Congressional Reform Act of 2011

[Timster]

From an email:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could this be an idea whose time has come?






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 one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're 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/women are void
effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.


Congress 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.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see anything to disagree with here other than it should have been implemented long ago...

Thoughts? Objections Jim?

[dgs49]

Of course, it's nothing but a pipe dream. The proposal would remove the reasons why the lifers are there; they are not going to voluntarily give all of that up.

While I'm not great fan of term limits, it is positively perverse to have Congresspersons making a career of it. Clearly, the founding fathers intended that the HR at least, be a temporary, part-time gig, with constant turnover. Otherwise, the 2-year term makes no sense.

The downside of this is that it would tend to limit Congress to people who are independently wealthy, and to successful lawyers, who have a lot of flexibility in their work schedules.

I like the Texas approach: make the legislature part time, and only meet once every other year. Maybe once a year for a couple weeks.

[Scooter]

All that does is put even more power in the hands of Congressional staff, and make the process even less transparent. The work still has to get done somehow.

[Long Run]

For what it is worth, Buffett only actually said the first part of the quote about solving the deficit by firing all of Congress if they fail to approve a budget with less than a 3% deficit. The rest of the email is internet flotsam: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/buffett.asp

I have seen the first part (and full email) quoted approvingly many times since Buffett said it in July. But I wonder how many of those people realize that Buffett is endorsing a form of term limits, which many of the these same people do not approve.

[Lord Jim]

That makes sense Long Run...

As for most of the ideas in that:

I wonder what sort of people we're going to attract to serve in Congress if we make the job less attractive than working as a bus driver....

[Gob]

People at least as intelligent as bus drivers have to be? Unlike some recent examples.

[Scooter]

To paraphrase one of my own comments on the 2010 elections, I'm thinking there are a LOT of people who are hoping they will be able to vote for someone as qualified as a bus driver.

[Timster]

For what it is worth, Buffett only actually said the first part of the quote about solving the deficit by firing all of Congress if they fail to approve a budget with less than a 3% deficit. The rest of the email is internet flotsam: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/buffett.asp

I have seen the first part (and full email) quoted approvingly many times since Buffett said it in July. But I wonder how many of those people realize that Buffett is endorsing a form of term limits, which many of the these same people do not approve.

Yes. I got that and made no attempt to hide the fact. That is why only that portion is in quotes. And clearly stated that it was a fucking email.

And I would really like to see the playing field leveled. Congress is supposed to be our voice in Washington. Tell me why these rat bastards have ANY reason to look out for OUR best interest, example A; Health Care. Why the fuck should they care when they have special consideration (a free ride for life) and a pension to boot!!? Fuck that! That is BULL SHIT! *SPIT!*

[rubato]

From an email:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could this be an idea whose time has come?






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.

... "

Unthinking stupid knee-jerk idea.

You are saying that in a moment of national crisis you will fire and all of the intelligent and thoughtful people who respond appropriately to things like: the great depression and WWII and the great recession (thanks Republicans!).

Not a serious proposal. Throw this one on the large pile of "I'm really mad and want to punish someone even if it fucks me into the next century" stupidities.

yrs,
rubato

[Timster]

"Unthinking stupid knee-jerk idea.

Not a serious proposal. Throw this one on top of the large pile of "I'm really mad and want to punish someone even if it fucks me into the next century" stupidities.

yrs,
Rubato"


Oh, I see. Much like your personality and posting style. There is nothing anyone can do to fix it; so shut up, bend over and take it.

Got it.

[Scooter]

Well, have you givean any thought to the implications? If such an amendment had been put into place before 1932, it would have meant a 100% turnover of Congress throughout most of the Great Depression and WWII, regardless of whether any of those members of Congress actually supported the deficit spending or not. Does that make sense to you? Does it occur to you that it might be necessary at some point to increase deficit spending about 3% of GDP for some equally justiifiable national emergency, and that this will make it impossible to govern effectively in those circumstances, because members of Congress will be too concerned about saving their own necks to do the right thing?

[Lord Jim]

Oh, I see. Much like your personality and posting style. There is nothing anyone can do to fix it; so shut up, bend over and take it.

That's not fair Tim....

The odds are far better that the conduct of Congress will improve than that rube's personality ever will....

[rubato]

This idea comes from that vast reservoir of anger and stupidity which has led Californians to pass a series of laws which punished or removed the ability to govern from the legislature every time something upset them.

I notice no one is able to defend it on merit, just attack those critical of the idea.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I see John Huntsman is pushing Congressional term limits. This is a terrible idea.

When term limits were imposed on the California state legislature, I made a number of predictions about all the negative impacts that would ensue, and every single one of them have come to pass:

-Lobbyists and un-elected bureaucrats have become more powerful since they remain as semi-permanent power structures, they know far more than the legislators themselves, and therefore the legislators are more dependent on them.

-Institutional memory has been essentially destroyed, and therefore the same mistakes keep being made over and over. Committee chairmen and party leaders barely have any more knowledge or expertise than incoming freshmen.

-Entrenched lawmakers have not been replaced by the noble "citizen legislators" naively envisioned by the well meaning folks who supported term limits. Instead, they have been replaced by a revolving door of party hacks, who are constantly looking for the next office to jump to.

-The number of legislators willing to act independently of their party leadership has now approached zero because these hacks know they're going need party backing to jump to the next office, rather than relying on their record to stay in their existing office.

-Those legislators not looking to jump to another office are even more likely to serve the interests of the lobbyists since they'll be looking for employment with them even sooner than they would be otherwise.

