Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Wonky Pundit]

Not that such a system couldn't function, but the clearest drawback, IMO, is that it would hold back the economy considerably. What would stop the states from levying all kinds of tariffs against one another?

In todays economy? Mutual Assured Destruction.

Plus it is illegal for them to do so.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

But that clause neither provides for the common defense nor secures the people's rights. Weren't you implying that those were the only two things the Federal government should ever do?

 

[Susan45]

Terrible idea if you ask me. We disagree on this because I think I'd rather trust my congressman because he is a professional. If you were asking someone to maintain your car, you'd probably want a professional. I think having a professional representing you is a pretty good idea too...lol.

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too. I guess people just think that they go in and just vote, without realizing how much work it takes to write and get a bill passed through their respective bodies. That is why I am so against term limits. Just when a critter is getting educated in their job they are forced to leave. I disagree totally with this policy.

I do think we need to keep an eye on them, I'm not completely stupid and they are just people. But for the most part I've been very lucky and had good critters. We have two dynamite female Senators and I think both of them are terrific. It's an easy thing these days to check out voting records and I would encourage everyone to do this.

If you have two female senators, would you be from California then? I have looked at the voting record of both of these ladies, and frankly I wouldn't choose either one of them to be anywhere near the people's treasury or have power over any part of the people's interests. If you like their voting record, you no doubt think they are doing a great job. This is why we have elections so that the people have a voice in who will have control of the people's treasury and policy/laws that affect our rights, choices, opportunities, and personal freedoms.

Having said that, as long as people are in Congress for the right reasons, I don't have any problem with how long they stay. If you go with my plan they won't be staying in order to become multi-millionaires and achieve almost unlimited power as they do now because that would be taken away.

A public servant can be every bit as knowledgeable, competent, and expert as anybody else and probably will be more than career politicians.

Nope, not CA, WA. Sen Murray and Cantwell. Both really good politicians. And IMO you and other folks around the country have no right to tell us folks here in WA how long we can continue to employ these good women.

I consider politicians public servants.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too. I guess people just think that they go in and just vote, without realizing how much work it takes to write and get a bill passed through their respective bodies. That is why I am so against term limits. Just when a critter is getting educated in their job they are forced to leave. I disagree totally with this policy.

I do think we need to keep an eye on them, I'm not completely stupid and they are just people. But for the most part I've been very lucky and had good critters. We have two dynamite female Senators and I think both of them are terrific. It's an easy thing these days to check out voting records and I would encourage everyone to do this.

If you have two female senators, would you be from California then? I have looked at the voting record of both of these ladies, and frankly I wouldn't choose either one of them to be anywhere near the people's treasury or have power over any part of the people's interests. If you like their voting record, you no doubt think they are doing a great job. This is why we have elections so that the people have a voice in who will have control of the people's treasury and policy/laws that affect our rights, choices, opportunities, and personal freedoms.

Having said that, as long as people are in Congress for the right reasons, I don't have any problem with how long they stay. If you go with my plan they won't be staying in order to become multi-millionaires and achieve almost unlimited power as they do now because that would be taken away.

A public servant can be every bit as knowledgeable, competent, and expert as anybody else and probably will be more than career politicians.

Nope, not CA, WA. Sen Murray and Cantwell. Both really good politicians. And IMO you and other folks around the country have no right to tell us folks here in WA how long we can continue to employ these good women.

I consider politicians public servants.

In my opinion I have not suggested how long you can continue to employ anybody. We may have to disagree on whether all or most politicians are public servants.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No. 5 on the list in the OP and poll is doing away with taxpayer Congressonal health plans and pension funds. I have no problem with putting plans together for those serving in the White House and Congress, but all elected and appointed personnel should pay the full cost of both. The reasoning behind this is that elected office should not be a career and should not be treated as one. We want public servants, not career politiians in charge of the people's treasury and writing the laws we will live under.

And I agree there should be strict limitatons on government travel and expense accounts. I have no problem if they take friends and family along on overseas trips, but those persons should pay the full cost of their travel and accommodations. Also elected officials should be flying coach--if they want an upgrade to first class they can pay for that themelves. If we take away their ability to dispense benevolence and favors, it will be as safe for them to fly coach as it is for everybody else.

