Comments on: Congressional Reform Act of (2010)

By: Inquiring Mind

Inquiring Mind — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 03:20:08 +0000

Received in an e-mail from a friend….

hmmm, just who wrote this? I mean, this is how scams play out. Vague, non tracable references. I like what I’ve read here. It’s too good to conjur up thoughts of things we might find on Snopes.

If you want to be taken seriously, sign and date your work.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:33:53 +0000

I’ve advocated similar stuff for years. Not that it would ever come close to passing; I figure the only way is this: Grandfather all presently serving in to the current system. There is no way they will give up what they have. By letting them keep it, they have no reason to oppose it, especially if it became popular enough and they were pressured.

Another option, no more elections for congress. Randomly pick a name of all eligible people in the district. If your name comes up, you go to DC and serve your term. You are beholding to no one, and you can’t run for re-election. Go, and vote your conscience.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:02:57 +0000

Hi,
Here is a plan that should get implemented. This was emailed to me. The writer is unknown. It is appearing all over the internet. Someone should turn this into real legislation, that would give me some Hope and Change I could believe in!

Thanks
Peter

Trade Events

By: chris

chris — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:05:29 +0000

“Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government,” –> lots of this is because of the crappy economy, though
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1476/unemployment-presidential-approval-ratings-1981-2009-reagan-obama

anyway, 1. term limits — the founders didn’t say anything about term limits so it’s sorta weird to assume they wanted it but didn’t include it:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_folly_of_term_limits.html
besides, this takes a constitutional amendment

2. no tenure: there’s problems attracting non-rich candidates now, and this’ll only make rich, self-funded candidates run the show.

3. congress should join social security:
they are already a part of social security — this is a variation of an old chain email myth:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

4. they do? the idea behind this though — that congress gets riches thrown at them by the government after serving in congress — is false……… most of them are rich though and can live nicely after serving in congress — making the “little guy” congressman feel more pain than the billionaire politician seems sort of dumb.

5. pay raises are actually automatic, according to some complicated formula. they should be making the politically painful choice to vote…

6. THIS HAS BEEN CALLED “THE MYTH THAT DOESN’T DIE” (and is in other chain emails)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/the_proposed_28th_amendment.html

7. they are subject to the same laws …….

8. huh? congressmen aren’t running around, enriching themselves by making contracts with businesses — they do that after they leave congress. that sucks, but getting rid of contracts violates the constitution’s contract’s clause………………….

By: George Hartman

George Hartman — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:26:17 +0000

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, 1801
Is there a problem with placing a tax on the gratuity a politician receives from lobbyists ?

By: Don Russell

Don Russell — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:54:04 +0000

Sadly, although most feel pressure will cause congress to vote against the interests of the politicians, that won’t happen. Incumbents have too much at stake to change. REMEMBER you don’t live in a DEMOCRACY….the U.S. is a REPUBLIC. Had we a democracy many of the policies and issues would be decided by a plebesite as is the case in Switzerland.

By: Joey Seward

Joey Seward — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:59:50 +0000

Along with this we need to have campaign reform. In order to run for office a candidate has to have access to millions for a campaign… this is what has led to widespread corruption. Let’s give honest Americans from all walks of life an opportunity to serve this country and not have to bend their values in the process. Campaign reform should limit the amount of money that any candidate can spend, and we should consider subsidizing all campaigns with our tax dollars. It sounds like another expense, but ultimately it could save us much more… including our integrity.

By: mstrader

mstrader — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:41:43 +0000

I just found this and am liking what I see time to clean house hey?

Maybe some of the lobbiest problem could be solved if our law makers governed from their own state instead of within Washington. Maybe 1-2 full sessions a year? This could also save tons of tax payer money, after all we pay for all that transportation. Make it harder on all the special interest as well? In this day and age with technology there has got to be a better way for things to get done.
I’ll be keep an eye out on this!

By: Dortha Grode

Dortha Grode — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:17:10 +0000

Awesome! Just got a new phone and I can read your blog on my phone, it didn’t work on my old one

By: Michael Moritz

Michael Moritz — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:43:47 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree with this premise - and it remains just a premise until enough American citizens ‘wake up’ to the reality of our capitalistic process. I am actively speaking out now because it is the only possibility for us to come together as a nation.

Michael Moritz
January 20, 2010