How can we ever hit the "reset" button on Congress?

[Craig234]

I agree with your first statement but I would extend it to this Admin as well.

I disagree - this wasn't a coice with a good pick lke Gore or Kerry, it was a choice with a bad pick, McCain/Paliin. Of course we'd be better off with a progressive like Kucinich, there is some truth to it.

As far as reducing the concentrated wealth in the system, are you talking about the political system or just in general?

I was speaking of the political system, but as a practical matter, extreme concentrations of wealth are very difficult to prevent the wealthy from dominating the politics, and are unhealthy to demcracy.

Generally speaking, you will always have massive companies that have access to extremely large quantities of capital. Politically speaking, I think that would definately help but it would just be a start. IMO, I think we should put huge criminal penalties for unethical behavior as well as a nonpartisan (lol, I know) group of investigators. Politicians who are found guilty of taking bribes should never breathe free air again. No bullshit "you can go home with your families for the holidays" like Dollar Bill Jefferson, you go straight to jail.

Look at Europe or the US 1940-1980 for examples where the corporations had less political domination and there was less concentration of wealth. It's possile but not easy to do it.

Non-partisan investigators are possible to, the Justice departnemnt has usually had them - the Bush administration was an exception in politicizing them, though Obama hasn't replaced them either.

I'm for strong punishments for real bribery, but that's not the problem.

If we could possibly come up with a better way for politicians to run for office that doesn't require them raising a crapton of capital from private individuals/companies you could then severely restrict what they are allowed to receive while they are in office (no more convenient 5 or 6 figure donations from an industry you are currently passing laws on while feeding us bullshit that it doesn't sway your opinion).

This is the main things - and then add in measures agasint the revolving door for members and staff.

And all laws apply to Congress just like the rest of us such as insider trading laws. No more cushy pensions and healthcare for life for being a public servant. I don't mind paying them a good wage but with all the other benefits they get we damn sure don't need to be paying for them after the quit, get replaced or thrown in jail (yeah, they still get paid if they are found guilty of committing crimes while acting as a Congressman).

I think this is a side tangent, emotional and not too rational. It's their needing big donations and serving those donors that's the issue, not gettting healthcare or a pension.

 

[Darwin333]

For the umteenth time., that does nothing to fix the problme but give you a new face with the same corruption and less accountability, and get rid of the good people who are in office also.

Then the best we can hope for is split rule.

In recent history, when a single party has too much power it has not gone well. At least with split power they don't fuck as much up.

I know you are going to say that is the wrong answer and the only right answer is to vote in nothing but progressive Democrats but I think this is more of a philosophical question than a political one. The fact remains that people in general are corruptible and with the sheer amount of money at play we will always have a system that begs for corruption. It doesn't matter if you reduce the concentration of wealth because people/corporations with common goals will just work together in purchasing votes that are in their interests (as is already done).

We can either try to dissuade the corruption or we can hope that no one party has enough power to force their corrupted bills through. Removing the massive amounts of money needed to get elected would be a good start but I don't have a good idea on how to do that either.

 

[Craig234]

Then the best we can hope for is split rule.

In recent history, when a single party has too much power it has not gone well. At least with split power they don't fuck as much up.

I know you are going to say that is the wrong answer and the only right answer is to vote in nothing but progressive Democrats but I think this is more of a philosophical question than a political one. The fact remains that people in general are corruptible and with the sheer amount of money at play we will always have a system that begs for corruption. It doesn't matter if you reduce the concentration of wealth because people/corporations with common goals will just work together in purchasing votes that are in their interests (as is already done).

We can either try to dissuade the corruption or we can hope that no one party has enough power to force their corrupted bills through. Removing the massive amounts of money needed to get elected would be a good start but I don't have a good idea on how to do that either.

Well, let me be clear, the problem can in theory be fixed by any solution to the monied interest dominating a party. Republican, Democrat, both, and so on.

My comment about progressive Republicans is the practical political observation that the Republican party is a lost cause on getting out of that corruption, not at all practical - and the Democrats face an uphill battle not to have the same thing happen, indeed, look at or Democratic president who got more Wall Street money than any other candidate, won, and has not exactly been leading the mob with torches against Wall Street.

It's saying that the only significant politcal group in the country left - say what you like about a third party, but I argue it's not practical either - are progressive Democs who have resisted that corruption.

