…and if it would be appropriate at this time in history?

Should our national leaders receive increases and benefits that far exceed the working class and will be a huge burden on tax payers as each national leader retires?

Also, since our national leaders receive unlimited healthcare for the rest of his/her life at tax payer’s expense and they get a huge portion of their salary annually instead of social security:

a) Does this mean that their high salaries do not have FICA taxes removed since they do not collect Medicaid or Social Security?

b) Could this be a conflict of interest to have them in charge of their own benefits package that may give each salary increases at a rate far beyond that of tax payers?

c) Since they do not depend on Medicaid, could this be the reason why some senators feel limiting procedures and treatment is fair? (A person may pay $300,000.00 in premiums over a healthy life time and only require health intervention after retirement- is it fair to exclude this person’s needs?)

d) If tax payer’s money assures treatment for poor and guarantees unlimited health care for our national leaders but may not afford health care for his/her self and political leaders base a portion of their campaign on maintaining status quo… could this be considered “taxation without representation?”