I hate to sound like I am picking on Mitch, but Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell’s recent three-month stint in the hospital reminded the public of one key fact: During his absence from work, he was paid.
Maybe you are not chronically ill or don’t know anyone who is chronically ill, but for those that do, this knowledge really hits home. Especially at a time when Americans are struggling to afford the basics of survival for themselves, forget mental or physical health upkeep!
In the wake of this healthcare brouhaha, Snopes.com weighed in on the controversy with some legislative facts, stating “McConnell voted against a range of sick leave measures in all four years, albeit with clarification. On March 18, 2020, McConnell voted in favor of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, an emergency response bill passed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. That legislation, providing temporary relief, mandated employers provide employees with paid sick time through the end of the year. Earlier the same day, he voted against an amendment that purportedly would have strengthened the bill’s offerings, including extending the benefits an additional year through 2021. As Senate majority leader, he later reportedly blocked efforts to extend the bill’s paid sick leave mandate past Dec. 31, 2020.”
Newsweek, who also confirms this information, states McConnell continued to receive his salary during his three-month health hiatus, owing to the simple fact that “Senators are entitled to their pay regardless of their attendance due to health issues.”
Which is interesting because as a working American, are you entitled to job security following three-months off from work? Would you be compensated at your normal rate of pay during it?
If not, are you okay that an elected official who already has a salary we can all agree is quite handsome comparatively, voting against taxpayers like you and I receiving medical sick leave and job security when we fall on hard times, while voting to receive it themselves?
I realize this is a loaded, and long-winded question [as most of mine often are!] but it’s worth considering.
Newsweek reports in a September 14 article, that the longtime Senator from the Bluegrass State was absent a total of 92 days this summer and during that time received “his annual Senate salary of $174,000, meaning he has earned nearly $45,000 during his absence.”
Does this sit right with you?
The situation recalls to my mind a tried-and-true childhood nursery rhyme: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Is it time to start holding our elected ruling class to this simple playground standard?