Op/Ed: Corruption in High Places?

I've been working in my spare time on a post I did notes for back in January (it was the first of the bunch that have languished in my notes file since starting Weber's overly arduous remedial math class) which is a review of the film Les Misérables.  But something caught my attention today as I was checking my email, and I decided on the spur of the moment to address it here.

Today I received a forwarded email with the following text,

The 28th Amendment, 35 States and Counting It will take you less than a minute to read this. If you agree, please pass it on. It's an idea whose time has come. Members of Congress can retire at full pay after only one term. Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live. For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment. And as the latest example, they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects. We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, or whatever. The self-serving must stop. Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon their states. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days most people in The United States of America will have the message. 

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States”. You are one of my 20.

(Here is a version of this email, available online)

There's a U.S. flag behind it, so it must be a good thing, yes? / Source: selfreliantnetwork11.blogspot.com

You may have received one of these before yourself.  Apparently, after doing a little bit of Google back-tracking, this thing has been going around since at least 2010.  Now admittedly, I don't have all sides of the issue after 20 minutes of modest web searching on the subject, so bear with me here.  But I am going to muddy up the issue just a tiny bit.

Let me say out front, I agree that our leaders seem more and more out of touch with the so-called "common man."  Just to get my political stance and such out of the way, I lean to whatever direction on the conservative/liberal scale I feel is most right.  Silly me, I actually try to vote with my conscience.  Roll your eyes if you wish, but it is true.  I know that makes me vulnerable to whatever winds of seeming good sense are coming down the pipe, but I also feel that we are only as responsible for ourselves in as much as we know right from wrong.  By the light we have received, you might say.  You can't fairly penalize a person if you put them in a dark room full of objects and then shine one bright light at them and tell them to identify what they see around them, and they can only tell you the things they see clearly.  Not seeing the grand piano or the Ming vase hidden in the darkest corners of the room is not a hanging offense, you understand?

What I'm saying through that analogy is that I do the best I can with what I have, but I know there are things that I can't see yet.  I'm trying to, but I am not able just yet.  I'd love for somebody to throw on all the lights, but in the meantime, I try to put the scene together the best that I can with what light I have to work with.

Not a perfect example of what I was describing, but you get the idea. / Source:AaronPoulson.net

OK, that said, I'm going to hit this issue.  I'm going to go about it in two directions, so try to stick with my line of argument, if you will.  I'm sure I will argue against myself at least twice, but I have heard being a person who can see multiple sides of an issue is a worthy goal, so I'm only doing what seems best to me.

First off, the comments made in the above email.  Here's where we do some deconstruction:

Children of congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans... Staffers of Congress family members are also exempt from having to pay back student loans.

According to FactCheck.org (from where I drew all my rebuttals, for what that is worth), this is not an accurate statement.  Congress members and executive branch members have a program open to them for limited debt forgiveness of their loans ($40-60k, which seems an awful lot to me, but it still isn't a completely blank check as the mass email statement leads you to believe).  There are other Public Service Loan Forgiveness Programs also being worked on or already currently available (for the full details, see here). 

This is a touchy subject to me, so when I first saw it in the email text, I got mad and wanted to send the message along myself.  I'm kinda glad I took a minute to do a little investigation, even though the results I found are not entirely capable of putting my fears to rest.  You see, I have some student loan debt, and so does my wife.  So do numerous members of my family, and many of my friends.  And the coming troubles with student loan indebtedness and the impact they will have on the future of both our education system and on our economy is something that worries me.

A little history: I received a message in the mail some years ago indicating that my student loan was going to be administered by the federal government from that point on, and wondering just what that meant.  It seems to me (someone who openly admits that he didn't thoroughly read the notice or find out all the ramifications involved - I just wanted to be sure my loan was still safe and secure and as long as that was the case, "whatever") that the U.S. government took on a lot of responsibility there, which may or may not be a good thing for the future of my student loan after I am out of school.  On the one hand, the government is less likely to sell my loan off to some cut-rate loan shop for a good price point and then I have to deal with a loan shark highly persuasive and potentially unfeeling organization in repaying my educational debts.  But on the other hand, this is the federal government we're talking about here.  The same guys who ran up a national debt that is so big, you can't fit it on a calculator display without using scientific notation!

