Goodness gracious why did those founders include those pesky other two branches?
Hey, I'm waiting for them to say they have to install video cameras in our houses in order to protect us on the off chance it might net them a terrorist or two. I've already emailed the WH my shopper card information in hopes of saving them a couple of bucks on that middleman to invade my privacy(you just never know there could be a terrorist preferred brand of TP that the WH may need info on) then they can promptly provide those bucks to the Walton family or Halliburton because gosh forbid it be used to pay down a ridiculously high deficit.
You'll have to forgive me if I doubt the wiseness of giving any President, let alone this one, the power the GOP has ceded. If the founders had wanted a monarchy or even one branch to have more power than the others they wouldn't have bothered saying seperate but equal branches or for that matter even have bothered creating the other two. Anyways, I do believe this will work out to the advantage of the Democrats because I believe the majority of America believes that privacy is an American right that should not be violated solely because one man believes he has the power to violate it, even if that one man is the President.
An excellent start would be public funding of federal elections.
Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) has joined a campaign to fund federal elections that would cost just $6 per citizen per year. I think we would get a good value for our money.
We're eating Cantwell? That's news to me. Joe did it to himself. You can't call yourself a member of the opposition party when you go on TV to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the GOP and join them the majority of the time in bashing your party and congratulating them on their bang up job of making a mess of Iraq.
one, I bet you HATE the Delay Redistricting move in Texas... right?
two, I think primaries that are national are fine, this is us routing around problems in the system which locks people in place. We don't have proportional represenations to express our philosophical desires... there can be 30% republicans in a Democratic district, and that 30% is a LOT. 1 in 3 is a lot, but it will NEVER EVER NEVER get a voice there.
Why shouldn't they support some republican in a county where they have a chance? Why shouldn't they make a red state as red as it can be?
I think a big problem is people complain about their parties (I know I do) but they don't fight in the primaries at all... they figure a Dem or Rep is going to win in November, who cares which one. Then they wonder why their party is drifting this way or that.
If nationalized primaries are a way to popularize the importance of primaries, then on that basis alone they are a good thing. I think the local area STILL has the actual control, because the votes are still from local people...
I don't have a problem with the pre election being national in nature. The votes these leaders make effect the whole country and I have no intention to pretend otherwise. Joe and his behavior effects far more than CT as does Dewine and Chaffee. I do like primaries though. It keeps the incumbent on their toes. There is no reason they shouldn't have to recognize that actions have consequences and justify themselves to voters.
Cantwell's implosion has not been as high-profile (as far as the online world is concerned) but she is clinging right now to a 44-40 lead, and her unfavorables in-state are very high. She will face a stiff third party (Green) opposition, and is the most vulnerable Democrat incumbent this cycle. It's primarily over hte war in Iraq and the Alito cloture vote that she's being consumed.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
one, I bet you HATE the Delay Redistricting move in Texas? right?
Yeah, gerrymandering sucks, but I've never been a fan of unilateral disarmament.
If nationalized primaries are a way to popularize the importance of primaries, then on that basis alone they are a good thing. I think the local area STILL has the actual control, because the votes are still from local people?
I granted this in the post.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Oh! you mean trying to make democracy better... I forgot this isn't RedState, so you don't mean "fixing" Democracy for Republicans like OH in 2004 - 'coz you can't ban me this time ; )
>>Congress has ceased to be Democratically accountable in any meaningful waymatches our identity (R/D/I) and (2) who will win (R or D). But money, has, unfortunately, a very high correllation with media communication, and thus, winning.
>>I am hopeful that the blogs and the new 24-hour media scrutiny can accomplish itif we stop eating our own - Domenench/Armando/Armstrong*) can be a force for good. My peeve is with Janice Rodgers Brown, who probably got my vote because there was no easy way for me to get info on her as she rose through the CA court system. This past primary, I made heavy use of the internet to scope out everyone. Indeed, I voted for alternate Democrats (thanks Kid Oakland!) that were more aligned with my political identity. No more Ms. Brown's sneaking through on my ballot!
>> - because the only other logical step I can see along this path is a Constitutional Term Limits amendment., even as Friday PM "jest", is just beyond the pale.