It's they who have a set of guiding principles not be be so corrupted, and only they.

And it seems to me that we're at war for the health of our democracy - the public interest winning or losing, with only one option, the progressives. And they can't do much as just an 83-member house caucus.

 

[spacejamz]

Movie Mars Attacks ! had the perfect solution , quoting Sylvia Sidney "They blew up congress !"

and still having 2 outta 3 ain't bad!!! <--- best line in the movie

 

[Darwin333]

I disagree - this wasn't a coice with a good pick lke Gore or Kerry, it was a choice with a bad pick, McCain/Paliin. Of course we'd be better off with a progressive like Kucinich, there is some truth to it.

I won't go into my dislike of the primary system but the bottom line is we either chose the candidates or allowed someone to chose them for us. It is hard for me to blame the choices when we chose them and I always go back to my personal belief of choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The proof is in the pudding and we now have a continuation of a ton of bad Bush policies, craptastic healthcare that WILL cost us a ton regardless of what some might say, insane expansion of .Gov debt with no end in sight, further loss of freedoms for no good reason, etc... That is we get when we collectively decide to vote for the "lesser of two evils" instead of flat out refusing to vote for anything we would call evil in the first place.

Non-partisan investigators are possible to, the Justice departnemnt has usually had them - the Bush administration was an exception in politicizing them, though Obama hasn't replaced them either.

Back to my point on the "lesser of two evils". The hard part is making it so that it isn't able to be politicized as that would be worse than what we currently have.

I'm for strong punishments for real bribery, but that's not the problem.

I disagree. Look at all the "campaign contributions" the healthcare industry has given out and who they have went to. Then take a look at the legislation they are about to make law and get back to me. In my book that is real bribery and we will have to agree to disagree.

This is the main things - and then add in measures agasint the revolving door for members and staff.

I hadn't considered the staff. Why would you be concerned about the revolving door for staff but not actual lawmakers? I guess a point can be made that at least the lawmakers are voted in periodically but the same lawmakers decide if their staff stays or goes.

I think this is a side tangent, emotional and not too rational. It's their needing big donations and serving those donors that's the issue, not gettting healthcare or a pension.

[/quote]

It is a side tangent but goes along with the "goal" of making public service something you decide to do to serve the public. It should not be about personal enrichment. I think we should pay them a very fair wage so that a normal person (i.e. not rich) can hold office and still pay their bills but beyond that is not necessary and helps lead to corruption imo. Allowing Congress to vote for their and their coworkers benefits is working about as well as allowing board members to vote on their buddies bonuses (if not their own).

 

[Craig234]

I won't go into my dislike of the primary system but the bottom line is we either chose the candidates or allowed someone to chose them for us. It is hard for me to blame the choices when we chose them and I always go back to my personal belief of choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. The proof is in the pudding and we now have a continuation of a ton of bad Bush policies, craptastic healthcare that WILL cost us a ton regardless of what some might say, insane expansion of .Gov debt with no end in sight, further loss of freedoms for no good reason, etc... That is we get when we collectively decide to vote for the "lesser of two evils" instead of flat out refusing to vote for anything we would call evil in the first place.


Back to my point on the "lesser of two evils". The hard part is making it so that it isn't able to be politicized as that would be worse than what we currently have.



I disagree. Look at all the "campaign contributions" the healthcare industry has given out and who they have went to. Then take a look at the legislation they are about to make law and get back to me. In my book that is real bribery and we will have to agree to disagree.



I hadn't considered the staff. Why would you be concerned about the revolving door for staff but not actual lawmakers? I guess a point can be made that at least the lawmakers are voted in periodically but the same lawmakers decide if their staff stays or goes.

It is a side tangent but goes along with the "goal" of making public service something you decide to do to serve the public. It should not be about personal enrichment. I think we should pay them a very fair wage so that a normal person (i.e. not rich) can hold office and still pay their bills but beyond that is not necessary and helps lead to corruption imo. Allowing Congress to vote for their and their coworkers benefits is working about as well as allowing board members to vote on their buddies bonuses (if not their own).[/QUOTE]

Too much to edit so I'll reply here.

My point on bribery referred to not the acceptance of campaign contributions, but the 'pay for a vote' that's currently a crime but uncommon. You seem to agree with me the latter isn't the problem.

