Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Foxfyre]

The Europeans sure seem to be positioning themselves for a break up. Perhaps smaller is better when it comes to the political responsibilities of any given 'leader'.... either small geography or small scope of influence.

Jus' thinkin' out loud here...

LOL, can't figure you out Joe, which is isn't a bad thing. A few days ago we seemed to be on opposite sides of the fence and today you're singing several verses of my song. But that's what I like about thinking people. They don't always agree with me, but they think and they are able to articulate a rational for their thoughts.

And from candycorn's post:

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

An entitlement is the presumption of privilege or right to receive for your own individual benefit what other people earned and you didn't.

As I believe the Founders intended for the general welfare, food inspectors are not an 'entitlement'. Food inspectors that monitor the food supply being imported into the country or who track down deadly contaminations of the food supply meet every requirement of the 'general welfare' as the Founders defined. it. Everybody uses the food supply - rich, poor, everybody. Food inspection doesn't benefit a special interest or targeted group.

Also National Parks, assuming the States agree to their placement within their boundaries, benefit all - rich and poor alike without prejudice. They are accessible to everybody, not just a special interest or targeted group.

Same with the Interstate highways. No state is required to have them, but they are a key part of our national defense which IS a Constitutional responsibility of the fedeal government, and they benefit all, rich and poor alike and not special interests or targeted group. Everybody can use them and everybody benefits from being able to move products around the country much more efficiently than was once the case.

The test should always be: Does everybody have equal access to benefit from a program? If so, it is within the province of the Federal government as the Founders envisioned it. If it benefits only a special interest or a targeted group, it should be the province of the States and phased out and eliminated at the Federal level.

 

[candycorn]

Do you have any idea how much freedom we gain by NOT having to grow our own food?

How many of us would GLADLY pay a few thousand a year for inspectors to keep food producers honestly meeting minimum standards, giving us enough free time to BUY food with the proceeds of a job done in an air-conditioned office?



The rest of your post seems to be a good argument for banding together as a community and preserving things like the Grand Canyon, and the economic sense of pooling community resources to build transportation infrastructure that's free for anyone to use.

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying or trying to say (whichever is the case)....

I want the federal government to have 3X the meat, fish, poultry, vegetable inspectors they have now.

I want the federal government to manage the national parks.

The poster who came up with the original OP seems to want to turn back the clock to the 1780's where the government basically protected the borders and little else. I disagree with the spirit of the thread insofar as thats not "fixing" anything but basically reverting to a time when all we had to worry about was Indians and Red Coats.

As you may or may not know, I'm all for preserving the Constitution but updating it to meet the needs of 2011 and beyond. No convenience store in the world would operate on a business model that is 224 years old; yet our country does basically; there is no guarantee of privacy, no rules about how much our government can spend and what it can spend it on other than the variable winds of politics, no mention of how much you can be taxed, no mention of what is and isn't taxable income...etc...

The application of the constitution was profoundly altered as a result of the prosecution of The American Civil War. The relationship between the states and the federal government became very different. No longer sovereign states united, we became The United States. I simply think the time is ripe to look towards a political relationship that returns some of the power righteously taken from them since 1860 back to the states.

It's either that or we keep going the way we're going and start a pool betting on which state will dare a president to order troops to fire on Americans by seceding first.

Out of curiosity...what powers do you want back given back to the States? And aren't you setting up just a different dichotomy between whatever factions are going to develop in those states as well (coastal interests v. inland interests, rural v. urban etc...)?

 

[candycorn]

The Europeans sure seem to be positioning themselves for a break up. Perhaps smaller is better when it comes to the political responsibilities of any given 'leader'.... either small geography or small scope of influence.

Jus' thinkin' out loud here...

LOL, can't figure you out Joe, which is isn't a bad thing. A few days ago we seemed to be on opposite sides of the fence and today you're singing several verses of my song. But that's what I like about thinking people. They don't always agree with me, but they think and they are able to articulate a rational for their thoughts.

And from candycorn's post:

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

An entitlement is the presumption of privilege or right to receive for your own individual benefit what other people earned and you didn't.