Oh! you mean trying to make democracy better? I forgot this isn?t RedState, so you don?t mean ?fixing? Democracy for Republicans like OH in 2004 - ?coz you can?t ban me this time ; )
In point of fact, I can, but I won't, because I understand that there's a much wider latitude for discussion here than there is at RedState.
Why is it beyond the pale? At the federal level, there's not as much opportunity for job shuffling - after someone's done being a Senator, what are they going to do? Sure, sometimes they might go Cabinet, but that happens already.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
the "beyond the pale" was a fragment from a later paragraph that somehow disappeared... I do so wish I could preview before posting.
Back to term limits... the shuffling bothers me in the sense that it's a form of incumbency, particularly as practiced in a two-party, winner-take-all, election system like ours. However, I do recognize, and take under consideration, that the net effect of term limits is to create competition for that particular office, even though, like in CA, that officeholder may be the same party. If term limited, folks like Hastert or Byrd would be forced into other lines of work... Cabinet/Executive Branch or Blogging ; )
However, I do recognize, and take under consideration, that the net effect of term limits is to create competition for that particular office, even though, like in CA, that officeholder may be the same party. If term limited, folks like Hastert or Byrd would be forced into other lines of work? Cabinet/Executive Branch or Blogging
I'm glad you agree that my idea is splendid and should be put into practice immediately. :-)
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
After they are done being Senator what do they do? Why become lobbyists of course. Nothing quite like using those ol' networking skills(and yes I do realize that BOTH sides are guilty).
At least they're not a Senator anymore. And the point is, with term limits, you can hopefully try to capture as much of the time for people to act on their idealism as you can, before they start getting too attached to their position.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I have no doubt she is vulnerable but if we were indeed eating our own she'd face a primary. I find it difficult to believe at this point that any Dem is going to vote third party, not when losing the seat to the GOP would mean one more seat we'd need to capture in 2008 to regain the Senate. I suspect most Dems will hold their nose and vote Cantwell when push comes to shove.
You haven't convinced me that term limits would be better than making elections reliant on federal funds only. There are some good Senators that get the job time and time again because their constituents like them and I'm not keen on pushing them out of a job. I would prefer to somehow get rid of the edge the incumbents seem to have when it comes to fundraising. I'd also like to see some restrictions placed on how long after you serve in the federal government you would need to be gone from it before you could lobby for pay.
I will have to admit I haven't given a whole lot of thought about term limits.
I think that is fine if the cause is just. I had a feeling the national netroots were almost ready to pile on Casey (PA) because of his pro-life views. I think if his opponent was a more legitimate candidate and not some unknown Pinocchio the Lieberman situation would've repeated with the Left uniting against the challenger.
It certainly looks like the tolerance of differences is very low in the Dem party.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Missliberties ? Nothing is more important ? thank you for bringing it up!
No other reforms or efforts to reclaim our Democracy (Democratic Republic ? whatever) are possible before eliminating money from politics.
That the 1976 Buckley V Valeo decision by a Rehnquist Court (short version - those with the money own the speech) would hurt America on every level seemed obvious on its face at the time, with the recent failed Nixonian/Corporate Monied Interests takeover and corruption of our government fresh in our memories; but even our concerns at the time pale in comparison to the reality of the total and complete sellout of America to the wealthy elite that we?re now witnessing the last six years.
The required purge of the political facilitators (100% of Republicans ? 40% of ?Democrats?) of our current system will never be possible without 100% public financing of all elections combined with free & fair media access for all political candidates; provided by any and all corporations wanting to make profits from the public?s airwaves as a condition of their ownership.
No other reforms that all us desire, whether progressive or conservative in nature, are possible without this foundation.
It so happens that our ?government for sale to the highest bidder? policy is now serving a few ?conservative? agenda items; but only in so far as the wealthy elite doles it out to hold a bare plurality of the electorate (leaving aside momentarily the assistance of corporate control of the only means to a Democracy ? fair, verifiable voting machines owned ?By The People?).
Even conservatives with varied interests are coming to realize nothing can change or serve anyone?s agenda without politicians actually accountable to constituents through open elections, thereby doing their jobs by governing, rather than fundraising every day to keep their job.