But you are jumpinmg from the current system to taking campaign contributions being a crime, while skipping the step of actually restricting those contributions that are legal.

I said we need to ban the revolving door for members and staff and you asked why I listed staff but not elected officials. That's who members is.

Look at Robert Rubin who did so much for big banks under Clinton - and immediately became a senior exec at Citibank. Look at the Republican Congressman who led the passage of the big pharma giveaway bill, and within weekes resigned his seat to be the head of big pharma lobbying for $2M a year having got them an estimated $150B profit windfall. There are thousands of these problems, it's systemic. When big busness sends a thousand lobbyists at the hill, as banking sent many recently, their ranks are filled with former Congressmen and staffers - ready to dangle the same carrot for current members when they leave.

Your talk of 'should' is lacking something. It's right - but when the system contradicts it, it doesn't happen.

A poll of freshmen CA legislators asked what their #1 problem was - they said the need to fundraise all day every day keeping them from the job, if they wanted to get reelected.

You can condemn them if you like for dong the fundraising, but it seems clear they don't like it and are not the problem, the rules are.

 

[fskimospy]

restore the line item veto?

The line item veto is quite obviously unconstitutional.

 

[Darwin333]

Well, let me be clear, the problem can in theory be fixed by any solution to the monied interest dominating a party. Republican, Democrat, both, and so on.

My comment about progressive Republicans is the practical political observation that the Republican party is a lost cause on getting out of that corruption, not at all practical - and the Democrats face an uphill battle not to have the same thing happen, indeed, look at or Democratic president who got more Wall Street money than any other candidate, won, and has not exactly been leading the mob with torches against Wall Street.

It's saying that the only significant politcal group in the country left - say what you like about a third party, but I argue it's not practical either - are progressive Democs who have resisted that corruption.

It's they who have a set of guiding principles not be be so corrupted, and only they.

And it seems to me that we're at war for the health of our democracy - the public interest winning or losing, with only one option, the progressives. And they can't do much as just an 83-member house caucus.

IMO, if the same system is left in place it stands a good chance that the people, not all but enough, who make up that system will eventually be corrupted. Their political party is irrelevent because it is simply human nature to better ones own position. Throwing people into a system that allows that but hoping they don't is wishful thinking even if they had the best of intentions going in. Even in the best of areas, if you leave the bank vault open the temptation will get the better of people.

Removing the necessity, making it much more difficult to get away with and vastly increasing punishment and likelihood of getting caught is the only way to really put a dent in the problem.

 

[fskimospy]

The first step is to "break" the traditional ways congress "gets things done" (nebraska compromise, bridges to nowhere, over-complicated bills, etc...).

Elect a president who will veto each and every bill with any hint of any bullshit in it, and will publicly declare that as the reason he is vetoing it. (I'm vetoing this because of the immense amount of pork attached to this otherwise decent legislation. If congress gives me a bill with (a,b,c,d) removed, I will sign it.) Make them get that 2/3rds majority to pull off the BS that they get away with right now.

Also getting congress to create an independent agency to handle all districting/redistricting for all federal positions. Gerrymandering is a bad thing (see the 4th Illinois congressional district: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL&district=4 ). The same president could use this as a "pass this bill" card: (I'm vetoing your bill for another legitimate reason (too much pork). If you add this bit of pre-written legislation to your bill, I will pass it, pork and all.)

I'm actually surprised more presidents don't use their veto power more liberally and speak more publicly about it. It would make them very popular with the people and would almost certainly win them a re-election. It would also make congress very unpopular with the people, which (after a while) should cause them to shape up a little bit.

In my opinion, the President should consider himself primarily a "filter" for congress' collective bullshit.

Pork comprises a vanishingly small amount of the federal budget. Of all the problems facing our nation, pork barely registers.

In 2009 projects marked as pork comprised approximately $19 billion. Out of a federal budget of $3.1 trillion for the year, that comprises 0.6% of our expenditures. As for what else 'bullshit' might be, I haven't the slightest clue. (are you saying he should veto bad stuff? That's mighty easy to say) To veto legislation that (presumably) both the President and Congress find important and risk its failure over 0.6% of the budget would be gross negligence on the part of all parties and an insult to the people who elected them to govern. All that would happen is meaningless hand wringing for 4 years until the President loses in a landslide due to his complete failure to pass a single bill.

Pray you never elect a president who does what you are asking.

