An idea whose time has come

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.  This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

I decided to do a little research on it instead. 

~~~~~

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report (updated Feb 7, 2007)  (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf)

Claim: Members of Congress don’t pay into Social Security

False:

Up to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor federal civil service workers paid taxes into Social Security, but they also were not eligible for Social Security benefits.  The Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) covered them instead.

In 1983 the Social Security Act was amended (P.L. 98-21), required federal civil service workers hired after 1983 to pay taxes into the Social Security system. 

This amendment required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, whenever they first entered Congress. A new retirement plan for federal workers was designed called the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-335) and coordinated benefits with the old CSRS

Members of Congress serving at the start of 1984 had four choices for their retirement plan:

(1)  FERS plus Social Security;
(2)  CSRS plus Social Security
(3)  CSRS Offset that includes both CSRS and Social Security, but with contributions and benefits coordinated between both plans;
(4)  Social Security alone.

Members of Congress elected after 1984 are now automatically covered under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), unless they decline this coverage.

Claim: Members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term

False:

Pensions for Members of Congress are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions like any other job.  All participants pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base as well as contributions to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.

Under both retirement plans (CSRS and FERS), Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service.  The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three consecutive years of salary times a multiplier based on years of service.  Payouts (by law) may not exceed 80 percent of their final salary (only happens if service exceeds 41 years).

As an example, Newt Gingrich, former Member of Congress, was reelected 10 times and resigned after exactly 20 years in Congress (Jan 3, 1979- Jan 3, 1999).  He received his pension at age 50; his final salary was $136,700. 

His pension calculates out at $136,700 x 1.5 percent for the first five years ($10,252.50) plus $136,700 x 1.75 percent for the next five years ($11,961.25), plus $136,700 x 2.0 percent for the next ten years ($27,340), yielding $49,553.75 per year plus Social Security.  Not that much for twenty years of government service. 

As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based on their congressional service; 290 retired under CSRS with an average annual pension of $60,972; 123 retired under FERS or CSRS Offset with an average annual pension of $35,952. 

Additional Refs:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

Claim: Members of Congress exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform… in all of its forms

Mostly False:

Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 were signed into law in March 2010, Members of Congress enjoyed good health insurance.  The health care was not free, was not reserved only for them, was not government insurance, and was not a system where the government was the only health insurance company. Members of the House and Senate purchased private health insurance offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which covered more than 8 million other federal employees, retirees and their families.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offered about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans, many regional HMO plans, and high-deductible plans. 

There were several differences with plans offered the average citizen, including no waiting periods for coverage and no preexisting condition exclusions.  The FEHBP also negotiated coverage and rates annually with all insurance companies offering their services, and there were plenty, since the FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.

When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Senate bill”) was signed into law on March 23, 2010) and amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H.R. 4872) a week later (both without a single Republican vote), they contained a provision dictating that Members of Congress would be required to purchase health care coverage through the state-based exchanges the new law established to be in place by 2014. 

The provision was added to make good on the promise that all Americans would receive the same coverage as Members of Congress. 

The congressional health plans are paid up to 75% by the government and 25% by the policyholder.  This is similar to the Medicare health plan payment plan for senior citizens.  The difference is the government plans also include prescription drug coverage.

The exception to this provision is that the President, White House staffers, Cabinet members, Senate committee and select congressional leadership staffers (some of whom wrote the health insurance act) can retain their current health insurance plans and are not required to buy their health insurance through the exchanges. 

Congressional aides want to know why isn’t the new health care plan good enough for the president and his Cabinet, and people who wrote the plan? 

Future of the reform: Provisions of the legislation signed in March 2010

Additional refs:
Health care reform in the United States

Claim: Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. 

It takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

Misstatement:

Actually, the Attorneys General of 14 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. 

Legal challenges

As the health care bills approached Congressional approval, opponents of heath care reform shifted their focus to challenging the Constitutionality of the legislation.

The Virginia General Assembly passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act before Congress completed action on its bill. Governor Robert F. McDonnell signed that law on March 24, prior to House approval of the reconciliation bill.  

The Virginia law prohibits any individual from being required to purchase health insurance. 

On March 17, 2010, while the U.S. House of Representatives was considering the rules to govern debate on the Senate bill, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent Speaker Pelosi a letter threatening a Constitutional challenge to the enactment of the bill if the House used a self-implementing rule and deemed the Senate bill to pass (which the House did).

