Larry Jaques on Sun, 24 Feb 2013
19:55:42 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
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.

Wake up yourself - the "limits" set in 1974 are piddling amounts.
The Candidates are already having to hit up more contributors than in
1974 - five times as many - just to raise the same amount (in constant
dollars) as they did in 74.
That attempt to get the money out of politics has been a huge
failure. The problems resulting from the Last Government Program to
Fix the Problem are not solved by Yet Another Government Program to
Fix the Problem.


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.

I'm not so sure single term limits would be a good idea. However,
killing the gerrymandered congressional districts which create "safe"
seats would do more to end career politicians. It would also lead to
more "moderate" candidates, as they are not in a single party district
(where the candidates in the primary is chosen by diehard true
believers. AKA the base, or the faithful.)

Combine that with reducing the amount of "help" a Congressman can
provide his Constituents in terms of spending, government contracts,
tax credits, etc, etc, would also end the career politicians.

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.

Bzzzt - you missed the point: The Department of Education dolls
out Grant Money, Pilot Project Money, Educational Program money, all
of which goes to the teachers who pay Union Dues which the Unions uses
to lobby congress for more funding "for educating the children." Which
is BS, as far to much goes to administrators. Or diversity Advisors.
Or Educational Conferences in Hawaii, Florida or the Dominican
Republic..
And putting those union contributions into state only kitties
merely adds Yet Another Government Program to try and solve the
problem caused by the very existence of the Federal Department of
Education in the first place.


No, it isn't the amount of money in the campaigns which is the
problem, it is the amount of moeny to be distributed from the 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?

Might be. But how do you intend to do that? Censorship? One
reason the campaigns are so long is that the max allowable
contributions are, by law, fixed at a ridiculous low level (would you
want to go to work where your pay got dribbled out in 1974 units? With
what used to be a month's pay is now a short week. Every four work
days you have to go down to payroll and collect your check? Absurd
yes, but that is what candidates have to do. Go to five times as many
rubber chicken dinners in 2012 to raise the equivalent of one such
dinner in 1974.)
Leaping Tammany Hall! As for limiting the "campaign season" - Is
not the governor running for reelection when he proposes his budget,
which increase money for X, Y, or Z - all of which have a constituency
which will contribute money or volunteers in the next election cycle?
Is not Bloomberg running for re-election when he panders to his
lefty base by banning sodas, salt, and styrofoam? How do you intend
to "limit the campaign time" for incumbents?

Which is one more reason to reduce the amount of money which is
distributed from the treasury. Do you really think politicians are
going to spend the time to raise the millions of dollars to get
elected to an office from which they can't reward their supporters
with grants, earmarks, tax code revisions, regulatory "reform",
increased safety requirements, etc, etc, ad nauseam?


tschus
pyotr


OTOH, I some what approve of the British system, where the party out
of power has its own "Shadow Cabinet". These are people who know now,
what the Ministry for X does, is doing, is planning - because on the
day after the election, they are Her Majesty's Government, no longer
the "Shadow Cabinet" but the Real Cabinet. No long transition period
either.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."