NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe this is a reason to hope that the Democrats will be more fiscally responsible than they have ever been before.

In one sign of the approaching Democratic rise to power, future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., succeeded in attaching to the funding bill language stopping until Feb. 16 an automatic pay raise members of Congress were to receive on Jan. 1.

Of course, this also gives us all the more reason to hope that the minimum wage law is never passed.

They said no pay raise should be enacted until Congress approves an increase in the federal minimum wage...

And as usual, the session-ending bills have more than their fair share of crap. So the pay raises are pretty much just lost in the noise. Nice gesture, no substance. Read the article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp)for more details.

I don't know what's sweeter--the fact that Pelosi and Reid did this or that the Republicans left in DC right now are feeling so defeated that they let it happen. Last I checked, they're still technically in charge.

I don't know what's sweeter--the fact that Pelosi and Reid did this or that the Republicans left in DC right now are feeling so defeated that they let it happen. Last I checked, they're still technically in charge.

The way the language reads, as soon as the minimum wage increase passes, the pay raise goes through as well.

I don't know what's sweeter--the fact that Pelosi and Reid did this or that the Republicans left in DC right now are feeling so defeated that they let it happen. Last I checked, they're still technically in charge.

I suspect the GOP knew it would either happen this year or next and decided to go along. But the 3K per Congressman is really lost in the excesses that were spent.

Maybe this is a reason to hope that the Democrats will be more fiscally responsible than they have ever been before.

Of course, this also gives us all the more reason to hope that the minimum wage law is never passed.

And as usual, the session-ending bills have more than their fair share of crap. So the pay raises are pretty much just lost in the noise. Nice gesture, no substance. Read the article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp)for more details.

One can only hope they're more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have been over the last six years. These Republicans were spending us into oblivion. It's good that the democrats defeated the Republican bill to raise congressional wages at least. Now maybe they can move on to getting rid of that stupid Republican Perscription Drug Plan - the largest entitlement program ever passed in history.

The way the language reads, as soon as the minimum wage increase passes, the pay raise goes through as well.

It puts everything off until the middle of February--and I mean everything. The 109th Congress didn't pass the regular spending bills this year, so one of the first things the Democrats have to do once they get back in January is put together the budget just to keep the government running. That's a large part of the reason both Pelosi and Reid have informed their fellow members that they'll be busting their asses in January (as far as being a Congressperson can be considered ass-busting).

It puts everything off until the middle of February--and I mean everything. The 109th Congress didn't pass the regular spending bills this year, so one of the first things the Democrats have to do once they get back in January is put together the budget just to keep the government running. That's a large part of the reason both Pelosi and Reid have informed their fellow members that they'll be busting their asses in January (as far as being a Congressperson can be considered ass-busting).

Please don't say ass-busting. It might make Mr. Foley appear.

Hopefully our MPs will take heed and drop their request of a 66% increase...

Here's a thought. Congressional pay should be the same as the median wage earned by Americans. That would be just under $24,000 a year in 2005, according to the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html). If the median goes up, they get a pay raise in the next session (that pesky amendment prohibits raises taking effect in the session they're passed).

Maybe this is a reason to hope that the Democrats will be more fiscally responsible than they have ever been before.

Of course, this also gives us all the more reason to hope that the minimum wage law is never passed.

And as usual, the session-ending bills have more than their fair share of crap. So the pay raises are pretty much just lost in the noise. Nice gesture, no substance. Read the article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_go_co/congress_rdp)for more details.

so in other words, she's bargening pay raises with a bill for Minimum wage. holding something that was voted in effect hostage to get another bill passed...

gee, I have a feeling had the parties been reversed, you would be calling about the underhanded tricks the Repubs are doing to get their bill passed. :rolleyes:

If anything, Congress deserves a huge slash in their pay.

Here's a thought. Congressional pay should be the same as the median wage earned by Americans. That would be just under $24,000 a year in 2005, according to the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html). If the median goes up, they get a pay raise in the next session (that pesky amendment prohibits raises taking effect in the session they're passed).

Making them even easier to bribe...

Here's a thought. Congressional pay should be the same as the median wage earned by Americans. That would be just under $24,000 a year in 2005, according to the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html). If the median goes up, they get a pay raise in the next session (that pesky amendment prohibits raises taking effect in the session they're passed).

That would certainly keep the influence peddlers busy, wouldn't it?

