Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Oct. 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
From age 18 on, I’ve always voted. In college, I learned how our system really works from a great political science professor. After taking his class, I understood that Congress is the most consequential branch of government and that lobbying and the money needed to win election and be re-elected had totally corrupted Congress.
I later figured out that unless we change the way members of Congress are elected and re-elected, and find a way to reduce the influence of lobbyists, our Congresses will never do what is best for the country but instead do what is best for their chances of re-election.
Being a House member or senator is extremely lucrative. There are no term limits, so the financial possibilities for each member are unlimited, as long as they are re-elected.
No matter who you vote for as president or what party you support, the truth overrides everything else.
If we don’t reform Congress, we are going down financially. It’s time to pay attention to Congress and to reform Congress.
-------------
January of 2007 Democrats took over Congress; the House with Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank; the Senate with Obama, Biden, Harry Reid, and Chris Dodd.
They had four years of total domination
This is a singular turning point in American history with the social and economic morass that followed. Obama, Reid and Pelosi have been on a path to implement the Liberals Entitlement Manifesto. One where a powerful Central Government control all activities and directs people's lives.
----
These Democrats were elected with big money from Hollywood, Wall Streets, and Union Bosses
-----
The author of this letter to the editor has constantly complained in his previous posts about Congress and reforms that are essential to the survival of the country. But, like Romney, he has no specific plan for this reform he speaks of.
The letter writer also claims to be a struggling very small business owner. How surprising is it that this person is a Romney supporter? He can't even comprehend that if his small business had any type of net value or worth, Bain Capital would come in on a hostile takeover and strip his business to the bone, leaving him with nothing.
It is confusing to me when a person, politically speaking, feeds the tiger that would eventually eat him alive. Think about that Mr. Casler when you vote for Romney at the polls.
This letter to the editor belongs in the circular file!!!
I agree with Mr. Casler's conclusion. IMHO, it is partly the reason why he recommends a third party solution to eventually speak for the people who want to reform congress. A third party option, in my view, is his solution and he's suggested it many times and many have agreed with his position.
Good letter. I only question the will of the nation to make the needed reforms that Michael recommnends. Nevertheless, It is people like Michael who persist that may eventually lead to change.
Letter writer is exactly right. Let's start the reform of Congress by doing away with the Senate. It's a dinosaur. Founding Fathers used England's model of government with a House of Representatives [House of Commons] and the Senate [House of Lords]. The former are the working class and the latter are the wealthy and the aristocrats. Long ago, England stripped the House of Lords of all powers other than ceremonial. Americans haven't followed its lead, yet. We should.
CarmineD
Bchap writes 'This letter to the editor belongs in the circular file!!!'
Bchap, wouldn't you describe your comment above as politically motivated partisan rhetoric? You attempted to pivot from Mr. Casler's topic of the need for congressional reforms to a heavily partisan and meaningless rant. Get a grip Bchap, not every LVS letter topic is written as a partisan based letter.
About 50 % of Americans actually believe that electing D's to Congress will lead to good times for Americans. The other 50 % believe that electing R's to Congress will lead to good times.
Bradley, for instance believes in D's and votes that way. There is certainly nothing wrong with voting D or R, if that party philosophy most closely fits your belief system.
The point I am making is that when any American believes that good times will come without the reforms in Congress I talk about, he or she is being frustratingly naive, in my opinion.
The D and R parties respectively, badly WANT and NEED us to believe that the opposite party IS THE PROBLEM.
Anyone taking a fair look knows that a large majority of Congress members, willingly or unwillingly vote on legislation the way party leadership tells them to vote. Party leadership is driven by the money and desires of lobbyists of powerful interests of all kinds. This system is corrupt to its core and needs reform. Until it is reformed, we can vote R or D until hell freezes over and we are going to see a 'bad' result for the country as a whole and for each of us as an individual American.
As some of you have noted, I do not attack Bradley or anyone else about how they vote. That is because I know we all have to vote for a candidate.
What is disappointing to me is that so many people seem unable to support the party of their choice, while at the same time, recognizing, and agreeing that our most consequential branch of government has been corrupted and that neither party shows the slightest interest in reforming Congress.
Bradley and others voting D won't reform Congress. Carmine and others voting R won't reform Congress, as two examples. Reforming Congress is vital to a bright future for America and that reform will NEVER come until a large group of us start demanding it... along with voting for the party of our choice.
I will guarantee that no matter who wins this Presidential election, gridlock will reign in Congress and even more importantly, whatever legislation is proposed by our President, it will enter the corrupted meatgrinder that is Congress and come out in a form that benefits powerful interests with lobbyists and absolutely WILL NOT be to the benefit of the country as a whole of each of us as an individual American.
If you doubt me, just look at the last 12 years and watch the next four.