On March 23, 2010, Cuccinelli filed Commonwealth v. Sebelius in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the Constitutionality of the insurance requirement.

Also on March 23, 2010, the Attorney General of Florida, together with the States of South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho and South Dakota filed a joint law suit in a Florida district court also challenging the new law.

However, many constitutional law professors interviewed have predicted the state laws and lawsuits will fail due to contradicting established constitutional structure and precedence.

Other legal challenges await.  The requirement of purchasing health care insurance is opposed by many.  Certain groups like Muslims and Amish, where health care is against their religious beliefs are exempt. 

This exemption will also apply to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance (and any form of risk insurance) to be haraam (forbidden). 

People who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion. 

The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for the free exercise of religion.  The Supreme Court ruled, “Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation.”

According to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academies, the United States is the “only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage.” 

Those in favor of universal health care allege that the large number of uninsured Americans creates both direct and hidden costs, and that extending coverage to all would lower costs and improve quality.  Opponents of universally required health care argue that they would not contain health care costs. 

The new health care legislation would result (by 2019) in an estimated 32 million additional citizens being insured with 23 million citizens still not covered. 

Republicans (funded by large health care providers) have sworn to repeal the Health Care bill in its entirety when they have a majority in Congress, leaving those 32 million people (including 11 million children) without any health care.

Claim: Members of Congress have specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.

False:

This claim originated in the 1990s and has been circulating in chain letters ever since. 

In 1995 Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1) (CAA) that applies twelve civil rights, labor, and workplace safety and health laws to the U.S. Congress and its associated agencies.  Previously, agencies in the legislative branch had been exempt. 

The CAA requires the Congress to follow many of the same employment and workplace safety laws applied to businesses and the federal government. 

The act is enforced by the United States Congress Office of Compliance requiring the legislative branch of the U.S. Government to operate under the following laws: (full text)

Discrimination:

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Offices in the legislative branch must make all their public services, programs, activities, and accommodations accessible to people with a disability.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Offices are required to accommodate the special needs of a person with a disability and employees cannot be discriminated against in personnel actions because of their disability.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Employees 40 years old and older must  not be discriminated against in personnel actions for the reason of their age.

Employee Rights:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employees cannot be harassed or discriminated against in personnel actions due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

According to the Office of Compliance Section 201 of the CAA specificallly covers sexual harassment.

Veterans’ employment and reemployment rights in Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the United States Code, and amended in 1998 to include portions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998.  Employees cannot be treated differently due to past or present duty in the uniformed services; those who are required to leave their jobs to perform uniformed service have the right to be reemployed in their old job after their service obligation ends. 

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. Employees are entitled to 12 weeks of leave from work for defined medical and family reasons.

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Employees must receive at least the current minimum wage with other defined employees entitled to overtime pay.

Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Legislative branch employees have the right to join a union and enter collective bargaining with their employer.

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989. Employees have the right to notice of mass layoff or office closing.

Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. Employees cannot be required to be subject to any lie detector or polygraph examinations (limited exceptions).

Workplace Safety:

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Workplaces must be free of hazards that are likely to result in serious injury or death.

The source of this claim stems from the original founding fathers who wrote the Constitution.  Those were different times.  The authors feared that a future president might try to intimidate Congress by threatening to arrest them on made-up charges, and destroy the balance of powers; so they gave elected lawmakers certain immunity.

U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6) “They (members of Congress) shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” 

Unfortunately, as years went by, Congress saw this as license to exempt themselves from certain standards of law, a view that is constantly being addressed and corrected.

At the initial circulation of the legend, oil prices were climbing rapidly toward their record peak of US$145, reached in July 2008. Mainstream economists were predicting anywhere from $200 to $1,000 per barrel of oil (bbl). 

Note: A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons. 

In truth, the Bakkan Formation in the northern Midwest and Canada has had drilling activity for more than 50 years.  In that time, it has produced 111 million bbl, with 70 million produced in the last 10 years due to advanced techniques of extraction. 

As of October 2007, it was producing 75,000 bbl per day from 951 wells or only 79 bbl per day (that’s about twice as much as the Gulf Oil leak is currently spewing from one well). 