As I believe the Founders intended for the general welfare, food inspectors are not an 'entitlement'. Food inspectors that monitor the food supply being imported into the country or who track down deadly contaminations of the food supply meet every requirement of the 'general welfare' as the Founders defined. it. Everybody uses the food supply - rich, poor, everybody. Food inspection doesn't benefit a special interest or targeted group.

Also National Parks, assuming the States agree to their placement within their boundaries, benefit all - rich and poor alike without prejudice. They are accessible to everybody, not just a special interest or targeted group.

Same with the Interstate highways. No state is required to have them, but they are a key part of our national defense which IS a Constitutional responsibility of the fedeal government, and they benefit all, rich and poor alike and not special interests or targeted group. Everybody can use them and everybody benefits from being able to move products around the country much more efficiently than was once the case.

The test should always be: Does everybody have equal access to benefit from a program? If so, it is within the province of the Federal government as the Founders envisioned it. If it benefits only a special interest or a targeted group, it should be the province of the States and phased out and eliminated at the Federal level.

So programs like federal student loans and Pell Grants are okay with you then...everybody has access; right?

To me, that sounds like an entitlement.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Resources, for one thing. I see the federal government very intrusive into the harvest and management of resources. Mining for example. A company that can afford the lobbyists and lawyers can tie up resources in a state using federal bullshit, circumventing the people who truly own the resources - the local residents.

Should We, The People (all of us) help pay for things like cleaning up The Hanford Nuclear Project? I believe yes, but I also believe that control of the clean up should be the purview of The People of Washington State. They live with it. It's counter productive for The People of Washingtons Tri-County Area to have to petition a congresscritter busy handling the business of The People of New Jersey to get a decision made on the Hanford clean up.

There was a time when the federal government had an obligation to future generations to protect resources, including human resources, from exploitation by the good 'ol boy networks that were state governments, but now the good ol' boy network seems to be the federal government, making exploitation without permission from or compensation to the locals common.

Education is a prime example of micro-management from on high being counter productive to educating a work-force capable of being productive in the varied work environments that this nation can be broken into. Variety is the spice of life - educating every child in America exactly the same is stupid, kids in West Texas need to be brought up different from kids in The Bronx. Preparing them all from the exact same playbook is cruel, especially to the poor.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Europeans sure seem to be positioning themselves for a break up. Perhaps smaller is better when it comes to the political responsibilities of any given 'leader'.... either small geography or small scope of influence.

Jus' thinkin' out loud here...

LOL, can't figure you out Joe, which is isn't a bad thing. A few days ago we seemed to be on opposite sides of the fence and today you're singing several verses of my song. But that's what I like about thinking people. They don't always agree with me, but they think and they are able to articulate a rational for their thoughts.

I'm a simple man who rails against perceived unfairness and unnecessary paperwork. I also believe strongly that there is a role for government in making life about more than simple survival.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Europeans sure seem to be positioning themselves for a break up. Perhaps smaller is better when it comes to the political responsibilities of any given 'leader'.... either small geography or small scope of influence.

Jus' thinkin' out loud here...

LOL, can't figure you out Joe, which is isn't a bad thing. A few days ago we seemed to be on opposite sides of the fence and today you're singing several verses of my song. But that's what I like about thinking people. They don't always agree with me, but they think and they are able to articulate a rational for their thoughts.

I'm a simple man who rails against perceived unfairness and unnecessary paperwork. I also believe strongly that there is a role for government in making life about more than simple survival.

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level. At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting. Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

LOL, can't figure you out Joe, which is isn't a bad thing. A few days ago we seemed to be on opposite sides of the fence and today you're singing several verses of my song. But that's what I like about thinking people. They don't always agree with me, but they think and they are able to articulate a rational for their thoughts.

I'm a simple man who rails against perceived unfairness and unnecessary paperwork. I also believe strongly that there is a role for government in making life about more than simple survival.

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level. At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting. Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

Not that such a system couldn't function, but the clearest drawback, IMO, is that it would hold back the economy considerably. What would stop the states from levying all kinds of tariffs against one another?

