The title of this article should be sung to the tune of Smile a Little Smile for Me, Rosemarie.
By Rich Kozlovich
Leftist, no matter how good they have it, are always the victim. On June 23rd, 2022 Hannah Bleau posted this piece, AOC: $174,000 Congressional Salary Difficult on‘Working and Middle Class’ Lawmaker, along with a picture of her with a tear coming down her poor suffering little face, with her complaining just how difficult it is for “working and middle class lawmakers" to make it on a paltry 174,000 a year, or even start a family.
It turns out "only 10 women in the history of the
United States have ever given birth while serving in Congress. 10”, making Congress a
“hostile place to have a baby.” And why is that? Because she has to vote on stuff, and the Congress does it on their schedule, which means travel and that traveling and voting isn't based on the schedules of pregnant Congresswomen.
Imagine that!
What about the Congresswomen who had their babies before they went into Congress? Did they sell them? Give them away? Put them up for adoption? Apparently they manage to deal with all this, and as for the Congresswomen who had babies while in Congress? They did what all working mothers do, they also managed to deal with it.
Welcome to the world.
She also complains there's out of pocket expenses, which she claims amount to $25,000 a year, which she's not reimbursed for, nor are they tax deductible, and horror of horrors, there's no housing allowance.
Welcome to the world.
She claims these "meme's" that Congress is awarding itself pay raises is a myth! Really? Well, that's an obfuscation of the facts. Congress decides their pay via the legislative process.
They don't get free medical. Its the people of America, depending on their choice of plan, who pay up to but no more than 75%, of their medical insurance, and they pay the rest. If they want eye care and dental, they have to pay, and she's really upset there's no eligibility for PSLF, which I assume is Student Loan forgiveness for public service.
Welcome to the world.
She goes on the decry her "poverty" pointing out so many members of Congress are wealthy, claiming all sort of corruption is going on, which is probably true. Maybe she should demand her fellow Congress members be investigated, like say ....Bernie..... and how he got so wealthy. But remember, she's only 32, and that kind of income is big for her age group, and the average of the House members is 57 and the Senate 62. They've had over 25 years of investments on her. However, she's pure and perfect and in her flawlessness that means she has to live on her salary alone.
Welcome to the world.
She claims that piddling amount of money keeps honest middle class people out of Congress. Really?
For further perspective, the median household income in the United States in 2020 was $67,521, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That is $106,479 less than Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional salary, and even with the deduction of $25,000 in personal costs as Ocasio-Cortez asserts, a U.S. lawmaker would still be making $149,000, which is still $81,479 more than the median household income in 2020.
But is all that all they make? Yes, pretty much. There's no compensation for working on committees, but it does give them contacts for fund raising, and investing, but AOC is too pure for that. However, as with everything from AOC, she leaves important stuff out. Here's the Financial Samurai analysis of her salary, expanses and potential over the next few years if she can stay in Congress. And that's her view of suffering, and "victimzation?
And, again, she's leaving something out by failing to explain that she's not living alone. She's lived with a boyfriend for years, to whom she's apparently recently become engaged, which is her "family", and he has a job, and as far as I can tell she didn't hire him on her staff, as has been claimed, but he has a job.
As far as I can tell he's a web designer, and how much he makes is unknown, but even if it's a mere $25,000 a year, that brings their "family" income to almost $200,000 a year. Most families would love that kind of financial "victimization". But what if he's making $100,000 a year? That would be around $300,000 a year for the two of them.
And that's AOC's view of suffering?
Let's get right down to it. First, no one is forcing her to run for office, and if it's so bad, why is she doing
it? Secondly, did she ever ask why so many people in Congress are so wealthy,
and did they start out that way? Some clearly did, but many, and maybe most, didn't.
Which brings me to the important part.
Supposedly she attended Boston University, where she double-majored in international relations and economics, and graduated cum laude. Now that's really hard to believe, and if that's so, and it seems to be so, why can't she figure out how to invest successfully and become rich without being corrupt?
People are doing it all the time in America. For years the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a yearly article outlining who were the top 25 richest people in America. The top 12 or 13 were always self made, and none of them were politicians.
So, if she was so smart, and had all this education, which now must be questionable, why was her work history not in finance, economics or international relations, but rather a waitress, bartender and part time activist?
For the same reason she promotes all the claptrap she does. She's an economic dunce and emotional snowflake. How she ever got a degree in economics is mind boggling, or perhaps it's a testimony to the quality of education at Boston University, and considering they have Ibram X. Kendi as one of their professors, I think there's good reason to wonder.
One reader commented that, "Congressional members should be paid no more than the average income of their constituents." Well, I disagree with that, they need to be paid more if for no other reason they have far greater responsibilities than the average American, and to hopefully limit the corruption...... at least a little bit.
In point of fact, I don't really care so how they're paid as much as who pays them and the quality of their work. The Constitution made them federal employees, but they should not have been. In reality they should have been considered employees of the states they represent, and each state should determine what they're paid and what expenses their citizens are willing to incur in their behalf, and that would have prevented this baloney where the Congress decides how much they should make and what expenses they incur for which the public is responsible.
Having said all that, I don't think they're overpaid nor underpaid. In point of fact the only kick I have with them is they're not doing what they're being paid to do, and until they end their deficit spending and pay off the national debt, fix Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, they shouldn't be paid at all.
Unfortunately, that's unconstitutional.
No comments:
Post a Comment