In our fondest dreams ...

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

  1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms B. Six Two year House terms C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

  1. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective
1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Well ... we can dream.

Reply to
Swingman
Loading thread data ...

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:35:17 -0600, the infamous Swingman scrawled the following:

I really like that concept. I think the growing trend is toward a vio^H^H^H overthrow, so I hope they sense it and straighten up, but I'm not betting any money on the greedy dickheads in office now.

P.S: #6 should say "loses"

-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor

Reply to
Larry Jaques

... snip of other good stuff

Yep. Serving in Congress as a career has resulted in a certain group of people who view their position in leadership as an entitlement and with the viewpoint that they are our ruling aristocracy. That was never intended. As someone pointed out in another forum, the founders were brilliant, but they weren't perfect -- enacting term limits would be in keeping with their intent.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

The current term limits at the Federal level are two, four, six years, and eight years. Any time the voting public desires to limit someone's term all they need do is vote for someone else. A President who makes it past his second election is limited by the constitution to two consecutive terms.

Reply to
LDosser

Which is why I'd like to see an end to congressional elections. Instead, draw them by lot like a jury...one term and they are gone.

Yes, that would result in a number of them being thieves and/or dead heads. No different then now.

Go back to the original concept of a congressional session too; i.e., they are only in DC for the session, not full time. If they don't want to leave, shut down the air conditioning :)

Reply to
dadiOH

(snip)

The bigger issue, I believe, is that only a small percentage of the electorate vote during an election.

The elected know that if they cater to a certain group than they have a good chance of being reelected because that group will go out and vote. If more people voted, then the "base" that we always hear about would not be as defined.

It boggles my mind that people do not vote.

Larry C

Reply to
Larry C

[snip]

The problem is not the Congress, it's the voters who elected the members. An approval rating of 23% really says "I don't like 80% of me!" ('Does this dress make me look fat?')

We don't get the Congress we deserve - we get the Congress we elect.

Reply to
HeyBub

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:39:06 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita scrawled the following:

We tried that once and the fu^H^Hdickheads overturned our will. That should have been the day of reckoning for them, don't you think?

-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor

Reply to
Larry Jaques

You know in communist countries and dictatorships the people are required to vote. Thank goodness we have the right not to vote. Voting for the sake of voting IMHO sends the wrong message, I think it tells the counters that you actually want one of the people running for office.

Better yet, require that for one to be elected that they get a majority of the registered voters vote, not just a majority of the votes. If a majority of the registered voters don't show up, another election is held with other candidates. Yes this will take time to elect an official but don't we deserve someone we actually want?

Reply to
Leon

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:11:19 -0500, the infamous "Larry C" scrawled the following:

Can you blame them? I've only voted for one of the last 5 presidents, and that covers 7 terms, or 28 _years_! The rest (Clintoon, Dubya, Osama Bin Biden) got in despite my best voting each and every time. I've become extremely discouraged, but I still vote in every election I'm entitled. I'm saddened, but I can't blame them for thinking that their vote doesn't mean squat. In some ways, if everyone who was wishy-washy voted, more bad guys would win by promising more crap and, as usual, failing to deliver any of it. (See "Obama's gonna pay my rent/car payment/utilities" video.)

-- It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars. -- Garrison Keillor

Reply to
Larry Jaques

The problem is "who" gets to vote, and the fact that congress does not have to get a majority of the registered voters vote.

Elected officials should not win because they simply got a majority of the vote, they shoud get a majority of the registered voters vote. For example if there are 10 registered voters, only 3 show up to vote, and all 3 vote for candidate "A", that is not good enough. Candidate "A" must get 6 or more votes to win.

Not voting is a vote that the candidates are not wanted and should be cast aside.

Reply to
Leon

Best thing we could do to would be to go back to the original concept of only property owners being able to vote ... but damn would that piss off the politicians and lobbyist.

This idealistic "right of everyman to vote" will prove to be the root factor in the eventual downfall of this country.

Sad, but true.

Reply to
Swingman

IMHO people don't vote because there is no one that they want to try to elect. Voting for someone that you don't want in office defeats the purpose, don't you think?

Reply to
Leon

But in the meanwhile we're stuck with the people we don't want. The system you propose would pretty much mean that an incumbent had a lifetime appointment.

Reply to
J. Clarke

Totally agree!

Reply to
Leon

No, people don't vote because they're too lazy, as is their right in any free state. Often they're too uninformed to have an educated opinion, so *SHOULDN'T* vote. =A0

No, voting for the "lesser of evils" certainly doesn't defeat any purpose. You're never going to be 100% happy with another controlling your life. Less is better than more.

Reply to
keithw86

OK, but suppose Candidate A and his opponent B are both chumps, each with lukewarm support from only one of the ten voters -- but A is *opposed* by all of the other eight. If the one voter that supports B, and five of the eight that oppose A, show up and vote for B, he's in, even though he's a chump.

That's actually not as far-fetched as it seems. I think we saw something similar in the 2008 primaries: Hillary Clinton has very high disapproval ratings, even among Democrats, and I suspect that a substantial number of the votes that Obama received were votes against her, not for him. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, several of the candidates appeared to be nutjobs; probably many of the votes McCain received were votes against them, not for him.

Better yet, require the choice "None Of The Above" to appear on every ballot. If NOTA "wins", have another election in which the losing candidates are not allowed to participate. Repeat until someone wins. Or leave the office vacant.

Reply to
Doug Miller

You file a ballot and you vote a blank for that person.

Enough blanks and the candidate may start to wonder. Even more important, enough blanks and citizens may run against an incumbent thinking they can be defeated.

IMHO you should always file a ballot, blank them all if you want, but file a ballot.

Also, people need to educate themselves more about what is going on. I saw a bumper sticker that read: "Pay more attention or pay more taxes"

Larry C

Reply to
Larry C

I don't think I agree with that. Among other things, it would disenfranchise the working poor, while allowing the idle wealthy to retain the right to vote. That doesn't strike me as operating in the best interests of society.

I propose this as an alternative: The right to vote depends on being a net taxpayer: paying more in taxes than you receive in government handouts.

Reply to
Doug Miller

Don't think they give a shit about that.

One must be inCREDibly uninformed to have no concept of the true implications of the term "landed gentry."

And/or ... one must simply want to pretend they're running the Bush/ Cheney campaign, and work as hard as humanly possible to disallow votes from blocs that traditionally comprise Democrats.

Out of curiosity, does the proponent of this not-good-not-new idea also miss the Good Old Days of ... slavery?

Wow. Astounding.

Google "confirmation bias." Somebody needs to get out more ... and challenge some of their own fundamental, closely-held positions, from time to time.

To be crystal clear: these comments are NOT directed at Doug Miller.

Reply to
Neil Brooks

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.