From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:49:38 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

In article <WGKEKS7@taronga.com>, kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack) writes:
> 	Affirmative action, for one.  
> 
First of all, affirmative actions isn't a law.  It's an executive order
for companies that deal with the federal government.  But you're right in
that Congress exempts itself from laws concerning fair employment, worker
safety, etc.  The argument is that this prevents the executive branch from
using those laws as a clout against Congress.  It would be interesting to
hear if that has every happend.  I agree that in general the laws that
apply to the country should apply to Congress.
 
> 	Do employees of your organization vote themselves pay raises and   
 
Actually, that's not uncommon in the business world.  The CEO
often hand picks the board of directors, who in turn, determines his
salary.  That's one reason why we've gotten outrageous corporate salaries
without any corresponding performance. 
 
> 	Do you understand the difference between the public sector and  
>    the private sector?  I know that these days the difference is that 
>    incompetent people can not be fired in the public sector, but once 
>    upon a time, there was this notion of public service.  
>                                                 ^^^^^^^    
 
Right, if they were in the private sector, they'd be paid hundreds of
thousands, if not millions of dollars.  The amount of power that goes with
those jobs is clearly worth executive salary, especially when you consider
the Senate.  Do you understand that if you keep the salary low the ONLY
person who will be able to serve is someone who is already rich?  It's bad
enough right now, but if you lower the salary, there isn't a chance in
hell that even an upper-middle-class person can afford to get elected to
Congress.  
 
> 	I personally don't have any problem with them getting jobs in 
>    the private sector if they're motivated by money.  But, I believe 
>    that folk should run for public office in order to serve the public, 
 
Give me a break.  There is no Congressperson getting rich off their
salary.  What do they make right now, $125K?  Almost all of them have two
places of residence, almost all of them fly back and forth to their dist
ict every two weeks.  I'm sure there are a lot of outraged plumbers who
think that's a lot of money, but when you consider the costs it's not. 
 
> 	Really?  When did "The People" get the opportunity to veto the 
>    Congressional pay raises?  Please, Doug, educate me.  Without a veto, 
>    I contend that, despite your unsubstaniated claims, it is NOT "up to 
>    us" to decide such things.  Yes, the people can vote the scoundrels 
 
How is that different from any other important decision (and I contend
that this is NOT an important issue)?  You don't get a veto when they
raise your taxes or go to war or for that matter, if the presidential
election was thrown into the House and they got to decide.  Congresspeople
are very sensitive to political outrage.   And yes, the pay raise can
be revoked.  Personally, I'd rather have veto power on issues like war and
taxes, but if you'd rather waste your energy on whether a Congressperson
gets $100K or $125K, so be it.
 
>    After all, the slave owners were "just playing by the rules" so they 
>    shouldn't be held responsible - we should only blame the lawmakers who  
>    who failed to prohibit slavery.  Need I further explain my "analogy 
>    about slavery that made no sense" by bringing up the Nurnberg defense?  
>    Heck, the congressmen didn't even have orders.   
> 
 
What the slave owners was doing was immoral, whether it was legal
or not.  There is nothing inherently immoral about overdraft protection.
You can say it's immoral, but that doesn't make it so.  If you were a 
well-known (read: rich) customer at a bank, they'd let you get away with
flagrant overdrafts as well.  
 
> 	And before I get flamed (too late?) let me state that I'm in no  
>    way suggesting that the gravity of the offenses is similar.  I am, 
>    however, hinting that people might, in some small way, be responsible  
>    for their own actions.  Or is society to blame?  
 
Any Congressperson who wrote lots of checks without funds is just plain
stupid.  It shows they have no understanding of public image.  Anyone
that stupid shouldn't be in office.
 
Do you understand that the American people have a limited attention span? 
You're worrying about stupid, minor details while our debt load gets
bigger.  This year we spent over 20% of our budget paying interest on our
debts!  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Xref: sparky tx.politics:1493 tx.general:227 austin.general:1532