And maybe we should pay them like we do our state legislators. None receive a salary but are paid only for the time they actually spend on the job.

Terrible idea if you ask me. We disagree on this because I think I'd rather trust my congressman because he is a professional. If you were asking someone to maintain your car, you'd probably want a professional. I think having a professional representing you is a pretty good idea too...lol.

It's always surprised me when people say they want a "citizen" politician. I want my critter to be a professional too. I guess people just think that they go in and just vote, without realizing how much work it takes to write and get a bill passed through their respective bodies. That is why I am so against term limits. Just when a critter is getting educated in their job they are forced to leave. I disagree totally with this policy.

I do think we need to keep an eye on them, I'm not completely stupid and they are just people. But for the most part I've been very lucky and had good critters. We have two dynamite female Senators and I think both of them are terrific. It's an easy thing these days to check out voting records and I would encourage everyone to do this.

I appreciate that sentiment, Susan... There is something to be said for an experienced and educated work force. Unfortunately, right now the congressional education seems to be coming from the highly skilled and professional lobbyists haunting K Street, and the lead course appears to be "Corruption 101: Crafting Legislation With Campaign Financing in Mind".

For me the litmus test is power. I could see the advantage to professional, career politicians if the tax code was a simple rate applied equally to all, and the only way congress could apportion money out was to craft a genuine spending bill. If they're going to have the power to tax any of us at any given rate they see fit, I want them on as short a leash as possible and that means term limits.

If they'll give up the power they hold by virtue of the bullshit tax code and give that power back to the people via a simple and fair tax code, term limits won't be necessary. Until then, I'm going to advocate for both.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level. At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting.

As opposed to state and local governments? Many state governments are as corrupt as the Federal, perhaps more so.

Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

And if these ‘social contracts’ authorize the violation of the rights of minorities within the state or jurisdiction, what is their recourse? During most of the 20th Century it was state and local governments that violated the rights of their citizens, not the Federal:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): struck down state and local laws authorizing segregation.

Hernandez v. Texas (1954): struck down Texas laws violating the rights of Hispanic citizens.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): struck down the states’ practice of violating citizens’ 4th Amendment rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): the State of Florida violation of citizens’ 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): struck down Connecticut laws violating privacy rights.

Loving v Virginia (1967) struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, a 14th amendment violation.

Roe v Wade (1973): struck down Texas law violating privacy rights.

Plyler v Doe (1982): struck down Texas law violating due process rights of undocumented children, violation of the 14th Amendment.

Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): struck down provision of Pennsylvania law that violated privacy rights.

Lawrence v Texas (2003): struck down so-called ‘sodomy laws’ making criminal homosexual acts, violation of the 14th Amendment.

District of Columbia v Heller (2008): struck down DC handgun ban that violated its citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

And the above cases are merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Without Federal enforcement and the right of the people to seek relief in the Federal courts, many Americans might today still be subject to the tyranny of the majority, in contradiction to the original intent of the Framers.

Clearly your notion that states and local communities ‘know what’s best’ is predicated on a libertarian myth, not the facts of law or history, and is naïve at best.

A VERY good point, and I'll be the first to agree that the state good ol' boy networks that emerged from The Civil War needed to be challenged by someone, and the federal government did a somewhat adequate job of forcing all the little boys and girls of any given state to play more nicely together, and I'll be the first to admit that the job is not complete. The advent of The Internet however, makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any state to blatantly discriminate or play favorites without 'bullshit!' being called on the bullshitters, as is evidenced by The US Message Board.

Once again, stripping congress of the power to tax any of us at 'special' rates based on political influence will go a long way toward ending the corruption that lay at the root of the argument for returning power to the states, or limiting terms of service.

Somehow, one way or another, power MUST be shifted away from congress and toward The People, be that individually or as collective political communities referred to as 'State' & 'Local'. The corruption in DC between congress and their campaign financing wing on K Street MUST be addressed.