 

[KK]

Americans are too stupid to have it ever change. The government has got them trained well.

 

[Darwin333]

A poll of freshmen CA legislators asked what their #1 problem was - they said the need to fundraise all day every day keeping them from the job, if they wanted to get reelected.

You can condemn them if you like for dong the fundraising, but it seems clear they don't like it and are not the problem, the rules are.

While I do condemn those who have very obvious conflicts of interest, my intent was aimed at condemning the system that, I agree, forces them to do it. I believe It is also why so many of them eventually become corrupted. Not to mention that nothing is free and even if the politician remains "good" the money will eventually move to someone who will generate more return for the investment. That is why I think our first step is to somehow remove the absurd amount of private capital required to run for office. I have no clue on how to actually achieve this but hopefully someone smarter than I does and maybe one day we will actually implement it. I do fear that things will have to get much worse before we actually enact change on that level though. The parties do a very good job of manipulating people into thinking the other guys are the bad guys while their side can do no wrong (or my favorite "but the other side did it first!").

As far as your comments about "members", I misunderstood your original statement. I completely agree with you though which expands on my point that very few go into politics to serve the public. A large number of them go into it to serve themselves and only themselves. Even some of those that have good intentions going in end up corrupted because of the size, scope and ease of the rewards. That is why I think that electing a different group of people and hoping they do not become corrupted is wishful thinking.

 

[Darwin333]

Pork comprises a vanishingly small amount of the federal budget. Of all the problems facing our nation, pork barely registers.

In 2009 projects marked as pork comprised approximately $19 billion. Out of a federal budget of $3.1 trillion for the year, that comprises 0.6% of our expenditures. As for what else 'bullshit' might be, I haven't the slightest clue. (are you saying he should veto bad stuff? That's mighty easy to say) To veto legislation that (presumably) both the President and Congress find important and risk its failure over 0.6% of the budget would be gross negligence on the part of all parties and an insult to the people who elected them to govern. All that would happen is meaningless hand wringing for 4 years until the President loses in a landslide due to his complete failure to pass a single bill.

Pray you never elect a president who does what you are asking.

Playing devils advocate, why would Congress face the same consequences of getting nothing down over the paltry sum that you outlined? Someone almost always blinks when playing chicken.

BTW, out of curiosity, who gets to mark projects as pork?

 

[Craig234]

IMO, if the same system is left in place it stands a good chance that the people, not all but enough, who make up that system will eventually be corrupted. Their political party is irrelevent because it is simply human nature to better ones own position. Throwing people into a system that allows that but hoping they don't is wishful thinking even if they had the best of intentions going in. Even in the best of areas, if you leave the bank vault open the temptation will get the better of people.

Removing the necessity, making it much more difficult to get away with and vastly increasing punishment and likelihood of getting caught is the only way to really put a dent in the problem.

But this is where youare wrong about progressives. You don't seem to understand them. It's like saying that the founding fathers would be easily corrupted to side with English royalty, if offered some money.

But I will point out you have a partial point - that yes, if progressives DID get power, they'd face the same pressures - far more for them to 'play ball'.

Indeed, every president since at least Clinton has had a message from Wall Street: you do what we want or we'll hurt this economy in ways you can't do a thing about that will kill you politically.

Bill Clinton was famous for his surprise at being told this, and recogzining his limited options. Unfortunately, that was the beginning of his doing pretty much Wall Street's bidding. Bush, you can't rape the willing.

Progressives would face these enormous pressures too, and no doubt would be challenged, but just as FDR helped reduce the overwhelming concentraqtion of power among these same types, we can again.

And progressives are the one group who are more dedicated to do so, who are in favor of the public interest and who see beating the contentrated powers as the enemy to beat to give the people power.

 

[Craig234]

Playing devils advocate, why would Congress face the same consequences of getting nothing down over the paltry sum that you outlined? Someone almost always blinks when playing chicken.

BTW, out of curiosity, who gets to mark projects as pork?

Why would Congress do it? Because each has core political support that it's a big political benefit for.

Pork is requested of members - based on the leadership's approval of how much, is my understanding.

So, someone is facing a close race, has done something to 'deserve party reward' - maybe they get some extra pork allowance.

