Reply With Quote
Perfect! But sadly it will never happen! The public, while aware of the problem caused by career politicians always seems to think that its the "Other" politicians that are the problem not their politicians.
Pure speculation....
This will never happen in our lifetime, I am sure, but, just for fun, what do you all think of this note I received recently? Let's limit comments to "Would this be better or worse than what we have today and why"
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three
Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
Perfect! But sadly it will never happen! The public, while aware of the problem caused by career politicians always seems to think that its the "Other" politicians that are the problem not their politicians.
I agree with most except I feel that any and all elected positions should be volunteer only!!!!
I agree with most of DanD's list as well. However, I disagree that all elected positions should be held by volunteers. The system is already heavily biased towards candidates with access to money and restricting it to volunteers would eliminate those candidates who can't afford to do that. What is your rationale for volunteer only?Originally Posted by loucook
To save tax dollars, appropriate gifts could be given to the volunteers by those individuals/corporations looking for hand outs.
For instance, the development contract for the second version of the F-35 engine awarded to GE against DoD recommendations or the funding to finish development of three DDG1000, Zumwalt class destroyers, awarded to Raytheon, would result in several million dollars being generated to compensate the volunteers that supported these projects.
Gee Whiz Mr. Dillon that is the current way of doing business.
Matt Dillon responds "Common Chester, you are being negative that kind of behavior only happens at the local and state level."
Last edited by Tony1941; 06-28-2010 at 01:02 AM.
Well, since I posted the thing, I figured I'd toss in my opinion. First, I don't think we'd ever see anything like this, there is way too much money involved for way too many people and organizations, there would be a huge fight for many years over anything like this. Second, I have unlimited faith in people being able to figure out how to "break" any system for thier advantage. I would think that, should such rules be put in place, many would devote their time in office to creating highly paid positions for themselves in the government, giving themselves a cushy place to land after their "service". So, I would modify this to include a provision that anybody serving any time at all in an elected federal position would not be able to collect a paycheck or any other type of compensation from any government body, whether state, local or federal, AND would be subject to fines if found working for any company who has more than 10% of it's revenue from any government source, federal, state, local or foreign.
and limits on campaign funding
Agree and Support the list emphatically!!!
Would also like to see campaign financing limits specifying candidates cannot accept bundled contributions or contributions from PACs or any other group that exceed the maximum amount that an individual can contribute. (~$5k).
This would help even the playing field with regard to personal wealth or the ability to find deep pockets. But again, this is why I agree with DanD when he stated "I have unlimited faith in people being able to figure out how to "break" any system for thier advantage." It's an unfortunate truth.
George Soros and the 527's from the SEIU would have a clear killing field.
alternative?
ok, so people will look to game any system, but does that mean we do nothing? To accomplish anything great requires continual improvement. So lets get started!
As to limiting donations creating a killing field, I don't agree. Eliminating large donations to campaigns would be a great step towards removing the money from politics. I can't recall if it was shot down by the supremes, but I don't think it was. Didn't McCain/Feingold prevent groups from specifically endorsing a candidate in the final days of a campaign. They can run issues adds, but they can't endorse a specific candidate.
Last edited by ggreenma; 06-29-2010 at 09:08 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks