Noonan: They're Paying Attention Now

Why is it a real race now, with John McCain rising in the polls and Barack Obama falling? There are many answers, but here I think is an essential one: The American people have begun paying attention.

It's hard for our political class to remember that Mr. Obama has been famous in America only since the winter of '08. America met him barely six months ago! The political class first interviewed him, or read the interview, in 2003 or '04, when he was a rising star. They know him. Everyone else is still absorbing.

This is what they see:

An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he's hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it's a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No. He's a community organizer (what's that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so's my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).

There is no pre-existing category for him. [READ MORE]

Republicans see Obama coronation postponed

Just a few weeks ago, John McCain's critics were carping at his stuttering, off-message White House campaign, warning it could be steamrolled as Democrat Barack Obama took Europe by storm.

But McCain is back, just in time, with party nominating conventions and vice presidential picks looming. The Republican is sharper on the stump, firing off hard-nosed attacks and on a roll in the polls.

"We don't know who is going to win," said Republican pollster Brian Nienaber.

"But we certainly know that the myth that Obama is going to ascend uncontested to the presidency through adulation and grace and successful oratory is certainly not the case." [READ MORE]

After Russia's invasion of Georgia, what now for the West?

By John R Bolton 15 Aug 2008

Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage. [READ MORE]

Barack Obama blinks in Hillary face-off

Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination. That he might not have had much choice if he wanted peace only proves the point that he's playing defense at his own convention. [READ MORE]

Obama vs McCain on Experience

John McCain
Congress 26 Years
Military 22 Years

Barrack Obama
Congress 143 days
Military 0

Just think how great a professional of any kind you could
be with only 143 days of experience!!!

People want change so badly? . . . . maybe we should
lower the experience requirement for doctors, lawyers,
airline pilots, etc. This would cause some change!

Obama's 143 Days of Senate Experience

Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama
have in terms of actual work days? Not much.

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United
States Senator, to the time he announced he was forming
a Presidential exploratory Committee, he logged 143 days
of experience in the Senate.

That's how many days the Senate was actually in session
and working.

The one single Senate committee that he headed never
even met -- once.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he
was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the
Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR,
JFK and Ronald Reagan.

Think about it.......143 days -- 20.4 weeks -- 4.7 months ...


Our children spend more time in pre-school getting ready
for kindergarten.

New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it

Digital cameras were one of the hot gifts these holidays — the first one for some people, an upgrade for others. Cell-phone cameras are everywhere too, and sites like Flickr and Buzznet — not to mention photoblogs — make it easy for anyone to share the zillions of photos they're taking.

With all these cameras snapping around us, I started to wonder about the laws regarding using them. Where can you shoot? What can you shoot?

A blogger I know shot a picture in an office building. One of the tenants had boxes of medical records sitting around in an unlocked office, visible from the hall. He published a picture of the boxes, which started a little brouhaha: He didn't have permission from the building's landlord, someone said, so he wasn't allowed to take or publish the photos.

That turns out not to be the case. [READ MORE]

Salaries and Benefits of U.S. Congress Members

Congress: Rank-and-File Members' Salary

The current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year.

* Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.

* In a complex system of calculations, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.

* During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

* From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815, when they were paid $1,500 per year.

Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (110th Congress)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.
Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $188,100
Minority Leader - $188,100

House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $217,400
Majority Leader - $188,100
Minority Leader - $188,100

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

Congress: Benefits

You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.

Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, the were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

CASH OF CAMPAIGNS CAN GO ELSEWHERE

By RICHARD L. BERKE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 22, 1989

LEAD: Nearly 200 House members have stockpiled $39.2 million in campaign funds that they could use as retirement cushions because of a provision of the Federal election law, a new study reports.

Nearly 200 House members have stockpiled $39.2 million in campaign funds that they could use as retirement cushions because of a provision of the Federal election law, a new study reports.

