'Screw the next generation': Anonymous congressman writes tell-all and slams 'nation of naive..

Daily Mail ^ | May 12, 2016 | DAVID MARTOSKO

[maggief]

My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything,' an anonymous member of Congress writes in a new book

'Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works,' he writes

'It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification'

One liberal news blogger claims the author is a Democrat

'The Confessions of Congressman X' will be released May 24 by a small Minnesota-based 'vanity press' publisher

A new book threatens to blow the lid off of Congress as a legislator has penned a tell-all about the worst parts of serving in the House of Representatives – saying that his main job is to raise money for re-election and that leaves little time for reading the bills he votes on.

Mill City Press, a small Minnesota-based 'vanity press' publisher describes 'The Confessions of Congressman X' as 'a devastating inside look at the dark side of Congress as revealed by one of its own.'

'No wonder Congressman X wants to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. His admissions are deeply disturbing.'

The 84-page exposé is due in bookstores in two weeks, and Washington is abuzz with speculation about who may have written it.

Political Wire, a liberal news blog, disclosed on Thursday that the author is a 'Democratic congressman.'

Most of the excerpts that appear on the book jacket will come as little surprise to Americans who are cynical about the political process.

'Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them,' the author writes.

'My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything.'

[vette6387]

George Carlin was a liberal, but he was right about lots of stuff. Just finished watcing his “People Who Should Be Killed.” Given the political situation today, I have some additions for him. Just too bad he’s not here to do an “update.”

[Red Badger]

Finally, some truth comes out..............................like we didn’t know it all along........................

[Red Badger]

Yeah, really questions of national import.................

But it’s nothing new.

“The average Roman is more concerned with the stone in his sandal than with the actions of the government.”..........Author Unknown

[dware]

and this has nothing to do with free speech.

Wrong. If I like my Congresscritter, and want to vote for them over and over, I have every right to do so. A term limit law would only:

1. End my ability to vote for said critter, thus stifling my freedom of speech, and

2. Be a knee jerk reaction from those that can't get their guy voted in (or out), and so they stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum and want to change the rules to get their way.

Instead of seeking to stifle free speech, which is PRECISELY what term limits, and campaign finance regulations do (I would challenge you to consider the fact that, if you support term limits, you were also happy to see Dinesh D'Souza be indicted and convicted), why don't we address the issues that actually CAUSE people to seek a career in Congress, such as:

1. Congressional Pay - There is absolutely NO reason one should be motivated to run for Congress for the pay. In reality, serving in Congress should be a major hardship, but one's civic duty. Pay should be exactly like jury duty. This would be one step in making sure that "career" pols are discouraged from running over and over.

2. Benefits - I see no reason that Congress should receive special treatment when it comes to medical coverage. If the VA is good enough for the ladies & gentlemen of the armed forces, it's good enough for Congress, period. Guaranteed pensions for life? Lol. Hell no. Once you serve, you should be encouraged to return to private practice. No reason to support these rotten filthy bastards for the rest of their lives.

These two initiatives, if you will, would go a LONG way in discouraging career pols, and won't stifle free speech.

[henkster]

The kids say the same thing, then I ask what yardstick is used to measure the 50%, and who gets to make the call?

Should be easy, but it’s not.

[Night Hides Not]

In other breaking news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

[pfflier]

Tinfoil Conspiracy Hat Time:

Congressman X does not exist. Trump paid to have this book ghostwritten in order to further stoke the flames of populist outrage against the D.C. establishment.

LOL A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory.

[Sgt_Schultze]

In regard to your low pay prescription, representatives would note the high cost of living around DC. In that regard, I'd suggest that each state would be responsible for purchasing and maintaining residences for each or their representatives, in any manner that state saw fit. This would be embassy model. Some states, being cheaper than others, would opt for spartan digs, others might prefer opulence.

In the alternative to the embassy model, we could adopt a university model. the nation would construct a campus-style community where each representative would receive accommodations.

But the problem isn't with the 535 elected nitwits. The problem is among the 20,000 permanent staffers who work for the representatives. These are the "experienced" folks who simply shuttle among representatives as the citizens decide to make a change. These are the movers and shakers who are the problem solvers makers in DC.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

With all due respect, and I do understand your points, the motivation for seeking and retaining public office has little to do with public service - or in most cases with the pay or fringe benefits (although I agree that these should be altered). The biggest motivators for people to seek public office are 1. ego, 2. power over others, and 3. the ability to enrich oneself independent of what the office pays. Hillary has no need for more money at this point, but she is a narcissist, and needs the stature and nurture of her ego more than riches. This, unfortunately, is what motivates way too many people to seek office. We've turned career politicians into celebrities, and they don't deserve anything like that. Actually, the public doesn't deserve that, because it's destructive.

Term limits protect your right to free speech, not diminish it. Ask yourself how free your speech is now, as compared to 20 years ago, and realize how many career politicians contributed to that diminution. If term limits didn't exist for the Presidency how would that affect your life and your personal freedoms.