The total estimate of recoverable oil is 3.6 billion bbl and that is considered a VERY optimistic estimate.  To put it into perspective, 3.6 billion bbl is about what America consumes in six months (at 7.6 billion bbl per year) and it will take more than 20 years to recover that much from the Bakken.

 The April 2008 “report” is only a 2-page summary giving an extrapolated estimate of “undiscovered” and “technically recoverable” oil less reserves already known.  The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimate of 503 billion bbl is not the economically recoverable amount, but an estimate of every drop down there. 

The estimate of recovering 10% of the oil is also highly optimistic (i.e. every well drilled hits a reservoir).  The claim of enough crude to fully fuel the American economy until 2041 @ $16 per barrel is figmentation. 

In truth, The Bakken Formation oil is found between layers of shale.  The depth of the oil shale runs from a few thousand feet down in Canada to up to 2 MILES (10,000 feet) straight down in the U.S.  And, the Bakken layer of oil shale is a maximum of 150 feet thick and thinner in most areas.

It ain’t Jeb Clampett’s back yard.

The Stansberry Report Online (4/20/2006) reports 2 Trillion bbl at 1,000 feet beneath the surface.  Total figmentation, since it grabbed the smallest distance ventured (which is in Canada) with the highest undiscovered estimate possible. 

While there may be some reservoirs, most require high technology to extract 1 to 5 percent of the oil (average 2 percent).  The risk is high for an operator to spend $3 to $5 million on a well with no assurance of a strike.  There are plenty of “dry holes” right next to a strike.

Better reserve areas depend on porosity (how empty is the rock) and permeability (how easily fluid can flow through the rock).  The Bakken Shale formation comes in near zero on both counts.  High porosities and permeabilities are found in Saudia Arabia and the Middle East, the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico (big surprise!).

The Stansberry Report also says environmentalists and others have blocked efforts (not true) and asks how can we NOT be extracting the oil?  We are. 

Remember, drilling has been going on for 50+ years.  There are about 1,700 wells (October 2009), and more on the way.  Environmentalists are concerned because of the high pollution (ground and air) caused by the drilling methods. 

In 2005 President Bush mandated extraction.  The Bakken Shale formation sits under Federal land, so in 2006, Marathon Oil bought 200,000 acres to drill 300 wells.  Texas-based XTO energy also bought 352,000 acres from the Fed. 

Take a look at this report on the Bakken.  It covers the issue in great detail. 

http://www.nosmokeblown.com/?p=1962

These links will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about crude oil prices.

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum

This link will tell you about investment opportunities in oil companies developing  drilling startegies in the Bakken Shale formation.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/250056-oasis-petroleum-a-pure-bakken-three-forks-play?source=yahoo

I was encouraged to start a Weblog, because I have always helped people improve their lives with information gathered from my research, guidance and leadership.  I never counted the number of people I influenced positively, nor looked for any awards, and it always surprises me when young people, some with their own children now, tell me how I changed their lives for the better.

My biggest challenge in the Weblog area was (and still is) to define my niche.  My passion in life is research, along the lines of learning about people and the events that affect their lives.  I am an omnivore of information, always looking for more.  If I see a magazine waiting to be read, I will read the articles on any subject to increase my knowledge or satisfy my interest.

After four months of thinking about it, I narrowed it down to four areas:

1. financialcommand.com will show the outcome of research where the average person can understand some of the wider forces affecting our lives, recognize financial opportunities and perhaps make some capital.

2. vitalifecommand.com (with one ‘l’) will show the results of personal improvement research and offer my take on how people can improve their lives and their state of happiness.

3. writingcommand.com will research the art and skill of writing and become a platform for my own writing.  While writingcommand.com will be concerned with non-fiction writing and techniques to be a better writer, writingcommand.net will focus on fiction writing and techniques of storytelling.

4. bobgreaker.com will explore my personal life and feelings, my hopes and expectations – a peek behind the blinds, if you will.  I plan to write these posts as a journey.  There will be some false starts, some dead ends, but hopefully always moving forward, perhaps sometimes by inches.

The keyword passing through all the websites is research.  That is my passion.  I can sit for endless hours at my computer, following links and looking up the most inane subjects.

I will, for my part, try to encourage readers to think, to raise self-expectations, as I will for myself.  And I will use this blog to develop myself as a web writer.

You are welcome to join me on my journey.

BobG
“We get ideas every day
but our lives will not change
until we take action”