My suggested alternative titles for this post:

1) What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

2) A Great Idea That Will Never See the Light of Day

**A Post By Shifra**

With all the horror of the events in Boston last week, this Wall Street Journal article almost escaped my notice: (The article in full can be read here.)

For years, some have argued that we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution providing that all members of Congress have to comply with all laws that other citizens have to obey. “Congress shall make no law,” the amendment might read, “that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the senators and/or representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the senators and/or representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.”

Others apparently have faith in the high moral character of their elected officials and argue that we shouldn’t have to enact a constitutional amendment to make sure Congress follows the same laws all Americans do.

(I have never actually met anyone who believes in “the high moral character of their elected officials,” but please, if you know someone who does, have them contact me immediately through twitter, @NYJooo; I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am selling,  at a really good price!)

In 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act established the minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, and time and a half for overtime, Congress exempted itself from coverage of the law. As a result, for decades congressional employees were left without the protections afforded the rest of Americans working in private industry.

In 1964, with great fanfare, President Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act, including Title VII, which for the first time protected all Americans from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. But the law exempted Congress from its coverage, so thousands of staffers and other employees on the Hill were left with no equal-opportunity protection. Staffers could be discriminated against or sexually harassed with legal impunity….

Insider trading (the buying and selling of stocks based on insider information not available to the general public) has been a violation of federal securities laws for almost 80 years. Yet it was never illegal for members of Congress. Not, that is, until a November 2011 report by CBS’s “60 Minutes” shamed Congress into changing the law to prohibit members of Congress and their staffs from trading on inside information…. Six months after the “60 Minutes” segment with Mr. Schweizer aired, Congress passed and the president signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, which bans insider trading by lawmakers and their staffs. But just last week, while voters were focused on emotional issues such as immigration and gun control, House and Senate members voted to repeal a key provision of the so-called Stock Act—the one that required online posting of their financial transactions….

Missing from this article, though, is what was once called “The $64,000 question,” but in this Age of Obama, perhaps it should be called “The $64 trillion dollar question:”

Would Obamacare have passed if the members of Congress would have been threatened with the loss of their gold-plated health care coverage?

I think not.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
9 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Timbo says:

    Yet another fine example of the ruling elites providing for themselves and depriving us. It never ends…

    Thanks Shifra, on point as usual

    Tim

  2. ancientwrrior says:

    All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others (Animal Farm).

  3. Maynard says:

    I’m not sure I want to jump onto this bandwagon, in that we know the rich and powerful are often going to be above the law no matter what the law says. Does anyone really expect the Kennedys to be subjected to Obamacare restrictions? Was anyone surprised that Bill Clinton could get away with the sort of sexual harassment and perjury that would sink an ordinary businessman? And don’t forget the gun-grabbing Sen. Feinstein was the only person ever to be issued a permit for concealed carry in San Francisco. So if we’re going to have a double standard, I’d actually rather have it be clearly codified, instead of the unofficial get-out-of-jail-free cards that the “right” people seem to have.

    The elite will never be subject to the same rules that we are, and it’s pointless to expect they ever will. So my focus is on the abuse of power, the endless micromanaging and regulating and taxing, the ever-increasing controls on normal decent people deemed necessary to keep us marching toward that “just” society. We’ll continue to get rotten, intrusive government as long as we keep sending rotten, intrusive people to Washington.

  4. Kitten says:

    But, but, Shifra…shouldn’t we just be happy they let us live in their world? I mean, sometimes they even let us keep some freedoms. We can’t be acting like the boss, we have no power over the them, oh, wait…

    Let’s start in 2014 and get rid of the slimy, fake ones first and go from there. Who, you say? Most anyone will do. Like shooting slimy pigs in a barrel.

  5. LJZumpano says:

    While Maynard is right, the rich and powerful can always get stuff we the little people can’t, it also holds that this is not a new battle and not one restricted to the USA. The entire history of our country shows many battles between the elites and the peons. The difference between our nation and others, we really believe it is worth fighting for the rights which declare us all equal before the law, and do not ever concede that money and power make them “better” or us “less”. For the most part we don’t begrduge others the wealth or glory they achieve, but we do draw a line when the haves think they might be our betters. The scariest part about Congress is how blatantly bad they’ve all been exposed to be. We can send in a few good men and women, but the swamp there is so mucked up, they can’t survive long. It will take a number of elections before we will see any difference and even that won’t help unless folks at the grassroots start demanding it. Who in the GOP thought Sanford should go the Congress? And he is only the latest fiasco. If the GOP in states where they should win can’t make the needed changes, how can we expect to turn around states, like New York, where the GOP is not only big govt liberal but insignificant when compared to the Democrats?

  6. LucyLadley says:

    It seems when we are making decisions which people to vote to represent our values, we often do not have choices of people we are 100% thrilled about. Then when the “Winner” (derogatory) is in office & we see the despicable & sneaky ways they behave & vote, we have questions about the “Winner” & questions about the strength of our vote. I know my “term limits” comments seem repetitive, as well as my “government officials need to remember, they are public servants” comments, but I’ll repeat them again.

  7. Alain41 says:

    Speaking of, the law is an ass; here’s an article on a Calif. whale watcher tour boat women who got charged with a felony of feeding killer whales in 2004. Recently concluded as a disdemeanor. (assuming that there is no missing info. from the article) There was whale blubber floating in the water, so she tied it trailing her whale watching tour boat and went to where the killer whales were and the orcas fed on the whale blubber. For that she was charged with a felony and potential loss of her Captain’s license and her boat. Finally concluded after 8-9 years. This is the type of prosecutorial abuse of power that needs to be stopped!

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/biologist-pleads-guilty-to-feeding-killer-whales/article/feed/2092106

You must be logged in to post a comment.