 

[Craig234]

While I do condemn those who have very obvious conflicts of interest, my intent was aimed at condemning the system that, I agree, forces them to do it. I believe It is also why so many of them eventually become corrupted. Not to mention that nothing is free and even if the politician remains "good" the money will eventually move to someone who will generate more return for the investment. That is why I think our first step is to somehow remove the absurd amount of private capital required to run for office. I have no clue on how to actually achieve this but hopefully someone smarter than I does and maybe one day we will actually implement it. I do fear that things will have to get much worse before we actually enact change on that level though. The parties do a very good job of manipulating people into thinking the other guys are the bad guys while their side can do no wrong (or my favorite "but the other side did it first!").

As far as your comments about "members", I misunderstood your original statement. I completely agree with you though which expands on my point that very few go into politics to serve the public. A large number of them go into it to serve themselves and only themselves. Even some of those that have good intentions going in end up corrupted because of the size, scope and ease of the rewards. That is why I think that electing a different group of people and hoping they do not become corrupted is wishful thinking.

We're agreeing. I'd like to tell you the easy answer to the money issue, but if you read Thom Hartmann's "Unequal Protection" about the perversion of the equal rights amendment to create the legal status of corporations as 'persons' and make their rights all but untouchable, you would better understand how al but impossible fixing this is. Sorry for the bad news.

But the alternative in the meantime is trying to beat the money by electing the people who won't sell out, and at this time, that's nor Republicans or corporatist Dems, it's prgressives.

If anyone can do something about the money, it's this group - it's in their interest to deny all that money to their opponents anyway. But how do we get them elected? You see the opinions here.

 

[fskimospy]

Playing devils advocate, why would Congress face the same consequences of getting nothing down over the paltry sum that you outlined? Someone almost always blinks when playing chicken.

BTW, out of curiosity, who gets to mark projects as pork?

Pork is a nebulous term that usually stands for 'spending I don't like'. I tend to go with nonpartisan groups like the Citizens Against Government Waste that I feel have a pretty fair definition of it.

Maybe Congress would blink in the game of chicken, but my argument was that it was a retarded game to play to begin with. If someone wants to risk blowing up the government and grinding their entire agenda to a halt over 0.6% of the budget, that's pretty silly in my opinion. We have bigger fish to fry.

 

[piasabird]

Term Limits. Out with the old.

 

[Craig234]

Term Limits. Out with the old.

Try reading a thread.

Cut and paste

Term limits are a terrible idea. The give you the power brokers selecting your politicians as people you don't know who are heavily indebted to the power brokers for being selected, not to you.

They don't haveto worry about your vote, they're not running for re-election - the next unknown who wil be selected to do the bidding of the power brokers will take his spot.

 

[ebaycj]

restore the line item veto?

Line item veto is dangerous and not required.

Plain-old-veto is fine. Make congress either override it, or pass decent legislation, EVERY TIME. Simple as that.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot

Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
To blow up the King and the Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow
By God's providence he was catched
With a dark lantern and burning match
Holloa boys, holloa boys
God save the King!
Hip hip hooray!
Hip hip hooray!

A penny loaf to feed ol' Pope
A farthing cheese to choke him
A pint of beer to rinse it down
A lovely human of sticks to burn him
Burn him in a tub of tar
Burn him like a blazing star
Burn his body from his head
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hooray!
Hip hip hooray!

Not exactly congress but could work there too.

I love bonfire night, celebrate it every year when i'm at home.

 

[cubby1223]

While the R is 'member of a monolithic lock-step grop whose agenda is to sell out the public interest and represent the interests pof the rich', even a vote for a 'good' R is a vote for the wrong party.

Haven't you realized yet that you've become detached from the real world?

 

[cubby1223]

How do we hit the "reset" button? Can we even hit the "reset" button?

It's possible. But unlikely.

Only chance is to reform the campaign process. There is an army on both sides of the political divide who feel it is their patriotic duty to attack, attack, attack on every little thing they can to destroy the opponent. We'd have to shut down cable news stations, shut down internet bloggers, shut down a lot of campaign commercials.

With the unbelievably negative campaigning waged from all sides and all aspects, we breed politicians who are fully capable of ignoring the voices of the people. So why is anyone surprised they all ignore us once they win office?

The only chance is to have some gentlemen's agreement amongst us citizens to not engage in negative campaigning - to allow decent, honest people to make it through the process without being destroyed just for having either an (R) or (D) next to the name.

But hell if that'll ever happen.