We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[Foxfyre]

I can see in the future a Nation Constitutional Convention that will outline specifically what will be the federal government obligations and the obligations of the states. More tax money will return to the states where they belong and the Congress can no longer make federal laws that involve state costs and do not include funding.

But why would we need a Constitutional Convention to outline that when we have a Constitution that, when interpreted via original intent, already does that? Would it not make sense to pass laws requiring lawmakers and judges to go by original intent? That would require one constitutional amendment and wouldn't risk putting the entire Constitution at risk via convention.

 

[saveliberty]

You know there is a problem in Washington, when the House Speaker suggests changing the rules so keeping pork out of a bill is easier. That implies there are rules which make pork easy to get. Thanks Congress. Go on vacation for 2011 and stay gone until late 2012.

 

[Bern80]

So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.

I don't like it any more than you, but I don't know how you fix it either. If you say there can be no such thing as lobbyists, what are you really saying? Does a group of people not have the right to organize in an effort to make themselves better heard? What should the 'rules' be for getting an audience with your elected representative?

Maybe one thing we need to do is address money in politics. Whether it be in how campaigns are funded and/or how monetary/political favors play a role in how votes are cast. Maybe we need to consider wether giving money should really be considered a form of speech.

 

[saveliberty]

They say money talks.

Term limits would minimize the power for life/constant need to raise funds for Congress.

 

[Foxfyre]

So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.

I don't like it any more than you, but I don't know how you fix it either. If you say there can be no such thing as lobbyists, what are you really saying? Does a group of people not have the right to organize in an effort to make themselves better heard? What should the 'rules' be for getting an audience with your elected representative?

Maybe one thing we need to do is address money in politics. Whether it be in how campaigns are funded and/or how monetary/political favors play a role in how votes are cast. Maybe we need to consider wether giving money should really be considered a form of speech.

But again banning lobbyists and campaign finance reform comes up in EVERY election. Some candidates brag that they accept no money from lobbyists and such. Again you don't fix bad people by changing the system. You eliminate this and ban that and the bad ones will still be in it to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes and will just utilize other ways to do it.

And in the process you eliminate a constitutional right of the people to petition their government and lose all the other benefits the lobbyists bring to the process.

So a whole new way of thinking about the federal government would be to make it impossible for elected or appointed officials to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes through the offices they hold.

Make it illegal for anyone in the Federal government to use the people's money for any form of benevolence or charity and the money motive is removed. Then make it mandatory that all government contracts be put out for bids regardless of union membership or any other criteria unrelated to competence, and that government contracts be equally distributed among the various states according to population. That takes care of legislative motives.

And I guarantee you that crooks will no longer be seeking those government positions and true public servants will.

That will take care of campaign finance issues, almost all favoritism to certain segments of society, the ignoble lobbyists, and concern for term limits.

 

[Flopper]

I can see in the future a Nation Constitutional Convention that will outline specifically what will be the federal government obligations and the obligations of the states. More tax money will return to the states where they belong and the Congress can no longer make federal laws that involve state costs and do not include funding.

But why would we need a Constitutional Convention to outline that when we have a Constitution that, when interpreted via original intent, already does that? Would it not make sense to pass laws requiring lawmakers and judges to go by original intent? That would require one constitutional amendment and wouldn't risk putting the entire Constitution at risk via convention.

I think the answer to your question is in your question. Ideally, the constitution should not need interpreting, however there will always be a need for some interpretation but not to the degree that occurs today. Even the experts can not agree on interpretations. Supreme Court decisions are rarely unanimous. The result is that the courts are in effect making law.

In theory a constitutional convention could clarify the constitution to eliminate a lot of the court cases. Of course there would need to be some give and take between the Right and Left.

 

[mdn2000]

Money corrupts.

Take away the power of money to influence, Jury Duty is what needs to be adopted for the House of Representatives. Take a year long class, put your name in the hat, serve two years at random. NO Campaign. People of the people for the people, select more representatives as well. That has been a debate for years.

Take away the tax code and the ability to generate revenue through any means.

Its all about money. If they cannot collect and spend on a whim than that incentive is gone.