The study, released this week by Public Citizen's Congress Watch, a research and lobby group here, found that lawmakers are increasingly raising money that they do not spend on their campaigns but are saving for their personal use or to deter potential challengers. [READ FULL ARTICLE]

Learning to Read Democrat

By MICHAEL KINSLEY
Published: August 9, 2008

Seattle

THE purpose of a party platform is pandering, but it is pandering of a particular sort. The Democratic Party’s platform committee has produced its 2008 edition, and now this draft awaits approval at the Democratic National Convention later this month. Like all platforms, it is not an outreach document. It is aimed at the faithful, under the assumption that only they will read it.

The platform is Democrats’ assurance that the party still loves them, their reward for supporting a candidate who may not have been their first choice and their consolation for betrayals yet to come. Much of it is written in code, lest it fall into the wrong hands.

Translating the document is no simple task. First, an alarmist note. Democrats favor “tough, practical and humane immigration reform.” And, “We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who have lost their homes and people who have lost their way.” It’s not clear what that third item refers to. Tax credits for G.P.S. devices? Presumably, “people who have lost their way” doesn’t mean illegal immigrants trying to find the border.

As a general rule, platforms of both parties avoid the word “people” in favor of “the American people” or “families” or “American families.” And platforms traditionally follow the rhetorical rule that there are three of everything. This year, though (in a development that will, I fear, reinforce prejudices about liberal profligacy), the Democrats have replaced the Rule of Threes with a Rule of Fours: “policies that are smart and right and fair and good for America,” or “a government as decent, candid, purposeful and compassionate as the American people themselves.” Or sometimes even Fives or Sixes (I’ll spare you).

Sometimes there are only two. Usually this means that some difficult trade-off has been resolved by the simple expedient of promising both alternatives. “We will ensure that our patent laws protect legitimate rights while not stifling innovation and creativity” — an excellent summary of the dilemma of patents since this nation’s founding. Or how about a promise of more research money for “common and rare diseases”? That about covers it.

Then there are the mystery phrases that suggest a triumph for one side in some obscure policy battle. In the midst of a frenzy of health care promises — basically, after the plan is fully implemented in 2050, no one will be permitted to get sick — the Democrats advocate “creating a generic pathway for biologic drugs.” Whether this is a triumph for health and common sense or the miserable handiwork of a drug industry lobbyist (or both!), I have no idea.

And speaking of health care, ordinarily it is not possible to overuse the word “American” or to overpraise this great country and its magnificent people. But the Democrats may have found a way in promising a health care system that is “uniquely American.” A uniquely American health care system is what we’ve got.

Capital Letters can be important clues, suggesting hidden motives and broken promises. “Our Children’s First Agenda” sounds more like a toy for future bureaucrats than a government policy. And a “Presidential Early Learning Council” sounds like what these kids will do when they grow up. “We ... will help Limited English Proficient students get ahead by supporting and funding English Language Learner classes.” This obviously has something to do with bilingual education (or “transitional bilingual education,” as the platform carefully calls it).

A promise to create a “Military Families Advisory Board” sounds as though the military families sold out cheap. On the other hand, a promise to “create an Advanced Manufacturing Fund” and to “expand the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships” sounds expensive and stupid. But that’s just a guess. I could be wrong.

The platform’s most bizarre promise is a tax break for fathers “who are responsibly supporting their children.” The best-hidden boondoggle is dropped into the second half of a sentence in a general passage about women. “We will invest in women-owned small businesses and remove the capital gains tax on start-up small businesses.” (Attention all conservatives: Do not panic! This passage does not mean that Democrats favor government investments in businesses, even small businesses, even small businesses owned by women. That would be socialism. It is a convention of platform-writing that all government spending is referred to as “investment.” The Republicans do it, too. That doesn’t make it right.)

The most shameless promise is one to “eliminate all income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year.” These seniors “should not have to worry about tax burdens,” the document says. Who should? Working people making less than $50,000?

“Some of” the cost of catastrophic illness will be taken off the backs of “employers and employees.” And borne by? Who’s left? I guess the unemployed.

As the end approaches, the issues start to blur. Is there really no “White House advisor on Indian Affairs” already? The “self-determination and sovereignty of Native Hawaiians?” Fine with me. The last paragraph is entitled, “Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Translation: “Let’s wrap this up and go have a drink.”

Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time magazine.