A Modern Emancipation Proclamation

[FA_Q2]

Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.

But even term limits allows them to do some major harm in a corrupt system. Plenty of time to set in motion forces that will greatly benefit them personally when their relatively short term is completed and they return home.

I want a system in place where the ONLY motive that will drive them is to leave things better for everybody than they were when they arrived. I think if they cannot build multi-million dollar pension funds or pay off their cronies or enact laws and legislation specifically to favor their own businessses, etc., most will naturally term limit themselves. We will get true public servants in Washington again instead of self serving career politicians. And if there are a few who love being public servants and want to run for re-election and stay on, well there's something to say for having a few old guards hanging around with the experience and a solid grasp of history.

I've never been much of a fan of term limits for that reason. It seems like a band-aid solution at best, and could do as much harm as good - especially if we're constantly faced with a large portion of reps in 'lame duck' mode. At that point, if they're not trusted public servants, they're primary incentive is to prep their exit strategy - handing out favors and laying the foundation for a lobbying career.

As far as reversing Citizens United it, again, seems like a bad solution to cover up for bad government to begin with. As long as government has the power to make or break businesses with the stroke of a pen, those businesses will find a way to influence decisions. We can play games attempting to limit access but it won't stem the tide. At best it will just make it so that only businesses with the really good lawyers will be able to influence government.

The problem with corporations being in bed with government is that government is in bed with corporations. If we want to keep economic power from having too much influence on government, we have to keep government out of the "business" of deciding who gets to have economic power. As long as they assume that role, people who want to get rich will find a way to manipulate government to their ends.

Bingo. The sad reality is that as long as congress has the power nothing can be done to stop the influence. I find it inane that many want to rail against citizens united without even bothering to understand that fact. Before this ruling, companies were doing the exact same thing. IMHO, tax law is the key. Get rid of that and 90 percent of the problem is fixed. The other side is regulating competitive products out of the market (see light bulbs vs CFL) Congress has no right to be deciding what I purchase outside of causing harm to others and even less of a right giving tax breaks to specific players. This is one reason I am behind fox here as well, this is EXACTLY the type of thing the OP was targeting (at least as far as I could tell)

In short, regulation will never stop the rich and powerful corporations from invading the system as long as you are giving such grate rewards when they do so. The incentive is to strong.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

I think it is a matter of ideology that has been ingrained for so long. Everywhere we look, the government has become an integral part of how we operate. Regulation is so pervasive in our live in the name of ‘helping’ us that you cannot get away from it no matter what you do. I don’t think people, in general, even understand what freedom is anymore.

My rats are very well cared for in their cages and healthier than any of the wild counterparts could ever be. The only thing they lack is freedom. I do not want to be like them, I prefer freedom over others contrived ‘wellbeing.’

 

[JDzBrain]

...And too often those who enact a policy of great consequence aren't even around when the chickens come home to roost.

I don't think Teddy Roosevelt intended to shift harmful power to the government when he expanded what government would be allowed to do.

I don't think FDR had in mind the downside that government intervention and entitlements would eventually have.

I don't think Carter had any insight that his relatively harmless CRA would be so completely infested with wrong thinking and corruptiion that would lead to the housing bubble crash of 2008.

And now I think we have created opportunistic political leaders who no longer care about consequences. They blithely agree to harmful legislation knowing they won't be around to deal with the consequences years on down the line. Or, when it all hits the fan, they know they can blame it on the current administration and not themselves.

The only way to correct that problem is to fix a bad system. We need to close the public spigot that allows them to use our money to keep themselves in power and on a very lucrative gravy train.

EXACTLY Foxy. It IS the system that is broken.

Oh, and by the way...FDR DID know what he was doing with Social Security. He talked conservatives in Congress into going along with funding it at like 40 million bucks with the PROMISE (Just like the promise to Reagan by democrats on reforming immigration) that it was to become "privatized" (where have we heard that in connection with SS...oh, yeah. GW Bush tried to get that done) within 7 years if the Congress would just help out in the short term.

In the mean time, FDR told his financial adviser at the time, can't recall his name off hand, but he later wrote a book about it, anyway, FDR told the man, If I can get the people hooked on it...the damn congress will NEVER be able to stop it!