Michael
RefNV (Re Freeman),
Thank you for pointing out another real problem that prevents Americans from coming together. Reform of Congress is not and should not be a partisan issue, but it is treated as such by many when I bring it up.
When every subject is treated as a partisan attack by people who support the opposite party, we cannot even begin a conversation on any important topic. Very disappointing.
Michael
If we want our Congress to act in the public interest, then the public should be the sole financer of the election process.
I would also suggest three-year terms for rpresentatives with one-third of them being voted on each year. With two-year terms, epresentatives are campaigning constantly. I would also recommend term limits of 12 years for each individual , 4 elections for Representatives and 2 elections for Senators or a combination that totals no more than 12 years. If term limits make sense for the Presidemt, they do for Congress too.
I also prefer an open primary system where all voters can vote for all candidates for an office. If one candidate receives 50% plus one vote they are elected. If not, the top two have a runoff election. This has the greatest potential for qualifying candidates with a third party affiliation or no party affiliation.
"Carmine and others voting R won't reform Congress"
Mr. Casler:
Read my recommendation to eliminate the US Senate. That will reform Congress and eliminate legislative grindlock, not to mention get rid of dirty harry [albeit his residency is coming to an end].
CarmineD
Jim,
Good suggestions to start a conversation on this very important topic. The fact that 'serving' can very easily become a lucrative 'career' is a huge problem. Connected to that is the fact that making ones 'service' into a 'career' absolutely demands that one throw out ones independence and vote as your party leadership tells you to vote. Until we change that dynamic, WE don't really even have a VOICE in the most consequential branch of our government.
Michael
Carmine,
I am NOT criticizing or attacking you. I don't agree with eliminating the Senate because the House is as corrupted as the Senate. We need to reform both chambers. I just used you and Bradley because you both champion your side, respectively, and it was to point out that an all D or all R Congress would still be corrupted by the same forces that corrupt a divided Congress.
Michael
No offense taken Mr. Casler. The Senate is called the "millionaires' club" for a reason. If you aren't when you are elected, you will be before you leave. That is... IF you leave. Joe Biden may wish he didn't.
CarmineD
Author, one class and you now know it all? You are naive.
You do nothing but state the obvious. Congress has needed reforming for decades.
I, too, have always voted since I was eligible (age 21, back then). The difference is in who I voted for then and who I generally vote for now. I'm with you, Weber, on open primaries. That's the way it was back then and should be today. As long as we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for primary elections, we should be free to choose whomever we want. If Republicrats, Dumbocrats or Independents want to choose their standard bearers, let them pay the costs involved. And, BTW, let's make it much easier for "minor" parties to get on the ballots as well.
BChap rant belongs in the circular file!!!
---
Look it is a flat out ruse red herring to blame money or unions bosses or Hollywood or Wall Syreet for makeup of our congress
I will vote for people based on their views
- big trickle-down government or NOT
- higher taxes or NOT
- personnal freedom or NOT
The IDEA that you are voting because the number of ads on TV Is nonsense.
Stop blaming money. Everybody including BChap on this blog is voting based on issues not money.
----
Look where Obama's propensity for voting 'present' got him.
Michael:
You've asked me a question in another thread about my suggestions on how to fix this country. I am sorry, I do not have answers for you. My solution is more cerebral than practical.
I believe in your suggestion. I also believe we are dreaming an impossible dream. The change we'd like to propose takes an act of congress and logic tells us it is not going to happen. What it takes is real leadership. Someone who will take the 'whip' and use it on congress and the senate.
That was the main reason I did not vote for Obama the first time. I wanted Hillary. I was very sure she would have 'cleaned house.' This time, I have another choice. I watched, I listened, and I researched. For a time, I considered voting for Romney. I surmised he could ask those who donated millions to him to be on his side and use their wealth and influence to get this country back on its feet. I waited for Romney to show some signs that indeed he would do that. What I saw instead was a waffling on issues depending on his audience. There are too many to include here. What sealed his fate against me voting for him was his lack of transparency and his values about the less fortunate.
Obama is the other alternative. He has shown me that he has learned his lesson and he now appears seasoned. I believe his intentions are genuine. When I went through the list of PAC donors, those who donated for Obama were mostly associations of working people and some rich people, while those of Romney were mostly, if not all, owners of big corporations and CEOs.
Now, we know that to be a businessman, you have to be ruthless. You cannot be successful if you are meek. Greed and power go together. There are very few exceptions. This is where my decision was sealed for Obama. Between Romney and Obama, I believe Obama will make a better leader from his experience as President and his genuine belief of the common man. I am honestly not sure Romney will do what he claims he would. Now this may not be logical or scientific to some, but it is my gut feeling and I can kick myself if I am wrong. If I voted for Romney and I am proven wrong, it would be very hard to take.
Leadership is the solution. We must look at not only what we see, but also underneath of what is being shown.