 

[KGB]

. . .
4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

I would go for these as a good start. Though I am tentative on #6 since I would require more information...yes, I know it states "ALL", but what exactly is the definition of "CHARITY or BENEVOLENCE". That being said, #4 is a no-brainer. Term limits are a must. Each elected official in Congress & the Executive branches gets one 6 year term. No re-election, no wasting time running for re-election. Right now, we only get 2.5 years out of the President before the re-election cycle begins. Senators about 4.5 years & Congressman about a year. This isn't right. The idea was never to have a professional ruling class, just good citizens serving the public & then returning. #5 is a must. For me to receive a military retirement, I have to do 20 years. These jokers get a pension after one term (2 years for a Congressman). If I put my life on the line for that long, no pension for these morons. Also, let them co-pay their healthcare just like everyone else....#8 is also a no-brainer. You misuse public money, you are gone. If I steal from my employer, I am terminated. Why is this any different?

 

[candycorn]

. . .
4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

I would go for these as a good start. Though I am tentative on #6 since I would require more information...yes, I know it states "ALL", but what exactly is the definition of "CHARITY or BENEVOLENCE". That being said, #4 is a no-brainer. Term limits are a must. Each elected official in Congress & the Executive branches gets one 6 year term. No re-election, no wasting time running for re-election. Right now, we only get 2.5 years out of the President before the re-election cycle begins. Senators about 4.5 years & Congressman about a year. This isn't right. The idea was never to have a professional ruling class, just good citizens serving the public & then returning. #5 is a must. For me to receive a military retirement, I have to do 20 years. These jokers get a pension after one term (2 years for a Congressman). If I put my life on the line for that long, no pension for these morons. Also, let them co-pay their healthcare just like everyone else....#8 is also a no-brainer. You misuse public money, you are gone. If I steal from my employer, I am terminated. Why is this any different?

I'm intrigued by the one 6 year term except I'd make it either 4 or 5. I think 6 is too long. But remember, if you do that and don't change the rules of the game, look for the 5th and 6th year to be Pork City! I'm 49 years old and I want to be "set up" when I leave Congress...so guess what, an employer in my district just happens to get a nice Federal Contract. Whodathunkit?

As for making the job the equivalent to a job at McDonalds with the added stipulation you get it for 6 years...not a good idea.

I can't really understand the psyche behind wanting dimest bulbs to have a chance at running for Congress. Under your plan, if we give 6 year terms, In an adults average life he will have 33 different representatives (saying you live form 18-80--62 years and you change both Sens and Congressional Representatives every 6 years). Do you know 33 people from your district that you would want ratifying treaties, setting economic policies, chairing the technology subcommittees, writing the laws that dictate, apparently if your daughter will have to get a Gardasil shot when she turns 11? I would wager that most citizens haven't met 33 people in their lives that they would feel comfortable with in those positions. Not to say that Al Franken inspires much confidence in me but hell, at least he was engaged in the political debate prior to seeking office.

Besides that; forcing someone to vote for someone else is blatantly unconstitutional. If I want Jane Doe as my representative, I should be able to vote for Jane Doe. If Jane Doe is a political hack who snorts coke between roll call votes, it's still my choice.

As for getting rid of all benevolence...no way. One man's "waste" is someone else's leg up. School loans are benevolence. I would argue it is a national security measure myself but I know thats a long way to go to connect those dots (it was argued that the interstates are a national security measure earlier). I like that we have people on the public payroll whose job it is to ensure safety. Whether it benefits me directly or not; it benefits me.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .
4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

I would go for these as a good start. Though I am tentative on #6 since I would require more information...yes, I know it states "ALL", but what exactly is the definition of "CHARITY or BENEVOLENCE". That being said, #4 is a no-brainer. Term limits are a must. Each elected official in Congress & the Executive branches gets one 6 year term. No re-election, no wasting time running for re-election. Right now, we only get 2.5 years out of the President before the re-election cycle begins. Senators about 4.5 years & Congressman about a year. This isn't right. The idea was never to have a professional ruling class, just good citizens serving the public & then returning. #5 is a must. For me to receive a military retirement, I have to do 20 years. These jokers get a pension after one term (2 years for a Congressman). If I put my life on the line for that long, no pension for these morons. Also, let them co-pay their healthcare just like everyone else....#8 is also a no-brainer. You misuse public money, you are gone. If I steal from my employer, I am terminated. Why is this any different?