Many Republicans and even some Democrats are dead set against this because their policies serve less than 30 million Americans, and then only short term if they would only think about it.
You can?t run America like a corporation, a corporation is not and should not be a Democracy ? corporations and the wealthy are a necessary component of a healthy, vibrant Democratic Society, indeed a display of it?s superiority to all other systems ? America is not and should not an Aristocracy that serves at the pleasure of a wealthy elite.
Sorry for the long reply, thanks again for bringing it up!
Instead of giving even more power to the executive, why not try term limits? I think the GOP used to be in favor of that at one time. Something called the Contract With America.
Instead of public financing of elections how about reducing the cost of challenging an incumbent by banning TV advertising completely? When was the last time you saw a political ad on TV that was actually informative?
Or how about letting the national party recruit candidates nationally and assign them to districts in different parts of the country to run? Maybe recruit a famous MIT professor or a retired athlete and have him run in an Illinois district against an entrenched incumbent, for instance. Name/resume canceling out the incumbency advantage.
Point 1: Leon points out he advocates this in his post. I'm totally against limiting the tenure of effective, responsive politicians. The last thing we need is to kick out honest, liberal voices.
Point 2: Mass media is the only way to communicate to voters, that we have to accept.
Point 3: With a few exceptions, carpetbagging by bringing in outside representatives to a district is not a good way to elect people responsive to their constituents.
Public financing of elections, free media, and removing the evil tentacles of monied interests from the throat of our government are the only solutions; IMHO.
Glad to see your passion here. Interesting that Alan Simpson is helping sponser the Just $6 dollars campaign. He is a very conservative senator from Wyoming with a lot of good old boy common sense, and a friend of Dick Cheney's.
Explaining what is going on in Congress today with Republicans, he answered someone is bringin' some heat.
I hope that eventually this catches on, although I don't imagine corporations would support it. They are getting too many advantages in today's market.
I don't think that employees of the people should be punished (term limits) for doing a good job. Just when they figure out what is going on, they get sacked. I think public funding is a viable alternative.
Money like water, will always find a way to leak through. If folks understood how the Congress works right now that would be outraged. Republicans control everything. Shut the door on the democrats. The lobbyists write the bills, and they are put to the floor the next day, before anyone can even read them. They then go to committee I believe, where they are marked up and changed. Then signed by the President, and if he doesn't like something, he does a signing statement. This is NOT democracy. It's a joke. That is why it is imperative for Congress to start functioning, that there is some minority party representation.
Can you imagine. Congress is passing laws, that they haven't even read!!!!! It makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you believe in complete corruption of the system. Our system is broken at present. Very very broken. But I think people are catching on.
We can very much thank Tom Delay for the way Congress works right now. It is rigged, and he was the one that pulled all the strings, twisted all the arms, and he did it with Jack Abramoff money from the Indian Tribes. Ripping off the Indians, to give power to the republicans, stack K street with Republican only lobbyists, in a pay to play scheme that is mind boggling in its lawlessness, and lack of representation for the people. And we wonder why immigration laws are not being enforced.......! Every step of the way the federal govt has enbled Congress to break the law.
To those fiscal conservatives having apolplectic shock at the fiscal mismangement. Thank Tom Delay for the Medicare Bill. The vote stayed open til 5:30 am, until he twisted enough arms and broke enough legs to get it to pass. This is not government.
Term limits seem like a bad idea because (1) they prevent good representatives from having long careers, and (2) like any job there is a learning curve. Why cut off the masters? The experts? That would be counterproductive in many lines of work.
Instead, keeping the internet neutral and legislating public financing of elections a la Carville & Begala's model seems a more judicious way to invigorate primary challenges. The cost of public financing would be extremely modest relative to current levels of corruption and waste, a fantastic bargain.
Here's the basics of the Carville/Begala proposal:
1. Raise Congressional salaries to $400.000. ?The catch: no free taxi rides, charter flights, golf, ski trips. ?No free nothing. ?Accept a gift, lose your seat.
2. A complete ban on incumbents raising money from individuals, corporations or special interests. ?Nada. ?They've got more important work to do.
