If I made the rules - Congressional pay and benefits

I have seen several posts lately expressing outrage that members of Congress get paid their salary for life.

Now, while I don't like what Congress is doing any better than the next person, this outrage is misplaced.

 Congressmen participate in FERS, the Federal Employee Retirement System. It is NOT a "free ride for life", as many would have it. But it IS an employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plan, and pensions of that sort are increasingly rare.

 The plan itself is not terribly outrageous. They are vested after 5 years, which means three 2-year terms for a Representative and one 6-year term for a Senator. If that's all they serve, then at age 62 they can receive a pension of $17,588 for six years of work. Not earth-shattering, but not trivial either.

 However, if they serve for 25 years, they can get up to about $68,000 a year. And there ARE some unique aspects to the pension. "Serving" can be in any federal job, not just serving in Congress, so it becomes easier to make those extra years. And the calculations are based on the three highest-earning jobs, not the most recent.

 Congressmen can also participate in a TSP, which is the public-sector version of a 401k. The government matches their contributions up to 5%. Again, this is not outrageous; that level of employer match is not unusual.

 They DO participate in Social Security. But because their salaries are so high, their initial benefits can be about $30k a year, and that's on top of their pension. Note that one proposal to "fixing" social security is simply to lift the cap on contributions. For 2017, the cap is $127,200; the current salary of members of Congress is $174,000. Congressmen are also allowed to earn up to $28,400.00 in "outside earned income", so raising the contribution limit to 250k would capture most of this income.

 So what can we do, to save taxpayers from the burden of these (possibly overgenerous) congressional pensions? One theory is that minimizing income and class disparities would help our elected officials identify with, and actually serve, their constituencies. We should not have a ruling class.

 We could start by adjusting their base salaries. Pay Congressmen the median salary of their constituency. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the entire US, this is currently $44,564 per year. This would both put Congressmen on a level with the constituencies they represent, and reduce the ongoing financial commitment of taxpayers to pay their salary-based pensions.

If Congressmen say they need the higher salaries to do their jobs effectively - they need to maintain an appropriate house in Washington,  they need to host or go to the appropriate soirees - then those supposedly-valid expenses should be line-items in the state's budget. Let the voters decide if the expenses are warranted.

Unfortunately, this may not be much of a constraint on Congressmen, most of whom go into their jobs as millionaires anyway.

 Another possibility would be to give Congressmen the same options given to most workers today. Pension OR 401k, not both. Or, as suggested here, replace FERS with Social Security.

 To address the fear that reducing the salaries of members of Congress will make them more susceptible to bribery, I suggest that we a) make financial disclosure mandatory (ie, all elected officials must release their tax returns) and b) make such a disclosure mandatory again when they leave office or are re-elected. Let the public - their bosses - decide if any moonlighting they do has been interfering with their primary job.

Some complain that those in Congress get free Cadillac healthcare. Again, not true. Currently, Congressmen DO have to buy their healthcare on the marketplace, but in Washington DC (a district, not a State) they have options not available to their constituents. My solution would be to say they have to buy a standard plan offered on the state exchange of their state of residency. If they don't like what is offered there, they can work to get good, affordable plans offered to all.

Better yet, they could institute a national health plan, so residency doesn't dictate health care.

 So - if I made the rules...

Types of law: "illegal entry" vs "unlawful presence"

Civics is no longer taught in schools. It should be. People should be aware of the differences between criminal and civil law; and between legislative and administrative law.

Breaking a criminal law means committing a crime, by definition. Crimes can be broken down into felonies (serious crimes such as murder) and misdemeanors (minor crimes such as trespass or drunk driving). Yes, if you break a criminal law, you are a criminal (though many reserve that term for felons; you rarely hear of people convicted of drunk driving referred to as criminals).

Breaking a civil law subjects you to various penalties, of which having to pay a fine is the most common penalty. You can also be compelled to perform a duty. Civil law is what comes into play when you sue somebody. Breaking a civil law does not make you a criminal.

Regarding so-called "illegal immigrants":

Illegal entry is a misdemeanor on a par with attempting to evade customs inspection. It is not a felony. Federal law specifies that illegal entry must be proven, not assumed, and the punishment is "no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry."

So "illegal entry" only applies to those who have been proven to have actually crossed the border without going through proper entry procedures. Most of those who are in this country without documentation have not entered illegally; they overstayed valid visas.

Overstaying your visa is considered "unlawful presence" under Federal law. That is a violation of administrative civil law; it is not actually a criminal act, and those who do so are not criminals. "It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal." The basic civil penalty for this is indeed deportation, but people "cannot be criminally charged or incarcerated simply for being undocumented".

This is the law of the United States. To say and do otherwise - even if you are the Attorney General or Director of ICE - is to flout those laws.

DACA recipients are not "illegals"

Current rhetoric conflates DACA recipients with those who have come over the border illegally to work as migrant workers, or those who have overstayed their legally-obtained visas. They shouldn't be confused.

Some people seem to think that DACA kids have broken the law. On the contrary. Anybody who is in the federal DACA program is currently legal; they have filed the paperwork, jumped through the hoops. None have criminal records. All have good grades and/or jobs (you don't get into the program otherwise). Their status, right now, is that of a legal resident of the United States.

But they came here illegally, you say. No; they were brought here illegally, but they themselves did not commit a crime. Under the law, you have to have agency - bear responsibility - in order to commit a crime. A minor child has no agency. They are no more responsible for being smuggled into the US than is a Cuban cigar.

Many now on DACA didn't even know they were not US citizens until high school, when it came time to apply to college or get a passport to travel with a school team. By acceptance into DACA, they have shown that they are precisely the sort of upstanding citizens we want in this country.

Oh, but their parents broke the law, you say. Possibly true... but we still have certain legal principles in this country. One is that you don't punish someone for what someone else did.

DACA kids are already in limbo. Yes, they are here legally, but if they are ever less than model citizens - if they even get a speeding ticket - they may lose that legal status. And, of course, the government may unilaterally decide to terminate their legal status. THAT is the current issue.