Congressional reform act of 2010

[Navy Pride]

I know I am dreaming but wouldn't this be great........

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.

2 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.

3 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Congress loses 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.

7 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.

8. 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.

 

[Areopagitican]

#9 - Pigs should fly

 

[Navy Pride]

One can dream......

 

[misterman]

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

Completely anti-democratic. Let the voters decide. We don't need term limits - we have terms.

The rest sounds pretty good.

 

[Deuce]

I've seen this email forward before. You should at least credit it.

I'd be all for something of this nature. Also some Senate rules changes to prevent a single man from grinding the entire government to a halt.

 

[misterman]

Also some Senate rules changes to prevent a single man from grinding the entire government to a halt.

No kidding!

 

[Areopagitican]

Because, as we all know, 59 America Senators can never be wrong. On any issue.

 

[misterman]

Because, as we all know, 59 America Senators can never be wrong. On any issue.

Yet 41 are always right. :roll:

It's called majority rule. It's the norm in most democratic institutions. You're welcome to argue that we should have a supermajority decide things in the Senate or everywhere else - just wipe that sarcastic grin off your face first.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yet 41 are always right. :roll:

It's called majority rule. It's the norm in most democratic institutions. You're welcome to argue that we should have a supermajority decide things in the Senate or everywhere else - just wipe that sarcastic grin off your face first.

Thank goodness the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy otherwise those crazy slight majorities would run a muck. :2wave:

 

[Areopagitican]

Yet 41 are always right. :roll:

It's called majority rule. It's the norm in most democratic institutions. You're welcome to argue that we should have a supermajority decide things in the Senate or everywhere else - just wipe that sarcastic grin off your face first.

Wait, is the Senate like "most" democratic institutions? I don't think the Senate has to be similar to, well, anything.

50% + 1 can be just as wrong as 50% - 1. I don't think the legitimacy of any issue can be merely boiled down to your argument that isn't an argument of "grinding the government to a halt."

 

[samsmart]

Thank goodness the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy otherwise those crazy slight majorities would run a muck. :2wave:

Actually, the U.S. is both a republic and a democracy. :2wave:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Actually, the U.S. is both a republic and a democracy. :2wave:

It was never designed as a democracy.
We were a limited republic for a purpose and it wasn't because of racism, sexism etc.

They knew as anyone aware of history does that, populist movements and mobs are poor decision makers.

 

[Captain America]

Sounds good. Should we extend the same courtesy to military personnel?

Didn't think so. :roll:

The only people who could make this reform happen are the people who stand to lose. So I doubt that will ever happen.

Sounds great if you're not a government servant. Otherwise, I'm sure we'll get objections from those who stand to lose.

My uncle (rest in peace) bitched and moaned every day about our government and supported ideologies often tied to the rightwing fringe.

But I don't think he ever got a paycheck that didn't have a Treasury Department seal on it. I loved the ol' coot. He was my uncle. But the hypocracy is amazing.

When someone's paycheck and health care comes from the government, well, let me just say that people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

 

[misterman]

Thank goodness the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy otherwise those crazy slight majorities would run a muck. :2wave:

Did you learn that in high school? The same one where you learned to spell "amok"? :doh

We use a simple majority to decide almost every election in this country, and every vote in the House of Representatives, and pretty much every house in ever state legislature. Why is the Senate special? (Is is a republic? :lol

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Did you learn that in high school? The same one where you learned to spell "amok"? :doh

Is that you best you have?
When you don't have a good argument you simply insult a person by pointing out spelling errors?

Your going to have to try harder.
Criticizing spelling errors doesn't win a debate.

Edit: You should search things before you criticize.

"Running amok, sometimes referred to as simply amok[1] (also spelled amuck or amuk), is derived from the Malay/Indonesian/Tagalog word amuk, meaning "mad with uncontrollable rage". The verb form is mengamuk, or in Tagalog past tense nag-amok, with nag-aamok as present tense."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok[/ame]

We use a simple majority to decide almost every election in this country, and every vote in the House of Representatives, and pretty much every house in ever state legislature. Why is the Senate special? (Is is a republic? :lol

Did I say that those were good things?
Do you always assume that everyone is a partisan Republican or Democrat?

 

[misterman]

Is that you best you have?
When you don't have a good argument you simply insult a person by pointing out spelling errors?

Your going to have to try harder.
Criticizing spelling errors doesn't win a debate.

Edit: You should search things before you criticize.

