"public servant" is a lie

or: mirror, mirror, on the wall; who's the sleaziest of them all?

When the Framers wrote the Constitution, they weren’t constitutional scholars as they dug through the annals of history to piece together the nation’s defining document. They picked and pulled from good governments, leaving the bad ones in the past and created the Constitution. Then, considering it might not be perfect, claused in its amendability. Thus, if they were scholars: Why clause in the ability to amend? Shouldn’t perfection withstand the test of time, reasoning: There are mountains of examples one could present to prove perceived perfection. But outside of perfection, once you change the underpinnings, what’s on the surface may look the same, but the nuts-and-bolts underneath become wholly different. Furthering, and consequential, to just arbitrarily trust those today who claim to be “scholars,” as all are dependent on Party affiliation, is tantamount to becoming a fool.

Now, the Framers supposedly limited the government itself in its ability to control. The ad nauseum of verbose repeatability, spoken in multiple structures of wording, all dependent on definition. But … whose definition and who cares? Hasn’t the goal of American government become the all-encompassing provider for the wants and needs of everyone, including the welfare of other nations? Thus, divided into two houses, in Article I/Section 8/First Clause of the Constitution, the following: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; today’s subject matter italicized. So, read Webster’s 1828 definitions of the words italicized until you understand them. Then study them again until they become rote:

Provide (verb transitive): To procure beforehand; to get, collect or make ready for future use; to prepare. Abraham said, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-offering (Genesis 22). Provide neither gold nor silver nor brass in your purses (Matthew 10). Provide things honest in the sight of all men (Romans 12).

Provide (verb intransitive): To procure supplies or means of defense; or to take measures for counteracting or escaping an evil. The sagacity of brutes in providing against the inclemencies of weather is wonderful. Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants (Burke).

General (noun): The whole; the total; that which comprehends all or the chief part; opposed to particular.

Welfare (noun): Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.

So, without spiraling into a vicious cycle of word defining, or finger pointing, if one understands definitions, FDRs Social Security (SS) on the surface is constitutional. Although, the nut-and-bolt of structure may or may not be. Or the revising thereof, as what the program initially started as, is today the antithesis of then. Plus, the ever-changing rules on age, and moving the goal posts farther for those who may never see a dime of what they paid in. But on “average,” one receiving SS at 62 after working at least ten years, although most are decades more so, receives $1,299.00 a month. But remember, both the individual and employer(s) paid into one’s SS account over their entire career at 12 percent (6% each) per paycheck. The employer 6 percent SS deposit the possibility of extra paycheck money surrendered.

Now, based on the “law of averages,” let’s say a legislator serves six years (senator 1 term/representative 3 terms) only, the legislator surrendering 4 percent each payday, the taxpayer surrendering the match. At age 62, they will receive $1,350.00 per month retirement pay. Serve 20 years, retirement pay plays in at 50, and after 25 years of “service,” any age. BUT … having “served” longer than 6 years, the retirement payout also grows exponentially, while those on SS? Well, let’s just say, it’s broken. Or will be by 2033, while the taxpayer continues to fully fund the government’s contrivances of constitutional deceptions. Convoluted anyone? And yes, there is an old (CSRS) and new (FERS) system of government retirement, which has some in the system under the old earning hundreds of thousands per annum while SS recipients earn their measly thousands. And yes, this is for all Federal employees. So, imagine those who “serve” longer than 25 years, especially those under the old. And there are thousands. But none of it, if there are taxpayers, is an unfunded liability. Yet, SS is? The adage: What’s good for the goose; doesn’t apply to the gander is apropos.

Well … in Trump’s recent address to Congress, Representative Al Green (Democrat) stood and belligerently disrupted the speech; all in the name of his constituents. His reasoning; help those receiving Medicaid. Although, I wonder: Is he striving to have all Americans under the same health care plan he has? Or maybe it was Obamacare (Affordable Care Act). The unmitigated Democrat atrocity he helped vote into law for the healthcare parity his constituents can’t afford.

Now, imagine what DOGE (department of government efficiency) has unearthed. Was Al an active participant using taxpayer funds to increase his wealth on the premise of funding other nations in the most absurd revelations brought forth while supposedly supporting the very ones he’s stealing from. Something I believe is completely unconstitutional, begging: Where were the Inspectors General who were supposed to call out fraud, corruption, and waste? And no, Republicans are not innocent. They all play in the game of deception. What’s the adage: Those who boast the most do the least. The two-way dead-end street for all legislators committing malfeasance. In other words: Their daily job.

Now, if equity is parity, why aren’t all Americans under the same system of retirement? Or health care? Or have the same embezzling privileges as the three branches of government? Or receiving UBI: Universal Basic Income? Now, that (UBI) is and would be (equality of all; general) constitutional! But unless one understands the Constitution (not scholarly), they’ll never understand the deceptions taking place. And if one claims to be a scholar, I ask: What is their Party affiliation, thus negating their scholar status. Yes: Think Supreme Court. Which also begs: How does one making $175,000.00 per annum become a multi-millionaire, able to own multiples of mansions? Or is all this the unfunded liability being foisted on those yet to understand the depth of debt to be laid upon their shoulders while others reap the benefit thereof. So, to close, not everyone can be on the government’s dole, but can be taxed into poverty to support the dole or doling out. And finally: When did the United States become the world’s provider of funding stupidity? My God people: Wake UP!!