He was RIGHT and it's a lesson that generations of politicians who followed learned and use...DAILY!

As to Teddy and the peanut farmer...I think you may be right. I think they were just ideologues who weren't bright enough to foresee the unintended consequences.

Or we could just put term limits on them and force money out of politics by opposing the Citizens United decision.

Term limits wouldn't force money out of politics Vidi. NOTHING will do that. Heck, if you think about it, money is ALL government is really about. How much of ours they take and what they spend it on. As long as there is money, there will be those who seek to enrich themselves. It's been that way for thousands of years!

As to the notion that Citizens United is somehow corrupting politics...it's not. DESPITE the lie Obama stood in front of Congress the American People and the Supreme Court Justices and told, Citizens United simply upholds the principle that corporations have the SAME RIGHTS to petition their government as any individual, small business, business coops or a PAC run by a billionaire. If you can...they can. Simple!

I don't, offhand, know what kind of effective government would only allow one motive for public service. If nothing else, there is always power to be gained/wielded as part of government, which will attract those who do not simply want to help their country. Sure, that's a great idea in theory, but in practice I'd need to see some specifics to know how you could accomplish it. Especially considering the fact that much of the corruption in governments is probably already outlawed.

Actually Montro, THIS is another one of the easy ones that everyone over complicates. And Rick Perry had part of the answer. First, we make the position of Congressman PART TIME! In other words, we pass legislation or an amendment if we want to put it out of politician's reach, that limits the amount of time Congress can meet each year.

Instead of not showing up but about half the time for 125 days a year they schedule, let's make it so they only meet for 10 weeks, 50 working days out of the year, divided into 2 or 3 sessions. If they can't get the peoples work done in 50 days...IT DON'T NEED DOING!

I could make a joke about Noah and 40 days, but I'll let it slide. ;~)

And since they are only working 2 and a half months, they won't be needing that 180,000 dollars a year they've voted themselves OR all the Cadillac benefits as a part time employee.

I'd suggest the same pay as the average military personnel makes. That's about 53,000 a year. MORE than fair for a part timer and should MORE than cover travel expenses.

12 weeks, 53 grand and then send their asses home to make a living and live by the laws they saddle us with...INCLUDING taking care of their own health insurance like the rest of us!

THEN we'll see who the REAL civic minded in this country are!

Of course we'd need legislation that says the president can ONLY make recess appointments in times of war or a declaration of national emergency. Otherwise, he'd have to call a special session of congress for advice and consent or wait till the next regularly scheduled session. Which is what is SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN HAPPENING ALREADY!

See...NOT hard at all. And it WOULD work. Hell, it DID work for the first 2/3rds of this county's history....until the 17th Amendment started the deterioration of the culture away from public service and toward self service by removing one of our checks and balances. Yet another of those unintended consequences that the short sighted weren't bright enough to foresee. But the Founders were!

Entitlements are mandated charity at a distance. When you meet your neighbor in need, sometimes it reminds as that it could happen to us with just a small reversal of fortune. So a part of us wants to keep a distance and just have that money removed from us.

At almost half of the population, all of us must certainly know a few people who get assistance. Giving the need a familiar face makes it harder too. Helping someone rebuild their life takes time and effort. It yields better results, but is harder one on one.

True that Save. I would, however point out that NO ONE has ever gotten a job from a homeless guy. you can't help others if you are BROKE and the FORCED redistribution of wealth serves as a strong disincentive to do charitable giving personally.

The fact that over HALF of tax paying Americans only just now worked long enough to pay off their protection money (taxes) does NOT leave a hell of a lot of collective energy to do good works.

And the truth is, most of the folks that feel that way about rather have the government do it for them...ain't got a pot to piss in anyway. And the one thing they do have...their time...they ain't willing to give up!

What MOST of them had rather is that their conscience be soothed by diluting themselves into believing they did their part when they voted for some liberal ideologue who says THEY will feed the poor. Never mind that for 48% of people, their ONLY contribution to feeding the poor is in the form of pulling that lever in the voting booth!

Just don't set right with me...or I suspect a heck of a lot of others either!