You know, 10 to the power of whatever.  P.S.: The debt is in the trillions (last I read, anyway), so that's actually twelve places out.  / Source: www.physchem.co.za

Back to the main issue at hand.  Is it fair for government officials of any ilk to get loan debt forgiveness and easier terms than the rest of us?  No.  Not in the least.  However, I think it is fair to say that we'd all like some sort of share of that action.  Anybody with a student loan, whether their degree was in Law, Medicine, or the Underwater basket-weaving habits of the Kangajoomoo Tribe of Outback'nbeyond, would like a break.  Do we get it?  If we could, absolutely.  But most of us will be stuck repaying those loans.  This is, in my eyes, the part where things get unfair.

So, do we say its just fine that government folks get breaks that we common people don't?  Personally, I think that's a clear double standard.  But the problem is, if we say one person gets a perk so everybody gets a perk (to be fair to all), then all perks go off the table.  That's the unsaid yet clearly implied part of the definition of the word "Perk" (scroll down, it's near the bottom).

So what?  The issue is murky, like all issues that smell of government.  Regular folks would take breaks where they can (and we do - it is human nature, even Darwinian - to take advantage where we can), so is it fair to say government shouldn't just because they are "government?"  After all, they are people too.  There's an underlying principle here, and I'll get to it.  But let's move on to other parts of that email first, and I'll wrap it all up in the end.  I promise.

Members of Congress have exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed, under which ordinary citizens must live. For example, they are exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment.

This part about sexual harassment may have been true at one time.  It was true in most jobs, government or otherwise.  But according to an admittedly brief search of the 'net, the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 was put in partly due to news stories of legislative excesses, and counters this argument of discrimination in favor of congress in the matter of sexual harassment.  Senators and Representatives are supposedly just as accountable for sexual harassment charges as anyone else.

Having said that, take into account that anybody can charge anybody else of sexual harassment, and anyone can actually commit sexual harassment.  Sexual harassment may be as widely or narrowly defined as any given person in any given situation is willing to go.  Yes, there is a specific definition, but harassment of this sort can be either done to someone who is completely oblivious to it, to someone who tolerates it, or to someone who is hyper-sensitive to it.  Sexual harassment, because it deals with issues that have a certain amount of taboo in our country, is a dangerous law.  I'm not saying it isn't a good one; it's better that people - mostly women but sometimes men - have a law to protect them from others who would use their position as a means of leverage to solicit benefits of a sexual nature.

Just to clarify, it would seem obvious that this would clearly qualify as harassment. / Source: archive.peruthisweek.com

What I'm saying is, sexual harassment claims, without the use of discretion and reasonable minds on the parts of the adjudicators of the case, could turn into a witch hunt.  And we've done that before in our nation's history.  Two easy examples: Salem Witch Trials (way before the nation's founding, or course) and the Second Red Scare of the McCarty era in the 1950s.  Neither ended well for those who were labeled as witches or communists.  Let us hope all cases of sexual harassment are dealt with both speedily and with precision and justice, so that the guilty may be reprimanded appropriately and the innocent protected.

Off that rant, my point is, if somebody is being sexually harassed by somebody in the government, whether they be a congressman or a lowly file clerk, and if that offender isn't being dealt with, it isn't the fault of the laws of the land, based on my quick research.  And they should be brought to task on it with all due gravity and as quickly as possible, so the problem gets fixed.

Last issue:

...they have exempted themselves from Healthcare Reform, in all of its aspects.

This also appears to be untrue.  There are aspects of this one that seem a bit murky (who are we kidding - the whole piece of legislation is kinda murky), but based on this article, it appears that Congress is bound by the Healthcare program just like the rest of us.  The difference is, they all have jobs to help pay the bill, and pretty good paying ones too.  So it's like they are getting "free" care.