Nancy,
Thanks for the response. I don't care if you vote for Obama. He'll probably win. He most likely won't be able to make things better and neither will Romney if he wins. Congress is the reason why.
Here is a personal example of how Congress works. I was a Customer Service and Technical Support Director at a software company. My good friend Raymond ran the Quality Assurance department. Our boss was a woman named Marcee, who was the sister of the owner of the company. Marcee wasn't a bad person to work for but she would tell Raymond and I to do some things we thought were not in the best interests of the company. We'd provide our thoughts and most often we'd lose the argument.
Raymond decided to buck Marcee and do what he thought was best for the company. I reasoned that I wanted to keep my job so I did what I was told, even though I knew it probably wasn't in the best interests of the company. I kept my job until outsourcing took it, but Raymond was let go.
That's how Congress works and most members are like me. Those positions are so good that members decide the consequences of doing what you feel to be right are losing your position, so they do what I did. They do what their party leadership tells them to do and their party leadership is controlled by money and lobbyists for powerful interests. In order words, they go along to get along to keep their positions.
That is much less damaging in the private sector than it is in the public (government) sector; only one company probably gets damaged by my self serving go along to get along strategy. We can't afford that attitude in government (Congress), where self serving attitudes damage the entire country, not just one company.
That's why we need to reform Congress. Doing that is soooooo much more important (and difficult) than whether Obama or Romney is the President. And that is my point.
Michael
Joan,
I think you might be surprised about the number of Americans who don't understand what Congress does or how it works. They know they don't like what is happening but have no accurate idea of the reasons behind what they are experiencing. I was naive when I was young, as most young people are. I am not young anymore and with all due respect to you and your opinions, I am also not naive.
Michael
Ponder this (From Thom Hartmann):
You need to know this.
How much does it cost to buy a seat in the United States House of Representatives?
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson thinks a half-million dollars should do. Adelson -- who's already spent more money than any other oligarch this election so far -- is promising to drop $500,000 in a New Jersey congressional district to elect Republican candidate Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
And if Rabbi Boteach needs more money -- Adelson is more than capable with a net worth of about $25 billion. As the Center for American Progress points out -- with that much money -- Adelson could give a half million dollars to every single Republican nominee in every single House and Senate seat in every single election cycle for the next 186 years without running out of money.
The latest recipient of Adelson's fortune -- Rabbi Boteach commented about the donation saying, "I think Sheldon Adelson will bring democracy to the ninth district of New Jersey." Yes, if buying and selling Congressional seats in America is considered "democracy." The oligarchy is stronger than it's ever been in modern history."
And This:
"President Obama will likely become the first ever incumbent President to be outraised by his opponent in his re-election bid. And in a desperate attempt to even the playing field just slightly before November -- the President has been forced to hold endless fundraisers. As the Center for American Progress reveals, President Obama has already held nearly 200 fundraisers during his first term in office. To put that in perspective, George. W Bush held slightly more than 80, and President Clinton held roughly 70.
But in the post-Citizens-United era, when billionaires can dump their fortunes into changing our elections, then politicians are forced to endlessly raise money. And it's not just President Obama: Members of Congress are stuck in this trap, too. If the average House Member spent 40 hours a week fundraising, he or she would need to raise, on average, $367 an hour. For a Senator, $819 an hour.
This is one the biggest problem facing our democracy. We elect our representatives to go to Washington and represent our interests. But in reality what they are forced to do by our Supreme Court is fundraise, fundraise, fundraise -- giving those with deep pockets more influence than average voters. To fix this -- we need to get money out of politics. Go to https://MoveToAmend.org "
Move To Amend working link: https://movetoamend.org/
Jeff,
Let's look at this fairly. Even before citizens united, candidates had to fund raise constantly and were beholden to lobbyists representing powerful interests with agenda's. Citizens United added even more money but the issues predate Citizens United.
Public financing of campaigns, ending of lifetime pensions for members of Congress, term limits, ending of special medical coverage for members of Congress, a 10 year ban on working for a lobbying firm after serving in Congress, lobbying reform and many other changes are necessary.
You tend to come at this issue from a partisan perspective, and this should be a non partisan issue.
Michael
Michael,
Me thinks you are ten times more partisan than I have ever been. I am just currently siding with Democrats. I know that Republican leadership will eventually get it and I will be siding with them again. You are currently on the wrong side.
Those fence rails you are sitting on must be painful.
The problem with our government is with the individuals elected to office, specifically the obstructionist far right tea party types such as wannabe senators Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin and letter writer Casler's favorite, Sharron Angle.
Meantime, big money donors like Sheldon Adelson gets what he pays for, or at least, Adelson hopes he gets what he pays for, which of course in a win by Heller.
I get your point Michael.