 

[Old Rocks]

A MODERN EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION​

WHEREAS, Federal spending is out of control to the point that not only is there a lack of will to balance the budget, but it is fast becoming an impossibility, and

WHEREAS, the ability to use other people's money to increase one's personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth makes it irrisistible to avoid doing that, and

WHEREAS, it is human nature to become comfortable and dependent on government benefits we receive, and

WHEREAS, we Americans as a people have long abandoned a concept of restricting government to what the Constitution says it can do and we now allow government to do anything not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, the resulting entitlement mentality at all levels from big corporations to agricultural subsidies to the typical welfare recipient is a pervasive corrupting force infecting both those in government and the beneficiaries of government benevolence,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a constitutional amendment must be passed to prohibit the federal government at any level from bestowing any form of benevolence or benefit upon any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not equally benefit all regardless of political leanings and/or socioeconomic status.

This amendment will not affect or apply to any policies of state or local governments.

* * * * * *​

Your observations, comments, opinions, objections, and rebuttal follows. . . . .

Silly

 

[Al_Fundie]

I favor forgiving our own debt as we have forgiven the debt of others. Any foreign nation that doesn't like that can come get some.

 

[Foxfyre]

...Based on the straw poll, it would seem that a most members who have looked in on this thread are in agreement with the spirit of most of the resolution.

But I am also seeing folks shy away from really focusing on or embracing the conclusion that we must deny the federal government the ability to use our money for any form of charity or benevolence that benefits only some but not all. Why do you think that concept is so uncomfortable for most?

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.

They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing. And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.

And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.

 

[Al_Fundie]

That's easy Foxy. It's because the founders were RIGHT!

They believed in the inherit goodness of man and this kind of thing plays on and uses the inherit good nature of man to accomplish POLITICAL goals!

They use our nature against our best interest!

I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.

They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing. And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.

And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.

BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............

 

[Foxfyre]

I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.

They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing. And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.

And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.

BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............

Do we all know that?

 

[Foxfyre]

On the part time government thing, the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers. But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.

First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts. I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary. The people would not pay for that.

 

[Al_Fundie]

They not only believed that humanity is inherently good, but they believed a people with their rights secured and otherwise left to govern themselves would make mistakes, but would eventually get around to doing the right thing. And again and again and again, the American people proved them to be right about that as the initial injustices were corrected one by one, and inevitable mistakes were corrected even as we made new ones.

And most believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and virtuous people.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."--John Adams in a 1798 speech to the military.

BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............

Do we all know that?

Care to quote a few Christians who believe they can attain heaven without Jesus?

 

[Foxfyre]

And looking further to the advantages of the resolution re our elected representatives:

1. Take away the ability to grant special privleges, laws, policy etc. to individual businesses or grant funding without doing the same for all would remove the incentive of corporations to bribe government officials.

2. Lobbying would be limited to corporate/industrial representatives educating Congress on what laws need to be passed or revoked or whatever, but ability to profit from influence peddling on the behalf of any industry would be eliminated. We would take away most of the graft and corruption while not limiting the people's ability to petition their government.

3. Our elected representatives would have much much less to do and could probably spend more time at home, but they would spend much less time and money campaigning, most especially since nobody could use campaign donations to buy special favors and that would greatly dry up a lot of campaign financing.

4. And without ability to use their offices to increase their personal power, pretige, influence, and personal fortunes, they would be much more likely to focus on good government with real benefit to all.

 

[gallantwarrior]

On the part time government thing, the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers. But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.

First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts. I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary. The people would not pay for that.

I'd go even further: Since maintaining residences in both venues is so expensive, we should simply establish housing like the military has. Dormitories for those whose families don't accompany them, single-family homes for those with families. If such is good enough for the military, it should be perfectly fine for Congress critters.

 

[Foxfyre]

On the part time government thing, the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers. But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.

First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts. I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary. The people would not pay for that.

I'd go even further: Since maintaining residences in both venues is so expensive, we should simply establish housing like the military has. Dormitories for those whose families don't accompany them, single-family homes for those with families. If such is good enough for the military, it should be perfectly fine for Congress critters.