Again addressing #6, this one is maybe right at the top of the list for me. When you have a representative from Kansas having ability to use tax money from Illinois or Florida or Oregon to buy votes from his constituency, that cannot help but be corrupting to both the representative and the beneficiaries of the benevolence. I personally think term limits are inadvisable because that would throw all the power to the bigger states. But if you take away their ability to benefit any special interest or target group without benefitting everybody, AND implement #5 as well, they have no reason to stay in office but to benefit all the people of their state or the entire country without prejudice or preference.

Move all the charity or benefits to special groups to the states and if it gets too out of hand there, people can move out of one state into a less corrupt one. That for me would not be a horrible thing. Leaving my country would. States can give a hand up to people more efficiently and effectively and far more economically than the federal government can if they choose to do so.

Definition of charity or benevolence: Any unearned payment to any entity, person, group, or special interest that is not available to every entity, person, group, or special interest regardless of political or socioeconomic status.

 

[candycorn]

. . .
4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

I would go for these as a good start. Though I am tentative on #6 since I would require more information...yes, I know it states "ALL", but what exactly is the definition of "CHARITY or BENEVOLENCE". That being said, #4 is a no-brainer. Term limits are a must. Each elected official in Congress & the Executive branches gets one 6 year term. No re-election, no wasting time running for re-election. Right now, we only get 2.5 years out of the President before the re-election cycle begins. Senators about 4.5 years & Congressman about a year. This isn't right. The idea was never to have a professional ruling class, just good citizens serving the public & then returning. #5 is a must. For me to receive a military retirement, I have to do 20 years. These jokers get a pension after one term (2 years for a Congressman). If I put my life on the line for that long, no pension for these morons. Also, let them co-pay their healthcare just like everyone else....#8 is also a no-brainer. You misuse public money, you are gone. If I steal from my employer, I am terminated. Why is this any different?

Again addressing #6, this one is maybe right at the top of the list for me. When you have a representative from Kansas having ability to use tax money from Illinois or Florida or Oregon to buy votes from his constituency, that cannot help but be corrupting to both the representative and the beneficiaries of the benevolence. I personally think term limits are inadvisable because that would throw all the power to the bigger states. But if you take away their ability to benefit any special interest or target group without benefitting everybody, AND implement #5 as well, they have no reason to stay in office but to benefit all the people of their state or the entire country without prejudice or preference.

Move all the charity or benefits to special groups to the states and if it gets too out of hand there, people can move out of one state into a less corrupt one. That for me would not be a horrible thing. Leaving my country would. States can give a hand up to people more efficiently and effectively and far more economically than the federal government can if they choose to do so.

Definition of charity or benevolence: Any unearned payment to any entity, person, group, or special interest that is not available to every entity, person, group, or special interest regardless of political or socioeconomic status.

So Pell grants (that are need based) are out now? The poor shouldn't get any help going to college?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would go for these as a good start. Though I am tentative on #6 since I would require more information...yes, I know it states "ALL", but what exactly is the definition of "CHARITY or BENEVOLENCE". That being said, #4 is a no-brainer. Term limits are a must. Each elected official in Congress & the Executive branches gets one 6 year term. No re-election, no wasting time running for re-election. Right now, we only get 2.5 years out of the President before the re-election cycle begins. Senators about 4.5 years & Congressman about a year. This isn't right. The idea was never to have a professional ruling class, just good citizens serving the public & then returning. #5 is a must. For me to receive a military retirement, I have to do 20 years. These jokers get a pension after one term (2 years for a Congressman). If I put my life on the line for that long, no pension for these morons. Also, let them co-pay their healthcare just like everyone else....#8 is also a no-brainer. You misuse public money, you are gone. If I steal from my employer, I am terminated. Why is this any different?

Again addressing #6, this one is maybe right at the top of the list for me. When you have a representative from Kansas having ability to use tax money from Illinois or Florida or Oregon to buy votes from his constituency, that cannot help but be corrupting to both the representative and the beneficiaries of the benevolence. I personally think term limits are inadvisable because that would throw all the power to the bigger states. But if you take away their ability to benefit any special interest or target group without benefitting everybody, AND implement #5 as well, they have no reason to stay in office but to benefit all the people of their state or the entire country without prejudice or preference.