 

[Foxfyre]

Money corrupts.

Take away the power of money to influence, Jury Duty is what needs to be adopted for the House of Representatives. Take a year long class, put your name in the hat, serve two years at random. NO Campaign. People of the people for the people, select more representatives as well. That has been a debate for years.

Take away the tax code and the ability to generate revenue through any means.

Its all about money. If they cannot collect and spend on a whim than that incentive is gone.

Well the federal government does have some constitutionally mandated responsibilities and it does need to be able to raise revenues to pay for those responsibilities. So some means of taxation or fees is necessary. A modest flat tax that everybody pays above a standard exemption is the most fair, equitable, and certain method of raising the necessary funds.

But you take the personal profit motive out of the equation, and those we elect to government will be interested in not imposing any more taxes than absolutely necessary and will be more likely to use due care and diligence to make sure the people get full value for their money spent.

 

[Flopper]

So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.

I don't like it any more than you, but I don't know how you fix it either. If you say there can be no such thing as lobbyists, what are you really saying? Does a group of people not have the right to organize in an effort to make themselves better heard? What should the 'rules' be for getting an audience with your elected representative?

Maybe one thing we need to do is address money in politics. Whether it be in how campaigns are funded and/or how monetary/political favors play a role in how votes are cast. Maybe we need to consider wether giving money should really be considered a form of speech.

Paid lobbyists are required to register and file disclosure reports. Possibly we should require that congressman disclose the content of meetings with lobbyists.

 

[Foxfyre]

So that's a no. You don't care if the lobbyists are paying off your congressmen or congresswomen, ensuring that their business interests of who they are representing is put before you as long as your congressmen or congresswomen throws you a bone by being "fiscally conservative". Such thinking will come back to haunt us in the long run. In fact, this is the same thinking from 1994 and the early half of the 2000's that propelled "fiscal conservatives" into office who did absolutely nothing about the budget or debt.

I don't like it any more than you, but I don't know how you fix it either. If you say there can be no such thing as lobbyists, what are you really saying? Does a group of people not have the right to organize in an effort to make themselves better heard? What should the 'rules' be for getting an audience with your elected representative?

Maybe one thing we need to do is address money in politics. Whether it be in how campaigns are funded and/or how monetary/political favors play a role in how votes are cast. Maybe we need to consider wether giving money should really be considered a form of speech.

Paid lobbyists are required to register and file disclosure reports. Possibly we should require that congressman disclose the content of meetings with lobbyists.

All Congressmen's schedule book is open to the public. But when I have acted as lobbyist I was competing with several others wanting the same grant. I sure didn't want to tip off our competitors by making all our best stuff public. Ditto for contractors etc. making bids. Nobody should have to reveal their game plan to a competitor. And any citizen should be able to arrange a meeting to discuss something with an elected representative without having to advertise it to the entire world. And of course in interest of national security, some of the activity is classified.

The vast majority of lobbying activities is more to net government contracts or grants rather than to influence legislation.

Again, the lobbyists provide a valuable service in presenting blueprints, designs, cost structures, time lines, etc. etc. etc. so that government officials do not have to pay to have that done or waste time researching stuff the lobbyist has already done.

But take away government's ability to shower other than essential contracts or charity, or other benevolence in response to the lobbyist's activities, and then we won't care about lobbying activity any more.

 

[Flopper]

I don't like it any more than you, but I don't know how you fix it either. If you say there can be no such thing as lobbyists, what are you really saying? Does a group of people not have the right to organize in an effort to make themselves better heard? What should the 'rules' be for getting an audience with your elected representative?

Maybe one thing we need to do is address money in politics. Whether it be in how campaigns are funded and/or how monetary/political favors play a role in how votes are cast. Maybe we need to consider wether giving money should really be considered a form of speech.

Paid lobbyists are required to register and file disclosure reports. Possibly we should require that congressman disclose the content of meetings with lobbyists.