That's a pretty good idea, but not enough to squabble over. When we have true public servants back in Washington, I don't mind them being able to enjoy their time there.

But I do think we need to rein in the almost unlimited expense accounts. For instance every new Congressman and every new Senator is allocated an enormous allowance to completely redecorate and furnish with all new stuff the office space they are allotted. The old stuff may be a little as two years old but it is carted off to huge warehouses, full of discarded Congressional and military stuff, where it will never again see the light of day. There is no doubt billions of dollars of perfectly good, barely used, or never used furniture, cabinets, equipment, supplies, etc. stashed in those warehouses, all gathering dust with no plans to do anything with any of it.

Wouldn't you think a responsive and responsible government would have more respect for the people's money? Use things up or wear them out before replacing them like we do with the money we get to keep? Use the good furniture that is there. If you want something fancier, buy it yourself. Pay for coach for Representatives and Senators to get back and forth from their home states--if they want an upgrade, pay the difference themselves.

The federal government also owns acres of empty office buildings. Lets make three of those into a combination of dormitories and conference rooms. Put one on the west coast, one in middle America, and one in DC and all government get togethers will be held in these. Anybody who wants a fancy hotel room can pay for it himself or herself.

Meanwhile lets have a giant estate sale to liquidate all that stored stuff and sell most of the warehouse space to the private sector.

All these would be very small account items in the federal budget, but each account item probably represents far more taxes than all of us on USMB pay in combined taxes in a lifetime. We deserve to have our money treated with respect.

And you add up enough small items, you start shaving billions off the costs of government. Awhile back, for instance, the Army discovered that the soda crackers we eat are very similar to the special Army issue soda crackers and they stopped having soda crackers special made. Savings to the people? $100,000. Makes you wonder how many more little $100,000 savings we could find if we started rewarding public servants for saving money instead of spending it?

 

[Al_Fundie]

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician. Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician. Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.

Not a bad idea.

 

[Foxfyre]

BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............

Do we all know that?

Care to quote a few Christians who believe they can attain heaven without Jesus?

Sure on a thread in which that is the subject. That is not the subject of this thread so it is irrelevent. Thank you so much for understanding.

 

[saveliberty]

The whole concept of representatives is the population had no way of making its desires known on each issue from a distance. It also was a check against the majority having too much power. You could have direct voting by voters on all business before the country. Might still use representatives to write and introduce bills as a check.

 

[Foxfyre]

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician. Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.

Hmm. Interesting concept. However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face. And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue. Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.

Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.

All that has to be considered.

 

[Vidi]

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician. Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.

Hmm. Interesting concept. However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face. And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue. Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.

Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.

All that has to be considered.

based on the "solutions" that come out of Washington, Id say that its not the teleconferenncing that would inhibit their ability to "brainstorm"

 

[FA_Q2]

BUT BUT I thought they founders were Christians, and we all know Christians believe that mankind is inherently evil and needs Jesus Christ for redemption.............

This is somewhat off topic but you are grossly misstating what Christians generally believe.

We are all sinners, that does not mean we are all evil. There is a world of difference. You need Jesus for your salvation because of Gods justice, not because we are all ‘evil.’

 

[JDzBrain]

I wonder how many of the founders, involved in a revolution and then politics, were likely to really believe that humanity is inherently good.

You know what Montro...NOT MANY. However...they DID believe in the inherit goodness of MAN....the individual. That's why they placed so much power an liberty in the hands of the individual. The 10th Amendment, Powers of the States and People is the absolute expression of that.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That simple statement means that the individual has MORE POWER than the federal or state governments since the only powers governments have are those we the people allow them and everything else is ours alone.

The reason they believed in us is because they knew that although there is always going to be a small portion of any population that is corruptible or just plain evil, the VAST majority ARE inherently good and would preserve that which they founded.

So, on reflection I guess you COULD say that they DID believe in humanity in that they believed that the individual would preserve the goodness of all humanity.

On the part time government thing, the U.S. government is so complex that we probably do need fulltime lawmakers. But let's take away their power to enrich themselves by adopting something at least close to the resolution and figuring out how to make it law.