I'm thinking of a different formula, though. Congress was originally intended to be more or less invisible during times of peace. Let's tie Congressional pay to the lack of things they do. We'll start at $1,000,000 a year for each of the 535 bums on the Hill. For every resolution, bill, committee recommendation, etc, not strictly required, i.e. spelled out in words, by the Constitution, we deduct $1000.

I'd bet that they would owe us money by the end of a 2 year Congress.

so in other words, she's bargening pay raises with a bill for Minimum wage. holding something that was voted in effect hostage to get another bill passed...

I thought you had a good grasp of the obvious until...

gee, I have a feeling had the parties been reversed, you would be calling about the underhanded tricks the Repubs are doing to get their bill passed. :rolleyes:
I found you didn't really know that much after all.

Making them even easier to bribe...

Right, as if most of them need the money. But realistically, maybe bribery should be allowed, so long as the giver and the recipient are required to publish the amount given and the reason. If citizens wish to band together to keep their representatives flush so they aren't susceptible to the blandishments of lobbyists, fine.

That would certainly keep the influence peddlers busy, wouldn't it?

I'm thinking of a different formula, though. Congress was originally intended to be more or less invisible during times of peace. Let's tie Congressional pay to the lack of things they do. We'll start at $1,000,000 a year for each of the 535 bums on the Hill. For every resolution, bill, committee recommendation, etc, not strictly required, i.e. spelled out in words, by the Constitution, we deduct $1000.

I'd bet that they would owe us money by the end of a 2 year Congress.

Explain why Congress is supposed to be invisible during times of peace? My readings of the Constitution don't take me there, but hey, I'm old, I miss things.

Explain why Congress is supposed to be invisible during times of peace? My readings of the Constitution don't take me there, but hey, I'm old, I miss things.
It's not as much of a Constitutional thing as it is a Federalist Papers thing. The Federal government was originally intended to be small, with the States doing most of the real work. I don't have a copy to quote chapter and verse, but that early distrust of the Federal government was certainly well-founded.

It's not as much of a Constitutional thing as it is a Federalist Papers thing. The Federal government was originally intended to be small, with the States doing most of the real work. I don't have a copy to quote chapter and verse, but that early distrust of the Federal government was certainly well-founded.

Perhaps it was distrusted and certainly the Founders did not envision a nation of 300 million people stretching across the continent. Still, distrust aside, they wrote the Constitution in such a way as to give Congress a good deal to do.

It's not as much of a Constitutional thing as it is a Federalist Papers thing. The Federal government was originally intended to be small, with the States doing most of the real work. I don't have a copy to quote chapter and verse, but that early distrust of the Federal government was certainly well-founded.

I think it's number 46 you're after.

http://federali.st/

as though raising the minimum wage will instantly make everything better for the poor....

I thought you had a good grasp of the obvious until...

I found you didn't really know that much after all.

oh? you don't think that if the Repubs tried that with say... drilling rights in Alaska, people would be screaming about the Underhanded tricks of the Repubs?

Note: I didn't say that the dems were any better or worse. :p

That would certainly keep the influence peddlers busy, wouldn't it?

I'm thinking of a different formula, though. Congress was originally intended to be more or less invisible during times of peace. Let's tie Congressional pay to the lack of things they do. We'll start at $1,000,000 a year for each of the 535 bums on the Hill. For every resolution, bill, committee recommendation, etc, not strictly required, i.e. spelled out in words, by the Constitution, we deduct $1000.

I'd bet that they would owe us money by the end of a 2 year Congress.

Are you kidding? Do you realize what an unmitigated disaster the last six years wouldv'e been with no congressional checks on the moron we have in office now? Congress is never supposed to be invisible. These last six years were probably the worst yeasr for this country ever in terms of teh presidency, with congressional checks - albeit soft checks because they were from teh same party. If Bush had his way with no one to stand up to him there would no longer be recognized borders around the country, foreign countries would own all our ports and airports, companies would be dumping nuclear waste in the Colorado river, we'd be at war with France and we'd be $400 trillion in debt.

I think it's number 46 you're after.

http://federali.st/

Cool. I didn't know that was on-line in such a readable format.

Thanks.

Are you kidding? Do you realize what an unmitigated disaster the last six years wouldv'e been with no congressional checks on the moron we have in office now? Congress is never supposed to be invisible. These last six years were probably the worst yeasr for this country ever in terms of teh presidency, with congressional checks - albeit soft checks because they were from teh same party. If Bush had his way with no one to stand up to him there would no longer be recognized borders around the country, foreign countries would own all our ports and airports, companies would be dumping nuclear waste in the Colorado river, we'd be at war with France and we'd be $400 trillion in debt.