Move all the charity or benefits to special groups to the states and if it gets too out of hand there, people can move out of one state into a less corrupt one. That for me would not be a horrible thing. Leaving my country would. States can give a hand up to people more efficiently and effectively and far more economically than the federal government can if they choose to do so.

Definition of charity or benevolence: Any unearned payment to any entity, person, group, or special interest that is not available to every entity, person, group, or special interest regardless of political or socioeconomic status.

So Pell grants (that are need based) are out now? The poor shouldn't get any help going to college?

I have no problem whatsoever with the poor getting help going to college. I contribute to a number of private college scholarship funds. I think student loans are great so long as integrity is maintained in people repaying them. I applaud corporations who provide scholarships--and they contribute a LOT of them. I have no problem with states or local communities providing assistance if they choose to do so.

I do not want the federal government providing assistance to anybody or being involved in education in any form whatsoever other than to enforce unalienable rights and perhaps as a data gathering service.

 

[candycorn]

Again addressing #6, this one is maybe right at the top of the list for me. When you have a representative from Kansas having ability to use tax money from Illinois or Florida or Oregon to buy votes from his constituency, that cannot help but be corrupting to both the representative and the beneficiaries of the benevolence. I personally think term limits are inadvisable because that would throw all the power to the bigger states. But if you take away their ability to benefit any special interest or target group without benefitting everybody, AND implement #5 as well, they have no reason to stay in office but to benefit all the people of their state or the entire country without prejudice or preference.

Move all the charity or benefits to special groups to the states and if it gets too out of hand there, people can move out of one state into a less corrupt one. That for me would not be a horrible thing. Leaving my country would. States can give a hand up to people more efficiently and effectively and far more economically than the federal government can if they choose to do so.

Definition of charity or benevolence: Any unearned payment to any entity, person, group, or special interest that is not available to every entity, person, group, or special interest regardless of political or socioeconomic status.

So Pell grants (that are need based) are out now? The poor shouldn't get any help going to college?

I do not want the federal government providing assistance to anybody or being involved in education in any form whatsoever other than to enforce unalienable rights and perhaps as a data gathering service.

Wow...you don't think it should be a national priority to have a skilled, trained, educated, workforce/populous?

If that is the case, I think you can throw out the rest of your list in that case, the country is finished as anything other than a land mass on the globe. There won't be a government to chastise because there won't be a country to run.

Unbelievable.

 

[Foxfyre]

So Pell grants (that are need based) are out now? The poor shouldn't get any help going to college?

I do not want the federal government providing assistance to anybody or being involved in education in any form whatsoever other than to enforce unalienable rights and perhaps as a data gathering service.

Wow...you don't think it should be a national priority to have a skilled, trained, educated, workforce/populous?

If that is the case, I think you can throw out the rest of your list in that case, the country is finished as anything other than a land mass on the globe. There won't be a government to chastise because there won't be a country to run.

Unbelievable.

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world? Or the very real fact that the more the feds have become involved with schools and education, we have steadily been losing ground in education and are now one of the worst in developed countries? How do you account for homeschooled kids on average far excelling over public school kids on average?

The Founders did not want a king or authoritarian government meddling with curriculum or the minds of children as it is too easy to manipulate the populace and increase the central power just doing that. Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I agree that there is a role for government in making life more than about simple survival but, like the Founders, I think that role has to be at the State and local level. At the federal level there is too much temptation to make it about survival of politicians' careers and it becomes very corrupting.

As opposed to state and local governments? Many state governments are as corrupt as the Federal, perhaps more so.

Best for the Federal government to focus on its Constitutional responsibilities to provide the common defense and secure our rights and leave it up to the people to form their social contracts within the states and local communities.

And if these ‘social contracts’ authorize the violation of the rights of minorities within the state or jurisdiction, what is their recourse? During most of the 20th Century it was state and local governments that violated the rights of their citizens, not the Federal:

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): struck down state and local laws authorizing segregation.

Hernandez v. Texas (1954): struck down Texas laws violating the rights of Hispanic citizens.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): struck down the states’ practice of violating citizens’ 4th Amendment rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): the State of Florida violation of citizens’ 6th Amendment right to counsel.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): struck down Connecticut laws violating privacy rights.

Loving v Virginia (1967) struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, a 14th amendment violation.

