Fix Congress

[Menelvir]

Normally, I'm the last person to circulate the "pass it on to n others" emails, but I liked this one enough to want to share it.

I didn't research the source further, so I have no idea if Buffett really made the suggestions or said the quotes attributed to him, but quite frankly, I don't give a fuck if he did or not -- it makes plenty of sense to me regardless of the source.

If this were to actually happen (I'm not so naive as to think it will), it might for me restore some tiny scrap of faith in our government.

===========

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified -- why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. 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. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by either the CPI or 3%, whichever is lower.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so our Congressmen should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message.

Don't you think it's time?

[Lyion]

There are 535 members in Congress at any given time. The vast majority of them are wealthy or supported by vast amounts of money. Take a gander at how much that Speaker for the people, Nancy Pelosi is worth. Most could care less about the benefits, they are there for the power. Most also abide by the laws. You know, the ones they create.

The way to reign in government is to limit the amount of things they can do, not to use populist anti-congress rhetoric. Nowadays I'm more worried about executive and judicial power, not legislative personally.

[Menelvir]

If they're as wealthy as all that, then passing such a bill would supposedly minimally affect them, so let the passing of such a bill be a first step, a sign of good faith, if you will, and it can continue on from there.

Baby steps and all that.

[Lyion]

I'm all for enacting all those things, but that article misses the easiest way to affect congress: Term Limits. There was a great movement to enact them, until the judicial branch put the kabosh on that. We need to ressurect the theme of 2 terms in the Senate and 4 in the House, period, if you want real change.

[brinstar]

^^^ i can't remember the last time i agreed so whole-heartedly with one of lyion's political posts

there is a bill on the NE state senate floor that would increase state senate term limits to three four-year terms (up from two four-year terms). the argument is that by the time you figure out the learning curve, your first term is over - but i don't really buy it. besides, there is already a back door to term limits here: the rule only says you cannot serve more than two CONSECUTIVE terms, there is no limit on TOTAL terms you can serve

there is another bill that would raise the state senators' salary 167%. the leg's sessions alternate each year, they are either 60 or 90 days long. currently they are paid $12,000 per year regardless of session length; dude wants to jack it up to $32,000. i'm a bit mixed on this one. obviously it's bad timing, but it would really help people who are prevented from running because they simply cannot take that much time off their regular job

[Jay]

I'm all for enacting all those things, but that article misses the easiest way to affect congress: Term Limits. There was a great movement to enact them, until the judicial branch put the kabosh on that. We need to ressurect the theme of 2 terms in the Senate and 4 in the House, period, if you want real change.

Totally agree with this.

[ClakarEQ]

I don't think term limits would fix the problem at all. The OP's text would. Our politicians are talking heads, they're not really "doing anything" if you know what I mean. They are doing what they're told by the lobbyists and other power brokers. Term limits aren't the problem as much as power is and removing any talking head to replace it with another does nothing to remove the power (they don't have it in the first place).

Can you imagine how slow our GOV would move if every 8 years 500 new faces hit the floor? Even half of that, 250 new seats, damn, even half of that 125, I don't see how anything would get done.

Before term limits are even debated, IMO the power brokers need to be destroyed via forms of legislation that speak to it. I don't have the answer to this but you can take every one of those current seat holders out in the next election and it will do fuck all to fix the GOV. The GOV, IMO, would be complete CHAOS.

My cons on term limits:
- limits the good and bad.
- Creates a more corrupt environment to dine and dash.
- No long term ownership or responsibility (hey, I was only there 8 years)

The generic “Pro” list (snip off the net)

List of Arguments in Favor :
1. Overwhelmingly, voters prefer term limits. (It's their native commonsense!) (clak: shock stupid is as stupid does)
2. Term limits downgrades seniority, favors meritocracy. (clak: hmm move up if you do well over time yet your time is limited, oxymoron)
3. Increases competition, encourages new challengers. (clak: maybe but I doubt it)
4. Builds a ‘citizen’ Congress, drives out career politicians. (clak: no comment really)
5. Breaks ties to special interests. (clak: what a fucking stupid point, no it sure as fuck won’t)
6. Improves tendency to vote on principle. (clak: I’ll call BS on this one, I see how well that’s worked with all the new Rep faces we got, few of whom vote and stand on principle vs party line)
7. Introduces fresh thinking, new ideas, eliminates 'old bulls'. (clak: Age begets wisdom, fresh and new begets mistakes)
8. Reduces power of staff, bureaucracy, lobbies. (clak: yeah riiiiiiight)
9. It will create a natural reduction in wasteful federal spending. (clak: who has evidence of this?)
10. Encourages lower taxes, smaller government, greater voter participation in elections. (clak: maybe sub-points 1 and 2, but 3, um, no)
11. There are more reasons in favor of term limits than reasons against. (clak: ok, that makes some sense)
12. Gets reelection rates back to near 50%, versus the current 99%. (Founders called it "rotation in office") (clak: but how is this good?)