"Running amok, sometimes referred to as simply amok[1] (also spelled amuck or amuk), is derived from the Malay/Indonesian/Tagalog word amuk, meaning "mad with uncontrollable rage". The verb form is mengamuk, or in Tagalog past tense nag-amok, with nag-aamok as present tense."

Running amok - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did search it, actually, just to make sure. It was too good not to use.

In any event, I apologize for bashing you. I'm just so tired of such trite responses like this. "We're a republic, not a democracy." Okay, whatever.

Did I say that those were good things?

That's what the debate was about. Were you just throwing out the "We're a republic, not a democracy" thing for fun? That's even lamer. Sorry, but it is.

Do you always assume that everyone is a partisan Republican or Democrat?

Where did you get partisanship in that? I said nothing about parties.

 

[hazlnut]

I'll sign off on this because I've always said that 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.

Re: citizen legislators -- having a law degree, business degree, and/or strong background in public policy and economics does help you jump into the the job with a running start. (being the Governor of Alaska doesn't count a "strong background").

 

[samsmart]

It was never designed as a democracy.
We were a limited republic for a purpose and it wasn't because of racism, sexism etc.

They knew as anyone aware of history does that, populist movements and mobs are poor decision makers.

A republic is any non-monarchical government. That includes oligarchies and even dictatorships.

And we are a democratic republic. We democratically elect the leaders of our government. Rather than have them chosen for us via some other means, such as through a military junta or by landowners.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

A republic is any non-monarchical government. That includes oligarchies and even dictatorships.

And we are a democratic republic. We democratically elect the leaders of our government. Rather than have them chosen for us via some other means, such as through a military junta or by landowners.

We were never meant to be a democratic republic, we were meant to be a limited republic.
It's a check on tyranny of the majority, a mobocracy.

Removing that check has created populist movements, like Tea Baggers etc.

 

[misterman]

We were never meant to be a democratic republic, we were meant to be a limited republic.

You're just making up definitions as you go along.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I did search it, actually, just to make sure. It was too good not to use.

In any event, I apologize for bashing you. I'm just so tired of such trite responses like this. "We're a republic, not a democracy." Okay, whatever.

Accepted and I apologize for assuming you were being partisan.

Limited republics by design prevent irrational populist movements, like Tea baggers etc.
It was one of the checks on power built into our government.

That's what the debate was about. Were you just throwing out the "We're a republic, not a democracy" thing for fun? That's even lamer. Sorry, but it is.

I do not support Majority rule like it is expressed today.
I would be fine with house representatives being voted by the general populace but not the whole of our government.

 

[samsmart]

We were never meant to be a democratic republic, we were meant to be a limited republic.
It's a check on tyranny of the majority, a mobocracy.

Removing that check has created populist movements, like Tea Baggers etc.

But you also have to remember what the majority of people were like at that time: highly uneducated farmers and laborers. Now the education that laborers get far far exceed the education that laborers back then received. The majority of people can make more informed decisions now than back then.

And there's nothing wrong with populist movements. If the common people are being screwed over by the people in power, they have the right to invoke change for that. That change is through their votes.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You're just making up definitions as you go along.

Limited republics are not democratic republics.

The U.S. used to break up the power of everyone to prevent one ruling over the other, although some did have more power than others by design.

Senators were not elected by the general populace, they were elected by the states.

House members and the President were elected but it was limited by land ownership requirement.
That was limited though.

 

[misterman]

Accepted and I apologize for assuming you were being partisan.

Limited republics by design prevent irrational populist movements, like Tea baggers etc.
It was one of the checks on power built into our government.

Okay, but how is that relevant to this discussion?

I do not support Majority rule like it is expressed today.
I would be fine with house representatives being voted by the general populace but not the whole of our government.

I don't understand what you mean.

The House votes on bills by a simple majority. Why shouldn't the Senate be able to do that too? Technically it does, but in reality it takes 60 votes.

 

[samsmart]

Limited republics are not democratic republics.

The U.S. used to break up the power of everyone to prevent one ruling over the other, although some did have more power than others by design.

Senators were not elected by the general populace, they were elected by the states.

House members and the President were elected but it was limited by land ownership requirement.
That was limited though.

When Senators were elected by state legislatures, state politics caused so much gridlock via filibusters in the state legislatures that the states weren't getting represented in the Senate. That caused the populist push to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct elections of Senators. Partisan politics prevented our representative government, so the people had to make amendments to allow it to work. Because while the Founding Fathers may have feared a mobacracy, they sure didn't expect state politics to stonewall federal representation.