From: kossack@taronga.com (Jordan M. Kossack)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Ross Perot for President Information
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:07:01 GMT
Distribution: houston
Organization: Taronga Park BBS


In article <1992Apr14.032247.9031@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
- >    however, suggesting that it is immoral for congress to be able to set  
- >    themselves above the laws that they pass, that it is immoral for them  
- Ok, what laws are you referring to 

	Affirmative action, for one.  

	Or, since this is tx.politics, perhaps the "charming" fact that  
   Texas Legislators are above the law, at least as far as misdemeanors.  
   But, I guess we're talking exclusively about our elected reprehensibles 
   in the United States (murder) capital, so ...  

 
- What privileges ordinary citizens don't have?  Lots of organizations
- give their employees perks.  My company helps subsidize insurance and
- membership to a health club.

	Do employees of your organization vote themselves pay raises and   
   then use the threat of deadly force to ensure that unwilling clients/  
   stockholders pay for these raises?  If not, may I suggest that there   
   is a bit of a difference between your organization and Congress.  

  
- I personally don't have any problem with Congresspeople making as much
- as they do.  They have a lot of responsibility, and yet they make
- less than many middle managers in large organizations.  Whether or not

	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.  
                                                ^^^^^^^    
	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, 
   rather than to fill their pockets and take free vacations under the  
   guise of "fact finding" trips.  If they want to take some real fact 
   finding trips, let them live in an inner city for a year or something 
   relevant to the United States and its people.  Feh!  
 
   
- they deserve that level of pay is another issue.  But that's up to us,
- isn't it?

	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 
   out of office, but that doesn't revoke that pay raise.  I contend that 
   that is more akin to prosecuting a mugger than deciding whether or not 
   one will be robbed in the first place.  


- No, you gave us an analogy about slavery that made no sense.  I personally
- don't think the perks were that horrible.  The overdraft should be cleaned

	Sigh ... 

In article <1992Apr11.163949.13566@NeoSoft.com>, hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) wrote:
> use them.  Blame the people who set up this overly generous perk.  But the
> rest of them were just playing within the rules.  I think it's very

	Playing withing the rules is no excuse.  Yes, the people who set  
   up the OverlyGenerousPerk(tm) are to blame.  However, those using the  
   OverlyGenerousPerk(tm) are guilty as well.  Suggesting that the fiscal 
   irresponsibility is ok, because they "were just playing by the rules" 
   is as _silly_ as suggesting that slavery was moral because it was legal.  
   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.   

	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?  


> are throwing them out of office.  If your child accidently breaks a cookie
> jar and then lies about it, and you turn around and punish the child for
> "breaking the cookie jar" are you really getting the desired effect?

	Oh, so now the Congressman wrote those checks 'accidentally' ??? 


-- 
  kossack@taronga.com  |  REMEMBER THE ALAMO!  
  Jordan Kossack       |  Support the right of Texans to   
  (713) 270-9056       |  bear arms against their opressors.