Democrats To Block Own Pay Raises

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Or how about this: instead of trying to get social issues, like a "marriage protection amendment" out on popular vote ballots, keep those in-house where the "constitutional experts" can handle them, and put more of the fiscal issues to the popular vote - including congressional and executive pay.

The congress, just a year or two ago, finished the implementation of "pay for performance" for all federal employees. Ooops, wait, that's all federal employees except the executive, legislative branches, and the federal judges. Instead of PFP, they vote their pay raises. Hmm.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
Or how about this: instead of trying to get social issues, like a "marriage protection amendment" out on popular vote ballots, keep those in-house where the "constitutional experts" can handle them, and put more of the fiscal issues to the popular vote - including congressional and executive pay.

The congress, just a year or two ago, finished the implementation of "pay for performance" for all federal employees. Ooops, wait, that's all federal employees except the executive, legislative branches, and the federal judges. Instead of PFP, they vote their pay raises. Hmm.

Excellent idea, why not take it a step further, put them all out to popular vote? The risk? Before you know it you may have a democracy on your hands....:rolleyes:
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
Excellent idea, why not take it a step further, put them all out to popular vote? The risk? Before you know it you may have a democracy on your hands....:rolleyes:
The problem with putting social issues out for a popular vote is that the majority will often not do the right thing. For instance, I doubt seriously that civil rights legislation would have passed successfully if left up to a majority vote.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
ETA123 said:
The problem with putting social issues out for a popular vote is that the majority will often not do the right thing. For instance, I doubt seriously that civil rights legislation would have passed successfully if left up to a majority vote.

You're right of course in any real world scenario. That is a key danger of a true democracy.

In the real world, we want to sit back and let other people to make decisions for us, so long as, of course they make the right ones..i.e. ones we agree with and don't affect us negatively.:rolleyes:

Wonderful species...:biggrin1:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
dong20 said:
You're right of course in any real world scenario. That is a key danger of a true democracy.

In the real world, we want to sit back and let other people to make decisions for us, so long as, of course they make the right ones..i.e. ones we agree with and don't affect us negatively.:rolleyes:

Wonderful species...:biggrin1:
Well, the ideal would be that the ones making decisions that are directly governed by our Bill of Rights (plus a couple of other constitutional jewels) would be decided by the people who supposedly understand how law works, and social issues should (ideally) fall into this category. I know you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. But the people should make some of the other decisions democratically, such as the congressional pay. When you do things bass-ackwards, you can certainly expect the shit to roll downhill, with appropriate laws of physics applied.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,707
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
[
quote=DC_DEEP]mercurialbliss, you are close, but the grand prize goes to DR ROCK!!!!! Your cynicism pays off, my friend.

Rock, it is blatant electioneering to anyone who knows how the system works. I won't re-research the issue, so I don't have exact dates... but some years ago, the Congress actually changed the law so that they did not have to bring a vote to the floor every year to get their raises. (Shit, I wouldn't mind even that, being able to vote each year on whether and how much of a raise I would get...) They decided that it was too time consuming, so they drafted and passed a law that would make their raises AUTOMATIC every year, unless they voted to forego. Even at that, none is required to accept the raise, and over the years, a small handful actually have refused it. But the point is, if the Democrats were HONESTLY interested in the issue, they would work to repeal that pay-raise-automation law... not just toss it up into the spotlight to make a point. Even at that, they are perfectly within their rights to refuse it.

Not sure why I didn't hit the mark since I already mentioned the raises were automatic and that an amendment must be passed to block them, but yes the Dems need to be diligent and make this high on their list of priorities and not just for the sake gaining favor in the next election.


I know, those are not actual issues... but you would be ASTOUNDED that there were something like 671 votes along those lines in 2005. Please, spare me, don't use an excuse like "would you rather they spend time on this less-important issue than the bigger ones."

I'm not astounded in the least. Excuses are needed when a powerful body of government needs to justify irresponsible decision-making. Congress informs us that the decision was made to leave room for the more "important issues" but this decision benefits them more than anyone else. Sometimes people in power make decisions such as these simply because they CAN.