Reforming congress is an impossible dream. I want you to get that. Congress will have Ds and will have Rs and that will never change. We cannot change their value system either. Power and greed are wildly intoxicating and I'll even go as far as saying a saint would probably be tempted to go along if it meant more power and wealth.
What I want to make you understand is we need LEADERSHIP -real leadership- not a feigned one depending on the audience. Our divergent views on who has real leadership skills will perpetuate this charade we call politics much like it does in congress. What happens after the election will happen regardless of what we, little people think or do.
However, I believe in the tenacity of the common man. We will prevail us a country as we have after the many disastrous events we have had to get through. There will be collateral damage, but that is an element in a system in which we choose to operate. It works, albeit seemingly unfair to some.
Nancy,
Let's go back to when I was a kid. Money was needed to get elected to Congress and lobbying existed. Our leaders provided 'leadership' as you call it that NEVER included reforms to the way we elect members of Congress or the way Congress operates. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush, Clinton, George Bush II, and now Obama. Not one of them provided leadership in this area.
You are right that we need leadership in the area of reforming Congress, but it is a 'dream' to think we are going to get it unless we tell our President that we demand it. Almost every single person we elect comes from a political background and many have served in either Congress or a state legislature. THEY KNOW HOW THIS CORRUPT CONGRESSIONAL SYSTEM WORKS, yet make no attempt to do anything about it. The odds that either Obama or Romney will ever address it are as close to zero as they can be without being zero.
I have sent questions into debates to try to get the question addressed. No luck. If I were to be lucky enough to get to speak to any President... I would not ask about wars or the economy. I'd ask if the President understands how corrupted Congress is. If I was lucky enough to get an honest answer, I'd ask what the President thinks should be done. If he didn't have a good answer, I provide one for him or her.
This IS the KEY issue of our times and it is tragic that it gets paid so little attention.
Michael
Lastthrows,
It is really too bad you will not allow yourself to see the whole picture. You allow yourself to see 1/2 of it very clearly, which shows you are not stupid.
Yet you always concentrate on the big money donors for R's. YES, they exist and yes, they corrupt, but there are big money donors on the D side too and they also corrupt. Citizens United just made a bad system worse.
That's my point. We need to address the influence peddling in all its forms, in all area and with both parties.
Michael
Not only Obama and Romney are parroting Caribou Barbie, almost everyone is.
"If we don't reform Congress, we are going down financially. It's time to pay attention to Congress and to reform Congress."
Casler -- yet We the People keep electing the same culprits to Congress over and over again. This is evident from the fact with rare exception only Rs and Ds are elected to national office.
So long as We the People act like livestock, that's exactly how we deserve to be treated.
"I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army... Among the [European governments], under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. ... If once [our people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor." -- Thomas Jefferson, from his letter to Edward Carrington, Paris, Jan. 16, 1787 (found in The Works of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 5 (Correspondence 1786-1787))
I'm not convinced your proposed remedy would play out any better than what we have, though I share your frustration. More than likely, with it's constant turnover & lack of benefits/opportunities, it'd restrict Congressional membership even more to the wealthy AND increase the power of unelected & unaccountable staffers and bureacrats. No, as sloppy and corruptable as it may currently be, the remedy isn't so much reform as it is The People taking an active interest and holding their representatives accountable for their actions/inactions in DC. The politicians have to be held accountable for what they promise in the campaign -- they either kept their word and actively pursued what they said they would, or they didn't and they need to be replaced.
Casler: "Citizens United just made a bad system worse."
True, Mike. And it was your conservative-minded brethren on the SC that passed CU into law. The liberals justices fought hard but didn't have the numbers to stop Alitobots, including Clarence Thomas who hasn't asked a single question in the court for over five years.
Michael Casler said:
"Public financing of campaigns, ending of lifetime pensions for members of Congress, term limits, ending of special medical coverage for members of Congress, a 10 year ban on working for a lobbying firm after serving in Congress, lobbying reform and many other changes are necessary."
I say:
All progressive positions, get out of the republican tent, although if we have public financing the rest of your agenda you have laid out will not be as much of a problem.
You even tyoe out these clearly progresive, liberal, democratic ideas, but you will elect a guy like Paul Ryan who is being hidden from public sight to keep his abortion and other social issues contained in the last days of this race.
You seem sort of like a person born gay that needs to come out of the closet, only in your case as a progressive who happens to vote for democrats currently because with the democrats you have a greater chance of Public financing of campaigns, ending of lifetime pensions for members of Congress, term limits, ending of special medical coverage for members of Congress, a 10 year ban on working for a lobbying firm after serving in Congress, lobbying reform and many other changes that are necessary.
Got it?
Lastthrows,
True to form, it's always about the R's and Conservatives. Of course Conservatives wanted Citizens United. They want advantage, just like Progressives like it that Unions can collect dues from members and then use them to support candidates and parties their members may or may not agree with. It's all an advantage game but you just want to see the advantage game from the side you agree with. I see it from both sides because it exists on both sides.
