Iteresting e-mail I just got from a friend who said it originated with Warren Buffet

[Bandit]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.


Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

[badtoworse]

1. I think I've seen this before, but it's still great.

[Bigmack]

2. (...sigh...)

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

[gateley]

3. Yeah, Snopes rains on many of my parades. :-(

[denverbill]

5. I don't see the need to reference Snopes for this article.

The initial quote is clearly from Buffett. And though the article doesn't clearly delineate what he said from the rest of the text, I agree with the remaining stuff, personally, in addition to Buffett's quote.

[hfojvt]

8. you probably should read the Snopes link

For example, Congress already participates in Social Security - has since 1984.

Further, speaking as an economist, Buffet's quote is really stupid.

First, is the deficit really our main problem with Congress? I think the current Congress is dysfunctional and it has very low approval ratings among the population (and yet over 90% of them will probably be re-elected). But is my disapproval based on "the deficit is just too darned big"?

No, it is not. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/137


Secondly, look at a hypothetical. Suppose, for example, a huge recession happened and the economy started losing 700,000 jobs a month. I know that is kinda far-fetched (well, except for the fact that it actually happened in late 2008 and early 2009).

So what happens?

First, government revenue goes down. Duh. People who don't have jobs, don't pay taxes on their income.

Second, giovernment expense goes up. People with no income, or families with reduced income become eligible for various government programs, starting with unemployment. Again, duh. That is what a safety net is supposed to do - catch people when they, or the economy, falls.

But, oh noes, both of those results are gonna raise the deficit, and this Buffet rule would force Congress to act to reduce that deficit, either by raising taxes or by cutting spending or a combination.

The trouble with that, as any Freshman economics class should tell you - is that they both MAKE THE RECESSION WORSE.

Forcing Congress to reduce the deficit at that time is like forcing the fire department to douse a burning house with gasoline. It's just that moronically stupid. I cannot believe Buffet would even suggest it. But that's what his plan would mean.

The National debt and the deficits (again from Freshman economics (which I taught for 2.5 years)) have three basic causes - wars, recessions, and tax cuts. And since Reagan's victoriry in 1980 and Mondale's drubbing in 1984, both political parties have decided to run for office promising tax cuts and no tax increases. The voters apparently are addicted to tax cuts and no politican wants to do an intervention, but both are determined to be enablers. I doubt if Buffet's rule would change that. Not now, after the public has been told for 30 years by every voice - you can have your cake and eat it too.

[denverbill]

11. I did read the Snopes link.

I think the idea of the article is that Congress should have no special retirement package above what the average American does, in order to force them to support laws that average Americans have to live with. Let them live entirely on Social Security and whatever they manage to save in their 401Ks. No pensions or other special retirement stipends. No more assholes like Alan Simpson collecting $200000/year in his Congressional pension and lobbying to cut Social Security and whining about greedy Social Security recipients.

While I agree that recession spending might have to be accounted for outside of the 3% limit, the problem didn't begin with the recession. The problem was the tax cuts and wars, and also the unpaid for Medicare drug program. There was a $700 billion structural deficit when the recession hit. Assuming the budget had been balanced in the years prior to the recession, we'd only be about $300 billion in additional deficit spending per year due to extra government expenses due to higher unemployment/slower economy. That's still under the 3% threshold of $450 billion. All of the rest of our trillion dollar annual deficit is wars, tax cuts, and the prescription drug program. And all of that shit was done by Republicans because there is absolutely no constrait on their fiscal recklessness.

They want a war? Fine, raise taxes to pay for it. Want a tax cut? OK, fine by me, either cut expenses elsewhere or raise revenue some other way.

You may not think the deficit is a major problem, but if or when the dollar finally collapses because the deficit spirals out of control, and we end with our retirement savings worthless and carting wheelbarrows of dollars to the grocery store, 8% unemployment will sound like nirvana.

[hfojvt]

14. no, there was a recession too

The economy lost 280,000 jobs in April 2001, 166,000 in June, 197,000 in July 148,000 in August, and 169,000 in September.
Then 911 happened, and the Bush anthrax attacks. Lost 352,000 jobs in October, 298,000 in November and 239,000 in December. And then 463,000 jobs in 2002.

And again, BOTH parties are in favor of the Bush tax cuts now, thanks to Obama. Democrats want to extend 72% of them, and Republicans want to extend 100% of them. Both parties also claim to be concerned about the deficit, but it's full speed ahead on tax cuts for the rich, and damn the deficit torpedoes.

[hfojvt]

6. very good snopes reply

but I would add this

"4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%."


Uhm, might want to read the 27th Amendment.

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened."

Meaning, if Congress passes themselves a pay raise, it does not take effect until "we the people" have a chance to vote them out (and thus vote in people who can reverse said legislation). Or, if not (because a good portion of the Senate would not change), at least different people would be getting the higher pay.

[denverbill]

4. Funny thing about this is that you could send that to Teabaggers and DUers and get the same response

I really don't think anyone in the country would disagree with any of this. And yet it will never even come up for a vote. Ever.

[Live and Learn]

7. I disagree with it.

And I didn't need to check Snopes to know Buffet wouldn't be stupid enough to make these proposals.

Ensuring that our Representatives were paid well was put in place so that ordinary citizens would have a chance to participate in our government. If you take away all the incentives, only the rich will be able to to run. How many people could take a few years off from their current jobs to be a Representative and still have a job to return too?

Paying in to Social Security would be fine but attacking pension plans is ridiculous and falls in to the category of misery likes company instead of lifting us all out of misery. Perhaps their pension plans should be adjusted based on time served. And the reason they don't pay into Social Security, just as many local governmental employees don't pay into it is because it costs the governments money to pay the employers share too. It was the employers that opted out because they supplied pension plans not the employees that opted out.

I'm all for them paying into Social Security but do be aware that it will actually cost governments and tax payers more to do so.

[denverbill]

9. Ensuring our representatives were paid well has done nothing to get ordinary citizens into Congress.

Practically everyone in Congress was a millionaire before getting to Congress. If anything, it's gotten worse in the years since their huge pay increase. Anyway, as I recall being told at the time, the reason for the pay increase was:
1) to attract top talent, you need to pay more.
2) to discourage corruption, you need to pay more.

Both of those reasons presume that the primary reason for becoming a legislator is monetary reward, and if that's the type of person you are trying to attract to Congress, nobody should be surprised by what our current Congress does.

[Live and Learn]

10. You say "practically everyone"

Do you suppose the others would be there if they didn't get paid as well as they do? Their salaries after-all, are not huge.

The reason we don't have more ordinary folks in office is because we need campaign finance reform not lower salaries.

[Progressive dog]

12. I also disagree with it

It is simply put dishonest,deceptive, and stupid.

[sinkingfeeling]

13. That's an old and updated version of this.

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