3. Challengers can raise unlimited money, fully reported within 24 h. ?The federal government matches 80% of what the challenger raises and gives it to the incumbent.
4. The incumbent can spend his own money. ?The Feds match that money and give it to the challenger.
5. Want to run for a different seat? ?Quit your current seat and start raising money!
It could save us lots and lots of money. ?And put Congress back to work for the people.
Simpson has bummed me out in the past on a few things, but I do detect that old school common sense (although I wish I'd seen more of it during the Clinton years - he could be a bit venomous and disingenous in his moral indignation). He had a principled side that reminds me of a Dale Bumpers, William Proxmire, or Paul Wellstone, unwavering in their convictions and passionate in their work. Kind of like my late dad, come to think of it.
Murtha's in that class, agree or disagree no one can deny his passion and strength in doing what he sees as his patriotic duty, nor his dedication to the soldiers. It drives Republicans nuts!
I've actually heard corporations and many well off folks are a bit sick of being hit on all the time for their political tithe, many times in order to continue influencing the tax code and regulatory agencies to their favor and the disfavor of the rest of us and/or the environment.
I read of series of books in the early to mid ninties by Bartlett & Steele of the Philly Inquirer, "America, What Went Wrong", "America, Who Really Pays The Taxes?", and "America, Who Stole The Dream?".
Highly recommended and quite the eye opener, I've been for public financing ever since.
Comments :
Goodness gracious wh
Goodness gracious why did those founders include those pesky other two branches?
Hey, I'm waiting for them to say they have to install video cameras in our houses in order to protect us on the off chance it might net them a terrorist or two. I've already emailed the WH my shopper card information in hopes of saving them a couple of bucks on that middleman to invade my privacy(you just never know there could be a terrorist preferred brand of TP that the WH may need info on) then they can promptly provide those bucks to the Walton family or Halliburton because gosh forbid it be used to pay down a ridiculously high deficit.
You'll have to forgive me if I doubt the wiseness of giving any President, let alone this one, the power the GOP has ceded. If the founders had wanted a monarchy or even one branch to have more power than the others they wouldn't have bothered saying seperate but equal branches or for that matter even have bothered creating the other two. Anyways, I do believe this will work out to the advantage of the Democrats because I believe the majority of America believes that privacy is an American right that should not be violated solely because one man believes he has the power to violate it, even if that one man is the President.
An excellent start w
An excellent start would be public funding of federal elections.
Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) has joined a campaign to fund federal elections that would cost just $6 per citizen per year. I think we would get a good value for our money.
Just an idea. http://www.just6dollars.org/node/43
It is the economy, stupid.
We're eating Cantwel
We're eating Cantwell? That's news to me. Joe did it to himself. You can't call yourself a member of the opposition party when you go on TV to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the GOP and join them the majority of the time in bashing your party and congratulating them on their bang up job of making a mess of Iraq.
a couple things.
a couple things.
one, I bet you HATE the Delay Redistricting move in Texas... right?
two, I think primaries that are national are fine, this is us routing around problems in the system which locks people in place. We don't have proportional represenations to express our philosophical desires... there can be 30% republicans in a Democratic district, and that 30% is a LOT. 1 in 3 is a lot, but it will NEVER EVER NEVER get a voice there.
Why shouldn't they support some republican in a county where they have a chance? Why shouldn't they make a red state as red as it can be?
I think a big problem is people complain about their parties (I know I do) but they don't fight in the primaries at all... they figure a Dem or Rep is going to win in November, who cares which one. Then they wonder why their party is drifting this way or that.
If nationalized primaries are a way to popularize the importance of primaries, then on that basis alone they are a good thing. I think the local area STILL has the actual control, because the votes are still from local people...
I don't have a probl
I don't have a problem with the pre election being national in nature. The votes these leaders make effect the whole country and I have no intention to pretend otherwise. Joe and his behavior effects far more than CT as does Dewine and Chaffee. I do like primaries though. It keeps the incumbent on their toes. There is no reason they shouldn't have to recognize that actions have consequences and justify themselves to voters.