Michael
Comment removed by moderator. Personal Attack
All:
Here is this years "Best Of The Rest" 5th presidential debate. Change can come from this type of interaction.
http://youtu.be/e0vE5CTTSFI
Casler, your brush off of CU as 'both sides do it' is pure baloney. Check the numbers of donors for this election and it's plain that Romney and the Rs are getting the big checks from the top 1% while Obama's has raised far more money from the average citizens.
Mike claims to want a govt that gets things done but voted for an extremist like Sharron Angle who was nicknamed 41-to-Angle while in the Nevada Assembly because she even refused to work with her fellow republicans, not to mention the other side of the aisle.
As a lifelong Democrat I think my party has the best ideas for keeping our country safe and strong, financially and otherwise. Do I believe the Democratic Party is perfect? No. But in a choice between the two, IMO it's not even close.
Comment removed by moderator. Refers to removed comment.
LastThroes, Unions are not average citizens giving campaign money. Unions are giant money pacs.
Your obsequiousness is mind boggling.
The Republicans and Democrats abuse the money system at every turn. Rory Reid anybody??
Jeff,
Both R's and D's have controlled Congress and the Presidency at times. There have also been times when R's and D's have cooperated and compromised. Please name me even one time that....
Public financing of campaigns, ending of lifetime pensions for members of Congress, term limits, ending of special medical coverage for members of Congress, a 10 year ban on working for a lobbying firm after serving in Congress, etc.
have been 'seriously' considered by Congress or a President.
No my friend... contrary to what you seem to believe, there has been and is no appetite by either party for these reforms. If there was, we have already seen them.
Michael
Lastthrows,
'As a lifelong Democrat I think my party has the best ideas for keeping our country safe and strong, financially and otherwise. Do I believe the Democratic Party is perfect? No. But in a choice between the two, IMO it's not even close.'
Then you should vote D, but when you recognize that money is corrupting Congress, but criticize Citizens United (and rightfully so) but ignore the power of Union contributions, it makes it difficult to view you as fair minded.
I have no problem with people who support D's because I don't view D's as all evil, all the time, or all wrong, all the time.
Michael
Michael:
Once again, why you need to vote republicans OUT of office:
Chief Justice Roberts in ANOTHER 5-4 decision:
"The State argues that the matching funds provision actually results in more speech by "increas[ing] debate about issues of public concern" in Arizona elections and "promot[ing] the free and open debate that the First Amendment was intended to foster." In the State's view, this promotion of First Amendment ideals offsets any burden the law might impose on some speakers.
Not so. Any increase in speech resulting from the Arizona law is of one kind and one kind only--that of publicly financed candidates. The burden imposed on privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups reduces their speech; "restriction[s] on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression." Thus, even if the matching funds provision did result in more speech by publicly financed candidates and more speech in general, it would do so at the expense of impermissibly burdening (and thus reducing) the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups. This sort of "beggar thy neighbor" approach to free speech--"restrict[ing] the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others"--is "wholly foreign to the First Amendment ."
We have rejected government efforts to increase the speech of some at the expense of others outside the campaign finance context. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, we held unconstitutional a Florida law that required any newspaper assailing a political candidate's character to allow that candidate to print a reply. We have explained that while the statute in that case "purported to advance free discussion, " its effect was to deter newspapers from speaking out in the first instance" because it "penalized the newspaper's own expression." Such a penalty, we concluded, could not survive First Amendment scrutiny. The Arizona law imposes a similar penalty: The State grants funds to publicly financed candidates as a direct result of the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups. The argument that this sort of burden promotes free and robust discussion is no more persuasive here than it was in Tornillo."
The election of Romney will cement this into law. The election of Obama in time overturns these 5-4 decisions.
Get with it Michael, you are "Blinded By The Right". And you are wrong.
The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campai...
Donations under $200
Obama - 56%
Romney - 23%
Donations $2500 max
Obama - 11%
Romney - 42%
There's a reason one-percenters love the GOP.
The more deficit-growing trickledown tax cuts Koch and Adelson get the more they'll have to keep their favorite GOP puppets in Congress that make the corrupt system work.
Jeff,
I would be fine, if we have to allow campaign contributions, to take all 'organizations' of any kind out of the mix. That means no contributions by trade groups, unions, businesses, etc and just allow individual contributions of $ 100 max.
Neither party would sign onto that because they both want the money and look to gain advantage.
The bigger and more important issue is the lobbying that goes on after member of Congress are elected.
Michael
I advocate allowing only those people eligible to vote in a given race to make donations for that race. I would settle for only allowing those who are eligible to vote in the state in which the race takes place as a start.
Unfortunately, the concept of "corporate personhood" has to be trimmed back to being the legal fiction it was intended to be instead of what it is now before that can happen.
