Would these 2 ideas make our gov't better?

Question

I believe there are 2 laws that must be passed to correct our oversized, and underproducing govt. 1) term limits to remove career politicans (Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi, Lott, etc.). And 2) a complete ban on all campaign contributions from any entity other than individual, legal voters - and with that a cap of say $2000/voter. No PAC's, corporations, foreign nations, special interest groups, etc. could give money to campaigns or political parties. As it is, politicians owe their allegiance to those that give the most $$$$ and it is certainly not to We the People. Gov't does it's business based upon who gave the most to their collective campaigns and that is wrong. We the People should be in charge and the gov't should answer only to us. Think about it.

I am glad so many of you agree with these ideas. And many of you have shared the same reasons why these things won't happen (i.e.: putting the fox in charge of the henhouse or getting yourself kicked out of your own job). But I say it can work. If enough people tell their represetntatives or wanna-be politicians about them maybe we can get things changed. MAYBE. What do they say: absolute power corrupts absolutely? Obviously. Look at the federal gov't. I firmly believe this: if our gov't doesn't change soon and start listening to We the People - perhaps by implementing these ideas and others - there will be a revolution. The masses cannot tolerate the inane happenings in Washington. It is getting worse. I know of noone who is pleased w/ the gov't right now. History shows us that all great societies fall: Rome, Egypt, Spain, Great Britain....are we to be the next in line? Or do better times await the good old USA?!?

Answer 1

nope...the less laws the better.





.

Answer 2

1. According to my studies of the Founding Fathers, they never intended for people to become professional politicians. The concept of advancing through public service is helter-skelter...they become elevated by being our servants? No way. The spoils system (Marbury v. Madison) has further exacerbated this phenomenon.

2. The alignment of monies with campaigns results from the party system, which principle contradicts the ideas of the Founding Fathers. To Gain sufficient financial backing period, one must be independently wealthy or garner support from a party. Party affiliation often requires acquiescence of certain principles and ideals a person holds, even if those ideals are in the best interest of the populace. You're right- it's We the People, not We the Political Parties.

Answer 3

In a perfect world, yes, that would help an awful lot (as opposed to the Awful Lott--but that's just Liberal Humor)...here on Earth...you know, it makes me feel kinda crummy to bust your balloon.

I would like to see term limits as well...with the advantage that incumbents have when they run for re-election, many members of Congress do become entrenched in their positions, and build up their own little fiefdom, at which point their persuit and acquisition of money, power or influence (or all three) replaces service to their constituents as their main reason for being office. Two terms and out would eliminate a lot of that. (What about the House? What with a Representative standing for election every two year, I think they should be able to serve four or five terms...possibly six, which would be the equivalent of two terms in the Senate.)

There is a downside, however. Yes, long-timers in government often have their priorities bass-ackwards...however, with that long period of time in the halls of Congress also come a wealth of experience in the way government works (I'm talking legitimately here...not "what palms to grease" or "what behavior to dismiss with a wink and a nod"), what sort of things are doable and which aren't, how to come to a compromise with members (or a White House) with opposite political philosophies, how to write ligislation that will stand up to court challenges....even in the budget process, it takes, I think, a couple times around the block for new Senators and Reps to even grasp the sheer size and scope of the federal government, and what it requires to keep it ticking. And when they apply themselves in these areas, your Trent Lotts, Jesse Helmses (proper plural? Even though one Jesse Helms is a lifetime supply?), Jack Murthas, Ted Kennedys, etc. are real assets. So in real life, I don't really know if the benefits of term limits outweigh the drawbacks...although I'd like to see them in place and find out.

As far as your limits on campaign contributions....it looks nice in print...and everything you say is certainly true...but there if there is one Law of Life I have found to be infallable it is this...Any time a new rule or regulation is put in place, rich men will find a way to either undermine or circumvent it. In the end, the cash will find its way to the politicians, it will just have to use different pipelines.

Actually the best way for We The People to become more of a factor in the governance of this country is for We The People to stop being so lazy. You know, get off your fanny (that's a generic "you", not "you" personally) twice a year and vote, for God's sake. And take a little time each day to become an informed voter....read something in the newspaper besides the comics and sports...make an effort to find out what a candidate really stands for, instead of forming opinions based on sound bites and negative campaign ads...don't let Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Al Franken or Randi Rhodes tell you what to think..take the stance that (and I'm going to steal a line from talk show host Glenn Beck) "It's not about left and right, it's about right and wrong." If an idea or solution to a problem is good, it doesn't matter which side of the aisle it comes from...good legislation is good legislation, whether it is proposed by Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Orrin Hatch or John McCain...we would be well served to learn the use of the sentence "You know the Democrats/Republicans (whichever the opposite of your philosophy is) might just be right this time."

Well, I've ranted and raved enough....I'm starting to foam at the mouth, and I'm going to quit before I REALLY get started on the subjuct....if you managed to read through all this, you've got one hell of an attention span...good for you...think about it, though...have a great day.

Answer 4

The Idea that foreign Countries are able to line the pockets of our representatives definitely reeks! Mexico throws people in jail for trying to get involved with their government officials!
I believe that foreign nations should have to align themselves with American Businesses in order to then have any influence-otherwise deal with the Executive who is the one they should have to be negotiating with! He is limited in the number of terms.

I do not feel that Kennedys or Pelosers are as big a threat as career politicians, as they are at going from a place Lawyers belong(Legislative) into a place they should be outlawed from-The Executive Branch! The takeover of the Executive by a Congressman is simply a demolition of the separation of powers!

Not to mention the fact that the job is for Generals and Businessmen, not sniveling Machiavellian, Lawyer SCUM!!!!

As long as the people are willing to settle time and again for such pathetic examples of representation as Teddy, Ninny, Kerry, CLINTON and others, they deserve what they get!

Again, I just have a problem with groups like China and Soros lining their pockets!

Answer 5

I think your ideas have potential, but there are some pretty serious catches...

1) The politicians would have to vote to fire themselves from their jobs after a given period of time. Would you voluntarily give up a job with power, prestige and tons of fringe benefits? Probably not.

Another drawback would be that the complete lack of continuity could hamstring Congress---would they ever accomplish anything?

2) There would be loopholes galore, just as there are loopholes in our current campaign law. Those who seek to influence power would go at the law like hackers trying to get free porn.

Answer 6

I completely agree with term limits on carrer politcians.

Dodd, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi and Kerry have been in power far too long. We could always use fresh ideas in Washington, and people who are far less prone to corruption.

#2 I like, because it means they will have to spend less on their campaigns. We do NOT need $200 million Republican and Democrat conventions. We just don't.

Answer 7

Good ideas. I've even toyed with the idea of mandatory government service, like mandatory military service in some countries. BE a senator for two years, BE a cop or a council member. I think that would further extend your idea and help wake people up that we ARE the government or at least we should be.

Answer 8

I like your plan a lot. It would get some new, unconnected and hopefully not-yet-corrupted people in Congress, and get rid of all thoses leechy senators-for-life from the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Answer 9

yeah but then the corporations that keeps america afloat with jobs would go to another country and leave america in the dust, the past generations and politicians have already messed this country up. but what you said would be kewl in an ideal world

Answer 10

I like it
with only individuals contributing, this would effectively abolish the G O P

Answer 11

You forget a "Law review board" to sundown proven useless legislation.... start kicking out knee-jerk law that strangles the economy and accomplish absolutely nothing... that would about do it then...