Do Members of Congress Get their pay for life?

One thing we want to do is try to have an opportunity to answer some simple questions with our posts, today we will be starting a new series called political dummies, where we will use posts and videos to help people understand more clearly what is going on in the world. Sometimes we will even be fact checkers.

Today I wanted to start with a common misconception which keeps on getting brought up and reposted, but which is not true.

This claim is a classic in its own right. The urban legend checker Snopes.com says it has been circulating in various chain emails since at least 2000. Both claims seem to point to all members of Congress no matter how long they have served, including one term Representatives.

The claim means that rank-and-file members of the House of Representatives would receive full pay of $174,000 per year, for the rest of their lives, after serving as little as two years.

Nice work if you can get it. But members of Congress can't.

A report on "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," prepared in November by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), outlines how pension benefits are to be calculated. Members of Congress are part of the federal retirement system, and as such they fall under the same rules.

The key provision: no member of Congress is eligible for any pension unless he or she has served in Congress(or other federal position) for at least five years. (Senators serve six-year terms; House members must seek reelection every two years.)

To collect, a congressman or senator must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or be any age with 25 years of service.

Under the most recent pension program, adopted in 1984, the size of a pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7 percent for the first 20 years of service and 1.0 percent for subsequent years.

Here’s an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year. The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $172,443 [the average salary over the last three years] times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $172,443 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,250 per year.

A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,588 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay.

Federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full-pay retirement when they leave office. The report says, "By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary."

Under the formula, it would take 67 years of service to hit that limit. Considering the minimum age requirements for members of congress (30 for senator 25 for house), as well as it being very unlikely that members of Congress would be reelected enough times or not retire before that point this is unlikely.

So this meme saying that members of Congress can "receive full pay retirement after serving one term" is blatantly bogus. It's never full pay and the only one-term members who would be eligible for any pension would be senators.

TPP and Fast Track, Why Do They Matter?

As our economy continues to struggle, Congress has a new issue that lies before it, whether or not to approve fast track trade authority and eventually the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP). The TPP is a trade agreement with a dozen or so countries in the pacific region including, the U.S., Canada, Australia, Peru, New Zealand, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, and Japan. South Korea, Taiwan and China have additionally expressed interest in the partnership.

Source Wikipedia.org

Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority as it is also called, grants the President permission to make and sign any trade deal with another country. Once signed, it will then be sent to Congress, where they must vote on it with only an up/down vote. There would be no committee session on the agreements, no possibility of a filibuster or amendments, debates would be limited in length, and the bill would be required to be voted on within a 90 day period from the time it is introduced. 

Earlier this month a fast track bill was submitted to congress, and President Obama has made it known that he wants to use Fast Track Authority to sign two trade agreements that could have significant impact on the American economy and have lasting effects on the U.S. sovereignty.

 The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would economically unite a dozen countries of the Pacific in vastly different states of development and who have radically different standards for worker rights, consumer safety and environmental protection.

Similar to previous free trade agreements such as NAFTA and KORUS, there is much dissatisfaction in some groups who see it as a corporate sellout, shipping jobs overseas while increasing imports of cheap goods to the U.S. Many opponents look at some of the included countries such as Japan as currency manipulators, and feel that the current fast track language does not protect against further manipulation, especially if China were to enter the agreement.

Those who are for the TPP say that it will open doors for the U.S. to modernize some of the third world countries included in the agreement. Additionally the U.S. would see some decreasing tariffs on goods to countries such as Japan.  

However much of how the TPP will impact the U.S. is unknown as this agreement has been kept away from the public eye, and even from our own members of congress. Meanwhile over 600 individuals — including industry lobbyists, corporate leaders, and government trade representatives have negotiated the TPP behind closed doors.

This becomes a problem as corporate lobbyists have access to the details, and have influence over the negotiation process, many members of Congress have been kept in the dark about even the basic details of this agreement. For several years they were not allowed access to any of the details of the agreement.

Only recently have members been granted limited access. To do so they must make a special appointment where they were only allowed to read sections of the agreement they specifically asked for; they were not allowed to take notes or discuss any of the details with anyone, not even their staff.

One member who has seen the text, Allen Grayson said about it "Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty," Grayson told the Huffington Post. "And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!"

Why is the TPP being kept such a secret? Only 5 of the 29 sections of the agreement deal with trade. Among the few details that have been leaked include vast changes to intellectual property, pharmaceutical laws, and internet neutrality. Two sections of the agreement have been leaked by Wikileaks, one dealing with intellectual property, and on the environment.

What has had some people up at arms is the intellectual property section, as some view this as a way to get SOPA into U.S. law. It does specifically grant the authority for governments to enforce Intellectual Property laws on internet service providers.

Additionally it would extend many of the copyright lengths including on pharmaceuticals. This is seen as a disadvantage to most people in the U.S. as it would extend the length of time before new medicines would be available in generic form, and could increase medical costs as well. 