I will readily admit to not fully understanding the whole program, but it does seem to be a bit of a mad scientist's creation. / Source: PoliticsDaily.com

The problem?  They don't vote themselves pay raises anymore, they vote whether of not to raise their pay (see third bullet point down) based on the Cost of Living index.  So when you hear it said that Congress just gave themselves another pay raise, its because they have taken proactive measures in the past to ensure they stay up on the rising level of inflation and costs of putting food on the table.  So there Healthcare isn't as tough a pill to swallow as the rest of ours are, you might say.

Boy, I sure wish somebody would be proactive like that for me...

Now having addressed the fallacies or partial fallacies (depending on who you believe, feel free to counter my arguments and please, bring your sources), let me hit on one key sentence in that original email text that I think really says what many of "We The People" are really thinking here.

We must not tolerate an elite class of such people, elected as public servants and then putting themselves above the law.

I think that encapsulates pretty well the fear we Americans have about our government, and what spawns these sort of demands for reform.  The fact is that I, like many U.S. citizens, don't know who my elected officials are.  And why not, you ask?  I'm on a rant about the government here, and I'm even taking time to refute arguments against them.  How come I don't know them?

The answer is real simple.  I'm lazy.  No, seriously.  I don't want to put forth more effort than I already do.  Now I have it pretty good compared to lots of folks out there.  There are plenty of people who don't have the resources to even read what I've written here, because they are too poor to be able to use the Internet anytime they feel like it.  They must use public terminals at the library, and if they spend their precious time in those minutes reading my words, they must be either deluded or crazy.  No, I'm quite convinced that people do what they have to do to survive.  It's a fact of nature.  If you have limited time on the Internet, you're going to use it to look for a job, look up information that pertains directly to your situation and how to better it, or stay in touch with people you can't easily communicate otherwise.  It's part of the priority system we all live under, if we want to keep our head above water.

This is another mini rant, I know.  But the point goes a long way.  The thing is, we Americans (of the United States persuasion, that is) are all busy trying to do things, and we don't pay as much attention to the way our nation is being run as we probably ought to.  We get a lot of bad press for this in the world, I'm told.  We are supposedly the bastion of participatory democracy, and yet our voter turnout in even the most heated contests is lucky to be over 50%.

Don't need Constitutional-tinkering to figure that one out. / Source: FlickRiver.com

There is no really acceptable excuse for this.  We should be more accountable, even as we want our leaders to be accountable.  But let's face it, we're not.  Our culture has evolved according to the laws of expediency and comfort.  We are products of a country that values fast-food and lightning fast download speeds.  This is a double-edged sword.  It makes us hard-working when it is to our advantage.  But it also makes us indifferent to things that don't directly affect our own bottom lines.  And more and more, that includes politics.

I could give you plenty of examples from my studies in college about this, but I'll save them for now.  The point is, there is a general sense of unease about a nation that is powerful (even in its current weakened economic circumstances) as ours is.  Our leaders go off to Washington D.C.  What are they really doing there?  We're all busy watching the latest season of Dancing With The Stars (not to knock it, but it is a symptom of a culture concerned more so with "pop" than with policy).  Or we're trying to get a second job to pay for the rising cost of gasoline.  Or we're trying to find childcare for our kids so we can work an extra shift to help pay down the credit card bill.  Or we're making plans for a long-time friend's wedding.  Or we're mourning the loss of a loved one who left us way before we were ready to see them go.  Or any number of a thousand other permutations and variations.  It's a busy world, after all.

The thing is, much of what we do today, people in past eras did too.  We just do so much more of it, and the government is doing stuff we aren't sure is for the best, and people get knee-jerk and want to demand a quick fix.  They say: Let's toss a 28th Amendment at them people in the Capitol.  We'll fix the problem and then move on to other things.

The thing is, we won't fix this problem.  For example, here is a list, taken from a Huffington Post story, of concerns that an advocate for Congressional reform has.

The Essential Amendment Program:

• One Person/ One Vote. Corporations are not People!


• Restore the Power of the Personal Vote


• Public Campaign Finance


• No Corporate Financing of Elections.


• No Lobbying with Money, or the Potential of Future Rewards.


• No Persons or Group of Persons May Contribute More than100 to Any Politician or Any Single Campaign--100 is the Limit.