Cantwell's implosion
Cantwell's implosion has not been as high-profile (as far as the online world is concerned) but she is clinging right now to a 44-40 lead, and her unfavorables in-state are very high. She will face a stiff third party (Green) opposition, and is the most vulnerable Democrat incumbent this cycle. It's primarily over hte war in Iraq and the Alito cloture vote that she's being consumed.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
<i>one, I bet you HA
one, I bet you HATE the Delay Redistricting move in Texas? right?
Yeah, gerrymandering sucks, but I've never been a fan of unilateral disarmament.
If nationalized primaries are a way to popularize the importance of primaries, then on that basis alone they are a good thing. I think the local area STILL has the actual control, because the votes are still from local people?
I granted this in the post.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Oh! you mean trying
Oh! you mean trying to make democracy better... I forgot this isn't RedState, so you don't mean "fixing" Democracy for Republicans like OH in 2004 - 'coz you can't ban me this time ; )
>>Congress has ceased to be Democratically accountable in any meaningful waymatches our identity (R/D/I) and (2) who will win (R or D). But money, has, unfortunately, a very high correllation with media communication, and thus, winning.
>>I am hopeful that the blogs and the new 24-hour media scrutiny can accomplish itif we stop eating our own - Domenench/Armando/Armstrong*) can be a force for good. My peeve is with Janice Rodgers Brown, who probably got my vote because there was no easy way for me to get info on her as she rose through the CA court system. This past primary, I made heavy use of the internet to scope out everyone. Indeed, I voted for alternate Democrats (thanks Kid Oakland!) that were more aligned with my political identity. No more Ms. Brown's sneaking through on my ballot!
>> - because the only other logical step I can see along this path is a Constitutional Term Limits amendment., even as Friday PM "jest", is just beyond the pale.
elections matter (ed!)
oops... Term limits
oops...
Term limits for CA office holders have just meant a bunch of shuffling jobs (look at Tom McClintock, John Garamendi, etc.)
elections matter (ed!)
<i>Oh! you mean tryi
Oh! you mean trying to make democracy better? I forgot this isn?t RedState, so you don?t mean ?fixing? Democracy for Republicans like OH in 2004 - ?coz you can?t ban me this time ; )
In point of fact, I can, but I won't, because I understand that there's a much wider latitude for discussion here than there is at RedState.
Why is it beyond the pale? At the federal level, there's not as much opportunity for job shuffling - after someone's done being a Senator, what are they going to do? Sure, sometimes they might go Cabinet, but that happens already.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Fact acknowledged...
Fact acknowledged...
the "beyond the pale" was a fragment from a later paragraph that somehow disappeared... I do so wish I could preview before posting.
Back to term limits... the shuffling bothers me in the sense that it's a form of incumbency, particularly as practiced in a two-party, winner-take-all, election system like ours. However, I do recognize, and take under consideration, that the net effect of term limits is to create competition for that particular office, even though, like in CA, that officeholder may be the same party. If term limited, folks like Hastert or Byrd would be forced into other lines of work... Cabinet/Executive Branch or Blogging ; )
regards.
elections matter (ed!)
<i>However, I do rec
However, I do recognize, and take under consideration, that the net effect of term limits is to create competition for that particular office, even though, like in CA, that officeholder may be the same party. If term limited, folks like Hastert or Byrd would be forced into other lines of work? Cabinet/Executive Branch or Blogging
I'm glad you agree that my idea is splendid and should be put into practice immediately. :-)
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
After they are done
After they are done being Senator what do they do? Why become lobbyists of course. Nothing quite like using those ol' networking skills(and yes I do realize that BOTH sides are guilty).
At least they're not
At least they're not a Senator anymore. And the point is, with term limits, you can hopefully try to capture as much of the time for people to act on their idealism as you can, before they start getting too attached to their position.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
I have no doubt she
I have no doubt she is vulnerable but if we were indeed eating our own she'd face a primary. I find it difficult to believe at this point that any Dem is going to vote third party, not when losing the seat to the GOP would mean one more seat we'd need to capture in 2008 to regain the Senate. I suspect most Dems will hold their nose and vote Cantwell when push comes to shove.
