449052bb.html
Chris: “The idea is to make it harder for thugs to lay their hands on items like shoulder-launched missiles or for 12-year-olds in Uganda to carry AK-47 rifles.”
Ideas are easy. Just paint the perfect picture and you’re done.
Oh, don’t bother about implementation or unintended consequences (see Obamacare in the US) just look at the positive desires of the creators in framing the goal…that’s good enough isn’t it? Yep, in fact, just make up a scarey word to demonize anyone who dares to question or criticize…a word like Scarelore.
The UN is a huge international bureaucracy influenced by people who want nothing but to run the big show…govern (control) on a global scale. If only they were in charge peace would reign. (See feminists like Hillary in particular) It is also the desire of those who want nothing more than to construct a caliphate…don’t kid yourself they may be the same people in some cases.
Ugh!
There’s your BS Chris. You’ve been informed and warned…a twofer!
Incredibly, we continue to give aid to nations that vote against us more than 50% of the time. One might justify this in terms of diplomacy (often questionable) but in terms of control over what we can and cannot do? I prefer our own legislative and justice systems, thank you, where American citizens have a voice, rights, and a Constitution to back them up.
Why are you in such a gawdawful hurry to turn control over to a global body?
Tina, your comment is nothing but vague accusations, none of which engage substantially with my specific critiques of the anti-arms treaty alarmism (which, I remind you, places you alongside some of the most notorious, freedom-hating nations in the world: Syria, Iran, and North Korea). I’ll get back to you when you can actually construct a coherent, fact-based defense of your specific allegations regarding the U.N. Arms Treaty.
I won’t hold my breath.
There is nothing substantial to discuss. Who wouldn’t be for “make it harder for thugs to lay their hands on items like shoulder-launched missiles or for 12-year-olds in Uganda to carry AK-47 rifles”
By your own admission the law would not work: ” the treaty is not likely to make much of a dent in the $85-billion-a-year international arms business.”
Therefore the discussion is whether it is smart to give an unaccountable (to US citizens) international body broad, vague powers to possibly tax or constrain American citizens? You dismiss this because it would require thinking on your part. You prefer to jump on the leftist emotional manipulation and deception wagon. Fine, just don’t expect me to take you seriously.