1) I would like to see Congress make the average amount as the average member of your constituency. I also would like to limit outside income (such as book deals and speaking engagement) while in office. This would force a corrupt system to work to decrease unemployment and raise the min wage. Let them try to pay their bills the way that we do. I think that it would take out the $ motives of this type of job.
2) I think term limits to Congress are important. Gets them in while they are still ideal, however, does not provide for long term relationships to corrupt as deeply.
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:30 am
- Location: Chicago,IL
I'm not saying this in an accusatory tone. I realize I was a bit star struck when Jesse Jackson showed up the other day and am bothered by how in awe of this guy I felt at the time.
As for the money aspect I actually like the idea of public officials getting paid lots of money. I mean if you want to make your representatives accountable to you then under the current system in my opinion that way is to have them getting paid well by the people that they are supposed to represent. Running for office is a difficult and expensive process one that has a chance of succeeding that is 1 divided by the number of candidates for that office. In order to make that office worthwhile it has to pay well.
I don't know about you all but I scratch my head when ever I see someone who was or could be making well into six figures in the private sector spending millions of dollars to be elected to a position that pays a small fraction of what they were making in their law firm or what ever. Dick Cheney for example was a wealthy multimillionaire businessman that took a job as VP that I think paid something like 385K how does that make sense unless he planned on giving contracts to a company that he was on the board of like he did with Haliburton and KBR.
Some of our elected offices carry with them a lifetime pay check. I like that idea. I think it makes the office worth running for and favors average people running for office more than a huge paycheck up front which I think would favor wealthy people more.
I'm not sure exactly how that lifetime salary works but I would like to see it work like this: You get paid every year for the rest of your life the salary of the highest paying office that you ever held. What that does is prevent people from collecting multiple salaries. It also inherently deincentivizes multiple terms in the same office.
I am going to give an example here, I will use numbers to convey the idea but those numbers are not to be considered as actual dollar amounts but only for use in conveying the concept. So if you run for state senator you could make say $100k every year for the rest of your life. If you run for a second term you would still make the same $100k for the rest of your life so basically the second term pays you nothing or at least nothing you would not have already gotten. So then you run for US senator or representative and it pays $200K per year. You don't get the $300k from combining the previous office with this one you only get the $200K.
The actual numbers in that last example seem to me to be off by a bit but you get the point from it I think.
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:31 am
I notice that there is great dissatisfaction with govenment in general, from election to election, from one administration to the next, for decades on end... A lot of the sentiment is that, "once it's time to have an election, we vote them out/somebody else in." Well, my response is, "why is it that we have to wait 'till then??"
There is a process and it takes doing some homework to find that out. But it also takes motivation to get it going and it always makes me wonder if people are really as mad as those Wisconsin-ites or if they just want to gripe. But for sure it would create a change (not an Obama plug) and it would force candidates to seriously consider on a new level that they are beheld to the people 'cause an easier recall could mean that they might not serve a full term.
There is one idea that I also wanted to propose (perhaps it belongs in a different forum topic), it is A METHOD FOR THE GENERAL PUBIC TO PASS/REPEAL LAWS WITHOUT THE CONGRESSIONAL (or even presidential) CONSENT. This derives from the concept of legislatures refusing to pass/repeal laws that the public wants. Take the example of decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana. Apart from this being a politically sensitive issue, why is it that legislatures will not take a softer stance with marijuana?? (that is a rhetorical question, please don't patronize with answers, and I know many of you are probably itching to post a response)
So while there needs to be more thought of HOW to effectively bring that idea into fruition (how to publicize the bill to be passed/repealed, how to make it possible for people to discuss/exchange ideas, how to "vote" yea or nea, how to ensure people don't vote twice or otherwise defraud the system, how to silence the whiners who didn't vote or whose vote didn't prevail, etc), this concept of the public passing/repealing laws on their own draws a new concept of a shifting balance of power between the elected and the electors.
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:33 am
- Location: Chicago (suburb) native
Wisconsin did recall some people but half of them got to keep their jobs if I remember correctly. And does anyone know if it made any difference? I think things stayed pretty much the same as far as the law was concerned.
Further I think it seems pretty clear that there really is no difference between Republocrats and Democans. I question how much good it would actually do to recall one and insert the other. Bush bailed out the banks 750 Billion Obama's bailouts came to about 16 Trillion. Bush started 2 wars. Obama expanded those wars and started about 5 more. Bush gave the wealthy tax cuts and Obama extended them. Bush passed the patriot act and Obama extended and expanded it. Do I need to go on?
One more point worth mentioning in 2004 through the use of exit polls Bush was caught stealing 3 states electronically. In 2006 they started early voting and heavily encouraged people to use it. It is nearly impossible to camp every city hall in the nation for 30 days to do exit polls so now there is no accountability. If you need me to spell that out the only way we now have to know who got elected is what they tell us. Our system of checks and balances has been removed. They can put in whoever they want but they own both candidates anyway so what is the difference?
I really question how much those kinds of efforts will really matter considering the extreme amount of effort involved. Our current system was designed to keep the ones with all the wealth and power in more power and more wealth. If we work with in it we play by their rules.
I think we are much better off making our own game with our own rules and inviting them to play. We are the 99%. We have all the power and this is what democracy looks like. It's not just slogans we chant. It is tomorrow in action today.
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:31 am
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:32 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests