We need a term limit amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that is the only way to lessen the motivation of legislators to get pork for their districts/states.
See:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/013024.php
Throw them all out every few years.
Damn, for a sec’ I thought BB was asking people to throw out invaders.
Bring 'Em All In?
What if we just reversed the 17th Amendment, like you suggested in another thread? This would allow one house in congress to gain traction with its constituency and the other house would have a check in place through its state government, ensuring that the uninformed public doesn’t affect both houses.
Term limits are a good idea in theory but I am not certain how practical they are.
I think eliminating pork is just a matter of reducing the pool of money available to the State to begin with.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Damn, for a sec’ I thought BB was asking people to throw out invaders.
Bring 'Em All In?[/quote]
We can handle illegal immigration in another thread…
For now, I just want to ponder whether people agree with me that it’s really the only option for controlling spending and minimizing pork-barrel projects (I don’t think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea at all).
Yeah, probably. I guess the good would outweigh the bad, but there a few legislators, especially in foreign affairs (a very few) whose experience and knowledge is a tremendous boon to the nation.
In theory you shouldn’t need term limits, voters should throw the bums out themselves. But then, there’s one of the bigger problems with democracy: if you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s vote…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
We can handle illegal immigration in another thread… [/quote]
For what it’s worth, I don’t consider people working shitty jobs for peanuts invaders. I had in mind the ones dropping bombs and patrolling foreign lands in tanks.
Sorry about the hijack. Carry on…
I would enjoy it if approx 95% of all politicians in D.C. were jettisoned immediately and we could vote in an entirely new Federal Govt.
I’m actually pleased with my state’s two Senators (Inhofe and Coburn), so I’d like for them to stay. Everybody else needs to take a hike!
Without having considered it carefully, I think I would be in full support of term limits that replace the entire federal government in a ten to twelve year window.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Damn, for a sec’ I thought BB was asking people to throw out invaders.
Bring 'Em All In?[/quote]
Can you at least try to be subtle before turning every thread into an Iraq pissing match?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Yeah, probably. I guess the good would outweigh the bad, but there a few legislators, especially in foreign affairs (a very few) whose experience and knowledge is a tremendous boon to the nation.
In theory you shouldn’t need term limits, voters should throw the bums out themselves. But then, there’s one of the bigger problems with democracy: if you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s vote…[/quote]
Term limits, YES! Right now, we get people who keep voting guys in because, with their seniority, they can rob the public purse and benefit the locals. Who would vote for ‘Freezer’ Jefferson in NOLA if he didn’t bring home the bacon?
And the Somali Muslims in Minnesota will continue to vote for a dude because he’s a fellow Muslim. Idiots.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
Damn, for a sec’ I thought BB was asking people to throw out invaders.
Bring 'Em All In?
Can you at least try to be subtle before turning every thread into an Iraq pissing match?[/quote]
Exactly - Lixy does this in every forum.
As to the topic - I wholeheartedly endorse a constitutional amendment on term limits. I believe it would have a number of good dividends, and I think that combating the pork spigot would be one of them.
I also support redistricting reform.
I do not agree with term limits. There are a few very good politicians that do good works. This government needs some continuity… especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Behind every politician is the bureaucrat. They slog and create a miasma of ineptitude that we all see (ex. FEMA, FDA, DHS). They should all be tossed.
And the biggest culprit that subverts the will of the people: lobbyists.
Corporations should be denied all access to public officeholders.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Behind every politician is the bureaucrat. They slog and create a miasma of ineptitude that we all see (ex. FEMA, FDA, DHS). They should all be tossed.[/quote]
I agree on this point - if you hate “special interests” and the power of “the lobby” generally, then destroy the source of the problem - the ridiculously overbearing administrative state (and the government generally).
I don’t think we set fire to it (it is necessary to some degree), but its overreach is the root of the problem. When the government regulates and legislate on everything - down to the number of holes in our Swiss cheese - affected parties can’t afford not to get involved in lobbying. Businesses, for example, could try and take the high road and say “we won’t participate”, but that is actually bad business, given that your competitor will be.
I agree with this in part, but I do support the idea of people organizing to petition the government - on some level, that is fundamental to how we operate.
But I concur - too much power in the hands of lobbyists. Drain the swamp that feeds them and they go away.
Can’t possibly do that, so long as corporations - by whatever definition - are the subject of law and regulation. If they are going to be regulated, they deserve to get a say in that regulation - the alternative is not a world I want to live in.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Throw them all out every few years. [/quote]
Absolutely.