The Congress enacts legislation for itself which provides itself with what are essentially employee benefits. So it treats its members as employees of themselves. In doing so, the Congress provides taxpayer subsidized employee benefits to its members that it refuses to provide to the people Congressmen represent. by John Kozy
(liberal)
Sunday, July 5, 2009
(On June 3, 2009, I sent the following reply to Louise Radnofsky's article, Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus [[link edited for length]].)
Dear Ms Radnofsky,
I began reading your piece, "Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus," with heightened interest, but by the end, I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disappointment. You entered a forest and ended up describing a few shrubs. But what Americans need to know is the big picture.
I may not be correct in all of the following, but this is what I have come across:
Every Congressman is paid at least a $174,000 salary which is automatically adjusted upward for inflation.
Every Congressman is entitled to a retirement plan in addition to a 401K plan and also Social Security. The retirement and 401K plans are taxpayer subsidized.
Every Congressman is entitled to participate in a healthcare plan which is also taxpayer subsidized.
And now you report that every Congressman also receives between $1.3 and 4.5 million yearly for office expenses.
Wouldn't it be useful to the American people if they were told how much this actually costs taxpayers?
Wouldn't it be useful to the American people if they were told just what Congressmen had to spend their $174,000+ salaries on and how much of it is just money in the bank?
You write as though the Treasury, in pure generosity, provides the office expense funds. But doesn't the Congress, which receives the funds, legislate the fund's existence and its amount?
I find this very odd, and you should have found it so too.
The Congress, which Constitutionally, is the principle part of the government, enacts legislation for itself which provides itself with what are essentially employee benefits. So the Congress, the government, treats its members as employees of themselves. Wouldn't it be nice if the rest of us could do that? In doing so, the Congress provides taxpayer subsidized employee benefits to its members that it refuses to provide to the people Congressmen are supposed to represent. Isn't the notion that an elected official is merely a hired employee somewhat odd?
Had you revealed all of this, you would have revealed, I suspect, a major scandal that would make the current British one look trivial.
I would truly love to receive a reply and later a better article, but I doubt that I'll ever see either. Your employer would likely prohibit you from doing it. But I can hope. (06/03/09)
Note: Ms Radnofsky never replied. (07/05/2009)
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of John Kozy only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
John Kozy is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