-Since no one is staying very long, the interest in the long term health of the state has virtually vanished. This is why we keep over-spending in good revenue years and then start looking at draconian cuts in bad.)

There are a number of internal procedural changes that Congress could make that would make it more functional and responsive, but cheap, sweeping Constitutional changes have wide-ranging implications that need to be completely thought out before they are seriously considered.

Shame on politicians who seek to gain short term political benefit by exploiting the completely understandable public anger towards the Congress by proposing popular but damaging solutions.

[Sue U]

Tell me why these rat bastards have ANY reason to look out for OUR best interest, example A; Health Care. Why the fuck should they care when they have special consideration (a free ride for life) and a pension to boot!!? Fuck that! That is BULL SHIT! *SPIT!*

They care because if they don't adequately support their constituents' interests, they get fired at the next election. Beyond that, they care because that's what public service is all about, and for most representatives that's why they went into politics. As a career. Because it is in fact a career. Legislation -- particularly national legislation -- is not something that's best left to amateurs. Do any of you actually know your congressional representatives as anything more than the name on the ballot? Do any of you actually call or write your representatives to express your views or to find out theirs?

Oh, and what Jim just said.

[Econoline]

(Just in case the two of you are still not reading each other's posts....)

This idea comes from that vast reservoir of anger and stupidity which has led Californians to pass a series of laws which punished or removed the ability to govern from the legislature every time something upset them.

I notice no one is able to defend it on merit, just attack those critical of the idea.

yrs,
rubato

I see John Huntsman is pushing Congressional term limits. This is a terrible idea.

When term limits were imposed on the California state legislature, I made a number of predictions about all the negative impacts that would ensue, and every single one of them have come to pass:

-Lobbyists and un-elected bureaucrats have become more powerful since they remain as semi-permanent power structures, they know far more than the legislators themselves, and therefore the legislators are more dependent on them.

-Institutional memory has been essentially destroyed, and therefore the same mistakes keep being made over and over. Committee chairmen and party leaders barely have any more knowledge or expertise than incoming freshmen.

-Entrenched lawmakers have not been replaced by the noble "citizen legislators" naively envisioned by the well meaning folks who supported term limits. Instead, they have been replaced by a revolving door of party hacks, who are constantly looking for the next office to jump to.

-The number of legislators willing to act independently of their party leadership has now approached zero because these hacks know they're going need party backing to jump to the next office, rather than relying on their record to stay in their existing office.

-Those legislators not looking to jump to another office are even more likely to serve the interests of the lobbyists since they'll be looking for employment with them even sooner than they would be otherwise.

-Since no one is staying very long, the interest in the long term health of the state has virtually vanished. This is why we keep over-spending in good revenue years and then start looking at draconian cuts in bad.)

There are a number of internal procedural changes that Congress could make that would make it more functional and responsive, but cheap, sweeping Constitutional changes have wide-ranging implications that need to be completely thought out before they are seriously considered.

Shame on politicians who seek to gain short term political benefit by exploiting the completely understandable public anger towards the Congress by proposing popular but damaging solutions.

[dgs49]

I had a political science professor at Pitt whose idea was that lawyers should be prohibited from being legislators, and terms in the House should be "4-years-and-out!"

He drove the point home with the question, "Why should a lawyer represent the interests of the farmers in Iowa? Why not a farmer?"

He suggested that legislators' primary function was to develop policies, in terms that everyone can understand - figuratively, "on the back of a postcard." Lawyers should have a role in drafting the legislation, but no role in policymaking - leave that to the people who have real experience and real lives.

The secondary role of our legislators - responding to taxpayer complaints - should be basically abolished. If the executive departments aren't doing their jobs properly, then figure out a way to make them. It is not a "solution" to have congresspersons strongarming bureaucrats to force them to bend the rules.

We have convinced ourselves that it is somehow necessary to have a perpetual, standing "rules committee" for the Federal Government, but this is obviously nonsense. At what point do we have "enough" laws? 100 years? 200? Never? New laws are only required when circumstances arise that are completely unprecedented. It happens, but not as often as Congress wants us to think it does.

LJ's comments are all based on the assumption that a perpetual standing legislature is a necessity, and it is not. We have simply been brainwashed into thinking that it makes sense, by people who live off the current system. In Pennsylvania in my lifetime, we have evolved from a legislature that met on a part time basis and was paid accordingly, to a point where we now have one of the most expensive legislatures in the country, and they are paid lavishly and, in effect, for life.

And yet our government is no more efficient, and for all practical purposes, no better, than it was with the part-timers. It is all nonsense.

[Guinevere]

I'm fine with Congress having the same health care options as all other federal employees, and access to that same retirement system (which now is a 401K, but used to be a real pension system). They should probably participate in Social Security, too.

The bit about abolishing contracts is illegal and unconstitutional.

As for the rest, the real way to reform the federal legislature is not through punishment, and not through terms limits, but through real campaign finance reform -- and because of the Citizens United decision we may need a amend the constitution to do so. But it should be everyone's top priority. And in fact, if OCCUPY wanted to do some real good, that's where they would turn their energies.

[Jarlaxle]

There should be an 8-year lifetime limit on all Federal elected offices.

Corruption of any kind or violating the Constitution in any way should be punished with a $1,000,000,000 fine (forfieture of all assets) and a firing squad.

[Scooter]

Your world has absolutely no shades of grey in it at all, does it?

There has been all manner of well-intentioned legislation, much of it bipartisan, that has eventually been deemed to be unconstitutional. Do we execute everyone who voted for and/or implemented any piece of legislation that has ever been ruled unconstitutional?