It takes two branches of government to make a law, okay one if you count Presidential Proclamations(executive orders). If Congress didn't do anything, would we have the giant Prescription Drug giveaway? Of course not. Would we throw more good money after bad on education? No.

I don't think you quite caught the intent of my post. It wasn't to do away with Congress, only to have it be a bigger obstacle to future legislation.

One can only hope they're more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have been over the last six years. These Republicans were spending us into oblivion. It's good that the democrats defeated the Republican bill to raise congressional wages at least. Now maybe they can move on to getting rid of that stupid Republican Perscription Drug Plan - the largest entitlement program ever passed in history.

Yes, absolutely. This country will be so much better off once the common rabble can't buy prescription drugs. BTW, would you like some cake?

Yes, absolutely. This country will be so much better off once the common rabble can't buy prescription drugs. BTW, would you like some cake?

That's exactly the kind of demagoguery that is going to bankrupt the nation. The need just wasn't there for free drugs. But let's just fritter away the nation's wealth because it sounds like a compassionate thing to do.

Yes, absolutely. This country will be so much better off once the common rabble can't buy prescription drugs. BTW, would you like some cake?

This wasn't chairty for the poor. It was a bill pushed by Bush that was written by teh pharmeceutical industry and it's going to cost $8 trillion over the next ten years.

It takes two branches of government to make a law, okay one if you count Presidential Proclamations(executive orders). If Congress didn't do anything, would we have the giant Prescription Drug giveaway? Of course not. Would we throw more good money after bad on education? No.

I don't think you quite caught the intent of my post. It wasn't to do away with Congress, only to have it be a bigger obstacle to future legislation.

This was Bush's bill, though and he lied to Congress about it's cost. First he said it would cost about $500 billion, then he said $2 trillion. After it was passed he said $8 trillion.

This wasn't chairty for the poor. It was a bill pushed by Bush that was written by teh pharmeceutical industry and it's going to cost $8 trillion over the next ten years.

I'm aware of that. You don't get sarcasm, do you?

I'm aware of that. You don't get sarcasm, do you?

Sorry, didn't notice the sarcasm tags. No way to know since you weren't posting about it earlier.

That's exactly the kind of demagoguery that is going to bankrupt the nation. The need just wasn't there for free drugs. But let's just fritter away the nation's wealth because it sounds like a compassionate thing to do.

Bush's plan was shite, but hey, f**k compassion! If they can't afford drugs, then they have no business getting sick, right? After all, everyone knows it's only bums and junkies that get sick.

Sorry, didn't notice the sarcasm tags. No way to know since you weren't posting about it earlier.

Mea culpa. forgot to put note of sarcasm in. I meant to, though.

as though raising the minimum wage will instantly make everything better for the poor....

Instantly? Perhaps not. But adding an extra few bucks a week to a paycheck can certainly increase the quality of life when you're at that income level. Lord knows it made a difference to me when I was down there. Hell, even at my current level, an extra hundred bucks is a big deal. Imagine what it means to someone currently making $14K a year.

oh? you don't think that if the Repubs tried that with say... drilling rights in Alaska, people would be screaming about the Underhanded tricks of the Repubs?

Note: I didn't say that the dems were any better or worse. :p

Actually, the Repubs did try it before the last election. They tied a minimum wage increase to the permanent end to the estate tax. There was a lot of outrage about it, and the Dems managed to kill it.

It's not as much of a Constitutional thing as it is a Federalist Papers thing. The Federal government was originally intended to be small, with the States doing most of the real work. I don't have a copy to quote chapter and verse, but that early distrust of the Federal government was certainly well-founded.
The Federal Papers are a far less legally binding contract than the Declaration of Independence and thus I could counter your point by arguing law based on my interpretation Starship Troopers.

Instantly? Perhaps not. But adding an extra few bucks a week to a paycheck can certainly increase the quality of life when you're at that income level. Lord knows it made a difference to me when I was down there. Hell, even at my current level, an extra hundred bucks is a big deal. Imagine what it means to someone currently making $14K a year.

The minimum wage is good for one thing, and that's increasing the unemployment rate.