First, I don't begrudge Congress their six figure salaries BUT I do think it must be the states/people and not Congress that should establish their salaries and expense accounts. I do think they need a substantial income because it is very expensive maintaining a residence in Washington DC as well as back home. . . .AND. . . .the resolution would require that they pay for their own healthcare and retirement program out of their salary. The people would not pay for that.

Here's the thing Foxy, I have to disagree on part of this one.

The state of Texas has the 8th largest economy in the WORLD. Their legislature meets 2 months out of a year....every OTHER year. That's right, they don't even meet every year and they manage to get the peoples work done.

And that's in a state that not only accounts for 1/6th of the TOTAL economy of the entire US, but has the largest border with Mexico...nearly HALF of the entire boarder AND not only has the second highest population, but the FASTEST GROWING population in the entire country. A population fast approaching 1/10 our total population.

Texas is basically equivalent to a top 10 most powerful country on the planet and their legislature meets for a couple months every other year.

We don't NEED full time politicians. We NEED commuted civil servants!

As to their salary, I don't begrudge them or ANYONE making as much money as they can. What I begrudge is them doing it without having to do it under the same rules as the rest of us!

My point isn't about the money. It's about the real point of your proclamation. Shrinking the size and scope of government and reducing the waste and fraud.

If our representatives were real civil servants in the tradition of the first 140 years of our history....we wouldn't be having this discussion. We all know that's not the case though.

Honestly, I'd close down the Capitol. with the advent of technology there is no reason to be shuttling politicians back and forth and paying the upkeep on two residences as well as two staffs for each politician. Send em home and let them teleconference. If we can guide a Predator in Pakistan from an air base in Florida, we can have politicians debating laws via in the internet as well. Hell even voting.

Hmm. Interesting concept. However, if you have ever done teleconferencing, you know that the dynamics are very different than they are in face to face. And with teleconferencing, it is far more difficult to do brainstorming and engage in the give and take that allows multiple points of view to expose all facets of an issue. Then there is the problem of the Congressional Record that sort of helps keep it honest and committee conferencing and the congressional hearings to help provide essential congressional oversight.

Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge.

All that has to be considered.

And there in lies the problem Foxy. The people our representatives need to be brainstorming with are US...the people they represent.

They take their happy butts off up to Washington, get absorbed into the culture, isolated from their consultants and insulated from the REAL WORLD they came from and we get Obamacare that leaves 3 million MORE people without health insurance than we currently have, Dodd/Frank that is driving small local banks out of business and preventing new home loans, CAFE standards that add 30% to the price of every car we buy, 36 Boutique blends of fuel that add a 1.50 to every gallon we burn, ethanol E21 standards that cause our cars to burn 30% MORE fuel than gas alone and DESTROY any car older than a 2010.

What the hell do they care? They don't have to live with it. They get their fuel from OUR pockets in their underground parking lot and gas pumps at the Capitol building and on and on and on.

No, that is the problem Foxy. Until we make them PART TIME politicians and FULL TIME citizens...this thing ain't going to be fixed!

Oh, and I have got to say, I am more than a little surprised that anyone with the insight to write this proclamation would write this, "Sometimes you really do need to have private discussions with people away from the microphones and not recorded in an e-mail for all posterity to challenge."

If you meant it the way it comes off, THAT...is how we got in this MESS in the first place. Back room deals and arm twisting have been the ruination of this country and if we don't stop it...it will be the DEATH or our Republic!

If they really need to talk face to face, it will keep till one of the few weeks they are actually IN Washington.

And here's the thing Foxy, they are ALREADY essentially part time employees. The average EMPLOYED American who is working full time works about 250 days a year. Congress...124 days last year. That makes them half time employees who are getting full time pay and benefits at the expense of folks working TWICE as much time for...what's the national average, 68,000 bucks...LESS THAN half as much money.

It's immoral!

ESPECIALLY when you consider that nearly half of employed Americans work about as many days in a year as Congress does total...JUST TO PAY THEIR TAXES to cover all the money Congress is spending!

It's just wrong and until our representatives become public servants again...I can't see it getting better.

Oh, and sorry if I took it too far off topic. It's just that this one is one of my pet peeves. ;~)