While the environmental chapter would have no significant impact on current U.S. law, the fear is that there is no provisions to ensure that other countries are living up to the standard, some have even called it a "toothless PR exercise."

Included in the agreement are provisions designed to allow corporations to sue governments in international court, with no appeal process. This is a clear usurpation of constitutional authority.

It is believed by some that the current form of fast track  is unconstitutional, because it does not grant full ability for members of Congress the ability to have oversight over the negotiations. For those who are not familiar the constitution says this about treaties, congressional and executive authority etc. I will outline the following for you:

Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to set the terms of trade and specifies that all treaties must be with the advice and consent of the Senate. Meanwhile, the executive branch has constitutional authority to negotiate with foreign sovereigns on behalf of our nation.  The Founders established this clear check and balance to prevent the president from unilaterally negotiating with foreign nations and imposing trade policies that Congress would deem to be against the best interests of our nation.

Additionally Article VI Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What this clearly states is that any treaty that would be signed, would therefore become the law of the land, binding on the U.S. additionally, while it puts the role of negotiator in the hands of the Executive, it must be under the direction of Congress. Additionally giving that much authority to unelected bureaucrats is dangerous, no matter who is in power.

Much more will be coming on fast track and the TPP, and it is vital that we are aware of it. Fast track as written should be significantly amended or replaced, with stronger protections put in place to ensure that the U.S. economy gains from this agreement, and is not damaged further by this trade agreement.

2014 Political thoughts

Christmas is over and gone, most of us are looking at making resolutions and a new year. As we look forward to a new year, 2014 has many issues on the horizon. As we mentioned before, Congress last year was one of the least effective in decades, it has many policy questions lying in front of it. Additionally we have midterm elections.
So here are some of the thing to look at come next year:

1. Austerity, deficit spending and the debt ceiling. We saw a government shutdown last year what will happen when the debt ceiling needs to be raised again come mid February. Our debt has already passed 17 trillion dollars, what is the plan moving forward?

2. Midterm elections, many think it's a given that the house will remain in Republican hands, but how many seats will change hands? The Senate is more of a toss-up and recent polling shows Democrats and republicans in a dead heat in polling.

3. Will immigration reform or gun control be addressed? These two hot button issues affect a large population of the United States, and most people think some form of reform is needed. What will happen though, especially as both sides remain sharply divided.

4. Will the economy have a better recovery next year and will it be substantial? Unemployment continues to lag, what will be done to turn things around? What will our leaders do to improve things?

5. The vast majority of Americans support minimum wage increases, but with the current gridlock in Washington, what will become of it? Should it be raised and what will the effect be? Will states and cities pass their own increases?

6. Foreign policy in Syria, Iran, North Korea and Cuba what will happen here? Will Iran and North Korea be forced to abandon their Nuclear policies, will Cuba and the U.S. warm in relations?

One thing is for sure, next year won't be a boring one in the political field. Be sure to follow these issues and more next year.

Have a Happy New Year!

The Jobless Recovery: What the Media Isn't Telling You

As I said before, often the mainstream media doesn't report the whole truth of what is going on in our country. While they may be aware that we are still coming out of a recession, the media reports that unemployment is around 7 percent nationwide. The truth is that our unemployment is closer to 23 percent according to government shadow statistics.

The 7 percent number makes things not sound as bad right? Well that's because it doesn't include people who have been out of work for more than a year, those in part-time positions who’d prefer full-time jobs and people who are so discouraged that they’ve stopped looking for work. This is the lie that the media is telling you.

What you haven’t heard is jobless claims unexpectedly went up 40,000 more than expected last week. Initial claims were at a seasonally adjusted 379,000 according to the Labor Department. That is the highest level since march and it was the second straight week that claims have risen.

Additionally, More than 4.4 million people received unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 30, the latest data available. That was 600,000 more than the previous week. The majority of recent college graduates cannot find work in their field, and many who are often are underemployed.

For those who are job hunting, many are ending up at temp agencies, hoping somehow to get enough money to pay next month's rent. But that'll be one more job added to payrolls next month, when that college grad starts temping for 9 dollars an hour.

To top it off, congress was the least productive it has been in decades, and is considered to be the worst ever according to a recent CNN poll. Between government shutdowns and debt ceiling debates it's clear that our leaders aren't focused on helping us.

So what has the media been focused on? Well let's see, Mega Millions, Duck Dynasty, Miley Cyrus, not to mention the whole Black/White  Santa scandal, all of which the CNN, MSNBC and FOX News have spent countless hours debating, discussing and picking apart every detail.

We need to wake up to what is going on in America, unemployment and underemployment are much higher than we are being told, and there must be further discussion on what can be done to solve these problems by the media and our leaders.

