How many of you WEREN"T aware...

[mnhermit]

Like most of us I have a friend that has me on a forward mail list that he uses for his 'interesting' factoids/petitions/stuff. I got the following recently and was rather surprised at the tone, since I thought most people were aware of this.

> Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
>
> This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
>
>
> This is an idea that we should address.
>
> For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that they passed ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever . The self-serving must stop.
>
>
> If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
>
>
> Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
>

Does it really need an Amendment to solve this problem?

What do states sueing the feds have to do with this proposal?

When did you first learn that congress exempts itself from laws passed?
I think I learned about 35 years ago when doing some research about SS or the EOA cant remember which.

Has any email petition actually made a difference?

(by the way you're my twenty people) ;D

[omaha]

The specific (outrageous) example of this I read about recently had to do with congressional staffers making stock purchases based on their knowledge of pending legislation that would effect the companies in question. They are (according the reports I read at least) exempt from the "insider trading" restrictions that limit everyone else.

If that's true (and I do have my doubts), that's truly an outrage.

As for the efficacy of e-mail forwarding, why not? We are a government by, for and of the people, after all.

[dickt]

The whole thing is an easily disprovable complete pack of lies. How anyone could actually buy into this, let alone forward it is beyond me. Some of these rumors persist for decades.

www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/

Oh, and by the way, the Office of Compliance which was setup to deal with the whole question of making sure Congress abides by the same laws is actually located in my agency, the Library of Congress.

[mnhermit]

Thanks dickt - I'll forward that link back to my friend - I'll probably be striken from his forwarding list - no small benefit.

[omaha]

Complete pack of lies? From the WSJ : Congressional Staffers Gain From Trading in Stocks

At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009.

The Journal analysis showed that an aide to a Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee bought Bank of America Corp. stock before results of last year's government stress tests eased investor concerns about the health of the banking industry. A top aide to the House Speaker profited by trading shares of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a brokerage account with her husband two days before the government authorized emergency funding for the companies. Another aide to Republican lawmakers interested in energy issues, among other things, profited by trading in several renewable-energy firms.

The aides identified by the Journal say they didn't profit by making trades based on any information gathered in the halls of Congress. Even if they had done so, it would be legal, because insider-trading laws don't apply to Congress.

[mnhermit]

Maybe the aides don't know the law any better than...um....me? It would be interesting if they all had to spend Martha Stewart's year in jail.

[dickt]

Dec 8, 2010 10:31:16 GMT -5 @omaha said:

Complete pack of lies? From the WSJ : Congressional Staffers Gain From Trading in Stocks

At least 72 aides on both sides of the aisle traded shares of companies that their bosses help oversee, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of more than 3,000 disclosure forms covering trading activity by Capitol Hill staffers for 2008 and 2009.

The Journal analysis showed that an aide to a Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee bought Bank of America Corp. stock before results of last year's government stress tests eased investor concerns about the health of the banking industry. A top aide to the House Speaker profited by trading shares of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in a brokerage account with her husband two days before the government authorized emergency funding for the companies. Another aide to Republican lawmakers interested in energy issues, among other things, profited by trading in several renewable-energy firms.

The aides identified by the Journal say they didn't profit by making trades based on any information gathered in the halls of Congress. Even if they had done so, it would be legal, because insider-trading laws don't apply to Congress.

Yes, Jeff. The original post can easily be characterized as a pack of lies. I can't see how anyone can defend it, forward it, etc.

And BTW, did you know that closing the insider trading loophole is the subject of legislation proposed by Democratic Farmer Labor party congressman, Tim Walz of Mankato, MN?

politicalnews.me/?id=6038&keys=Congressman-Tim-Walz-STOCKAct

[patrick]

Yes, it's nonsense. Members of Congress do NOT retire after one term with full salary. They have the same retirement plan as I do, and every other government employee. The only difference is they are "vested" after 5 years, so they don't need to serve 20 years to get their benefits. But after 5 years they get whatever money they put into the Thrift Savings Plan (basically a 401K) and 1% of their highest salary per year served. Big whoop.

Congress is NOT exempt from the Health Care Reform Act, they already have their health insurance from plans that qualify.

Members of Congress cannot be prosecuted criminally while in office, they can be prosecuted criminally after they leave. There is no such exemption for their staff.

[Supertramp78]

"a forward mail list that he uses for his 'interesting' factoids/petitions/stuff."

I can't even begin to calculate the percentage of BS and lies that I get in emails. If it starts out with "Did you know?" or "Interesting facts" it is probably all BS.

My Mother in law sent me one yesterday that had the one about the Highway bill that was supposed to stipulate that one mile out of every five be straight so that they could be used as runways for bombers and military planes. Nonsense. No such thing. But that bit of trivia has been floating around forever.

A duck's quack DOES echo.

Birds don't explode if they eat rice.

Lemmings don't jump off cliffs and kill themselves.

The daddy longlegs spider is not the most poisonous animal in the world.

Frogs will not stay in water that is gradually heated until they die. They jump out.

and on and on......

[Russell Letson]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still in circulation after more than a century and available on (natch) the internet. As long as there are nervous systems and servers willing to host the pathologies, the lies will never die.

[Russell Letson]

BTW, the originator of that chain e-mail must have forgotten to offer penile enhancement pills, opportunities to make big money from my own home, penny-stock tips, and access to that all-important stash of cash in the Swiss bank account.

