Our Congressional Leaders should resign.

[lothar]

Not defending this Congress, but approval ratings don't mean much except to guage election outcomes. 92% disapprove of Congress; 92% of Americans believe in God.

Approval ratings don't gauge election outcomes.
If they did, we shouldn't see a 90+% incumbency rate for congress.

If congress only has an 8% approval rating, then the majority of them shouldn't be re-elected.
Is this another case of "I hate every congressman except my own"-itis?

 

[lothar]

As I've posted many times, term limits would be much worse.

You would have even more special interest control and less voter accountability.

Proof of the bolded part?

 

[Craig234]

Proof of the bolded part?

It's simple. With term limits you would much more frequently have 'new faces' running, and with our politics so money dominated, whoever the special interests are being able to select and fund who they back would be the only way for most elections to have a candidate 'stand out' from the others.

Instead of voting for 'someone you knew', people vote for 'the person buying ads'.

I've seen this countless times - voters vote for 'the name they hear the most' all the time.

This is why 94% of congressional races are seen to be won by those with the most money.

Having candidates with a track records as incumbents provides some little counter.

 

[DrPizza]

The problem is, the majority of Americans are ignorant. When they get to the polls, they vote for the familiar incumbent's name. Else, they think it's the legislators from the other states who are causing all the problems.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Having candidates with a track records as incumbents provides some little counter.

Unfortunately only the most egregious legislators seem to register sufficiently with the voters to warrant eviction from office.

 

[lothar]

The problem is, the majority of Americans are ignorant. When they get to the polls, they vote for the familiar incumbent's name. Else, they think it's the legislators from the other states who are causing all the problems.

It's called "I hate every congressman except my own"-itis.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's not the voters problem, but the people we get to vote for. Of the two choices, Democrat or Republican, both seem to easily expand Government, spend money we don't have, and overall drive the Country down.

What we need are limits on the politicians/Government, where they can't go as crazy as they have been.

Things like a Balanced Budget.
Disband Homeland Security.
etc.

-John-

 

[Craig234]

The problem is, the majority of Americans are ignorant. When they get to the polls, they vote for the familiar incumbent's name. Else, they think it's the legislators from the other states who are causing all the problems.

It's a combination of incumbency and money, but reducing the factor of incumbency only increases that of the 'well funded stranger' having an even bigger edge.

 

[bfdd]

Craig he didn't ask for your opinion on how it would work with term limits, he asked for proof of that's how it works with term limits. Please if you're going to make such claims back it up with proof as a non-viable alternative or shut the hell up because you're basically parroting more of the status quo.

 

[wayliff]

8-10% approval ratings? Why are they still dishonoring us by sitting in those seats waiting for re-election? They should start resigning to save face.

now lets hope people have memory at voting time...
Many seem to automagically forget everything when promised some new things or when shown 'how bad' the opposition is.

 

[Genx87]

Congress hit 40% approval under Nancy Pelosi, she said.

Ahh the new bar of excellence set by the democrats, 40%.

 

[JTsyo]

Maybe if an individual member of Congress has a 9% approval rating, there is an argument that resigning is the right thing to do. Trouble is, NO ONE in Congress, not a one, has an approval rating as low as the total body does. Logic dictates that this means our perception of Congress as a whole is systemtically biased. Again, not saying this Congress is doing a good job. Just saying that an overall Congressional approval rating means nothing more than that people are very unhappy and they perceive Congress as a source of their unhappiness.

Anyway, you can wish for whatever you like. They aren't going to resign.

yea, other polls have shown that while people disapprove of Congress as a whole, they tend to think the representative from their state is doing OK.

 

[Siddhartha]

Members of the House and Senate are elected by their districts and states not by polls. If you are unhappy with YOUR representative and or senator get active in the process and do something about YOUR representative and senator.

 

[Ajay]

As I've posted many times, term limits would be much worse.

You would have even more special interest control and less voter accountability.

And less POWER. Because individuals would not have time to build a constituency within congress. With less power, the money special interest's spend would have less value and they wouldn't be able to build a strong relationships over time.

I admit the real issue is voter apathy. I believe (or hope) that seeing new faces more frequently would incline voters to learn a bit more about the candidates instead of the default vote for representative X yet again.

 

[hal2kilo]

Term limits are the only answer available, though, Craig.

The status quo sure isn't getting it done.

At this point I think that a random draw from the population of the US including Mexico, would be better law makers than our elected Congress.

-John

No, public financing of elections is the only answer.

 

[MovingTarget]

It's a combination of incumbency and money, but reducing the factor of incumbency only increases that of the 'well funded stranger' having an even bigger edge.

You could make the same argument about the POTUS. But honestly, you don't have to limit congresscritters to one term apiece. Then what you say would really be a problem. A compromise could be struck where incumbency still holds sway, but it is not indefinite. Say 5 or 7terms in the House and 3 in the Senate. Perhaps you could put a limit on consecutive terms only and allow others to come back. There are plenty of combinations that are potentially better than what we have now.

 

[Craig234]

No, public financing of elections is the only answer.

Exactly. Term limits are the wet dream of the special interests and lobbyists.

 

[Craig234]

You could make the same argument about the POTUS. But honestly, you don't have to limit congresscritters to one term apiece. Then what you say would really be a problem. A compromise could be struck where incumbency still holds sway, but it is not indefinite. Say 5 or 7terms in the House and 3 in the Senate. Perhaps you could put a limit on consecutive terms only and allow others to come back. There are plenty of combinations that are potentially better than what we have now.

