How to Fix Congress

[Aurielius]

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

 

This is one idea that really should be passed around. *Congressional Reform Act of 2011*1. No Tenure / No Pension.A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. 2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. 3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. 4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. 5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people. 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

 

The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

[Marxist ßastard]

Q: What about the "Congressional Reform Act of 2011"?

 

A: A viral e-mail calls for fixing some abuses and excesses that don’t exist, repeating misinformed claims that we’ve addressed before.

Source

 

Please stop spreading chain e-mails.

[Aurielius]

Q: What about the "Congressional Reform Act of 2011"?

 

A: A viral e-mail calls for fixing some abuses and excesses that don’t exist, repeating misinformed claims that we’ve addressed before.

Source

 

Please stop spreading chain e-mails.

It's a good idea, if you don't like the concept behind it then don't discuss it.

[DeadMansFist849]

What about "fire them all and start over again"? :P

[Aurielius]

What about "fire them all and start over again"? :P

Lol, I thought that was sort of what it was. But if we fire the current lot what stops the newbies from doing the same old stuff? This way we can deal with their tomfoolry permenently

[buddah]

Best answer, exercise your right to vote !

[Marxist ßastard]

Okay, fine. Like you say, Congress needs deep reforms. But the proposals in the chain e-mail you've insisted on posting here only punish the current congresspeople, mostly by taking away things they didn't have in the first place.

 

So here's the problem: The current Congress seems the most hostile since Kansas went to war with Missouri. When the Senate and the House belong to different parties, even essential bills don't get passed. Most Americans think the two-party system is failing, but the current electoral system highly disfavors third-party candidates.

and the electoral college have turned the nation into a series of battlegrounds and strongholds – and those in the strongholds are stuck with such political inertia that dissent gets drowned out, and they are forced to vote for the same party, decade after decade. And current debates highlight the undemocratic nature of the Senate, which gives senators from the 20 least populated states (representing 10% of the nation's citizens) power to reject any law.

 

The solution? Cripple the undemocratic Senate and put in place voting systems which encourage third parties.

 

Imagine a constitutional amendment was passed, providing the following:

1. The President, all senators, and House representatives from states appointed only one representative are elected by instant-runoff voting. Votes may indicate any number of alternatives. The electoral college is abolished.
   
2. House representatives from states appointed more than one representative are elected in a manner chosen by the state legislature. The state may or may not assign congressional districts; if it does, district boundaries must be drawn fairly, according to the shortest split-line method. Current representatives may run in any of the new districts in the 2012 elections. The Supreme Court has the power to revert a state's representative voting system to the previous system, if the current system does not democratically represent the state's population; in this case, all the state's representatives are subject to a recall election under the previous system.
   
3. In the 2012 elections, all states must put to popular vote a measure which would remove the state's congressional districts and elect the state's House representatives by party-list proportional voting. If passed, the measure would take effect in 2014 or when the state gains a second representative.
   
4. Bills are proposed in the House, then move to the Senate. Senators may introduce bills to the House and serve in House committees, under rules to be specified by the House.
   
5. Senators voting in the Senate must represent the interests of their state's legislature, and local legislatures within that state. If a bill is defeated in the Senate, the Senate must submit to the President a list of state and local laws, current or proposed, with which the bill interferes. If these laws are all repealed or defeated within 60 days, the bill automatically passes the Senate.
   
6. Senators may amend bills, but only in the interest of their state, or local legislatures within that state. The amended bill is then sent to the House for approval. If the amended bill does not pass the House, this forces a vote in the Senate on the original bill, with none of the Senate's amendments.
   
7. If the Senate does not pass, defeat, or amend a bill from the House within three sessions or 30 days, the bill automatically passes the Senate.
   
8. If the President may veto a bill, that veto power extends to all the bill's amendments individually.
   
9. The Senate is not required in overriding a presidential veto.

It's unlikely that Congress would pass this amendment. But wouldn't it change things for the better?

Edited November 1, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[grannywils]

@Aurielius, I am certainly all for Warren Buffett's proposal. Where is the petition for me to sign???? I read the link provided by Marxist Bastard to factcheck.org regarding the rest of your post, and find it hard to believe but no doubt true. However, I still believe in the essence of what is said in your post. In my opinion Congress somehow believes itself to be above the fray and has forgotten for whom it is working. This is equally true on both sides of the aisle, and I am now busily imagining Marxist Bastard's Post #7 and trying to consider all the ramifications.

 

There is no question that we need a viable 3rd party in this country, and I am convinced that both of the top two will do almost anything to prevent it.

 

@Buddah, you are correct that not nearly enough of us vote in this country, and this has always been one of my pet peeves. However, I'm not sure that this would be enough of a solution at this point. I do believe that if every American of voting age got up off of his/her respective butt and began to take part in the political process by actually listening and learning something about what is taking place, and then making an educated vote there might begin to be some hope.

 

NOTE: For those of you who seem to take such an interest in the type font that I use, please take note of the fact that this was not typed in Comic Sans!!!! :wallbash: I would much rather you read what I have to say, and not worry about how it was printed.

[Lisnpuppy]

Solution: term-limits

[HeyYou]

Congress knows exactly whom they are working for. The people that provide the campaign funds that get them elected. (hint: That ISN'T 'joe average', or any other working class hombre)

 

Sure, the things suggested in A's post are legitimate gripes, but, they don't address the base problem. How they are elected in the first place, and who has the most control in congress. We need to get the big money players OUT of the game. Political campaigns need to be limited in timing, scope, and funding. The presidential campaigning began almost two years before the election. Some organizations are projecting that BILLIONS of dollars will be spent this election cycle. Who makes the most money off that? Media corporations. A significant percentage of those billions will go for TV, and print advertising. I can see why the media moguls would be upset about campaign finance reform......

 

PAID lobbyists should be banned.

 

Campaign funds should come from direct, INDIVIDUAL donations, limited to 1000.00 dollars from a Registered Voter. Corporations are NOT people too. That's it. No other financing allowed. Get caught cooking the books? You are in-eligible to run again. Ever.

 

Political campaigns should start no earlier than three months prior to the election. In todays world of mass media, you can learn all about any contender you care to, without even leaving the comfort of your office chair.