Congressional reform act of 2010

[jamesrage]

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.

Those are great ideas. I only see those being implemented through a process of incrementation which would take many years or if a revolution occurs and these things being made law to ensure politicians do not get them in that same mess.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Okay, but how is that relevant to this discussion?

It was just one of the checks on power.

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.

I think it serves as a fail stop for stupid house bills.
The House is, generally, more liberal(not liberal as political liberal) in it's decision process.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

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.

I think that isn't always a bad idea though.

Through the gridlock, an equitable compromise will eventually come through.
The point is to seek an equitable compromise from all fighting factions and not a losing compromise.

 

[samsmart]

I think that isn't always a bad idea though.

Through the gridlock, an equitable compromise will eventually come through.
The point is to seek an equitable compromise from all fighting factions and not a losing compromise.

It's not good when, because of the perpetual gridlock, Senators don't get seated. When that happens, the states, and the people of those states, don't get properly represented in Congress. And the only reason why is because of obstructionism. That's not good for government.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's not good when, because of the perpetual gridlock, Senators don't get seated. When that happens, the states, and the people of those states, don't get properly represented in Congress. And the only reason why is because of obstructionism. That's not good for government.

I don't think we will agree on this.

Never the less, I'd like to see more equitable compromise instead of losing compromises or straight up elimination of those who are less represented.
It's not supposed to work like that at all.

 

[MyOwnDrum]

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

The rest sounds pretty good.

We have term limits for the president. How is that different?

 

[samsmart]

I don't think we will agree on this.

Never the less, I'd like to see more equitable compromise instead of losing compromises or straight up elimination of those who are less represented.
It's not supposed to work like that at all.

It's not, but then again, you can't force the parties to play nice with each other. I'd rather have a populist election choose the Senator than two representative political parties play hardball against each other and obstruct each other so nothing gets done. If the politicians won't get things done, then it's up to the people to take action instead.

 

[samsmart]

We have term limits for the president. How is that different?

I will accept term limits for Congressmen and Senators when we have term limits for the lobbyists who manipulate them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I will accept term limits for Congressmen and Senators when we have term limits for the lobbyists who manipulate them.

Even better would be a ban on all nonindividual campaign contributions (also known as legalized bribery).

If we had that, I wouldn't see a problem with a good politician being in office for many years if their citizens were happy with their service.

 

[reefedjib]

There is no way to stop political contributions. But I do favor term limits of Senators and Representatives. That will help break some of the entrenched power.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I see it as pointless. The lobbiests and PACs will bribe the new guys just like the old ones.

 

[reefedjib]

I see it as pointless. The lobbiests and PACs will bribe the new guys just like the old ones.

Well it will stop long serving politicians from earning chairmanships and doing the bidding of said lobbyists.

edit - It also removes the need for politicians to maintain a warchest.

 

[misterman]

I will accept term limits for Congressmen and Senators when we have term limits for the lobbyists who manipulate them.

That just takes responsibility from the congressmen and senators for their actions. Lobbyists don't vote, they do.

 

[misterman]

Even better would be a ban on all nonindividual campaign contributions (also known as legalized bribery).

If we had that, I wouldn't see a problem with a good politician being in office for many years if their citizens were happy with their service.

Why aren't individual contributions "bribery" too?

 

[samsmart]

That just takes responsibility from the congressmen and senators for their actions. Lobbyists don't vote, they do.

Even so, term limits won't really do anything. It doesn't matter if lobbyists give money to incumbent Senators of if they give money to freshmen Congressmen. Both are going to be given money by special interests for influence. So term limits don't really do anything except get rid of people who are experienced in the nuances of government work. And I am against that.

 

[misterman]

Even so, term limits won't really do anything. It doesn't matter if lobbyists give money to incumbent Senators of if they give money to freshmen Congressmen. Both are going to be given money by special interests for influence. So term limits don't really do anything except get rid of people who are experienced in the nuances of government work. And I am against that.

I'm strongly against term limits too, so we agree on that.

Why not, like, let the voters decide? Every penny in contributions to the candidates is public record.

(And let's not get lobbying and campaign finance confused, they aren't the same thing).