FEC Vastly Underfunded, Allowing Corporate Interests to Rule

It is no surprise to anyone that money is flooding into federal elections in the post-Citizens United era.  The surprise is how little of it is being regulated. The agency tasked with monitoring and regulating all elections is severely limited due to staff cuts and partisan bickering.

The commission over the past year has reached an all-time low in its ability to reach consensus, stalling action on dozens of rulemaking decisions, as well as audit and enforcement matters, some of which are years old.

Additionally, partisan bickering among the appointed commissioners has led to a drop in agency fines for political committees that break election rules. In 2006 the FEC assessed a total of more than $6.7 million in fines. By 2012, however due to the inefficiency of the agency, it collected less than $1 million in fines.

Despite dramatic increases in election spending sped up by key Supreme Court decisions, the agency’s funding has remained flat for five years and staffing levels have fallen to a 15-year low overall.

Analysts who are charged with scouring disclosure reports to ensure candidates and political action committees are complying with laws have a nearly quarter-million-page backlog. One of the aims of the agency was to have all non-presidential committee audits finished 10 months after the election. At 10 months only 27% had been completed.

The agency is also seriously out of date when it comes to online donations, where few regulations have been put into place. The FEC does not require donations under $200 to be reported.

This means that $1.8 million of the donations received by Obama in September of 2012 required no associated names or addresses because they were under the $200 limit. This lack of regulation could easily allow corporations and foreign donors to make donations illegally, threatening the credibility of our election system.

In election after election, record amounts of money continue to be spent on campaigns. Last year topped 6 billion dollars, more than half of which was spent on the presidential campaign.

With more money flowing into politics, issues such as partisan divides and low staffing affecting the FEC one thing is for sure: this is a recipe for disaster.

So why does this matter so much? In 2010 only 9 House challengers who spent under $1 million won their seats. Similarly, in most presidential elections the winner is the one who raises the most.

This type of system, an increasingly plutocratic one, leads to corruption, where our leaders do the bidding of those who fund their campaigns. While our nation was designed to be secured with a system of checks and balances, we are now being ruled by whoever writes the biggest check and has the biggest balance, and that is not what our founding fathers wanted. 

As we continue to allow special interests to rule through powerful lobbying our nation's foundation crumbles beneath our feet. We need to wake up and get involved in our government especially in our communities.

Embassy closings show the War on Terror is not over yet

Over the weekend U. S. embassies across the Middle East were closed due to security concerns. Today, the U.S. embassy in Yemen was evacuated and U.S. Citizens were told to leave the country due to an al-Qaeda threat.

In the last two weeks U.S. drones 4 times have targeted leaders of al-Qaeda in Yemen and it is believed that one of the dead  believed to be Saleh Jouti, a senior al-Qaeda member. Yesterday alone U.S. drone targeted a moving car in the  Marib province, killing four alleged al-Qaeda militants.

This comes as the State Department released a statement saying that the evacuations were due "“due to the continued potential for terrorist attacks.” After last year's terrorist attack on Benghazi it seems the administration is much more concerned with making sure that diplomatic staff in foreign countries receive adequate protection.

While it has long been known that there is a strong al-Qaeda presence in Yemen, it's strength has been growing and the potential for terrorist attacks seems more and more likely in the region due to the strong presence.

 “It’s very worrisome because al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the most effective and threatening affiliate,” Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor told the Washington Post.

“So now the leader of the most consequential affiliate has an intimate command role in the overall organization. From Zawahiri’s point of view, there’s no better exemplar of the Qaeda brand than AQAP.”

While it is true that the core group of al-Qaeda was dispersed and diminished, it has slowly evolved in countries along the gulf and in North Africa, gaining support from governmental changes occurring due to the Arab spring and the continuing unrest in the region.

"We're witnessing another chapter of the terrorist threat and we'll be living with this for years to come,"  Juan Zarate, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who's now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington told USA Today.

The regional networks are adapting to new opportunities and continue to operate despite pressure put on them by the U.S. and others, Zarate said.

"They're also taking advantage of the political, security and geographic space they operate in. We don't control all aspects of that so it's unfair to blame U.S. policy entirely," he said.

The regional groups continue their activities supported by other radical Islamist groups in Algeria, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries in the region. Concern continues even within the U.S. of al-Qaeda affiliates perpetrating terrorist attacks in the U.S. after the Boston Bombing earlier this year.

As the U.S. and it's allies continue to put pressure on it seems clear that we are not done yet, and continued pressure needs to be applied. It seems clear though that the senior leadership continues to be affected by the drone strikes, but that even without some of the senior leadership, the group continues.

Within the U.S. and around the world the questions continue about surveillance programs. Which wonder about their effectiveness and necessity, but results seem to show that at least some of them are necessary.

If the War on Terror can be won, one thing seems clear to us now, it won't be over soon. The theater in which the war plays out may continue to change but the overall influence of Radical Islam continues throughout much of the middle east, and until something changes to diminish it's influence it seems clear that attacks will continue to occur.