[Chesapeake]

Like a lot of urban legendry, these allegations once had more than a grain of truth, but are no longer true. I vividly remember when members of Congress literally were above the law when it came to a lot of things, including for example how they treated their staff. They were the equivalent of slave owners, wielded absolute power, with the exception that if a staffer didn't like ilt, he or she could leave. I witnessed one especially esteemed senator who was publicly regarded as a tender-hearted man - and who ran for president at one point - treat his staff like dirt when the cameras were off. I don't remember exactly how the Congressional Accountability Act addressed these matters of personnel, but I gather congressional staff does now have some protections.

[omaha]

Are we missing the forest for the trees here?

The issue is less whether the specific points in the unfortunate email were factually correct than it is whether the basic premise is true: Does congress systematically exclude itself from regulations it imposes on others.

I happened to stumble on the stock trading example a few months ago. Maybe that was just dumb luck...where I just happened to fall into the one-and-only-one example of such skulldudgery.

But I'm inclined to think there are others. Demonstrating that mnhermit's friend was misinformed does not discredit the proposition.

[Russell Letson]

Oh for cryin' out tears.

Google the first line and find the Snopes.com entry on the e-mail:

www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

"Demonstrating that mnhermit's friend was misinformed" precisely discredits the proposition, if the proposition takes the form of "We need X because of 1, 2, 3. . . " and 1-N are not true. In addition, the description of the process by which the Constitution can be amended conflates lawsuits filed by 35 state governors with the Contitutional Convention process--there's no certain way of knowing whether this is an innocent misunderstanding or a deliberate sleight-of-hand. And a quick Google does not produce a source for the "35 governors" assertion. Argal, bullshit.

[omaha]

"We need X because of 1, 2, 3. . . "

No, the proper formulation is "We need X because of Y. Instances of Y include 1, 2, 3..."

Demonstrating that 1, 2 and 3 are false does not falsify Y.

[Supertramp78]

"Demonstrating that mnhermit's friend was misinformed does not discredit the proposition."

Anyone remember that study that showed that when people believe something strongly enough that their belief in the truth of that idea only goes UP when shown facts that discredit the idea?

Everything in the original email is bogus.

'But I'm inclined to think there are others.'

Probably are. But until you find them you can't claim this is a huge Constitutional issue with only one law (insider trading) being abused. So what? Get them to support changing it. Last time they tried they only got 9 other folks to support it. Probably because with the amount of information crossing through Congress, it would be impossible to invest in anything and not be guilty, at least in some small way, of insider trading. I don't know. I don't know who introduced that loop hole or why and neither do you or whoever fabricated all the stuff in that email.

By the way, only 20 states have filed suit against the Health Care bill and I think they all got tossed out.

[Supertramp78]

No, the proper formulation is "We need X because of Y. Instances of Y include 1, 2, 3..."

Demonstrating that 1, 2 and 3 are false does not falsify Y.

?


You are right. There is a difference between proving it is false, and proving it is true. Just because you can't prove something is true doesn't make it false.

compare these two...
We need everyone to carry steel umbrellas because pigs can fly. Instances of flying pigs include:
1. Just last week my Aunt Kara was crapped on by a flying pig
2. The Air Force has stated on multiple times that flying pigs have been tracked on government radars
3. I got an email last week that told me pigs can fly

or

We need to balance the Federal Budget because the deficit is unsustainable over the short as well as long term.
Examples of this include:
1. Cows are air breathing fish
2. The moon is made of cheese
3. Microwave ovens are sending messages into my brain

Neither of these have arguments that support their ideas even though one of their ideas is correct. But the arguments to support the ideas (in not only these, but the first case above) are completely bogus and do nothing to support the ideas.

So go find more examples that do support the outrage instaead of jumping straight to outrage based on .... nothing.

[omaha]

Dec 8, 2010 14:01:09 GMT -5 Supertramp78 said:

Anyone remember that study that showed that when people believe something strongly enough that their belief in the truth of that idea only goes UP when shown facts that discredit the idea?

Is that like the study that showed that when people wanted to deny something strongly enough, their belief in the truth of their position went up despite evidence to the contrary?

We've established the stock trading thing.

How about hiring veterans?

How about requirements to buy insurance under the HCB?

How about security pat-downs at airports?

How about the Civil Rights Act?

Those are just a couple that popped up on a quick Google search. I'm sure someone has better information somewhere else.

"you can't claim this is a huge Constitutional issue"

Never did.

What I think is true is that Congress loves to exempt itself from regulations it imposes on others.

Personally, I don't think the remedy for that is found in a constitutional convention. I'd prefer to find it at the ballot box...like in November. This is exactly the sort of thing that Tea Party activists get riled up about. Maybe some of the new members will lend momentum to corrective legislation.

[Supertramp78]

wow, my post just vanished.

What I said was that i'm just miffed that a good idea (Congress must live by what it passed) is torpedoed by an email filled with BS that is all made up. If the idea is good (and it is within the confinces of the Constitutional immunity provisions for the Congressmen themselves I think the idea is great) then support it with facts, not BS. Agreed?

Oh, and I'm not keen on a Constitutional Convention either. I think the odds of filling one with people of the same level of maturity, smarts, and foresight that we had 240 years ago is pretty damn slim.

[omaha]

I agree. BS facts don't further an argument.