On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:55:27 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Sat, 23 Feb 2013
13:34:30 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I still feel that choosing 525 random people from the population,
including street people, for single-term congressional service would
give us a more sane and viable congress. And mandatory drug and
alcohol tests should be performed regularly on -every- government
employee, from federal down to city council. That could work for
welfare recipients, too.

In any case, removing the money from politics is one of the few ways
to ensure that these (duly elected) criminals are off looking for it
instead of collecting it during their terms in office.

"Removing the money from politics" is what got us the current
mess. The limits on individual campaign contributions haven't keep
pace with inflation. That 1974 generous $2500 dollar limit is "worth"
$535 in 2013. Meaning you have to have five times as many contributors
to just break even. Five times as many rubber chicken dinners.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about getting the money out
of politics. You're talking about more contributors. Wake up, Pete.


The only effective means to remove the money from politics is to
remove the money the politicians control. I.E., the Federal (state or
local) spending, or the tax loophole, or credits or whatever, by which
the politician can "help his constituents."

Correct. That would limit them further. As would -real- term limits.
How about ONE term, period, and no lifetime collection of exorbitant
retirement and Cadillac medical on top? Immediate disbarment and/or
impeachment for failing random drug or alcohol tests. We need the
junkies out of there, too, y'know.


The Teacher's Unions
would be spending a great deal less on Federal Campaign contributions
if the Feds didn't have a Department of Education to channel money to
the Teacher's Union. Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

Right, if we did away with contributions. Or put it in kitties for
each individual race, with each valid candidate getting a percentage
of that money. People couldn't cheat that way and buy a politician.
No more -war chests-, since all the money disbursed would be either
accounted for and returned, or spent before the election was held.


No, it isn't the amount of money in the campaigns which is the
problem, it is the amount of moeny to be distributed fromt he treasury
which is the problem.

I disagree, as both are true problems. We need to limit campaign
time, too. What do you think, 4 or 6 weeks should be enough, right?

--
Progress is the product of human agency. Things get better because
we make them better. Things go wrong when we get too comfortable,
when we fail to take risks or seize opportunities.
-- Susan Rice