|
Responsibility #6
(written prior to July 1992)
To the People of the United States of America:
In Responsibility # 3, we decried the fact, that our Presidents and our members of Congress have taken upon themselves the privileges and trappings, of an aristocracy. Have we not returned to the tyranny of King George III, when our leaders are permitted to set their own salaries, benefits, perks, and privileges? Have we not continued the same despotic rule, when they can place themselves immune, from the laws laid on the other citizens? Have we not done our leaders a disservice, when they are constrained from receiving a warranted raise in salary, because it is politically perilous? The proposed solution, to this departure from democracy, is to return them to their intended status of public servants (employees of the people).
What employer gives to his employees a blank check, upon which they can write their own salaries and other benefits? In what business are the officers given the power to write the rules (laws), to which they must abide, or to which they may be exempt, without some restraint by a body representing the employer? None!
Whether or not they are always fully effective in precluding abuses and usurpations, there is always a Board of Directors, Shareholders Meetings, Board of Regents, et al. Our founding fathers devised many checks and balances in our government structure, but this one was apparently neglected. Perhaps they had greater faith in man than is warranted today. Maybe their intent on this issue was later explicitly expressed in The Bill of Rights, Amendment Article X to the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The solution, to the arrogance and selfishness of our members of Congress, and in fairness to their legitimate compensation for their service to their country, is to reserve the right to set or approve their compensation and privileges to the States (as agents of the citizens). Since the members of Congress are employee representatives of each State (and the citizens therein), the States should be responsible for the control and payment (with a few exceptions) of the expenses incurred by that representation.
Whoa! In the favorite phrase of a recent President, States will say "There you go again!" passing obligations to the States, that the federal government has been paying. This need not be a concern. In later essays, proposals will be made to revamp tax systems, to insure that taxes (revenues) are collected and compartmentalized according to where benefits are dispensed, or where costs are incurred. The important thing at this point is to vest the power of the purse, for the control of Congressional compensations and privileges, in the hands of the employers (the States). There is no doubt, that this change will result in substantial reductions in government spending. More important, it will be a step toward a more united people, and the establishment of greater justice. It will reduce the disdain, and lack of respect, for our elected officials.
In concert, the 50 States should periodically (every 5 years or as often as required) establish levels of common compensation and benefits for members of Congress, as dictated by the marketplace. The complete costs should be covered by the States, without any overt or covert subsidization, by the federal government or outside interest group. Thus such things as low cost barber shops and cafeterias, SPAs, free check-kiting bank privileges, free airport parking, interest-free on-the-cuff dining room purchases, etc., are to be looked for, eliminated, or paid properly.
The cost control, of many Congressional expenses, can best be left to the individual State rather than concerted effort among the States. State size, characteristics, distance from the District of Columbia, etc., could well dictate considerable differences in budgeted expenses. Examples of these items would be: size and makeup of member's office staff, need and frequency of newsletters and other non-personal contacts with constituency, extent of travel to and from D. C. to State, need for offices for member in State as well as D. C., etc. The States should insure, by reporting and auditing mechanisms, that all members' expenses are legitimate to the legislative function.
Particular attention should be directed to size of members' staffs, and their need for offices in the States. A great deal of these resources are devoted to the unbounded area of constituent service. It should be limited to the legislative function. At present the lions share, directly or indirectly, is devoted to insuring reelection, and to servicing campaign contributors. As in the Wright, Coelho, Keating 5, etc. cases, it can lead to the appearance, or actuality, of scandalous performance.
This is a moot suggestion, but consideration should be given to removing much of the constituent service function from the Congress. It could be placed in the hands of Ombudsmen, homed in an independent agency (independent of all three branches of the federal government, in like manner of and perhaps within the General Accounting Office).
"There you go again!", creating more bureaucracy. Nay! We would be consolidating a function, now done in 535 offices, into one group. There should be immense savings. More important, we stop the Congress from throwing around the power of the purse in extraneous services. These consist anywhere from causing the Army to reconsider the assignment of Private Jones, to usurping the direction of a federal agency as in Keating 5. In most all cases, it serves primarily to support term after term reelection, and the generation of campaign contributions.
Certain other practices that unfairly enhance the reelection of incumbents, and bypass checks and balances, should be stopped. There is no need for appointments to the military academies to be vested in Congressional seats. It is a spoils privilege that discriminates against many aspirants, and it plays at least a minor role in promoting reelection of the incumbent. The announcement of the awards, of military (and other federal agencies) contracts, through Congressional offices, smacks of possible collusion to favor the particular State due to the influence of that member of Congress.
The reader is urged to read "Congressional Pay and Perquisites: History, Facts, and Controversy", published in 1992 by Congressional Quarterly, Inc., Washington, D.C. The information is pertinent to this and several other RESPONSIBILITY papers.
Publius IV
|