Senate and Congress are out of control. They are killing this Country and The Constitution.
It is time the American Public demand Term limits. This would be the first step to correcting the political wrong of government.

Call your Senator and Congressmen now and demand that a Public Vote be on the next ballot.
Those that veto for such a National Vote for Term Limits will be vote out of office anyways.

I don't think it matters personally. The problem is people just vote D or R regardless if they are corrupt or not. We've gone to the point of no return where 8% unemployment and exploding deficits are good enough to get re-elected in this country simply because the other side only pays 15% in taxes and doesn't want to give women free birth control.

sleeper;1347129 wrote:The problem is people just vote D or R regardless if they are corrupt or not.

Don't disagree with this, but perhaps if it were a different "D" or "R" every other election, maybe they would spend at least a little time actually governing as opposed to making sure their job for life is secure.

queencitybuckeye;1347165 wrote:Don't disagree with this, but perhaps if it were a different "D" or "R" every other election, maybe they would spend at least a little time actually governing as opposed to making sure their job for life is secure.

Oh yeah, I'd love term limits. I mean Obama is still in campaign mode lol.

Longer terms and limit the number of terms. If we got rid of career politicians we might actually make some progress on the deficit. I have very little faith in Dems or Repubs to seriously cut spending or increase taxes so long as they are seeking re-election.

And, for that matter, after this country re-elected Bush and Obama I'm not sure it's productive to have a POTUS spend his first term worrying about re-election along with 1/4 of his time campaigning directly.

It's especially problematic in the House, IMO, facing re-election every two years. We aren't getting a whole lot of governing with that set-up. Which is why it makes perfect sense having the Senate serve 6-year terms.

The other problem with the career politician is it makes it that much tougher for a junior Rep/Senator to have a real impact because seniority appears to trump ideas.

Also, I think we need a lot more people from science and industry and less lawyers. While one doesn't need to be an expert to make good, informed decisions there doesn't appear to be a lot of that going on. But sometimes you need an objective, non-partisan expert (of which there appear to be few, if any, in Washington) to see thru the manipulative bullshit.

Personally think public financing needs to play a role as well. Surely it'd be better than a lot of the things the government spends on right?

Both democrats and republicans have their special interests...unions, trade groups, etc.

1. Maybe there's a guy out there with good ideas but if he doesn't have the favor of these groups...hasn't pandered to them for years...isn't going to get through a primary.

Even if you have term limits...which I think are a better idea than a lot of ideas...the handpicked successor is just as likely to me to not be materially different.

2. You have to make sure they can't just move to another district, etc.

In Ohio these guys just move from district to district or to the other side of the Assembly and it's ridiculous.

3. It's not very rational for a talented person to decide to quit their job and run for Congress. Suppose you're in upper management of a successful company...is it really that smart to give up your income and campaign while not working/having no income? All for a job that you have a good chance of having only termporarily or not getting it at all?

It's kind of attractive only to a more ideological person it seems to me?

I could be wrong but I don't think you can use campaign contributions for ordinary living expenses can you???

4. If you have public money...you're beholden to the public interest and not some special groups/donors interpretation of what the public interest is.

5. You've got to do something about gerrymandering. Blue states are so gerry mandered in favor of democrats and red states for republicans it's absurd.

It's just not that rational for people who don't already have the favor of a party, special interests or independent wealth to quit their day jobs and try to campaign for Congress.

Barack Obama is actually a pretty good example.

He's this liberal wet dream that liberal power brokers are in love with. He has a job that allows him to take leave and generate support, etc. He basically gets invited into a path into electoral politics and then voila

Say you're a talented engineer who works for a construction firm and you and you think you have some good ideas for better infrastructure in America. You're working 50 hours a week and need your income. How does that guy quit his job and run for Congress?

Those are all good points.

Tough question about leaving a lucrative job. I wouldn't want it to be just the super successful, but I suspect the media scrutiny is a bigger issue. Otherwise I'm not sure a modestly successful person (say someone 45-50 and maybe 5-10 years from retirement) wouldn't be interested with a genuine passion to fix things.

The other problem is we reap what we sow. Everything I've seen says that even the majority of voters spend very little time on politics (which is actually somewhat understandable). Take the campaign money out of the equation and I'm not sure we'd get better results because for the most part voters don't elect ideas.

