The Cordial American Political Discussion Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

For a big change, I'd like to change everything to a four or six year term. I think 2 years is two short. With two years, they start the reelection campaign almost before they find the shoe closet. 

 

There's something attractive to me about them all be tied together. Presidents, Senators, Reps, Governors, all waiting for judgment at the same time. After all, the election is a verdict on how well government functions and that really means the whole.

 

Add in term limits and I think my ideal would be either two 6-year terms or 3 four year terms with all elected officials terms being synced.

 

I know this would never happen, but I think it would improve things.

I like the basis of your idea but I don't know if I want them all synced up.  I think DC having a huge change of personnel all at the same time would be bad.  I say stager them out a little.

[Jumbo]

I'd prefer a retirement age over term limits.

 

Seriously, there's a point where the damage of age overcomes the wisdom of age.

 

I look at some of those Cryptkeeper stand-ins over the years and get that feeling, too. But one problem with your given reason is the variance of cognitive operation in the individual when using the single qualifier of age. Given any reasonable figure, age alone will not allow you to accurately predict cognitive capabilities. You could alway "test"  'em. But i'd like to do it (and with more than one type of assessment) before they even get the job. 

 

I say we go by wrinkles. I hate looking at wrinkly old ****s.

[Predicto]

I'm opposed to term limits.   They are a simple solution that sounds good but actually are counterproductive to good lawmaking and compromise.  We have them in the California Legislature, and what it means is that no one in the Legislature has a clue about how to legislate.   Writing good laws and navigating the system and building working relationships with the other side of the aisle are difficult things that take years to master, and as soon as you get good at them, you are gone.   It means that lobbyists and staffers control the show.  

 

The Senate is a better place with people like Joe Biden, John McCain, Sherrod Brown, Tom Coburn in it, people who have made a career out of politics and take it seriously.  

 

Age limits, yes.   End gerrymandering, god yes.   Term limits, nope.    

[btfoom]

One change I'd like to see is the Office of the President actually broken down into 2 different offices.  One would be the President in charge of all domestic policies and the other would handle all the policies outside of the United States.  Yes, they would have to work together to get it to work, but I think that too often one political side had good ideas for handling issues within our country, and not so good outside our country (or vice versa).

 

 

I'm opposed to term limits.   They are a simple solution that sounds good but actually are counterproductive to good lawmaking and compromise.  

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree that term limits are a simple solution.  There are very good reasons for them (and reasons they are bad).  No issue with those opposed.

[Busch1724]

btfoom,

 

Good idea and have often wondered as the world has changed around us, we should do that. Heck even the vice president could handle the other portion of the office that the president does not want to handle. 

 

Term limits is one thing that on paper, seems like it would work. However, in practice I think it would not for reasons mentioned by Predicto. 

 

I think one thing that must change, especially at state and local levels, is that compensation should not be something that members can vote on for themselves. Lifetime benefits and healthcare are something that should go away too. Many of the representatives came from fields of work that have great benefits and they are also financially better off than 99% of their constituency. As a public service, the perks far outweigh the work that benefits the citizens. In Pennsylvania, the cost of lifetime healthcare and pensions is expensive for representatives that may only hold two terms. In Pennsylvania, there was also a controversial pay raise done in the middle of the night around 2005. Each year there is a cost of living adjustment that raises their compensation every year. The voters had no say in the matter with no public debate. Many of those elected officials were voted out the following two election cycles, but the damage was done.

[skinsmarydu]

I say we go by wrinkles. I hate looking at wrinkly old ****s.

And we've only just begun...~The Carpenters

[balki1867]

I never understood the fascination with the compensation of politicians.  Most of these guys are independently wealthy, so the salary they make is a drop in the bucket.  Do you seriously think paying a guy $175k versus $400k is going to make a difference if he's worth $10M?

 

Outside that, the power they get while in office is far more valuable than the paycheck they get.  These guys can bank on multi-million dollar "consulting" gigs with their biggest donors once they leave office, so limiting their pay does almost nothing.

 

If anything, I'd give anyone who serves 10 combined years in the house/senate/presidency a sweet pension with the stipulation that they never get paid again in their lives (completely impossible to do, but we're dreaming, right?)