Leadership is the solution. We must look at not only what we see, but also underneath of what is being shown.
Very profound statement by the teacher. And as a student I think this is great advice. That is why I shall vote for Romney.
Campaigners are shooting the politicians in the feet. This election season has clearly shown us that there is NO POINT IN CONTRIBUTING to endless tv ads, campaign salaries for friends and relatives of politicians and lobbyists, and limited information available on the candidates. The debates are helpful but the process degenerates into hypes and defenses of pointless negative tv ads. And the endless mail--much of it arriving too late, after minds are made up and after early voters have voted. Now, we see obvious signs of voter fraud and Democrats urging illegals to vote. Sure, term limits and lifetime limits to total of all offices would be helpful, but how are you going to make that happen? Are we going to wait for Congress to do it? For Congress to do anything for the American citizens instead of spending time and money on foreign travel, illegal immigrants, lobbyists but having no time for passing a federal BUDGET, cutting spending, narrowing federal programs to original purposes and goals, limiting grants to states? Just look at the federal Department of Education--which theoretically should only ensure educational standards--look at the circus atmosphere and the policy of encouraging the waste of locale funds to compete for grants.
Your govt at work:
***
Chevron Gives $2.5 Million To House Republican Super PAC
WASHINGTON -- Chevron is firmly behind the House Republican majority. The multibillion-dollar oil company's support is so strong that it has donated $2.5 million to a super PAC working to maintain that majority in the next Congress. Chevron's contribution to the Congressional Leadership Fund is the largest made by a publicly traded company this election cycle to a super PAC.
A Constitutional Amendment nullifying the Citizen's United Decision is quintessential to the task.
Bradley,
I just want you to know that I DID NOT report you to the moderator for a 'personal attack' regarding my letter to the editor. The editor determined, by himself, as I did, that your response was a personal attack.
Michael
Mr. Casler,
I often agree with you and your points, this just happens to be another one. I think that the best way to make reform happen is to first get out the word about this, just how corrupt it is and then let it be known that we need new blood in there that will vote for a term limit amendment. However i don't believe it ends there. I feel there needs to also be a campaign finance amendment or law. We need either FULL transparency when it comes to donations to campaigns all around OR we just need to switch to public financing. That would correct the biggest issue, money in politics.
Get money out and get democracy back!
Michael,
I agree that Congress needs reform. I don't think a third party will solve the problem.
Let's start with Carmine's idea that the Senate gets no vote, but acts as another voice in the argument. That puts the House as the voting body. The very name "House of REPRESENTATIVES" gives a hint of a direction.
The problem is that Congress is not the People's Representative any longer. So, the solution is to return them to being OUR representatives. I think I would be for a more involved solution, one that would require active participation of the citizen's to be represented.
Personally, I like a combination of a direct democracy and a representational democracy.
The use of Town Hall's can serve to decide on issues an policy's that the community wants the elected Representative to work on. This would be the direct democracy process.
This does not necessarily eliminate parties, but I wish so much it would. I would love to see the people be the true focus, not parties. Every level of middleman and special interest separates the people from their Representative more.
The Town Hall's could also nominate their candidates to run as their Representative, from their area. It could then move into a primary for the selection of however many Representatives it has been determined truly represent the State's population proportionally.
We have to keep the Representatives as OUR Representatives. So, I think they should be contracted to the voters. The contract should express the issues the Representatives are to work on behalf of the People.
They should return to the district and meet in Town Hall's to indicate their successes, and if there are failures, they need to explain why and what options there could be for partial success. They need to listen to the people they represent express their concerns. Contracts could be adjusted or amended for good cause.
If they fail to adhere to the contract, the contract can be terminated and a new or alternate Representative takes over.
We also need to deal with the Lobbyist problem in a serious way, limiting their access and what they do for the Representative in the way of campaign financing, gifts, and legislative work for the Representative. Work on legislation needs to be by staff and the Representative, not Lobbyists.
We need to also reverse the Citizen's United craziness that has rocketed the cost of this election to the obscene level of over $2 billion dollars.
Limit campaign financing severely, and make all contributors transparent. With Town Halls, information is accessible & available to the people. Information is also available on the Internet. Candidates can speak.
Yes, this places more responsibility on the people, but that is citizenship. It also makes the Representatives more accountable to the people they represent rather to other special interests.
Peacelilly:
Good suggestions, but as I said earlier, it will take an act of congress and we know it is not going to happen.
The solution is leadership. Someone who has integrity and strength of character.
Sadly, many voters are easily swayed by empty promises because they refuse to think beyond their financial 'woes.' In 'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, they are still at that level where their basic needs have not been met, real or imagined. There are, as you say the 1%ers and the wannabes, then there are the racists, as claimed by one of their own!
