Whose Fault Is it That We Have a Do Nothing Congress?

Many vital issues are facing our country today. Most Americans have major concerns about our economy, our national debt, and illegal immigration. At a time of crisis like this, one might think our leaders would be fast at work looking for solutions to our problems. Instead, Congress is now in recess and could possibly only have 12 total days of work ahead of them before the November midterm elections.

What have they done to earn this vacation? Very little, in fact Congress is on track to produce the fewest number of laws ever. Congress has passed just 77 public laws this year, for a total of 142 since the beginning of this session, which began in 2013. This virtually guarantees the current Congress will be the least productive in U.S. history, well behind the famed “do nothing” Congress of 1948, which in fact passed more than 900 bills.

Instead of fixing our broken nation, we see that Congress has devolved into bickering and infighting. This Congress has produced the first government shutdown in almost two decades. The following graphic from the Pew Research Center shows just how bad Congress has been. 

The first thing you may notice is that only 108 of the laws that have been passed were substantive bills, meaning that they actually had an effect and weren’t just ceremonial measures. Next you will notice that this has been plaguing us for quite some time, the 112th and 113th sessions were both incredibly ineffective as we continue to see fights over the debt ceiling and spending cuts, but no real bills produced.

Who is to blame? Both sides are in reality, as neither side has been willing to bend on their issues. Since both parties control one house we can see this clearly. The Senate has failed to vote on nearly 350 bills that were passed in the House. The House has far fewer that have been passed in the Senate. Under Harry Reid's watch the Senate has been the least effective in decades.

Let's Get to work on Immigration Reform

I am a conservative and I support immigration reform. In fact I also support a form of amnesty for a good number of illegal immigrants that our currently in our country. Our country has been facing a long standing question on immigration reform, which is: What should we do about the 11 million undocumented illegal immigrants who are living in our country? Should we deport them all to their country of origin, grant them amnesty and let them stay with a path to citizenship or just continue to ignore the problem and hope that it just gets taken care of on its own.

Now let me make this clear I do support all current laws on the books and I think that Obama's actions of giving amnesty without legal backing is unconstitutional. It is his duty to execute the law as dictated by congress; he does not have the authority to pick and choose which laws to execute.

Being a firm believer that presidential authority has surpassed constitutional limits through  decades of overreach, I  firmly believe that the president's authority should be scaled back significantly. The easier it is for the president to act without restraints and checks, the easier it will be for an evil man as president to bring upon mankind tyranny and injustice.

As a full supporter of the law, I support congressional authority on this issue, as it is a national issue, which affects the entire country in trade, security, education, and health care.

Considering the events of the last few weeks, securing our border has never been more important. Before addressing the topic of what is being considered I want to first discuss where I have come from so maybe you will see how I have come to my point of view on the issue.

There was a point several years ago where I was all for kicking out every illegal immigrant from our country. They broke our laws, came here illegally and had to be punished for that no matter what. This lasted for a quite a while.

One day I shared these opinions with my mom and she responded by asking me "what about your Aunt?" I have an Aunt who had recently married my Uncle, a paranoid schizophrenic. She came here legally but lost legal status and just stayed here and has since struggled to work toward legal status. I thought about this for a little while.

Before this point I hadn't known anyone who was in the U.S. illegally. I was still stuck in my thoughts and opinions, but it started me thinking. If she were to be deported, what would be the impact on my uncle? He would probably have another episode or possibly something worse.

 While in college I talked to several people including a friend who was working on his path to citizenship. He was born in Canada, but moved to the U.S. around age 3. It took him over 18 years to be able to get citizenship. Even for those who marry citizens the path is not always clear or easy. It can be a long, laborious process that takes many years.

There was a time that we welcomed everyone to come to America. I’m not suggesting that we encourage everyone to come here, but by far we seem to believe that only a few people should come - that they should be similar to who we already are and should speak English perfectly. We used to be a melting pot of countries, ideas and immigrants, but now we are becoming more intolerant and ignorant of other cultures and beliefs.