You haven't convince
You haven't convinced me that term limits would be better than making elections reliant on federal funds only. There are some good Senators that get the job time and time again because their constituents like them and I'm not keen on pushing them out of a job. I would prefer to somehow get rid of the edge the incumbents seem to have when it comes to fundraising. I'd also like to see some restrictions placed on how long after you serve in the federal government you would need to be gone from it before you could lobby for pay.
I will have to admit I haven't given a whole lot of thought about term limits.
I think that is fine
I think that is fine if the cause is just. I had a feeling the national netroots were almost ready to pile on Casey (PA) because of his pro-life views. I think if his opponent was a more legitimate candidate and not some unknown Pinocchio the Lieberman situation would've repeated with the Left uniting against the challenger.
It certainly looks like the tolerance of differences is very low in the Dem party.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Missliberties ? Noth
Missliberties ? Nothing is more important ? thank you for bringing it up!
No other reforms or efforts to reclaim our Democracy (Democratic Republic ? whatever) are possible before eliminating money from politics.
That the 1976 Buckley V Valeo decision by a Rehnquist Court (short version - those with the money own the speech) would hurt America on every level seemed obvious on its face at the time, with the recent failed Nixonian/Corporate Monied Interests takeover and corruption of our government fresh in our memories; but even our concerns at the time pale in comparison to the reality of the total and complete sellout of America to the wealthy elite that we?re now witnessing the last six years.
The required purge of the political facilitators (100% of Republicans ? 40% of ?Democrats?) of our current system will never be possible without 100% public financing of all elections combined with free & fair media access for all political candidates; provided by any and all corporations wanting to make profits from the public?s airwaves as a condition of their ownership.
No other reforms that all us desire, whether progressive or conservative in nature, are possible without this foundation.
It so happens that our ?government for sale to the highest bidder? policy is now serving a few ?conservative? agenda items; but only in so far as the wealthy elite doles it out to hold a bare plurality of the electorate (leaving aside momentarily the assistance of corporate control of the only means to a Democracy ? fair, verifiable voting machines owned ?By The People?).
Even conservatives with varied interests are coming to realize nothing can change or serve anyone?s agenda without politicians actually accountable to constituents through open elections, thereby doing their jobs by governing, rather than fundraising every day to keep their job.
Many Republicans and even some Democrats are dead set against this because their policies serve less than 30 million Americans, and then only short term if they would only think about it.
You can?t run America like a corporation, a corporation is not and should not be a Democracy ? corporations and the wealthy are a necessary component of a healthy, vibrant Democratic Society, indeed a display of it?s superiority to all other systems ? America is not and should not an Aristocracy that serves at the pleasure of a wealthy elite.
Sorry for the long reply, thanks again for bringing it up!
Unilateral disarmame
Unilateral disarmament is not the term that applies when your side is launching pre-emptive strikes such as redistricting in between censuses.
qui tacet consentire
Some radical ideas:
Some radical ideas:
Instead of giving even more power to the executive, why not try term limits? I think the GOP used to be in favor of that at one time. Something called the Contract With America.
Instead of public financing of elections how about reducing the cost of challenging an incumbent by banning TV advertising completely? When was the last time you saw a political ad on TV that was actually informative?
Or how about letting the national party recruit candidates nationally and assign them to districts in different parts of the country to run? Maybe recruit a famous MIT professor or a retired athlete and have him run in an Illinois district against an entrenched incumbent, for instance. Name/resume canceling out the incumbency advantage.
qui tacet consentire
<i>Instead of giving
Instead of giving even more power to the executive, why not try term limits?
Heh. It's usually helpful to read the entire post before responding.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
With all respect I d
With all respect I differ with your radical ideas
Point 1: Leon points out he advocates this in his post. I'm totally against limiting the tenure of effective, responsive politicians. The last thing we need is to kick out honest, liberal voices.
Point 2: Mass media is the only way to communicate to voters, that we have to accept.
Point 3: With a few exceptions, carpetbagging by bringing in outside representatives to a district is not a good way to elect people responsive to their constituents.
Public financing of elections, free media, and removing the evil tentacles of monied interests from the throat of our government are the only solutions; IMHO.
Glad to see your pas
Glad to see your passion here. Interesting that Alan Simpson is helping sponser the Just $6 dollars campaign. He is a very conservative senator from Wyoming with a lot of good old boy common sense, and a friend of Dick Cheney's.