[btfoom]

I never understood the fascination with the compensation of politicians.  Most of these guys are independently wealthy, so the salary they make is a drop in the bucket.  Do you seriously think paying a guy $175k versus $400k is going to make a difference if he's worth $10M?

 

Outside that, the power they get while in office is far more valuable than the paycheck they get.  These guys can bank on multi-million dollar "consulting" gigs with their biggest donors once they leave office, so limiting their pay does almost nothing.

 

If anything, I'd give anyone who serves 10 combined years in the house/senate/presidency a sweet pension with the stipulation that they never get paid again in their lives (completely impossible to do, but we're dreaming, right?)

 

First, I think you are very spot on with this post.  It goes to the idea they the 'leaders' are supposed to work for us, not take money from us.

 

I know it was just a movie, but I think the idea espoused in Brewster's Millions says it all, Why would anyone spend millions of dollars to win a job that pays them thousands of dollars?

[Bang]

Term limits sounds nice, except i think it would end up causing people to run for their replacement rather than their own re-election.

I don't think it would change anything in regards to the 'career politician', they would just work to extend the career of their party holding the seat they temporarily occupy.

And I agree with Predicto that we'd end up with dysfunction because we'd constantly be dealing with inexperienced, underqualified people trying to learn on the job a task that is likely too big for them to accomplish in the allotted time limit.

Any job takes time to learn, and learn beyond the apprentice stage. On every job you've ever been there have been seniority ranks and they do matter, because with seniority comes experience and wisdom of the job.

And I also think that there is a lot still to the notion of this is the person the people in that district have chosen to represent them,, and if they choose him 10 times in a row, then o be it..  the people have spoken.

I live in Steny Hoyer's district. You'd be hard pressed to find a better definition of a 'career politician'..  but at the same time, i cannot look past the good Steny has done for this district, and frankly, i don't think the people who have opposed him could be as effective as he is .. and much of that reason is he has been doing it so long.

every time he comes up,  i do what i always do and lok into the candidates and see who is making sense..  and for us, it keeps coming up him.

 

Which brings up an impulsive question. When you vote for your representative.. do you vote based on your local ideas, or on what they could do on the national stage to push an ideology?
I vote for Steny because he's done well for us (and his opponents don't seem to show me they could do it better.).. but there's also that part that says he's been a pretty high ranking player, and the relationships and clout he's formed.. these can also help us here locally.

How many of you live in a 'career poltician's district?
Do you like them and the job they've done?

 

if the people want them to serve, why not?

 

~Bang

[twa]

 

How many of you live in a 'career poltician's district?

Do you like them and the job they've done?

 

if the people want them to serve, why not?

 

~Bang

 

I think my congress critter has been there 30+ yrs

 

nice guy and competent....especially for a Dem 

 

term limits would cut down on politician as a profession, which is a good thing imo

 

add 

went back and checked since 92 after district redrawn

 

started in 72 as a state rep,then tx senate

 

the power and influence they accumulate over time can be both good and bad....I prefer it not be in individual politicians hands (even good peoples hands)

[DogofWar1]

I am also against term limits, primarily for the reasons Predicto mentioned.  Governing is hard, governing well even harder.  A good politician is worth their weight in platinum many times over.

 

I don't think it would really help much with special interests either.  Frankly, I'd be concerned that it would make things worse.  While many ex-politicians don't go into lobbying, some do.

 

Imagine you've just left the House, and are looking for a new job.  A lobbying organization offers you a nice job pushing legislation.  It's tempting.

 

Further, imagine you're a brand new legislator.  You have no real understanding of the complicated mechanisms of government, you are eternally the greenest person in the room.

 

Then a nice man who did your job for a while and actually learned how things work shows up, offers to help you out a little, and on top of it all, he's got a cool 50 grand for your re-election PAC, so long as you vote X way.

 

A person who knows what they're doing and acts maliciously is bad, but also when a person who has no idea what they are doing and is led astray for another's malicious ends it is also bad.

 

 

I'm also not convinced that, even if we ignored the "green legislators problem" that it would help.

 

We have bad government because we elect bad legislators.  How would term limits save us from ourselves?  We have a chance to kick the bums out every two years, but we don't.  If they got kicked out by term limits, why would we think we'd pick anyone better?