 In 2007 I was in Las Vegas, and I saw many people whom I was familiar with take to the streets to rally for immigration reform that had been supported by President George W. Bush. This attempt at reform was struck down by congressional Republicans. A few years passed, and our country dipped into what is now being referred to as the Great Recession. I talked with friends of mine from Vegas who mentioned that many illegal immigrants were returning back to their countries due to lack of work. I wondered if this would continue. If so we would not have a problem anymore. The issue with that idea is that many of these people grew up in the U.S, and to them this is their country and many of them don't even speak the home language of their country of birth.

While interning in the Senate I had a long discussion once about my views on immigration with a fellow intern, during which we did some what-ifs. What if someone was brought here as a 2 year old and they are now 23, have never known the country they were born in, and only know this country as their home? How then do you justify punishing a 2 year old for the actions of their parents? I still remained pretty stiff in my response. I looked at what I felt is the burden of illegal immigration. If somehow we got rid of 11 million immigrants then maybe the 14 million people who are out of work would have enough jobs available for them. Maybe our school system would get better, maybe our country wouldn't have as much debt.

 I even thoroughly liked Mitt Romney's idea of self deportation by discouraging illegal immigrants through e-verify and similar methods. The change had started though, as I realized how my ancestors had come to this nation at a time when this land was a shining beacon to all who wanted a new life. We didn't tell others that they couldn't come to our nation because they were poor, or because they couldn't speak the language.

Instead we inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  

Now that I've addressed some whys of immigration reform, let's think about the what. What is being considered? The current senate bill that was passed last year included a long list of ideas including securing the borders, a path to citizenship for illegal's and changing and modernizing the rules for legal immigration to prevent such a backlog and some of the other issues occurring due to the current system.

A simple breakdown of the bill can be found here. I will not go into detail as you can find all of that information for yourself about some of the benefits here, here and here. I would also suggest taking a look at both the Heritage Foundation's opinion and the Cato Institute's opinion on the issues.  I will say a few words however. The bill calls for significant increases to border security through drones and electronic surveillance equipment in addition to the security increase we have seen in the last decade. It would establish a board made up of state leaders to determine when securing the border is complete, which would be made in a final decision by the Director of Homeland Security. Also it calls for an effective plan to enforce employers using documented legal employees which would most likely be through the e-verify system.

This bill may not be perfect, but so far it is the best plan that I have seen. We need our legislators to get to work on this issue now, and stop kicking it down the road for the next Congress to deal with.

Part of the bill also lays out a plan for dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants, giving preferred green cards for those who obtain advanced degrees in areas such as science, math, and engineering. In dealing with the 11 million illegal immigrants the plan calls for increased background checks for immigrants and increased cooperation between government organizations in order to respond to issues that come up. It would create a tracking system to make sure that those who come legally continue to abide here legally.

Those who are currently here illegally could apply for legal status if they pay a fine, pay back taxes, and if they pass a background check. They would then be on probationary legal status. However, for full legal status and a green card they would still have to get to the back of the line and wait for all security measures to be put in place. The earliest that any of them could become citizens is in the late 2020's. They also would not get access to public benefits, such as welfare, until granted full citizenship.

So what has been the response to this plan? Some republicans continue to raise the issue that amnesty supports tearing down our current system of laws and encouraging people to break them in the future, although the party seems split on the issue. Earlier this week there was some suggestion that maybe we should rethink pushing immigration reform right now coming from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), but this was shot down by several republican members of congress including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Also, with this has come the issue of whether to pass a comprehensive bill or to go through the process of passing some of the bills piecemeal. Some members suggested that attaching amnesty would surely doom the bill.  The House is set to consider several portions of the bill in small pieces including security and legal immigration changes.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has lead the front to support the bill from the republican side. He recently went to the senate floor to support reform at this time saying, “Here’s my encouragement to my colleagues who don’t agree with the bill that we’ve crafted – change it. Let’s work on changing it. If you believe that what we have today is broken, if you believe that the status quo on immigration is chaos and a disaster...If you believe our laws are not being enforced and we need to pass laws that force the administration – this one and a future one – to enforce our laws, let’s change it. I’m all ears." Surely none of us is opposed to enforcing our proper laws and having a president that supports and upholds the laws of the land are we? However the current system does not do that: it encourages the president to act on his own and not have to take responsibility for his actions.

