Should we require written contracts for politicians ?

[Modelworks]

Do we need written contracts for politicians ? Contracts that state exactly what they are going to do and how they intend to do it and assign penalties for them not doing it ?

I'm sick of politicians promising something to get elected then you are stuck with them till their term is up. For me , voting is like a contract. They are offering to do something I want in exchange for my vote. If they don't do what they say then they have broken that contract and since I can't take my vote back they should be penalized rather than having free reign for their term. A lot of damage can be done in 2 to 4 years till they are replaced. I want something in writing that holds them to their words and immediate consequences , not just not being re-elected, if they break their word.

The public wouldn't be okay to buy a car that has a 5 year warranty only to be told when you need it fixed 1 year later that 5 years isn't practical so they decided to drop it. That is the same thing politicians do. They get elected promising things and then do not follow through when elected.

People have become so used to politicians being dishonest that it has become acceptable behavior where it is okay for them to be dishonest just as long as they are not overly dishonest compared to other politicians. I think the concept of being a man of your word has become lost in modern society and since that check and balance doesn't apply anymore we need something else.

 

[Zebo]

Politicians exempt themselves from EEOC laws and bunch of others they pass onto us, get full retirement after 2 years you don't think they are going to sign something that puts their feet to the fire?

 

[Linflas]

They swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States when they take office. Why do you think their signature on a contract would be any less worthless than that oath in their eyes?

 

[Craig234]

Politicians exempt themselves from EEOC laws and bunch of others they pass onto us, get full retirement after 2 years you don't think they are going to sign something that puts their feet to the fire?

It's a very bad idea. Fix the real problems with elections, the big money buying the PR, and it'll be a lot less of an issue.

(And by the way, put term limits in place, and it's a lot more of an issue).

As for Zebo's claim with the base salaries of members $174,000:

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service... A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

Hm, so as opposed to the claim of 'full retirement after 2 years', we have nothing until 5 years, and then we have the current system average retiree at $36K.

So, Zebo, hopefully your rectum is much cleaner now that you have taken this nasty stuff out of it.

 

[StageLeft]

Something has to change. Normally they're supposed to get booted out of office if they suck, but with lobbying dollars and campaign contributions totally sport-fvcking the entire process up is down and down is up and if you're a good politician and I'm an ahole but I just steamrolled your home town for an oil project and got a bunch of money for it I'm going to bury you under ads saying what a job-killing communist you are and come election time the morons will vote for me. So play the game or lose it.

 

[Craig234]

Something has to change. Normally they're supposed to get booted out of office if they suck, but with lobbying dollars and campaign contributions totally sport-fvcking the entire process up is down and down is up and if you're a good politician and I'm an ahole but I just steamrolled your home town for an oil project and got a bunch of money for it I'm going to bury you under ads saying what a job-killing communist you are and come election time the morons will vote for me. So play the game or lose it.

You're largely right, and we do need fixes - and those fixes are further with the radical Supreme Court decision freeing even more corporate election corruption.

Funny you mention the 'what a communist you are' ads. Jon Stewart had a clip last night of Fox saying how a Democratic candidate had 'admitted' to being a Marxist - but when you look at the basis, it's an article he wrote as a young adult 25 years ago that was MOCKING the idea, a sarcastic reference to being a Marxist - a lie by Fox that will persuade many.

This 'play the game or lose it' problem is then used by the corrupt to attack those who feel they are forced to make some compromises as 'just as bad or worse'.

 

[soundforbjt]

Just make lobbying illegal and the problems would be fixed.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have a contract they can sign. One term and then we shoot you.

 

[Moonbeam]

An electric collar might work, one that explodes if there's an attempt to remove it and one that chokes you to death if you vote before finding out what way your constituents want you to vote before you do and if you vote differently.

 

[StageLeft]

Just make lobbying illegal and the problems would be fixed.

I agree. It is in fact the electric collar Moonbeam recommends, but it's around the neck of the nation and constantly on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

How about we start with drug tests and competency tests. If they pass, then they have to take a test on the Constitution so we make sure they know what they are taking an oath to uphold.

 

[cubby1223]

As for Zebo's claim with the base salaries of members $174,000:
<snip>
Hm, so as opposed to the claim of 'full retirement after 2 years', we have nothing until 5 years, and then we have the current system average retiree at $36K.

So, Zebo, hopefully your rectum is much cleaner now that you have taken this nasty stuff out of it.

What, are you saying you don't know of any state or local public employees or elected officials? You like to sit there and try to be all knowledged in everything, but you seem to always come up a little short at the end

 

[LunarRay]

I think our laws ought to be decided upon by us within our own local formations of government... Give the folks in Washington our proxy to vote as we demand. Or simply vote from our central locale... It is far easier to demand what we want when we have our political folks right in front of us... We are the government!

The single bit about Congress that irks me the most is found in the Committee rooms... Go there one time and look at the way it is set up... They, the Congress people, sit way way up and away from the testimony table... Like a bunch of elite looking down at the very folks who they are working for... When they look down at one of us they look down at all of us.
I don't want their 'Independent' thinking ... I want my thinking and that of my fellow citizens to matter more. I want the folks in Des Moines to be as up to speed on what is going on as the folks in Pittsburgh and everywhere else.

IOW, I do not see the kind of Congress the founders envisioned in action today. The Senate don't represent the wishes of the States in any measure... Those Princes and Princesses of the Money class are about as in tune with the Citizen's State as a hungry lion is with the needs of the jackal...

 

[bamacre]

Just make lobbying illegal and the problems would be fixed.

