Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: When elected they exempt themselves once again.

  1. #1

    When elected they exempt themselves once again.

    Ah Congress, they love to pretend they represent their voters.

    The House Oversight Committee today signed off on a bill that would lead to the termination of any federal employee delinquent on federal taxes. With just the right amount of loopholes, the bill hits a conservative sweet spot: perceived abuse by government employees, the new "welfare queens."
    The commenters are less excited about a massive loophole in the bill, one that protects perhaps the least popular segment of government. Some federal employees who are exempted under H.R. 249 are the ones who got elected to be there. Members of Congress, including Chaffetz, would not have to live under Chaffetz's proposed rule.
    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...-queens/63359/

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,806
    This is just a grain of sand on the beach of what is wrong with gov't.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    This is just a grain of sand on the beach of what is wrong with gov't.
    It's the on-going theme with congress, they exempt themselves from the majority of legislation.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,806
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    It's the on-going theme with congress, they exempt themselves from the majority of legislation.
    Every branch seems to be making their own rules.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Ah Congress, they love to pretend they represent their voters.



    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...-queens/63359/
    It would be pretty damned unconstitutional to "terminate" a member of Congress absent impeachment

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    It would be pretty damned unconstitutional to "terminate" a member of Congress absent impeachment

    It has never been done actually. The more common but rarely done way is recall by voters in the officials home district.
    Or you can terrorize the person from office as was done with the "Weiner".
    Also done with Jim McGreevey and Eliot Spitzer.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    It would be pretty damned unconstitutional to "terminate" a member of Congress absent impeachment
    Why can't they use the expulsion for not following the same laws they create?

    Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each house has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Why can't they use the expulsion for not following the same laws they create?

    Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each house has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.

    Here's that word I love: logic. Why would the Congress choose to expel themselves if they voted to make legal a specific course of action for themselves?

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Here's that word I love: logic. Why would the Congress choose to expel themselves if they voted to make legal a specific course of action for themselves?
    Ah, they should be like kings and create laws for the common folk only, that's logic alright.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Ah, they should be like kings and create laws for the common folk only, that's logic alright.

    We elect them Choose to unelect them.
    Many of their benefits were created long before most of the current office holders were there.
    They are all subject to standard criminal law. And what Congressman does NOT pay his taxes? I am not familiar with any, but.....

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    We elect them Choose to unelect them.
    Many of their benefits were created long before most of the current office holders were there.
    They are all subject to standard criminal law. And what Congressman does NOT pay his taxes? I am not familiar with any, but.....
    Ah so by your logic federal employees don't face criminal law for not paying taxes. I mean why would congress pass additional laws, right. Logic and all.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Ah so by your logic federal employees don't face criminal law for not paying taxes. I mean why would congress pass additional laws, right. Logic and all.

    You can be charged with a crime (not paying taxes) but not necessarily FIRED. This gets them out of the payroll.
    Again, there are many government employees behind in taxes. I am unaware of any Congressman (D or R) in this situation.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    You can be charged with a crime (not paying taxes) but not necessarily FIRED. This gets them out of the payroll.
    Again, there are many government employees behind in taxes. I am unaware of any Congressman (D or R) in this situation.
    Why make themselves exempt, if they all pay their taxes what's the problem?

    They continually give themselves pay and benefits far better than federal employees as well.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Why make themselves exempt, if they all pay their taxes what's the problem?

    They continually give themselves pay and benefits far better than federal employees as well.
    Now you can fire tax delinquint employees with this law.
    Congressmen are elected officials. The others are not.
    You can't fire an elected official. Anywhere. At any level.

    BTW, the benefits are pretty much the same.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us