All Congressmen's schedule book is open to the public. But when I have acted as lobbyist I was competing with several others wanting the same grant. I sure didn't want to tip off our competitors by making all our best stuff public. Ditto for contractors etc. making bids. Nobody should have to reveal their game plan to a competitor. And any citizen should be able to arrange a meeting to discuss something with an elected representative without having to advertise it to the entire world. And of course in interest of national security, some of the activity is classified.

The vast majority of lobbying activities is more to net government contracts or grants rather than to influence legislation.

Again, the lobbyists provide a valuable service in presenting blueprints, designs, cost structures, time lines, etc. etc. etc. so that government officials do not have to pay to have that done or waste time researching stuff the lobbyist has already done.

But take away government's ability to shower other than essential contracts or charity, or other benevolence in response to the lobbyist's activities, and then we won't care about lobbying activity any more.

How can you look at a congressman's schedule book? Do you go to their office and ask to see it or do they publish it? To me it seems proper for a congressman to document the purpose of any meeting with a lobbyist and the results of the meeting.

 

[sangha]

Make it illegal for anyone in the Federal government to use the people's money for any form of benevolence or charity and the money motive is removed.

Good idea. I say we start by eliminating the military, which is nothing more than charity for people who are too chicken to defend themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well actually I don't know for certain if a Congressman's appointment schedule is out there for anybody to see, but it is a near certainty that it is a matter of public record. Whenever there is an incident or scandal or breaking news, the media instantaneously reports that Representative Whosit met with this person or that person or Senator Whatsit received this person or that delegation in his office on such and such a date. The media seems to have no problem at all discerning who has connections or contact with who. They know where they go on vacation, who they have dinner with, what parties, fund raisers, or state dinners they attend, etc.

 

[sangha]

Well actually I don't know for certain if a Congressman's appointment schedule is out there for anybody to see, but it is a near certainty that it is a matter of public record. Whenever there is an incident or scandal or breaking news, the media instantaneously reports that Representative Whosit met with this person or that person or Senator Whatsit received this person or that delegation in his office on such and such a date. The media seems to have no problem at all discerning who has connections or contact with who. They know where they go on vacation, who they have dinner with, what parties, fund raisers, or state dinners they attend, etc.

Umm, congressmembers, like every other citizen, are allowed to socialize with whomever they choose and they don't have to report it to the govt. And it's foolish to depend on the media to monitor the politicians

 

[Avatar4321]

I'd like to suggest a radical way of thinking about government:

Self-Government

And I think we should focus on this in our own lives no matter who is in power. Because if we can't govern ourselves when times are good. We will destroy ourselves when things aren't as good.

As corrupt as our government is, it really is just a reflection of the people. If we want to eliminate the corruption in government, we need to start with our own lives.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'd like to suggest a radical way of thinking about government:

Self-Government

And I think we should focus on this in our own lives no matter who is in power. Because if we can't govern ourselves when times are good. We will destroy ourselves when things aren't as good.

As corrupt as our government is, it really is just a reflection of the people. If we want to eliminate the corruption in government, we need to start with our own lives.

That is precisely what our Constitution was intended to be all about. The first people in the world that would not be subject to authority of a king or monarch or dictator or totalitarian government but which would govern themselves. In other words the first ordered society of free people with unalienable rights.

That was a whole new way to think about government.

We need to think about that whole new way to think about government again.

 

[mdn2000]

We do need a whole new way of thinking, its called no tax. No collection of fees. Take the money away from those who have proved they do not know how to handle money.

 

[Foxfyre]

We do need a whole new way of thinking, its called no tax. No collection of fees. Take the money away from those who have proved they do not know how to handle money.

But a people is not free unless their rights are recognized, respected, protected, and, if necessary, defended. It is the purpose of the federal government to do that. Short of violating the rights of others, the people are then free to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

So without taxes or collection of fees, how do you propose to fund the constitutional responsibilities to protect their rights that the people give to the Federal Government?

 

[sangha]

Only lazy and cowardly Nanny Staters need a Big Govt to defend them. Real americans defend themselves. It's called personal responsibility

 

[Flopper]

We do need a whole new way of thinking, its called no tax. No collection of fees. Take the money away from those who have proved they do not know how to handle money.

And how do you plan to do this?