Roe v Wade (1973): struck down Texas law violating privacy rights.

Plyler v Doe (1982): struck down Texas law violating due process rights of undocumented children, violation of the 14th Amendment.

Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992): struck down provision of Pennsylvania law that violated privacy rights.

Lawrence v Texas (2003): struck down so-called ‘sodomy laws’ making criminal homosexual acts, violation of the 14th Amendment.

District of Columbia v Heller (2008): struck down DC handgun ban that violated its citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

And the above cases are merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Without Federal enforcement and the right of the people to seek relief in the Federal courts, many Americans might today still be subject to the tyranny of the majority, in contradiction to the original intent of the Framers.

Clearly your notion that states and local communities ‘know what’s best’ is predicated on a libertarian myth, not the facts of law or history, and is naïve at best.

A VERY good point, and I'll be the first to agree that the state good ol' boy networks that emerged from The Civil War needed to be challenged by someone, and the federal government did a somewhat adequate job of forcing all the little boys and girls of any given state to play more nicely together, and I'll be the first to admit that the job is not complete. The advent of The Internet however, makes it IMPOSSIBLE for any state to blatantly discriminate or play favorites without 'bullshit!' being called on the bullshitters, as is evidenced by The US Message Board.

Once again, stripping congress of the power to tax any of us at 'special' rates based on political influence will go a long way toward ending the corruption that lay at the root of the argument for returning power to the states, or limiting terms of service.

Somehow, one way or another, power MUST be shifted away from congress and toward The People, be that individually or as collective political communities referred to as 'State' & 'Local'. The corruption in DC between congress and their campaign financing wing on K Street MUST be addressed.

If you have two female senators, would you be from California then? I have looked at the voting record of both of these ladies, and frankly I wouldn't choose either one of them to be anywhere near the people's treasury or have power over any part of the people's interests. If you like their voting record, you no doubt think they are doing a great job. This is why we have elections so that the people have a voice in who will have control of the people's treasury and policy/laws that affect our rights, choices, opportunities, and personal freedoms.

Having said that, as long as people are in Congress for the right reasons, I don't have any problem with how long they stay. If you go with my plan they won't be staying in order to become multi-millionaires and achieve almost unlimited power as they do now because that would be taken away.

A public servant can be every bit as knowledgeable, competent, and expert as anybody else and probably will be more than career politicians.

Nope, not CA, WA. Sen Murray and Cantwell. Both really good politicians. And IMO you and other folks around the country have no right to tell us folks here in WA how long we can continue to employ these good women.

I consider politicians public servants.

In my opinion I have not suggested how long you can continue to employ anybody. We may have to disagree on whether all or most politicians are public servants.

I have. I suggested term limits. I still support term limits, all thing being equal, simply because the corruption is there and longevity is a factor.

 

[candycorn]

I do not want the federal government providing assistance to anybody or being involved in education in any form whatsoever other than to enforce unalienable rights and perhaps as a data gathering service.

Wow...you don't think it should be a national priority to have a skilled, trained, educated, workforce/populous?

If that is the case, I think you can throw out the rest of your list in that case, the country is finished as anything other than a land mass on the globe. There won't be a government to chastise because there won't be a country to run.

Unbelievable.

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world?

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.

Or the very real fact that the more the feds have become involved with schools and education, we have steadily been losing ground in education and are now one of the worst in developed countries?

Source please?

How do you account for homeschooled kids on average far excelling over public school kids on average?

Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.

The Founders did not want a king or authoritarian government meddling with curriculum or the minds of children as it is too easy to manipulate the populace and increase the central power just doing that.

Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?

Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow...you don't think it should be a national priority to have a skilled, trained, educated, workforce/populous?

If that is the case, I think you can throw out the rest of your list in that case, the country is finished as anything other than a land mass on the globe. There won't be a government to chastise because there won't be a country to run.

Unbelievable.

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world?

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.

The Founders did not want a king or authoritarian government meddling with curriculum or the minds of children as it is too easy to manipulate the populace and increase the central power just doing that.

Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?

Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

I am not ducking the question at all. I focused quite well on your comment. I am speaking of the first 150 years or so of our Republic. And the point I was making--in addition to several points you seem to have intentionally ignored--was that the federal government works best when it focuses on those duties assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. Education is not a duty or function of the federal government and is handled more efficiently and effectively at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level.