• Finance Electoral Campaigns with a Citizens Tax.


• Term Limits Limit Oligarchy!


• 12 Years Max for the Congress, Senate and Supreme Court!


• Vote Only for Politicians Who Completely Support This Program in Their Platforms: A 'No Vote' for Any Politician Who Does Not Support the 28th Amendment.


• To Serve in Congress is an Honor, Not a Career. Serve our Citizens, Not the Rich and Corporations!


• The Congress is Not a Place to Get Elected in Order to Get Rich or Richer: For the text of our proposed amendment, please visit www.profoundemocracy.org.

Please understand - just because I defended the government at the beginning of this post against (seemingly) false charges, don't get the idea that I'm all on their side or something.  It is my opinion that there are some real problems with the system that need to be addressed.  The list above of complaints from that Huffington Post author have some merit (that's partly why I included them, and also as an example of what people think in regards to the political muddle - since I DO NOT agree with all of the list myself)).  Powerful people use the loopholes in the system to work to their own advantage, and it hurts others who have less clout or a powerful enough voice to speak on their behalf.  This may be part and parcel of government for time immemorial, but we supposedly aspire to a better way.  That whole Bill of Rights argument, and the further Amendments to the Constitution, and the freedom to fight city hall (even if you lose)?  We should have more of a valid right to demand the best from our government than we do to demand prompt service at the fast-food drive-thru.  And you know people get impatient when they have to sit in line for very long.  So demanding results from our representatives shouldn't be too much of a stretch.

So what's the answer?  Old-fashioned ideas would point to common consensus, with an eye toward what is best for all parties.  But based on the recent "fiscal cliff" and then the budget mess that came of that, it appears our elected leaders can't seem to do that very well.  Some of them must be either recklessly irresponsible, completely out of touch, or just plain incompetent.  They fought past the first major deadline (the aforementioned "Fiscal Cliff") and couldn't come to a fair settlement that made everybody happy.  And then they implemented a program that cuts everybody, in some cases to the bone, and went home, leaving a mess to go down in the books.  The Federal Budget is in a somewhat sorry shape as of this writing, depending on what part of it affects you most directly.  I know people who will lose a good chunk of income to the austerity implementations that were put in by our leaders, since a common agreement was not reachable.

Found out the store manager where I work got a major bonus this year.  Plus he got to go to the car dealership and pick out TWO (Not just one, but TWO) new cars on the company tab.  Then I saw this.  You could say I'm feeling "economically disadvantaged" right now. / Source: blogsensebybarb.wordpress.com

And the news, as far as I can see it, is we Americans will pay more taxes and will see less public benefits in the immediate future than we have for years.  While I agree that "tax" isn't a four-letter word as many would claim, I also know that the government reaching into my paycheck for more money isn't going to help me keep my head above water any more easier.

From all this, it's not a wonder that the people don't trust their representatives.  For example, when you go to the store and choose a new TV, you expect it will fulfill certain obligations.  You'll be able to see your shows on it.  You'll be able to use your remote control.  You'll be able to enjoy it for a number of years before it finally blows out an essential component and you gotta get it fixed or - much more likely in our society - replaced.  And if it doesn't meet your needs right out of the gate, you don't just live with it.  After all, the company that made the TV should stand behind their product, right?  You go in and demand a replacement.  And you get it.  The company made you some promises, and they hold up their end or they loose business.  And we have the Internet, so if you had a bad experience, and I had a bad experience, and Joe down the road had a bad experience, pretty soon that manufacturer of the TV has to do some serious damage control or be forced from the market.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we demanded - and got - from our elected officials the way we do from our major electronic purchases?

Or you could just take this person's approach.  She seems to have some good ideas too (if you read the whole story and note the tongue-in-cheek parts).



P.S.: If you were wondering - and you got this far - to summarize my personal belief is that we need reform, but it must be done with care and proper oversight, and not knee-jerk or using scape-goats.  I'd call myself a moderate, but that's all a matter of perspective, after all.


The parting comment:


I don't know what this has to do with my editorializing, but it's a cool song just the same.