Explaining what is going on in Congress today with Republicans, he answered someone is bringin' some heat.
I hope that eventually this catches on, although I don't imagine corporations would support it. They are getting too many advantages in today's market.
It is the economy, stupid.
Lots of crazy ideas.
Lots of crazy ideas.
I don't think that employees of the people should be punished (term limits) for doing a good job. Just when they figure out what is going on, they get sacked. I think public funding is a viable alternative.
Money like water, will always find a way to leak through. If folks understood how the Congress works right now that would be outraged. Republicans control everything. Shut the door on the democrats. The lobbyists write the bills, and they are put to the floor the next day, before anyone can even read them. They then go to committee I believe, where they are marked up and changed. Then signed by the President, and if he doesn't like something, he does a signing statement. This is NOT democracy. It's a joke. That is why it is imperative for Congress to start functioning, that there is some minority party representation.
Can you imagine. Congress is passing laws, that they haven't even read!!!!! It makes no sense whatsoever. Unless you believe in complete corruption of the system. Our system is broken at present. Very very broken. But I think people are catching on.
We can very much thank Tom Delay for the way Congress works right now. It is rigged, and he was the one that pulled all the strings, twisted all the arms, and he did it with Jack Abramoff money from the Indian Tribes. Ripping off the Indians, to give power to the republicans, stack K street with Republican only lobbyists, in a pay to play scheme that is mind boggling in its lawlessness, and lack of representation for the people. And we wonder why immigration laws are not being enforced.......! Every step of the way the federal govt has enbled Congress to break the law.
To those fiscal conservatives having apolplectic shock at the fiscal mismangement. Thank Tom Delay for the Medicare Bill. The vote stayed open til 5:30 am, until he twisted enough arms and broke enough legs to get it to pass. This is not government.
It is the economy, stupid.
Term limits seem lik
Term limits seem like a bad idea because (1) they prevent good representatives from having long careers, and (2) like any job there is a learning curve. Why cut off the masters? The experts? That would be counterproductive in many lines of work.
Instead, keeping the internet neutral and legislating public financing of elections a la Carville & Begala's model seems a more judicious way to invigorate primary challenges. The cost of public financing would be extremely modest relative to current levels of corruption and waste, a fantastic bargain.
Here's the basics of
Here's the basics of the Carville/Begala proposal:
1. Raise Congressional salaries to $400.000. ?The catch: no free taxi rides, charter flights, golf, ski trips. ?No free nothing. ?Accept a gift, lose your seat.
2. A complete ban on incumbents raising money from individuals, corporations or special interests. ?Nada. ?They've got more important work to do.
3. Challengers can raise unlimited money, fully reported within 24 h. ?The federal government matches 80% of what the challenger raises and gives it to the incumbent.
4. The incumbent can spend his own money. ?The Feds match that money and give it to the challenger.
5. Want to run for a different seat? ?Quit your current seat and start raising money!
It could save us lots and lots of money. ?And put Congress back to work for the people.
Simpson has bummed m
Simpson has bummed me out in the past on a few things, but I do detect that old school common sense (although I wish I'd seen more of it during the Clinton years - he could be a bit venomous and disingenous in his moral indignation). He had a principled side that reminds me of a Dale Bumpers, William Proxmire, or Paul Wellstone, unwavering in their convictions and passionate in their work. Kind of like my late dad, come to think of it.
Murtha's in that class, agree or disagree no one can deny his passion and strength in doing what he sees as his patriotic duty, nor his dedication to the soldiers. It drives Republicans nuts!
I've actually heard corporations and many well off folks are a bit sick of being hit on all the time for their political tithe, many times in order to continue influencing the tax code and regulatory agencies to their favor and the disfavor of the rest of us and/or the environment.
I read of series of books in the early to mid ninties by Bartlett & Steele of the Philly Inquirer, "America, What Went Wrong", "America, Who Really Pays The Taxes?", and "America, Who Stole The Dream?".
Highly recommended and quite the eye opener, I've been for public financing ever since.
MissLib...why is it
MissLib...why is it always those that lose power, claim that everything is wrong and broken?