If Obama does not win, we will be back in medieval times where the rich will be the ruling class and the poor - downtrodden and bereft.
Oh well, that is what I call collateral damage of our folly.
Michael........
The problem with Congress are the extreme, right-
wing, radical teabaggers.
With their radical leader, Paul Ryan.
That's the problem.
NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN!
Nancy,
You speak of going back to something akin to Feudalism as a result of Romney! Could be, or at least heading there. The divisions of power and wealth are already too great. It occurred as a result of lack of knowledge and vigilance for some decades, which still persists.
I feel concern and pity for those whose lifetime is still ahead of them, and their offspring.
I know that change is not likely unless the People really get a fire under them to take back our system.
Changes to be firm will need some Constitutional Amendments. That can only happen with representation and leadership that begins outside the Congressional chambers.
The ideas I put forward are more grassroots, with non-professional politician's if possible, who give a bit of their lives temporarily serving the People. No long termers.
On Maslow, I tend to agree with you. One can easily see the basic needs premise.
My problem is that I look for Viktor Frankl's Self Transcendence, but to the degree I speak of, that might take more personal evolution for there to be significant number who would be capable of the responsibility I wish for.
Still, I express my ideas, even if I will never see them realized. Maybe someone might think about it and start the ball rolling sometime in the future.
Interestingly, I suspect that there might be a dual state operative in those who function on the levels of Self-Actualization (duality) and Self Transcendence (non-duality). One is active and the other still.
In general, humanity is not there, or even near in significant enough numbers. Some will never be there.
Still, I hope it won't require that much development to realize changes that are just, by, for and of the People.
To Peacelily, ASadTeacher, Teamster, LastThrows, Sounddude, SunJon, JefffromVegas, KillerB, Chuck333, Boftx
As long as the perks, the opportunities to enrich oneself, the pay, the benefits, the longevity, the medical coverage and the retirement are among the best to be found in America, the positions of House member and Senator are going to be highly sought after and valuable.
As long as we continue to make the only way to keep these valuable positions is to throw your ethics and morals out the window and vote as your party leadership tells you, we will get bad results.
As long as the leadership of each party in each house of Congress is dependent on money provided by powerful interests with lobbyists, the leadership will tell their members to vote as the powerful interests want... and they will.
If we want our voice back, to reduce the influence of powerful interests and we want to free our representatives to vote in 'our' interests, we must call for and then force (with our votes) Congress to reform itself in the 3 areas above.
Michael
Oh Michael, this idea of reforming congress is beyond our reach. We do not have the wherewithal to change it. We are but a squeak in a din-filled political arena.
I am hoping that people like you who appears intelligent will admit that we need a real LEADER. Romney is NOT it! Why you refuse to see him for what he is, instead of his promises, is very difficult for me to understand.
I look at it very simply: I have two marriage proposals. One is a local dude who sometimes is a bumbling fool, but he is steady, with character, and genuine. Then I have another who appears polished, rich with grand ideas , and promises me the moon, but brags, lies, and shifty. Material things are attractive to a girl, but good sense tells me I should settle for the one who is genuine.
Many would choose the polished one, but it is not good sense if you want a solid married life.
Michael the "Both sides are wrong guy" said:
"As long as the perks, the opportunities to enrich oneself, the pay, the benefits, the longevity, the medical coverage and the retirement are among the best to be found in America, the positions of House member and Senator are going to be highly sought after and valuable."
I say:
As long as you stay firmly entrenched with republicans the solutions will elude you.
Numerous people have illuminated the weakness of you position (and the value of some of your ideas) because you won't come to grips with the facts.
You're on the wrong team with regard to the sweeping changes you are looking for. In the senate who is more likely to go along with your goals? Harry Reid or Dean Heller? If you can't answer these questions honestly you are as much of the problem as the people you complain about. Who would be more likely to sign for public financing, the guy who spent about $50 MILLION of his own, or the guy who has had 50 million donors (a slight exaggeration)?
YOU KNOW THE ANSWER IS DEMOCRATS AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY, BUT YOUR FOOLISH PRIDE MAKES YOU VOTE FOR THE WRONG TEAM OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
It is guys like you that keep rolling over for a sham candidate like rOMNEY that cause the pain America is going through. bUSH too. Bush the elder wasn't too bad, but other than that since 1980 you guys have put us in the place we are today.
Grow up republicans. Quit wrecking America.
Nancy,
I agree that getting Congress to make changes to itself is an extreme long shot, but I don't agree that it cannot be done.
I also agree that we need an extraordinary leader to lead Americans to demand that change.
I also agree that Romney is polished and slick and he has changed positions. But I think you are unwilling to see the negatives with Obama. You say Obama is genuine. No. A genuine person would answer questions about Benghazi and defend whatever decisions were made about rendering aid to those who ended up dead, even if it damaged a campaign. A genuine person would have defended the ACA legislation by saying honestly that he felt it so important to provide health insurance for 30 million uninsured that money would need to be removed from Medicare and that people with health care insurance would have to pay more so that those without could get it, and been willing to live with the decision of all Americans.