 

My guess is, outside of wave years where the incumbent would probably lose anyway, we'd just have a guy leave because of term limits, endorse the person he wants to replace him the most, and that person would likely win.

 

I mean, I suppose there could be a lessening of the incumbent's advantage, because you'll have fewer incumbents or shorter tenured ones, but I don't think it's sufficient to offset the loss of experienced legislators, and we don't really know if the incumbent's advantage would disappear because party politics is so powerful.

 

 

Basically, I don't think term limits would help, and they might hurt.  We'd lose good legislators and in their place we'd get green ones, and we'd likely replace bad legislators with bad legislators.

 

We the people have to be the check on term limits.

 

 

 

As for age limits, I don't know if there's a good way to handle that.  Some people's cognitive functions decline relatively early, while others stay sharp basically eternally.  Should a mentally fit 80 year old be forced out?  What is there's a 60 year old with early onset mental disorders that aren't readily apparent but exist under the surface and impact their ability to govern?

 

Tests could be performed and standards set, I suppose, but those would be extremely invasive.  So some sort of mental capability limit makes some sense, but I just don't know how you'd implement it.

 

 

In terms of gerrymandering, I'm interested to see how the non-partisan/bi-partisan panels do in some states.  I think the ideal goal should be to have representation in the House come as close to the state wide vote as possible.  It doesn't have to be perfect, but things like what happened in PA, where over 50% of the vote went to democratic house candidates, but they only won 25% of the house seats, shouldn't happen.

 

I wonder if, non-partisan/bi-partisan panels work out, the next step would be to consider redrawing districts more often, like every 4 years, versus 10 years.

 

This might require a census every 4 years as well, which really complicates the proposal, but to ensure accurate representation while constant changes are occurring, 10 years might be too long.

 

It might be enough to simply take it out of the hands of state legislators.

[Larry]

Yeah, I'd be wary of increasing the size of the House too. What I'd like to see is an end to gerrymandering. There ought to be a way to get natural districts and a fairer representation of the state.

I do remember someone (Predicto?) explaining how California does their districting, now. (Thanks to a citizen's initiative).

Their districting is done by a non partisan commission.

And it really sounded, to me, like they worked really hard to make sure that it actually IS non-partisan. I seem to rumbler things like commission members can not have ever heard elected office, worked for an elected official, heald a position with a political party. They can not have ever donated more than some amount to any political organization.

Certainly SOUNDED like a good, non-partisan, way of doing things, to me.

[twa]

I am also against term limits, primarily for the reasons Predicto mentioned.  Governing is hard, governing well even harder.  A good politician is worth their weight in platinum many times over.

 

I don't think it would really help much with special interests either.  Frankly, I'd be concerned that it would make things worse.  While many ex-politicians don't go into lobbying, some do.

 

Imagine you've just left the House, and are looking for a new job.  A lobbying organization offers you a nice job pushing legislation.  It's tempting.

 

Further, imagine you're a brand new legislator.  You have no real understanding of the complicated mechanisms of government, you are eternally the greenest person in the room.

 

Then a nice man who did your job for a while and actually learned how things work shows up, offers to help you out a little, and on top of it all, he's got a cool 50 grand for your re-election PAC, so long as you vote X way.

 

A person who knows what they're doing and acts maliciously is bad, but also when a person who has no idea what they are doing and is led astray for another's malicious ends it is also bad.

 

 

 

that example you used is rather similar to the farm club system that caters to lobbyists that exists now

 

a result of professional politicians imo

[DogofWar1]

that example you used is rather similar to the farm club system that caters to lobbyists that exists now

 

a result of professional politicians imo

Certainly it exists now somewhat, but I think by increasing the number of new politicians we'd see the problem worsen considerably.

[twa]

Certainly it exists now somewhat, but I think by increasing the number of new politicians we'd see the problem worsen considerably.

 

I think corruption increases as political power is accumulated...enabling it as a profession increases corruption imo.

 

there are of course good,honest politicians though, wouldn't want to bet on the % of career ones being over 50% though.(certainly not after decades)

[DogofWar1]

I think corruption increases as political power is accumulated...enabling it as a profession increases corruption imo.