ALL lobbying?

 

[soulcougher73]

I would be down with that. Dont promise something if you arent going to deliver. Dont say you will vote one way, and then do the opposite. Hell id go so far as to say if they break their contract more then 5 times they get impeached.

Would keep them honest during campaigning.

 

[bfdd]

No, but we should have salary caps for elected officials.

 

[soundforbjt]

ALL lobbying?

All lobbying by corps & businesses. Only non-profit lobbying would be allowed.

 

[LunarRay]

ALL lobbying?

Seems to me that 'Lobbying' is the voice of some narrow concern holding sway over the voice of the wider constituency. They are experts, I'll grant you, in the field they represent, however, WE, all of us, need being aware! We are not farm animals in need of their edification... We ought to be able to enact law based on what we conclude... IF we need to better understand an issue we can become informed... Seems to me that is what a citizen is charged with being... IF we are sentient enough to vote for someone we THINK represents our POV we are armed to vote the issues directly.

But alas, we as a population are lazy, ill informed and currently incapable of rational thought, I guess!

 

[soundforbjt]

When Reagan took office, there were around 1000+ lobbyists, IIRC. There are now over 35,000.

 

[Zebo]

It's a very bad idea. Fix the real problems with elections, the big money buying the PR, and it'll be a lot less of an issue.

(And by the way, put term limits in place, and it's a lot more of an issue).

As for Zebo's claim with the base salaries of members $174,000:



Hm, so as opposed to the claim of 'full retirement after 2 years', we have nothing until 5 years, and then we have the current system average retiree at $36K.

So, Zebo, hopefully your rectum is much cleaner now that you have taken this nasty stuff out of it.

My mistake thanks for correction.

 

[LunarRay]

When Reagan took office, there were around 1000+ lobbyists, IIRC. There are now over 35,000.

Are the Congress and their staffs so ill informed that they need to be edified and or swayed regarding the merits of the Lobbyist's agenda?
It seems to me that housed in every one of our Universities are folks charged with knowledge development and the inculcation of that into not only the students but the population as well.

Issues like Global Warming tend to be Scientific and therefore, ought to be considered in that context... The outcome ought to be to do what is prudent... IF we've not consensus on the science then simply act in the best interest of the planet and ergo, the people.

Issues that come to the table because one side or another will benefit from the outcome but at the expense of the people ought to be always considered in the context of the people and not the entities whose agenda is their own benefit.

 

[soundforbjt]

Are the Congress and their staffs so ill informed that they need to be edified and or swayed regarding the merits of the Lobbyist's agenda?
It seems to me that housed in every one of our Universities are folks charged with knowledge development and the inculcation of that into not only the students but the population as well.

Issues like Global Warming tend to be Scientific and therefore, ought to be considered in that context... The outcome ought to be to do what is prudent... IF we've not consensus on the science then simply act in the best interest of the planet and ergo, the people.

Issues that come to the table because one side or another will benefit from the outcome but at the expense of the people ought to be always considered in the context of the people and not the entities whose agenda is their own benefit.

That's what the people who "claim" they want to get back to basics should be championing, but money trumps education and logic and "the peoples needs" nowdays.

 

[StageLeft]

Let's start with banning all lobbying and then open it up from there instead of trying to think of exceptions right off the bat.

When one says they are experts in their field, yes, but specifically the lobbyist represents a company that is an expert in making money via its field, nothing more. They do not serve, first and foremost, the greater good. They serve, by virtue of their business, making more money and that is it. So I'd personally rather listen to a lobbyist talking about expanding a public park than one talking about building a new industrial plant.

Whatever the case, the practical implication is that Washington is increasingly for sale. Lobbyists give money to support campaigns and their lapdogs (politicians) do what they are commanded by their pay masters. I remember reading about corruption in pissant countries without even a facade of democracy and I have a very hard time figuring out the difference between what is ostensibly illegal in those countries and what the US openly embraces, legally.

 

[bfdd]

Banning lobbyists is stupid, allowing only non-profit is even stupider. Term limits and salary caps are needed for all elected officials. You want to fix the problem, make it limited and make it not pay well.

 

[LunarRay]

That's what the people who "claim" they want to get back to basics should be championing, but money trumps education and logic and "the peoples needs" nowdays.

Something does! I'm an Idealist, I suppose. And what I've been seeing since I've been old enough to apply what horse sense I've got to the topics considered by Congress is that my support for States Rights derives from the notion that the closer to me the decisions are made the louder my voice will be...
I think the various States can provide for its citizens based on their needs far better than a universal mandate. In fact, I'd rather leave to the locale closest to the people that which can reasonably be enacted and to the Central Federal Government what only it can reasonably provide... Like wars and Central Banks and International Affairs.. but with the approval of the States...

EDIT: It is the role of the Senate to approve various Treaties and the like... Federal Judges, etc.... but the Senate used to be 'appointed' by the States... IOW, the States had a voice on the goings on... today the Senate is populated by million dollar power hungry umpa lumpas with some exceptions... I want the States to have some powers returned!

I especially don't want our Constitution Interpreted by some nine dingle berries in robes... I'd much rather an explicit document with thousands of explicit amendments... Let the voice of the people decide... by State, City or Town as is appropriate.

I do think, however, that some Congress people like oh... Gene Taylor of Mississippi are exceptions and do vote the will of the people... Him being a registered democrat in a very heavy republican district may be why that is so... but I choose to think it is cuz he's not about to listen to lobbyists over the voice of his neighbors...