No one ever likes this idea, but I think that Congress should be required to adopt the pay scale of the poorest school district in the country, and to move up in the scale, they have to stay in for a while, plus get continuing education credits, plus attend twice-annual workshops - with their constituents.
[/QUOTE]

I think that's an excellent idea, but have my doubts as to whether Congress implements such a drastic change anytime soon.

Note to Dong: I didn't misunderstand you, but thought you might not have realized how that "sounded". No worries.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
Well, the ideal would be that the ones making decisions that are directly governed by our Bill of Rights (plus a couple of other constitutional jewels) would be decided by the people who supposedly understand how law works, and social issues should (ideally) fall into this category.

We don't have one.....yet but David Cameron has grand designs...:rolleyes:

DC_DEEP said:
I know you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. But the people should make some of the other decisions democratically, such as the congressional pay. When you do things bass-ackwards, you can certainly expect the shit to roll downhill, with appropriate laws of physics applied.

I was and yes I agree. I see no need or practical benefit (actually quite the reverse in some ways) for the citizenry to be involved 'en mass' at every level of decision making. But I do believe in greater granuality in the process. That requires more investement and involvment by citizens in politics at local and national level and to acheive that we must get past the current scenario of idealism & momentum verses apathy & inertia.

In whatever system we have, any framework created to guide the decision making process must allow it to work unhindered by procedural minutiae in that sense. The definition of what comprises minutiae and what is substantive and thus up for public vote could be problematical but far from insurmountable.

It's stating the obvious I know, but getting that balance right is key to any working system....and is where I believe our existing systems often fail us. The balance of power and privilege is becoming shifted to far in favour of a political hegemony run by those who increasingly fail to represent any views but their own and those of their 'sponsors'. I'm rather a political cynic.:rolleyes:

The private sector has 'term limits' based on perfomance, the electoral system in theory serves a parallel purpose for politicians and public officialdom. However, the last few years I believe I have seen more evidence of failure than success in weeding out corrupt, invested and incompetent 'sitting tenant' politicians.

Revolution I say.....Bring on Dr. Rock and his gibbets...:tongue:
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
rikter8 said:

1. Get out boys out of Iraq. They dont belong there - at all.

Certainly sooner rather than later.

2. Hit the greedy republicans where it hurts the most - Their Wallets.

Why stop with the republicans.....:tongue:

3. Leave the constitution ALONE. NO Amendments.

Except those which seek to further protect and define rights not those which seek to curtail them.

4. Gays and Lesbians are here, theyre human..so grasp reality, and turn your face the other way if you dont like what you see.

See 3....

5. Why do the Oil companies need TRILLIONS of dollars.
Arent they rich beyond their wildest dreams?
Cut the price of crude oil and get this country back on its feet.

Disagree on prices, the world and especially the US needs to get their collective heads out of the crude....

Legislate the use of excess profits into the development of alternative energy and grant those companies incentives to do so. Not easy to balance I know but the world cannot continue on its current fossil fuel trip.

6. Put the Power back to the People and stop the corruptive laws.

No argument there.

I could go on..but I wont.

Quit while you're ahead.:biggrin1:
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
mercurialbliss said:
Not sure why I didn't hit the mark since I already mentioned the raises were automatic and that an amendment must be passed to block them, but yes the Dems need to be diligent and make this high on their list of priorities and not just for the sake gaining favor in the next election.
But an amendment is NOT needed to block raises, just simply a floor vote... a much much simpler and quicker action than a constitutional amendment (which would not affect the "raise" law) or amending existing USC law. A floor vote is as simple as someone taking the floor, suggesting the action, inviting discussion, and calling it to a vote. Changing laws, on the other hand, requires much more intricate procedure, hours and hours of debate, lots of paperwork, etc.
I'm not astounded in the least. Excuses are needed when a powerful body of government needs to justify irresponsible decision-making. Congress informs us that the decision was made to leave room for the more "important issues" but this decision benefits them more than anyone else. Sometimes people in power make decisions such as these simply because they CAN.
Precisely. I was simply countering the (repeatedly made) point that we should focus on the "bigger" issues. Those who think the Congress is completely and totally swamped, already, with legislation, and that they are incapable of multi-tasking and focusing on issues, large or small, which need to be addressed, have fallen for those distractionary tactics which they have used to justify their irresponsible decision-making.