I do not subscribe to the theory that education can't be done well unless the federal government does it. I don't subscribe to the theory that poor kids can't go to college if the federal government doesn't send them. I think the federal government has done more damage to education in this country than any other single factor.

You can throw all your other straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs that you came up with into that equation and it still comes down to the federal government doing education poorly. Education is something that should be left to the states and/or local communities.

Whether the money is spent by the federal government or the states or local communities, it all comes out of the pockets of the same citizens. If so much money was not flowing to the federal government where much or most of it is siphoned off by the federal bureaucracy, there would be much more citizen dollars available to the states and the local communities.

 

[candycorn]

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world?

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?

Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

I am not ducking the question at all. I focused quite well on your comment. I am speaking of the first 150 years or so of our Republic. And the point I was making--in addition to several points you seem to have intentionally ignored--was that the federal government works best when it focuses on those duties assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. Education is not a duty or function of the federal government and is handled more efficiently and effectively at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level.

Okay, just so I understand,

No federal grants for research to colleges. Yes or no.;

No federal student aid to students. Yes or no.

No federal standards, right? Yes or no.

If Arkansas can't fund its schools; tough taters for the children of Arkansas...right?

If Iowa doesn't want to teach Spanish or history past 2005 for example, the Feds can't force them to do it; right?

 

[Foxfyre]

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.



Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?



That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

I am not ducking the question at all. I focused quite well on your comment. I am speaking of the first 150 years or so of our Republic. And the point I was making--in addition to several points you seem to have intentionally ignored--was that the federal government works best when it focuses on those duties assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. Education is not a duty or function of the federal government and is handled more efficiently and effectively at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level.

Okay, just so I understand,

No federal grants for research to colleges. Yes or no.;

No federal student aid to students. Yes or no.

No federal standards, right? Yes or no.

If Arkansas can't fund its schools; tough taters for the children of Arkansas...right?

If Iowa doesn't want to teach Spanish or history past 2005 for example, the Feds can't force them to do it; right?

Right. Qualified by all the reasons I have already provided. If a state or community isn't doing the job to educate its citizens it is up to the citizens to see that it does. Or the citizens will homeschool. Or they will move to a district with a good school system. Or use private or parochial schools. If the federal government was any good at doing education, the D.C. schools would be the best in the nation. They aren't. And every President, all his staff, and all of Congress send their kids to private schools there.

The States and local communities will do a much better job than the federal government.

 

[candycorn]

I am not ducking the question at all. I focused quite well on your comment. I am speaking of the first 150 years or so of our Republic. And the point I was making--in addition to several points you seem to have intentionally ignored--was that the federal government works best when it focuses on those duties assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. Education is not a duty or function of the federal government and is handled more efficiently and effectively at the local level or certainly no higher than the state level.

Okay, just so I understand,

No federal grants for research to colleges. Yes or no.;

No federal student aid to students. Yes or no.

No federal standards, right? Yes or no.

If Arkansas can't fund its schools; tough taters for the children of Arkansas...right?

If Iowa doesn't want to teach Spanish or history past 2005 for example, the Feds can't force them to do it; right?

Right. Qualified by all the reasons I have already provided. If a state or community isn't doing the job to educate its citizens it is up to the citizens to see that it does. Or the citizens will homeschool. Or they will move to a district with a good school system. Or use private or parochial schools. If the federal government was any good at doing education, the D.C. schools would be the best in the nation. They aren't. And every President, all his staff, and all of Congress send their kids to private schools there.

The States and local communities will do a much better job than the federal government.

Ok..thanks.

 

[AVG-JOE]

. . .
4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

I would go for these as a good start. Though I am tentative on #6 since I would require more information...yes, I know it states "ALL", but what exactly is the definition of "CHARITY or BENEVOLENCE". That being said, #4 is a no-brainer. Term limits are a must. Each elected official in Congress & the Executive branches gets one 6 year term. No re-election, no wasting time running for re-election. Right now, we only get 2.5 years out of the President before the re-election cycle begins. Senators about 4.5 years & Congressman about a year. This isn't right. The idea was never to have a professional ruling class, just good citizens serving the public & then returning. #5 is a must. For me to receive a military retirement, I have to do 20 years. These jokers get a pension after one term (2 years for a Congressman). If I put my life on the line for that long, no pension for these morons. Also, let them co-pay their healthcare just like everyone else....#8 is also a no-brainer. You misuse public money, you are gone. If I steal from my employer, I am terminated. Why is this any different?

