I dunno, nonlnear has some interesting points. However, I see a lot of calls for earmarks and special deals in Congress as it is. I see the system he advoates producing more of that, not less. A senator more beholden to his state government is going to be out for a money grab for his own state before anything else.
- wolf
My conversion to nonlinear's position for the repeal of the 17th Amendment was initially based on his arguments dealing with states' rights and a check on the growth of the federal government. All worthwhile IMO.
However, you raise a different set of issues - namely "money". But you focus narrowly on earmarks and argue that going to state appointed Senators would produce more of that. While I agree that it would do nothing to cease earmarks, I am not sure it would produce more. While I don't care for earmarks, they are a relatively small part of the budget and so consider this less important than another 'money issue' the repeal of the 17th may address.
How about the broader issue of money in politics? E.g., lobbyists' money and power may be significantly lessened by appointing Senators. With appoinment a Senator has little or need for campaign funds so I believe this may seriously curtail the influence of lobbyists in the Senate. The Senator would be beholden to the state Reps, not campaign donors.
This also means large industries like Big Pharma or defense contractors would have reduced influence in Congress. Why would my states' senator be motivated to help Big Pharma who, IIRC, are primarily based in NJ? Likewsie for big defense contractors based in other states?
I like the idea of less money in politics (at least in one House of Congess), and less influence for lobbyists only out for their own self-interests
Fern
Facebook
Twitter