Crazy Clak talk here now /ramblings (above and beyond the OP’s text, I think these should be added, this is in regards to the “process”):

- All elected offices should have a strict cash cap. for the purposes of promoting themselves that they can NOT put cash into.
- To get on a ballot you have to have X thousand signatures from your constituents. X thousand signatures can only be achieved via non-paid volunteer services (i.e. true volunteers)
- Cash required for this process and any / all promotion of the person is a set value provided by the GOV that every accepted candidate gets (they got the X thousand sigs, here is your 10mil, no Obama has 100Mil, Mitt has 100Mil, Ron has 50Mil, etc).
- Advertisements to the good or bad (radio, tv, etc) can only be done through a nonprofit non-bias group and must be accurate and approved (e.g. no third party can bang the drum or even donate cash, no BS vets boating group can sink a candidate, no wealthy company can squelch the poor mans voice, etc)
- All debates, discussions, etc are in a super controlled environment and essentially graded. If over time you don't make the grade, you fall off the list and the options for your party are reduced. (e.g. Perry should be gone).
- Any cash not used due to someone not making the grade goes back to the GOV.

Again, term limits will solve nothing, it will only add problems and reduce responsibilities, folks are not seeing the light here, the problem is power and money, not the people "we voted into office". People that feel term limits will fix shit think that way because IMO they’re missing how this game works. Do you think any person you see on a ballot wasn't groomed for YEARS prior to them getting there (sure there are exceptions but most of these prove the sheer stupidity of our voting public)? Any person you see on a ballot is already in a pocket, they got on the ballot because they're already part of the 1%, they've already got the money, they just want the power now. They're already a talking head, it's too late.

I've had enough of the short term gains folks play, I want long term solutions, not short term money in hand. Term limits would, IMO, create that perfect storm of get what I can while I'm here and fuck all the rest. A GOV lifer at least has to think a bit and say, is this decision going to come back and bite me? A GOV shortermer, who the fuck cares, I’m out in 2 years.

Good Lordy I over did it again

[Menelvir]

Regarding term limits: Instead of simply declaring some arbitrary number of years that a politician is allowed to serve, perhaps it would be a better idea to implement some kind of system of measure or progress, or some form of merit system to determine whether a Congressman is allowed to continue to serve.

Teachers and other professionals use such systems to determine their job fitness, do they not?

Presumably if the person is doing a good job and has the track record to prove it, the desire would be to have them to continue to serve, and if they are doing poorly, they would be out the door.

[Lyion]

If more politicians weren't worried about re-election then a lot more good would get done. In addition, if special interests couldn't buy and keep a guy in office for 30+ years perhaps they would spend a lot less money bribing said officials. As of now we have Senators and Congresspeople who spend 30, 40, 50 years in Office. My district has had the same rep since 1983!

Instead of trying to limit power by odd or cumbersome legislation or constitutional amendments, just give me a simple rule similar to how we handle the Executive Branch. Two terms and you are gone, replaced by someone fresh.

[Arlos]

Another option to fix the system would be to go to a completely publicly funded campaign system. Right now, the uber-rich and corporations can fill candidates coffers both via front-door donations and back-door donations to those Super-PACs. Since campaigns cost lots of money, the more money you have to give to candidates, the more influence you have. Thus we have our current system, which is rapidly approaching a plutocracy.

Take away the ability of lobbyists and corporate shills to have such massive influence by waving their checkbooks around, and I think you'll see a lot more actually representative politicians. So, simply set a specific amount candidates for various offices will get, along with some minimum standard to meet to get the money. That could be something as simple as a signed petition with a minimum number of signatures on it from the area you'll be running from, based on a % of population. (like get signatures from 10% of the people in that area or something). For people running for the House, the area would be the congressional district in question. Senate, statewide. President, a minimum from enough states that they'd have enough electoral college votes if they won those states. Note that this would be for the actual election, not primaries. But it also would not be limited to the 2 current political parties, either. If a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party can meet the minimum requirements, they get exactly the same amount of money for their election campaign as the big parties do.

Anyway, I think this would really spur the growth of viable alternate parties, would neuter the effects of big-money lobbyists and donors, and do away with a lot of the problems we currently see. Given past Supreme Court rulings, though, it would almost certainly necessitate a constitutional amendment to put this into place, so I cam sure it'll never happen, but I think the idea is sound.

-Arlos