 

[candycorn]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?

Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay. There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.

And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.

I'm not saying throw the document out--never did. But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?

Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay. There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.

And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.

I'm not saying throw the document out--never did. But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

 

[candycorn]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?

Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay. There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.

And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.

I'm not saying throw the document out--never did. But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Terrible idea if you ask me. We disagree on this because I think I'd rather trust my congressman because he is a professional. If you were asking someone to maintain your car, you'd probably want a professional. I think having a professional representing you is a pretty good idea too...lol.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm a simple man who rails against perceived unfairness and unnecessary paperwork.* I also believe strongly that there is a role for government in making life about more than simple survival.

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level.* At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting.* Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

Not that such a system couldn't function, but the clearest drawback, IMO, is that it would hold back the economy considerably. What would stop the states from levying all kinds of tariffs against one another?

In todays economy? Mutual Assured Destruction.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?

Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay. There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.

And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.

I'm not saying throw the document out--never did. But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Easy. Congress is already a Social Security job - institute term limits, problem solved.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?* *Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay.* There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.* *And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.* *I'm not saying throw the document out--never did.* But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds.* I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both.* The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one.* We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts.* I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations.* Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves.* If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators.* None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

What if we paid them a percentage of the increase in the budget surplus over last years surplus? Ya reckon spending would be handled with a bit more discretion?

 

[Susan45]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?

Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay. There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.

And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.

I'm not saying throw the document out--never did. But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Terrible idea if you ask me. We disagree on this because I think I'd rather trust my congressman because he is a professional. If you were asking someone to maintain your car, you'd probably want a professional. I think having a professional representing you is a pretty good idea too...lol.

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too. I guess people just think that they go in and just vote, without realizing how much work it takes to write and get a bill passed through their respective bodies. That is why I am so against term limits. Just when a critter is getting educated in their job they are forced to leave. I disagree totally with this policy.

I do think we need to keep an eye on them, I'm not completely stupid and they are just people. But for the most part I've been very lucky and had good critters. We have two dynamite female Senators and I think both of them are terrific. It's an easy thing these days to check out voting records and I would encourage everyone to do this.

 

[Susan45]

Anybody see where Congress is taking off for a week to celebrate independence DAY?

Are you guys sitll willing to live under a Constitution that has been so interpreted (sp?) and leaves so much to the devices of whoever is in charge that on the brink of a financial meltdown that nobody has ever remotely contemplated before...these guys take a week off AND according to the source code...our 224 year old Constitution...it's perfectly Okay. There are no rules so there is nothing to stop the obvious abuse of the public trust.

And save the bullshit that "Gee, the Dems are in charge in the Senate"; the GOP did the same thing when they last had control.

I'm not saying throw the document out--never did. But when the practicioners of Government can take weeks off looking right inthe face of a crisis that everybody agrees is on the horizon, it's time to write some language into the document dictating that these assholes will at least stay there and pretend to do the job they were sent there to do.

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Easy. Congress is already a Social Security job - institute term limits, problem solved.

NO TERM LIMITS!!! You have no right to tell me how long I can keep MY congressman, that should be up to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level. At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting.

As opposed to state and local governments? Many state governments are as corrupt as the Federal, perhaps more so.

Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

And if these ‘social contracts’ authorize the violation of the rights of minorities within the state or jurisdiction, what is their recourse? During most of the 20th Century it was state and local governments that violated the rights of their citizens, not the Federal:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): struck down state and local laws authorizing segregation.

Hernandez v. Texas (1954): struck down Texas laws violating the rights of Hispanic citizens.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): struck down the states’ practice of violating citizens’ 4th Amendment rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): the State of Florida violation of citizens’ 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): struck down Connecticut laws violating privacy rights.

Loving v Virginia (1967) struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, a 14th amendment violation.

Roe v Wade (1973): struck down Texas law violating privacy rights.

Plyler v Doe (1982): struck down Texas law violating due process rights of undocumented children, violation of the 14th Amendment.

Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): struck down provision of Pennsylvania law that violated privacy rights.