I am sure you are correct in your belief that Romney isn't genuine but your belief that Obama is...is just not supported by the facts.
I believe very little of what each gentleman says, but I have watched the President's policies for 4 years and I believe that while R's (to their shame) have been very uncooperative with him, Obama, in the areas where he has accomplished economic related items, has picked the wrong priorities (health care reform) and has allowed Congress to badly execute how money he called for (stimulus) was spent. I don't want another 4 years of that. We cannot afford another 4 years of that.
Could? Romney be worse? Absolutely, as anyone could. I'm ready to give him a chance. You're not and I am fine with that, as I am with anyone's vote...but please do not try to tell me that Obama is genuine. The facts, for both Romney and Obama, say that just isn't true.
Michael
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead....
I suppose this is our way to do our part. However, we must agree on which principle to fight for if we ever want to have a chance at the change we want.
We must sacrifice if we want to prevail. We must not be attracted to false promises. Dark as the horizon may look, we must continue the course, convincing and attractive as the mirage might be, it is after all only a mirage.
Jeff,
If you really believe that Harry Reid or Dean Heller are likely to support what I call for, you are very naive. Both would fight like hell against doing anything of the sort. The change is too big and it would be too unpopular with powerful players. Would Obama or Romney support goals I support? Not a chance.
I'll tell you what I told Nancy. Vote for whomever you wish. I have no problem with that. Do not try to tell me that D's have any more interest in real reform of the way Congress operates and how money corrupts Congress than R's do. That isn't true and the facts show it isn't true.
Argue instead that you prefer the policies and philosophy of the D's. I can have respect for that, even though I may not feel the same way. There are not 'genuine' politicians. There are no politicians that support real reform of Congress. To say there are is nonsense and therefore to argue that one side is genuine and one side does support reform is.... not credible.... PLEASE! Vote as you wish but don't insult my intelligence.
Michael
@wtplv,
"Being a House member or senator is extremely lucrative. There are no term limits, so the financial possibilities for each member are unlimited, as long as they are re-elected." (Michael Casler)
Good observation Mr. Casler. Michaal, you have identified the core problem with our current congress. Your smart, your in the middle. You are looking at the larger picture. Good! Good words!
How do you change Washington? You know the answer Michael. Please provide the answer to the many who don't quite understand your Letter to the Editor.
When one has big ideas, or understand the larger picture of things, or "get's it", you have a responsibility to educate those you do not.
Tell the people who have posted comments, on how Washington can be changed. How the current process of conducting business in Washington can be changed. You know the answer. I have confidence you can educate others on the large picture.
Michael, your words, please.......
Michael:
You said:
"I'll tell you what I told Nancy. Vote for whomever you wish. I have no problem with that. Do not try to tell me that D's have any more interest in real reform of the way Congress operates and how money corrupts Congress than R's do. That isn't true and the facts show it isn't true."
I say:
You are just flat out wrong and jaded.
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) warned Monday afternoon that if Congress fails to limit campaign donations from the wealthy, a group of "angry, old white men" with billions of dollars to contribute will be able to determine political outcomes in the United States.
Reid's remarks on the Senate floor set up a vote later in the day on the Disclose Act, which would require companies and groups to report all campaign spending above $10,000. He said Republicans were expected to prevent consideration of the bill.
"Their newfound opposition to transparency makes one wonder who they're trying to protect," Reid said. He then offered the theory that Republicans do not want voters to learn about how they are sourced, and indicated that GOP money comes from a few wealthy contributors.
"Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election," he said. "If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election, 17 angry, old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country."
The Disclose Act is a reaction to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, which said the government cannot limit campaign spending by corporations, unions or other groups. Democrats have sought to temper that ruling by requiring these groups to publicly report their campaign spending.
The bill to be voted on Monday would require groups to report every $10,000 in campaign spending within 24 hours.
Reid reiterated Democratic opposition to the Supreme Court ruling, and said it has opened a flood of campaign spending from the wealthy that could skew election results. He also said some of this spending is done by groups with "questionable motives."
Further:
Senate Bill S. 3369, more commonly known as the "DISCLOSE" Act, (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections), died in the Senate when it failed to receive the 60 votes needed to end debate. The final vote count was 51 to 44 with five Senators not voting: Dean Heller (R-NV), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).
Jeff.....Great comments again.
Of course republicans don't want disclosure.
They want to buy elections.
Because they are the minority party and can't
win them fair and square.
Michael Casler still doesn't understand.
He still supports the minority party of greedy
liars, thieves and crooks.
It's very sad that some people never learn.
Sorry Michael but that's the plain truth.