He continued by saying, "But let’s not leave it the way it is, because the way it is chaos. It’s bad for our country. What we have today is not good for the United States. And our job as policy-makers is not just to come here and criticize. Our job is to come here and to make a difference. .. And what we have now just doesn’t work, it’s not good for our country. We can’t leave it this way. And we have a chance now to, I think, truly improve it. This is not an effort to force anything down anyone’s throat. This bill that we’ve worked on is a starting point. It’s not a take it or leave it proposition. It never has been....Let’s work together. Let’s come up with a solution that modernizes our legal immigration system so it’s good for our economy, that once and for all forces the administration – this one and future ones – to enforce our immigration laws, and that once and for all deals with the 11 million people that are here illegally in a way that’s fair and compassionate. But also fair to the people that did it right, and also a way that ensures that this never ever happens again.”

So what are my views on this issue? Greatly changed: partly due to an increased compassion for other people who I have met and who I have not; partly due to politics and seeing that real change could be made here and now and that we need more compromise; and partly because I understand that there are millions of people that are affected by living here illegally that could be productive members of our society if we allow them.

This plan is fair and fairly straightforward. It does bring about a consequence for those who have committed the crime of coming here illegally through fines, back taxes, a waiting period, and through back of the line status. It also upholds our laws by helping us to have 11 million immigrants become legal. I wonder sometimes how many crimes are not reported because someone is afraid to call the police out of fear that they or their parents might get deported over it. It would lay out a pretty clear plan that would have to be followed with the opportunities for our border to be secured and for people to be able to come to the U.S. legally in the future.

It also allows for the great American Dream to spread further to these people who have come here for a new life, one which they hoped would be better than the one that they left. There was a time when America was a shining beacon to the world of freedom for the oppressed peoples of the world. We even inscribed on the Statue of Liberty the phrase "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Those who would benefit from this bill are for the most part looking for hope and freedom, much like most of our ancestors when they came here. This plan gives them that hope. This hope and freedom was what we were founded upon. Let us not fail again to be the hope of a brighter day to the world by oppressing those within our country who wish to partake of the American dream.

Politics 101: Do Members of Congress Receive Their Pay For Life?

One thing we want to do is try to have an opportunity to answer some simple questions with our posts, today we will be starting a new series called political dummies, where we will use posts and videos to help people understand more clearly what is going on in the world. Sometimes we will even be fact checkers.

Today I wanted to start with a common misconception which keeps on getting brought up and reposted, but which is not true.

This claim is a classic in its own right. The urban legend checker Snopes.com says it has been circulating in various chain emails since at least 2000. Both claims seem to point to all members of Congress no matter how long they have served, including one term Representatives.

The claim means that rank-and-file members of the House of Representatives would receive full pay of $174,000 per year, for the rest of their lives, after serving as little as two years.

Nice work if you can get it. But members of Congress can't.

A report on "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," prepared in November by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), outlines how pension benefits are to be calculated. Members of Congress are part of the federal retirement system, and as such they fall under the same rules.

The key provision: no member of Congress is eligible for any pension unless he or she has served in Congress(or other federal position) for at least five years. (Senators serve six-year terms; House members must seek reelection every two years.)

To collect, a congressman or senator must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or be any age with 25 years of service.

Under the most recent pension program, adopted in 1984, the size of a pension is based on the highest three years of a member's salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7 percent for the first 20 years of service and 1.0 percent for subsequent years.

Here’s an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year. The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $172,443 [the average salary over the last three years] times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $172,443 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,250 per year.

A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,588 for six years of work. That's generous, but not close to full pay.

Federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full-pay retirement when they leave office. The report says, "By law, the starting amount of a member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary."

Under the formula, it would take 67 years of service to hit that limit. Considering the minimum age requirements for members of congress (30 for senator 25 for house), as well as it being very unlikely that members of Congress would be reelected enough times or not retire before that point this is unlikely.

So this meme saying that members of Congress can "receive full pay retirement after serving one term" is blatantly bogus. It's never full pay and the only one-term members who would be eligible for any pension would be senators.