How about a 6 year term limit for our dear politicians?

[Patranus]

How about you just vote people out of office?

 

[Moonbeam]

If serving for a long time really makes you better at running a country, then maybe we should go to an aristocracy to run the country? That way our political leaders could be trained from an early age and then legislate all of their lives. That's the ticket!

China is doing rather well, no?

 

[fskimospy]

yeah that's a 180 from what his normal blather is..... unless when he means "change" he means pump more in there so the polititians can't be bought. . .

He's probably referring to lobbying money, not budgetary authority. Of course lobbying is protected by the 1st amendment, so it will be around for awhile.

 

[Moonbeam]

How about you just vote people out of office?

Right, to vote in more of the same. Wake up.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sounds good. 6 Years with $125K/year salary and no retirement package.

 

[monovillage]

That would severely neuter the House committees on a bunch of different issues and make them a secondary part of the legislative branch. I also think that convincing lots of people to move to Kansas might be a tough sell.

Neutering House committees sounds good to me. If you moved the nations capitol to Kansas and built a new White House and Capitol building along with a new Supreme Court building, they'd have to move. Turn the old capitol into a tourist trap. Moving locations is an old remedy to removing parasites.

 

[fskimospy]

Neutering House committees sounds good to me. If you moved the nations capitol to Kansas and built a new White House and Capitol building along with a new Supreme Court building, they'd have to move. Turn the old capitol into a tourist trap. Moving locations is an old remedy to removing parasites.

Why would that be good? The Senate committees would be staffed by legislators with much more experience and better contacts which would allow them a lot more influence over the path of legislation. Why is the Senate having more control a preferable outcome to the current situation?

 

[QuantumPion]

He's probably referring to lobbying money, not budgetary authority. Of course lobbying is protected by the 1st amendment, so it will be around for awhile.

Point is, if the government was limited by the constitution, there would be no reason for lobbyists to exist to begin with. The government was not supposed to have the power to pick winners and losers using contracts, subsidies and the tax code.

 

[woolfe9999]

Point is, if the government was limited by the constitution, there would be no reason for lobbyists to exist to begin with. The government was not supposed to have the power to pick winners and losers using contracts, subsidies and the tax code.

Let's say we suddenly adopted the "limited federal government" interpretation of the Constitution that libertarians favor. The Constitution essentially puts no limit on the power of states, other than not intruding into areas specifically enumerated to the federal government. Lobbyists can and do corrupt state government politics as well. In fact, it's even worse on the state level than the federal. For example, there is a study that shows almost half the legislation in California is written by lobbyists. Lobbying is a problem in our system regardless of the level at which it occurs.

 

[fskimospy]

Point is, if the government was limited by the constitution, there would be no reason for lobbyists to exist to begin with. The government was not supposed to have the power to pick winners and losers using contracts, subsidies and the tax code.

That's patently absurd. Even by the craziest most libertarian reading of the Constitution possible that no one charged with running this country ever has or ever will hold, the Congress is charged with regulating interstate commerce. The terms of this regulation will certainly be more advantageous to some businesses than others depending on how it is written and so obviously even in such an extreme case lobbying would continue. Additionally, the Constitution makes no mention of how the tax code is 'supposed' to be written, and there is zero reason to believe that any writer of the Constitution thought it should be unconstitutional for the Congress to tailor the tax code to achieve its desired outcomes. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Not to mention contracts for constitutionally mandated entities such as the DoD, etc. Perhaps there would be fewer lobbyists, but there would still be plenty.

 

[piasabird]

1. Make all terms 4 years just like pesidency.
2. After 2 years have a no confidence vote. This will cause immediate election for replacement.
3. In Primaries have a no confidence vote or sometime before election.
4. During presidential election it is possible to replace all politicians all at one time. If a Clean Sweep is needed it will be possible!

I am for these changes and a 12 Year service limit for federal office of any kind. This would include the house, the senate, and president, and Federal Supremes and all other Department heads, the CIA and FBI Top posts, and all other departments like the Dept of educ, dept of tobacoo and drugs, firearms, the dept of Agriculture, EPA, NSA, Aviation, etc. However, the Presidency should be limited to one 4 year term, and all Reps and Senators would be disqualified for that office.

All cabinet-level members would also have a 12 year limit. This includes all legal counsel, and other people that work anywhere in the president's cabinet. The object is to make it a privelidge to work for the president and to avoid carreer political advisors. We need new ideas and people that are more intouch with the voters.

No confidence means you can never run for federal office or be appointed to any federal appointment or run any federal department, or secretary position like secretary of state.

 

[monovillage]

Why would that be good? The Senate committees would be staffed by legislators with much more experience and better contacts which would allow them a lot more influence over the path of legislation. Why is the Senate having more control a preferable outcome to the current situation?

If you don't see the benefits of moving the Capitol, then you obviously live on the east coast. Staffers are easily replaceable which would limit their influence.

 

[fskimospy]

If you don't see the benefits of moving the Capitol, then you obviously live on the east coast. Staffers are easily replaceable which would limit their influence.

No, I mean why would increased Senate power be good?

I don't really care about moving the capital as it will never happen but since you asked:

I do live on the east coast, but I lived on the west coast until about a year ago. Even then I would definitely have thought it was a bad idea. DC is located right in the area of one of the most densely populated and valuable areas of the country, providing easy access and infrastructure. Kansas offers none of those things.

 

[monovillage]

No, I mean why would increased Senate power be good?

I don't really care about moving the capital as it will never happen but since you asked:

I do live on the east coast, but I lived on the west coast until about a year ago. Even then I would definitely have thought it was a bad idea. DC is located right in the area of one of the most densely populated and valuable areas of the country, providing easy access and infrastructure. Kansas offers none of those things.

Think of the jobs! Think how much it would piss off the power elite! Can you imagine the chagrin of the Washington socialites? The media? OK, maybe it's not going to happen along with term limits, but i can still dream about it.