The 28th Amendment?

Some of you may have received an email with the following message—

__________________

Subject: 28th Amendment proposal

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that Congress members could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.

The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We should not have an elite "ruling class" that is above the law. It does not matter if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This proposed 28th Amendment is a good way to do that. It is an idea that is both timely and necessary if we are to preserve our democracy.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, in three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. If you believe this message merits a national discussion then please pass it along.

___________________

If you have seen the above before, it didn’t come from me. It does not merit a national discussion, and I chose not to pass it along. 

That having been said, the email raises a subject that does merit a national discussion—the fact that these kinds of inaccurate and misinformed messages persist at all. Why are they not smothered by critical analysis? Why do people not question their veracity or the authors’ motives? Why do we click Forward without thinking? Have we lost the capacity to sort out truth from that which is false and foolish? 

I have vented on this before. I will continue to do so, for I find the subject aggravating and process of commenting on it cathartic. 

Consider the above message as an example. (I will not critique the legal draftsmanship; suffice to say that the language of the proposed amendment would make James Madison ill.) I want to focus on the rest of the email. We don’t know exactly what’s eating at the people who forward it, but we know that some versions of these ideas have been circulating for at least 10 years. “Virtually all of it is outdated, inaccurate, or misleading,” according to Snopes.com. Consider the following—

• Claim: that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Not true. Prior to 1984 they paid into a separate but similar system, and for the last 25 years they have paid into the Social Security System itself regardless of when they entered Congress.

• Claim: that they can retire with pay after only one term. Not true. Like in most other retirement plans, the size of congressional pensions is determined by various factors, including length of service. The absolute maximum is 80% of their salary, and they must serve a long time to be entitled to that much.

• Claim: That they are exempt from sexual harassment laws. Not true. The Congressional Accountability Act makes Members of Congress subject to civil rights and workplace laws including sexual and other forms of harassment. Furthermore, they are subject to the general criminal laws of whatever jurisdiction they happen to be in at the time of any alleged crime.

• Claim: That they tried to exempt themselves from healthcare reform legislation. Not true. It’s hard to know where this comes from–except from some generalized anger directed toward Congress or the idea of healthcare reform–but none of the reform proposals would exempt Senators and Representatives. They have a health plan (FEHBP) that would meet any minimum standards required by reform legislation.

Going back briefly to the question of Social Security, FactCheck.org comments, “We can't be sure whether this is a silly hoax begun by a malicious prankster, or just a well-intentioned mistake perpetuated out of ignorance and gullibility. But even though it's easily shown to be false it is spreading once again, showing how readily lies travel via the Internet and how difficult they are to eradicate. They are often bigoted and almost always small-minded.” 

I couldn’t have said it better myself. And note: that comment was posted in August of 2006, three and one-half years ago. These viral messages seem never to die, which is what makes them so aggravating. 

So based on our research we can conclude that the email’s purported facts are, in a word, bogus. This leaves us with a piece of tripe from someone with a political agenda, which is perpetuated by people who are ill-informed, obtuse, angry, careless, deceitful, disingenuous, hypocritical, afraid, cynical, foolish, dishonest, or some combination of the same. What danger lurks behind these pleated shrouds of ignorance!

Finally, my personal creed, which I offer for your consideration:

   "Never underestimate the malicious potential of stupid and unscrupulous people, especially in a large group. Remember that opinions are not facts, so keep clear the distinction between the two. Don’t believe everything you read. Always be skeptical. Always doubt. Demand proof. Spread truth, not rumor."

_______________

Notes:

-Snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

-Congressional Research Service report, "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress, Oct. 28, 2008. 

-National Taxpayers Union report at www.ntu.org/on-capitol-hill/pay-andperks

-Public Law No. 104-1, 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1301ff.

-Factcheck.org/social-security/an_election-year_virus.html