Lawrence v Texas (2003): struck down so-called ‘sodomy laws’ making criminal homosexual acts, violation of the 14th Amendment.

District of Columbia v Heller (2008): struck down DC handgun ban that violated its citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

And the above cases are merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Without Federal enforcement and the right of the people to seek relief in the Federal courts, many Americans might today still be subject to the tyranny of the majority, in contradiction to the original intent of the Framers.

Clearly your notion that states and local communities ‘know what’s best’ is predicated on a libertarian myth, not the facts of law or history, and is naïve at best.

 

[Foxfyre]

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Terrible idea if you ask me. We disagree on this because I think I'd rather trust my congressman because he is a professional. If you were asking someone to maintain your car, you'd probably want a professional. I think having a professional representing you is a pretty good idea too...lol.

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too. I guess people just think that they go in and just vote, without realizing how much work it takes to write and get a bill passed through their respective bodies. That is why I am so against term limits. Just when a critter is getting educated in their job they are forced to leave. I disagree totally with this policy.

I do think we need to keep an eye on them, I'm not completely stupid and they are just people. But for the most part I've been very lucky and had good critters. We have two dynamite female Senators and I think both of them are terrific. It's an easy thing these days to check out voting records and I would encourage everyone to do this.

If you have two female senators, would you be from California then? I have looked at the voting record of both of these ladies, and frankly I wouldn't choose either one of them to be anywhere near the people's treasury or have power over any part of the people's interests. If you like their voting record, you no doubt think they are doing a great job. This is why we have elections so that the people have a voice in who will have control of the people's treasury and policy/laws that affect our rights, choices, opportunities, and personal freedoms.

Having said that, as long as people are in Congress for the right reasons, I don't have any problem with how long they stay. If you go with my plan they won't be staying in order to become multi-millionaires and achieve almost unlimited power as they do now because that would be taken away.

A public servant can be every bit as knowledgeable, competent, and expert as anybody else and probably will be more than career politicians.

 

[candycorn]

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Terrible idea if you ask me. We disagree on this because I think I'd rather trust my congressman because he is a professional. If you were asking someone to maintain your car, you'd probably want a professional. I think having a professional representing you is a pretty good idea too...lol.

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too. I guess people just think that they go in and just vote, without realizing how much work it takes to write and get a bill passed through their respective bodies. That is why I am so against term limits. Just when a critter is getting educated in their job they are forced to leave. I disagree totally with this policy.

I do think we need to keep an eye on them, I'm not completely stupid and they are just people. But for the most part I've been very lucky and had good critters. We have two dynamite female Senators and I think both of them are terrific. It's an easy thing these days to check out voting records and I would encourage everyone to do this.

Precisely my point...write the rules into the Constitution to keep the shenanigans to a minimum.

But seriously....you want the guy who ran (or runs I guess if you really want a citizen-government) the Local Pizza hut to be the guy ratifying treaties in the Senate? "Yeah Bo, you have experience in mozzarella technology....now take all you've learned and Study this ABM treaty...you have a vote in 2 days!" Politics is a profession just like anything else.

Again, the problem is that the source document for our government is a brilliantly vague document. There are no rules so anything goes. Taking the week before a financial calamity comes down on us like a world of hurt should surprise nobody. Bush taking a vacation and not worrying about Katrina should surprise nobody. Golf summits? Gee...that seems so surreal.

We have term limits; they are called elections. I guarantee that 98 percent of these losers will keep their jobs? Why because we won't do ours and keep them accountable.

We get the government we deserve .

 

[candycorn]

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Easy. Congress is already a Social Security job - institute term limits, problem solved.

NO TERM LIMITS!!! You have no right to tell me how long I can keep MY congressman, that should be up to me.

Exactly, you should be able to vote for whomever you want to vote for...whether they are on the ballot or not to be frank.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level.* At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting.* Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

Not that such a system couldn't function, but the clearest drawback, IMO, is that it would hold back the economy considerably. What would stop the states from levying all kinds of tariffs against one another?

In todays economy? Mutual Assured Destruction.

Plus it is illegal for them to do so.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.