I understand if you like your Congressperson, or Senator, you'd like to retain them, but for every retention of some one like that, there is the retention of someone who should never have remained in office.

I will give you this, related to your valid points about congressional pay and benefits: An alternative to strict term limits would be extremely strict limits on how one can benefit from public office. Decrease the pay to middle class levels - with a an annual contribution to a 401K-type account while you are in office - but no pension, make a strict rule against any type of lobbying activity for at least 8 years out of office, AND make it mandatory that - because government office is supposed to be about public service and helping the people - 75% of all proceeds from public speaking engagements that relate in any way to your time in office go to a government fund to pay down the debt.

[Wiser now]

Rush has been telling us exactly these truths for the last 20 years. Why is this a revelation now?

[Wiser now]

Rush has been telling us exactly these truths for the last 20 years. Why is this a revelation now?

[dware]

An alternative to strict term limits would be extremely strict limits on how one can benefit from public office. Decrease the pay to middle class levels - with a an annual contribution to a 401K-type account while you are in office - but no pension, make a strict rule against any type of lobbying activity for at least 8 years out of office, AND make it mandatory that - because government office is supposed to be about public service and helping the people - 75% of all proceeds from public speaking engagements that relate in any way to your time in office go to a government fund to pay down the debt.

NOW we're talking. I'd say, drop the pay to minimum wage, or equal with jury duty pay. High cost of living in DC? Bummer deal, not my problem. If you run for office, you should do so noting the trials and tribulations and being willing to take those on.

Generally limiting, as you have pointed out, the ability for people to benefit from their public service would do so much to end the career side of politics. Would it be perfect? Not quite, but a much better start, IMHO, than placing further restrictions on the voters. Restrict the pols, not voters.

[tbw2]

1. I wouldn’t put it past a Sanders supporter to have released this as an indictment of Washington and, by association, Clinton.
2. A Congressman doesn’t have to read all the bills - but one of his many staffers could and should before giving him a summary.
3. I can’t say this isn’t put out by a Trump functionary, either, to condemn Washington as usual to hurt the RINOs and Democrats in one swoop.

[tbw2]

The swing voters in my observation are the socially liberal fiscally conservative and socially conservative but fiscally liberal.
The socially liberal but fiscally conservative want to help people but not always through the government, or simply don’t want to part with the money the fiscally liberal liberals demand everyone pay in place of charity.
The socially conservative but fiscally liberal want to help everyone per Christian and Jewish mandates but wrongly seek to do so through the state. They end up becoming useful idiots for the socially and fiscally liberal liberals, because they don’t understand that only a limited government will leave them the freedom to act as they choose.

[Arrian]

A reflection.
This Congressman may be indiscreet but he is hardly wrong, in my judgement. Consider this a moment.
Isn’t the villain here universal suffrage which is derivative of the absurd nostrum that we are all equal? If so, then everyone is as good as everyone else, right? The notion is so beyond preposterous as to leave anyone w/even a room temperature IQ, dumb struck. Three observations:
* WE ARE NOT EQUAL AND NEVER WERE.
* THE EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL MAKES EACH OF US UNIQUE FOR ALL ETERNITY
* GENIUS IS TESTAMENT TO THE REALTY OF DIFFERENCE.
The Greeks and Romans understood this vital fact, which is why they gravitated toward monarchy/oligarchy in governance where the wise decided based on their proven achievement.
Until we rid ourselves of this egalitarian bullshit, we will select frauds and hustlers to speak for us in Congress and suffer the consequences.

[Ransomed]

I don’t know, those could be some of the supposed 10% of voters who make up swing voters. But at least they would have some sort of philosophy they could impart to justify, if only in their own eyes, why they voted R,D,D,R,D in succession.

But what about the ones who voted for one guy because he was younger, or more attractive or he knew more debating techniques so the media told him he won the debate because we all know being a good debater makes one a better president? Or he voted for this woman because she was a woman, or this guy’s dumb political rally was really well attended so he must be more popular and thus more deserving? The ones who manage to vote, but just vote for dumb reasons?

Freegards

[Brian Griffin]

I think they need to go to four-year terms.

Perhaps 80% of Representatives should have to have fully read a bill in its current version (excluding language dealing with appropriations)before a vote can be held.

As for appropriations, a President should have line item veto power.

[JimRed]

'My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything.'

Should I write a letter to my congressman?

A congressman has two ends
a sitting end and a thinking end

Since his whole success depends on keeping his seat
why bother, friend?

[JimRed]

Three 4-year terms.

Too long. Two three year terms for the house, two five year terms for the senate. Make them fund their own retirement like most of the rest of us, and participate in Obamacare and whatever other schemes they force upon the rest of us.

And require all political contributions to be anonymous. You can't sell influence if you don't know who is buying. Prison terms for violators. Unspent campaign funds go towards the national debt.

[FreedomPoster]

Too short for doing battle with the bureaucracy, I say.