Again addressing #6, this one is maybe right at the top of the list for me. When you have a representative from Kansas having ability to use tax money from Illinois or Florida or Oregon to buy votes from his constituency, that cannot help but be corrupting to both the representative and the beneficiaries of the benevolence. I personally think term limits are inadvisable because that would throw all the power to the bigger states. But if you take away their ability to benefit any special interest or target group without benefitting everybody, AND implement #5 as well, they have no reason to stay in office but to benefit all the people of their state or the entire country without prejudice or preference.

Move all the charity or benefits to special groups to the states and if it gets too out of hand there, people can move out of one state into a less corrupt one. That for me would not be a horrible thing. Leaving my country would. States can give a hand up to people more efficiently and effectively and far more economically than the federal government can if they choose to do so.

Definition of charity or benevolence: Any unearned payment to any entity, person, group, or special interest that is not available to every entity, person, group, or special interest regardless of political or socioeconomic status.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Wow...you don't think it should be a national priority to have a skilled, trained, educated, workforce/populous?

If that is the case, I think you can throw out the rest of your list in that case, the country is finished as anything other than a land mass on the globe. There won't be a government to chastise because there won't be a country to run.

Unbelievable.

Oh really? Then how do you account for the more than 150 years or so that education was handled almost exclusively at the community level and we had at least one of the best educated, if not THE best educated people in the world?

You're running from the question of course but we'll come back to that later....

How do I account for it?

Easy.

What 150 years are you talking about? Year range please.

If you're talking about the colonial period it's pretty easy actually. The near homogeneous population was one factor; what was deemed "educated" was pretty much agreed on. Today if someone is an expert on the Harlem Renaissance he is considered an expert even though they may be quite aloof on the nation during that time period as a whole. The homogeneous population also was one of some level of entitlement--we didn't import a lot of poor people from Europe on purpose. Sure, some were here but there wasn't as many immigrants skewing the sample you're now talking about. Language barriers are quite prevalent in 2011; in 1911, that wasn't so much of the case. In 1811; it was almost unheard of. Where it did exist, the immigrant populations were damn near forced to learn English which just happened to be the dominant immigrant population. Today, there are entire neighborhoods of Los Angeles where you see no signs in English. In Miami--when I was there--it was quite the same case. You didn't see that in the Northeastern cities during your 150 years. So that is one reason; the idea of what was educated was pretty standard and the common clay of the sample was a cut above what you'd find now on average.


Source please?


Well the 1 to 1 teacher to student ratio is probably one clue there. The fact that teachers are the parents probably injects a sense of urgency on the students, wouldn't you think.

That was a crazy question.

The Founders did not want a king or authoritarian government meddling with curriculum or the minds of children as it is too easy to manipulate the populace and increase the central power just doing that.

Ahh...so now you're saying the Department of Education is on the out. Can we have a State Department? Or is it just at the district level would you allow this? Or are districts too meddlesome for you as well? Who sets the standards?

Yes, lets have the best educated population in the world. That won't happen with the federal government in control of it.

That wasn't the question; the funding of education was the question...do you want to get rid of Pell grants, GSL's, government funded research at universities, state universities in general, head start.

This is what you seem to be prescribing in your "lets get back to what a bunch of old white guys wanted 224 years ago approach" to solving the problems of 2010.

One other thing. Many states are billions in debt. Billions. B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S.
Now you want them to just take over all schooling without any federal aid? Is that the case?

Federal support, local control. Programs like 'no child left behind' that mandate what is taught and how are the problem.

There was a time when the federal government needed to step in because states were totally busted NOT providing an education that was equal in opportunity or quality for all their citizens, 2011 is a different time. The job of the federal government should be to equalize opportunity with funding and step in if necessary to settle grievances, not micromanage curriculum and squelch competition among the states for quality teachers via laws pandering to the national teachers union.