Although we might debate if campaign financing doesn't actually vet the candidates somewhat. If I'm going to write a large check, presumably I've done some homework (especially with respect to primaries). So the ability to raise funds is a sort of endorsement/screening. Get rid of the lobbies and PAC's and then cap what can be spent on a campaign. Because if you don't have enough influence and charisma/ideas to raise some minimum amount then you probably are not a qualified or capable leader.

gut;1347242 wrote:Although we might debate if campaign financing doesn't actually vet the candidates somewhat. If I'm going to write a large check, presumably I've done some homework (especially with respect to primaries). So the ability to raise funds is a sort of endorsement/screening. Get rid of the lobbies and PAC's and then cap what can be spent on a campaign. Because if you don't have enough influence and charisma/ideas to raise some minimum amount then you probably are not a qualified or capable leader.

That is a good point.

BoatShoes;1347234 wrote:It's just not that rational for people who don't already have the favor of a party, special interests or independent wealth to quit their day jobs and try to campaign for Congress.

Yet that was exactly how it worked for much of the nation's existence. Public service was (and arguably was meant to be) a sacrifice.

queencitybuckeye;1347258 wrote:Yet that was exactly how it worked for much of the nation's existence. Public service was (and arguably was meant to be) a sacrifice.

And I think there are people out there who would be willing to make that sacrifice. But I see two major problems:
1) The amount of money needed to fund a winning campaign is simply out of reach of most people to raise.
2) The media, in multiple ways.

Also, I don't think Boat is necessarily saying people aren't willing to make that sacrifice. He's saying it's hard to justify leaving a good job on a long-shot to be elected. He's pretty much spot-on there.

gut;1347265 wrote:And I think there are people out there who would be willing to make that sacrifice. But I see two major problems:
1) The amount of money needed to fund a winning campaign is simply out of reach of most people to raise.
2) The media, in multiple ways.

Also, I don't think Boat is necessarily saying people aren't willing to make that sacrifice. He's saying it's hard to justify leaving a good job on a long-shot to be elected. He's pretty much spot-on there.

I wonder if term limits making the job less desirable at least in part negates those concerns.

I agree that leaving one's career would be tough, although you may get a decent number of people who have made enough money at a relatively early age that might want to "pay back" by serving a term or two.

queencitybuckeye;1347268 wrote:I wonder if term limits making the job less desirable at least in part negates those concerns.

I agree that leaving one's career would be tough, although you may get a decent number of people who have made enough money at a relatively early age that might want to "pay back" by serving a term or two.

Assuming they were doing relatively well and had a good track record before leaving the private sector, I doubt they'd have trouble getting work after a term or two. Especially if they have some good accomplishments in Congress, that sort of leadership and ability to hammer out deals is valued by plenty of companies in the private sector.

I'm not sure if you were hinting at it or not, but limiting terms would also knee-cap the lobbyists and big money donors a fair amount. First someone not up for re-election doesn't need to pander to them any more, and then there's also no long-game for someone to accumulate power and influence like some of the career politicians have.

Personally think public financing needs to play a role as well. Surely it'd be better than a lot of the things the government spends on right?

Yes please.

Terms limits aren't the problem.

Eliminating gerrymandering is what would completely transform the Congress overnight.

If you took the political process out of it and made the drawing of Congressional lines something that is done by a non-partisan 3rd party we would be amazed at how much more common sense type stuff would get done in Washington.

The problem now is that the political parties draw up a shit ton of safe districts for their members which allows them to goto Congress and be a rubber stamp for the party at large. No accountability to constituents, as they are all singing from the same hymnal.

If a Congress critter had to actually be worried about losing his seat every 2 years, I am positive we would see more get done (in a good way) than we do now.

This is the chief reason the Congress is so polarized, and that there are no moderates anymore to make deals. They have all been redistricted out of Congress.

It is the kind of stuff that sounds great in a political science classroom, but makes it next to impossible to govern ourselves.

IggyPride00;1347301 wrote:Terms limits aren't the problem.

Eliminating gerrymandering is what would completely transform the Congress overnight.

If you took the political process out of it and made the drawing of Congressional lines something that is done by a non-partisan 3rd party we would be amazed at how much more common sense type stuff would get done in Washington.

The problem now is that the political parties draw up a **** ton of safe districts for their members which allows them to goto Congress and be a rubber stamp for the party at large. No accountability to constituents, as they are all singing from the same hymnal.

If a Congress critter had to actually be worried about losing his seat every 2 years, I am positive we would see more get done (in a good way) than we do now.

This is the chief reason the Congress is so polarized, and that there are no moderates anymore to make deals. They have all been redistricted out of Congress.

It is the kind of stuff that sounds great in a political science classroom, but makes it next to impossible to govern ourselves.

I agree gerrymandering is ridiculous, but I don't see any supposed 3rd party group being non-partisan. Someone will always have something to complain about.

As for the hyper-partisanship and lack of deal-making, I would argue that a large part of our problem has been too much deal-making and back-slapping on the road to bankruptcy and erosion of our rights.