They may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel.
Carl W. Buechner
Internet Hoaxes: The 28th Amendment
I have a true conservative's aversion to unnecessary amendments. I've opposed constitutional amendments, even those reflecting my political preferences, e.g., prohibition of flag burning, balanced budget, and traditional marriage definition. Generally I worry about unintended consequences and materiality of the issue. Let me address a relevant issue here: the question of a balanced budget amendment. I am a strong fiscal hawk but I oppose this. Why? There are a variety of reasons, but in part, budgets can run out of balance for reasons beyond government control, e.g., general economic conditions, wartime spending, artifacts of tax and spending policy, etc. You have to set conditions for exceptions, and almost invariably you end up having fiscal policies ending up in the court system. You also have issues like how you deal with 40% deficits without economic shocks, where you resolve a deficit (like we're seeing) by changing revenue and spending policies. I also think there's a matter of moral hazard here: we should be addressing macro policy issues like the counterproductive effects of progressive tax policies, excessive reliance in income taxes (which introduce accounting distinctions like GE's famous no-taxes-paid distinction earlier this year), and a tax bias in favor home mortgages and other consumption versus savings and investment. We should be proactive, not reactive. A balanced budget amendment is surrender--a surrender not necessary in 220 years or so of the republic; we can't be trusted to resolve policy but must establish yet another government bureaucracy to monitor and regulate the budget. And let me say here: any Democrat or liberal/progressive who reads into my position a validation of his or her position in the ongoing fiscal crisis needs to reread my recent rants. There is not a single Democrat in the federal government whom acts fiscally responsible. The government bubble, which has reached unprecedented status during the Obama Administration, will almost surely make the other (stock market and real estate) bubbles pale in comparison.
Do I support a constitutional amendment? In the past I've made reference to certain constraints on public service, e.g., 12 year tenure caps on positions in legislative and/or judicial service. With all due respect, we have certain public servants whom seem/seemed to regard their position as an entitlement--former Justice Stevens, the late Senators Byrd and Kennedy, and (this will be controversial) Congresswoman Giffords. The issue for me is the primacy of the underlying service. Certainly what happened to Gabby Giffords is unfair, but she's the only one authorized to represent her district in Congress, and her ability to serve her district has been affected by factors beyond her control. Where to draw the line is the rub, of course.
The so-called 28th constitutional amendment is designed to prevent a double standard between public policy and a Congressman's office or compensation policies. For example, if Congress passes a law, say, dealing with affirmative action policies, a Congressman's office employment decisions are subject to the same constraints. There shouldn't be special compensation exceptions (e.g., a gold-plated pension system not available to other government employees).
I call it the "eat your own dog food" amendment. There are obvious issues with this populist amendment any conservative should recognize. Any conservative who has not noticed, for instance, is that demagogues like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and high-profile Democratic executives (e.g., Warren Buffett) will say "hey, tax me more", is not paying attention. It's bad policy even if these guys insist they're eating their own dog food. The point is, the author of this hoax suggests that, say, Congressmen might vote more responsibly on social security if they had to pay into social security. I think this is like trying to nail jello or grasp a balloon. People act against their political positions all the time--all you have to do is look at sex scandals in Congress. Some members of Congress are very wealthy and, for example, won't need social security checks. I think if and when Congressmen act in a blatantly hypocritical manner, it can and should be an issue in the next election campaign. But do we want to open up Pandora's box of amending the constitution based on paranoia? I don't think so.
Scopes.com points out there are several factual errors in the emails, including its active consideration in Congress, the fact that Congressmen in fact do pay into social security, must comply with sexual harassment policy, don't retire at full pay, have access to the same health care options as other federal employees, etc.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
ELO, "Mr. Blue Sky"