Instantly? Perhaps not. But adding an extra few bucks a week to a paycheck can certainly increase the quality of life when you're at that income level. Lord knows it made a difference to me when I was down there. Hell, even at my current level, an extra hundred bucks is a big deal. Imagine what it means to someone currently making $14K a year.
Okay, numbers mean something. How can a $5.15 minimum wage make a difference to a person making $14K per year? If we figure 2000 hours is a year's labor, the $14K per year earner is already making $7 per hour. What am I missing?

The Federal Papers are a far less legally binding contract than the Declaration of Independence and thus I could counter your point by arguing law based on my interpretation Starship Troopers.

The fedaralist Papers were just Op/Ed pieces. They're not binding at all.

The fedaralist Papers were just Op/Ed pieces. They're not binding at all.
But they give us a good idea of what kind of government the authors of the Constitution intended to have.

Actually, the Repubs did try it before the last election. They tied a minimum wage increase to the permanent end to the estate tax. There was a lot of outrage about it, and the Dems managed to kill it.

They also did that when they passed a bill funding the war. The first time through it was just about getting equipment to the troops. The second time through it had all kinds of shit that had nothing to do with the war. that's why a certains senator said, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it..."

But they give us a good idea of what kind of government the authors of the Constitution intended to have.

Absolutely, but they have no force of law.

They also did that when they passed a bill funding the war. The first time through it was just about getting equipment to the troops. The second time through it had all kinds of shit that had nothing to do with the war. that's why a certains senator said, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it..."
This _is_ the real problem with Congress. A law that directly addresses a problem is never enough. They feel entitled to add on so much other crap that has not a thing to do with the purpose at hand. I'm beginning to think that a line-item veto is the only thing that has a chance of working against these extraneous inclusions.

Absolutely, but they have no force of law.
I never meant to imply that.

The Federal Papers are a far less legally binding contract than the Declaration of Independence and thus I could counter your point by arguing law based on my interpretation Starship Troopers.

So ST has been cited in SCOTUS decisions?

The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed. These essays having been published while the constitution was before the nation for adoption or rejection, and having been written in answer to objections founded entirely on the extent of its powers, and on its diminution of State sovereignty, are entitled to the more consideration where they [19 U.S. 264, 419] frankly avow that the power objected to is given, and defend it.

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264

The minimum wage is good for one thing, and that's increasing the unemployment rate.
Sorry, but that's crap. Look at the states that have a higher mimimum wage that the feds, and they have the lowest unemployment in the nation. I know it's an article of faith among people who oppose the minimum wage that it causes job losses, but there's never been any proof of it. In fact, the opposite has been shown time and again, and there's a reason why.

People making the minimum wage spend every penny they take in. They can't afford not to. They pump money into the economy, and that helps drive it. Sure, there's a point where you'll see diminishing returns, so you can't just raise the minumum indefinitely, but we're nowhere near that point now.

But they give us a good idea of what kind of government the authors of the Constitution intended to have.

Some of the authors. It's not like there was absolute consensus among the Framers.

Some of the authors. It's not like there was absolute consensus among the Framers.

True, but the Federalists "won" as it came to the majority of the compromises.

Some of the authors. It's not like there was absolute consensus among the Framers.
It is a far better reference on the Constitution than the foreign laws and rulings that Justice Ginsburg has admitted to using when reaching a decision.

It is a far better reference on the Constitution than the foreign laws and rulings that Justice Ginsburg has admitted to using when reaching a decision.

Matter of opinion. I'm far more amenable to listening to current opinion on issues than the opinions of people who never lived in our societies and never could have imagined the challenges we face. We're not an eighteenth century society anymore.

Matter of opinion. I'm far more amenable to listening to current opinion on issues than the opinions of people who never lived in our societies and never could have imagined the challenges we face. We're not an eighteenth century society anymore.
Sure, Ginsburg isn't the only one for it. I think O'Connor used foreign material to decide on the question of whether or not a law adhered to the United States Constitution, as well. But as contradictory as it sounds, when it's said, it looks even worse in print. For every desirable instance of a behavior in foreign territory, I would expect that we could find an example of undesirable behavior that counters it. This is not the way to decide a question of U.S. law, because we have now moved into the decision-making territory of not only judgment, but of personal taste.

There are immutable things in this world. Mathematics is one, the laws of nature is another. In the course of studying these subjects, we find more and more detail about how they work, but it rarely contradicts what we already know about what it is we are studying. I like to think that the principles of good government are just as unchanging.