 

there are of course good,honest politicians though, wouldn't want to bet on the % of career ones being over 50% though.(certainly not after decades)

Which is why the best way to rein in politicians is to vote them out if/when they reach the point of corruption.

 

A blanket policy of kicking them out will likely have as many problems, if not more, than the current system.  Term limits are too much of a hammer to an issue that demands a scalpel.

[skinsmarydu]

I agree with twa's assessment of the situation, and with DoW1's solution.

[88Comrade2000]

How about this.   

 

You are allowed to serve up to 4 consecutive, 2 year House terms.   That would be a total of 8 years.  You would then have to wait 4 more years before you can run for another 4 consecutive terms.   Also, during the 4 years you are back earning a living; you can't lobby congress.   That way there is a limited term limit but that person can come back after 4 years.  The politician will have to live in the real world from time to time.  

 

 

For Senate, you can make it 2 Consecutive, 6 year Senate terms. That would be a total 12 years. The Senator would have wait 4 years. 

[Springfield]

I too, am against term limits. I am also for a two party system, seeing as how multiple party systems tend to work in other countries.

[Fergasun]

People talk about this, "get money out of politics" -- I don't know how it is possible. Unless you move to a third party - seems to me like the two parties resist any refrom.

I would not object to a pure lottery system for Congress, although it must. be opt in. At the same time, I think Comgressional reporting, news is way under-reported on.

There are so many layers... in my mind it would take a staff of 10 to cover all of what Congress does. People barely have time for the tip of the iceberg which is the biased political reporting. The nitty gritty (hearings, markup sessions, even late night caucus floor discussions) is rarely reported on.

I find it all faacinating but tiring. How could the average citizen handle it?

[Springfield]

I wish that you didn't have to be a lawyer in order to be a politician.

[twa]

Which is why the best way to rein in politicians is to vote them out if/when they reach the point of corruption.

 

A blanket policy of kicking them out will likely have as many problems, if not more, than the current system.  Term limits are too much of a hammer to an issue that demands a scalpel.

 

rather hard to get out a connected incumbent and to prove most corruption

 

a scalpel in the dark ain't effective unless in very expert hands.

 

which is why open and limited govt helps

[DogofWar1]

which is why open and limited govt helps

 

Open, sure.  Greater transparency would help, but generally, you can tell a lot about your rep based on their voting record and opensecrets file.  Airing everything won't help much if people just ignore it.

 

Limited government, *shrug* that's a separate debate.  The appropriate size of government is that which the people want, which should naturally come about as we improve the quality of our elected representatives such that they actually represent us.

[twa]

Open, sure.  Greater transparency would help, but generally, you can tell a lot about your rep based on their voting record and opensecrets file.  Airing everything won't help much if people just ignore it.

 

 

 

if people were not lazy and uninvolved it would certainly help....in many areas.

 

besides the congresscritters play games with voting records and some secrets are well kept.

[JSSkinz]

1. I would like to see us do something about China.  As someone who has been in finance for 20 years and deals with small to medium sized businesses on a daily basis there are too many businesses that struggle to compete when they are in growth mode. You can get burned very easily with poor product, long turn times, and the fact China doesn't accept credit.  Then there is the working conditions China workers are subject to which gets into basic human rights.  China is a huge problem and they need to be dealt with. I could write pages of thoughts on this topic and give enough examples to sink the servers at ES.

 

2. Immigration - This doesn't mean we export illegals or any other ignorant, unrealistic ideas that have been floating around but illegal is illegal, we have laws for a reason and the Mexican drug cartels are becoming extremely powerful and they are very dangerous.  We can't just let anyone come into the country without proper due diligence.  The cartels have been very smart by using the franchise concept and because of that they have not started turf wars but instead they have the  Black, Latino, Asian, and Whites selling their product and creating more wealth for one of the most destructive and dangerous organizations in the world.

 

Immigration doesn't need to be offensive to immigrants, its protects everyone not just white people.

 

3. Legalize drugs and forget about banning guns, we are wasting too much time and money worrying about these 2 issues.  People will get their guns and drugs no matter what you do (See prohibition), stop worrying about the users and crush the suppliers by legalizing.

 

I didn't mention the economy because I believe a good portion of our issues are related to China.