You're making a misplaced Goldilocks argument - one that's merely 'less bad', by acknowledging that too short of term limits are bad, but defending medium limits.

I think a lot of what's driving the passion for term limits is the feeling that the real issue isn't being solved - that it's 'corrupt politicians for decades, or term limits', no other option.

And in fact, that's probably the best argument for term limits, but it still falls far short by simply being bad for the democracy.

It's based on a fallacy, that the new politicians will be some 'new, uncorrupted faces', when in fact the system will be more enslaved to the money.

People will get even less happy with democracy at all, as it's a total waste that a lot of 'honest' people run and are lost in the mix while the winners are 'selected' by money.

It's hard for people to understand the problem it seems before it happens. When I've posted this before, though, some have responded 'we got term limits, and it was bad'.

Frustration often drive bad policy. We need to take money out, not patch the problem.

 

[MovingTarget]

You're making a misplaced Goldilocks argument - one that's merely 'less bad', by acknowledging that too short of term limits are bad, but defending medium limits.

I think a lot of what's driving the passion for term limits is the feeling that the real issue isn't being solved - that it's 'corrupt politicians for decades, or term limits', no other option.

And in fact, that's probably the best argument for term limits, but it still falls far short by simply being bad for the democracy.

It's based on a fallacy, that the new politicians will be some 'new, uncorrupted faces', when in fact the system will be more enslaved to the money.

People will get even less happy with democracy at all, as it's a total waste that a lot of 'honest' people run and are lost in the mix while the winners are 'selected' by money.

It's hard for people to understand the problem it seems before it happens. When I've posted this before, though, some have responded 'we got term limits, and it was bad'.

Frustration often drive bad policy. We need to take money out, not patch the problem.

Overall I tend to agree with you...the problem is money in politics. Until Citizens' United is overturned and some sanity restored to campaign finance, our solutions are limited. Term limits are but one part of the solution. The reason I use a "Goldilocks" argument here is because I too recognise the value of incumbency. That experience is a real boon to the legislature. But without any real fix wrt campaign finance, those who are driven by monied interests can stay there indefinitely and do irreparable damage to our representative democracy. There is indeed a balance that must be found.

 

[Craig234]

Overall I tend to agree with you...the problem is money in politics. Until Citizens' United is overturned and some sanity restored to campaign finance, our solutions are limited. Term limits are but one part of the solution. The reason I use a "Goldilocks" argument here is because I too recognise the value of incumbency. That experience is a real boon to the legislature. But without any real fix wrt campaign finance, those who are driven by monied interests can stay there indefinitely and do irreparable damage to our representative democracy. There is indeed a balance that must be found.

Yes, it's a valid discussion to say the only solution is to remove money, but until we do, what's the best plan?

Then it's a question of term limits reducing or worsening the situation.

I'll argue it'd worsen it.

But the frustration creates a desire to 'DO SOMETHING', and the fact term limits seem like they're 'striking back' at 'corrupt politicians' makes them attractive.

But the people would have anonymous selected strangers working against them MORE.

 

[airdata]

Isn't congress supposed to be a duty you serve?

We need to end career good ol boys. They can serve their term and get back to real life.

 

[bfdd]

Yes, it's a valid discussion to say the only solution is to remove money, but until we do, what's the best plan?

Then it's a question of term limits reducing or worsening the situation.

I'll argue it'd worsen it.

But the frustration creates a desire to 'DO SOMETHING', and the fact term limits seem like they're 'striking back' at 'corrupt politicians' makes them attractive.

But the people would have anonymous selected strangers working against them MORE.

The concept of "removing money" is stupid. It's completely illogical and unrealistic. Money will always be involved, what you need to do is stem their craving/addiction to it. You do that by putting harsh harsh penalties in place for going down that road. A public servant is vastly different than a private citizen. These people choose to take the "noble" path and serve us, if they are going to dishonor the power we bestow upon them then they absolutely must face the harshest of penalties possible.

 

[palehorse]

Every single one of them needs to be replaced, and it needs to happen all at once. The entire body of "representation" must be reset. Also, every single one of the replacements needs to agree to:

1) Overturn United Citizens decision
2) severe campaign finance reform to create level playing fields for every national election -- including the elimination of PACs and corporate donations of any/every sort.
3) severe lobbying process reform to completely eliminate corporate/SIG money from the law creation, law interpretation, and law enforcement processes.

Options? Ideas? Thoughts?

 

[palehorse]

The concept of "removing money" is stupid. It's completely illogical and unrealistic. Money will always be involved, what you need to do is stem their craving/addiction to it. You do that by putting harsh harsh penalties in place for going down that road. A public servant is vastly different than a private citizen. These people choose to take the "noble" path and serve us, if they are going to dishonor the power we bestow upon them then they absolutely must face the harshest of penalties possible.

/agreed.

10 years in Federal prison and banishment from Government service for first offenders -- both givers and takers -- sounds about right.

Second offense (ie. becoming a bribe giver after being punished as a bribe taker)? Life in Prison and/or death.

Works for me.

 

[Craig234]

Isn't congress supposed to be a duty you serve?

We need to end career good ol boys. They can serve their term and get back to real life.

Better than term limits: bans on Congress and staff moving into lobbying.

In the last decade IIRC, 400 members and over 3000 staff have made the move.