Congressional Reform Act of 2011

[redearth76]

I don't know if this has been posted or not but I came across this and some of the points sound ok to me.

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in
office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen.
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress
is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

8. Any congressman resigning due to unlawful acts receives NO benefits.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS !

 

[PastaRocket848]

that sounds pretty good. i still think that if you want real reform you have to have term limits, though. it would end the short-term political gain mentality in washington if members knew they only had two terms. maybe people might start making principled votes again if they don't have a re-election to worry about.

also i think that congressional pay should be whatever the average american adult's individual income is at that time. serving should be sacrifice, not a kush job and a power trip.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

that sounds pretty good. i still think that if you want real reform you have to have term limits, though. it would end the short-term political gain mentality in washington if members knew they only had two terms. maybe people might start making principled votes again if they don't have a re-election to worry about.

Having limited terms wouldn't help with short-term-gain mentality at all, if anything, it'd increase as they'd know that they'll only be serving 2 terms so they'd want to make the most of it. Further, I just don't get the point of having term-limits in a democratic republic, if people don't like someone then the shouldn't vote for them, it's that simple & if people keep getting elected over & over then it's because people are voting for them.

Further, it has to be understood that good politicians are a rarity, term-limits mean that even such candidates will be gone from the system after their limited terms are done which is NOT beneficial for the country & its people at all, imagine if Ron weren't able to run after his 2 or whatever terms are done. Imagine, Ron was 20 years younger, why wouldn't we elect him into WH for the 3rd time? Makes no sense.

also i think that congressional pay should be whatever the average american adult's individual income is at that time. serving should be sacrifice, not a kush job and a power trip.

It's quite funny that we expect people to "sacrifice" when in fact the whole free market school that we adhere to here is completely based on the understanding that humans are motivated by self-interest so the expectation that politicians should "sacrifice" is chimeric, it'd be nice if it happened but human psychology tells us that it's not very practical so I believe the system should ape free markets in some way in that politicians' pay should be linked to "consumer satisfaction" ie their pay should depend on how well they've represented their voters in office, the better job they do, the more they earn & vice versa.

 

[PastaRocket848]

we're definitely in two different camps on this one. i disagree entirely with your view of term limits. how do you suppose that defined term limits would actually *increase* the short term gain mentality? the entire purpose of the short term gain mentality is to win re-election bids, and vote however is necessary to increase one's chances of re-election. the reason no one votes for entitlement cuts is because they know that old people vote and theyre not going to re-elect the guy who wants to take their benefits. there should be no such thing as a career politician. representative's votes in congress shouldn't be made for the purpose of winning a re-election. they should be made on principle, and in the interest of long term goals. long term goals shouldn't take a back seat to election cycle politics, and that is what not having term limits creates.

sure you would have to lose a good politician every now and then, but to suggest that america is short on good people willing to serve is insulting.

and public service has always, since the very beginning of the republic, been about sacrifice. you think the guys who signed the declaration of independence and those who formed the continental congress and later our current gov't didn't make sacrifices? do you really believe thomas jefferson thought that the fact that he didn't make 8x the average american wage was "anti free-market"?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

we're definitely in two different camps on this one. i disagree entirely with your view of term limits. how do you suppose that defined term limits would actually *increase* the short term gain mentality? the entire purpose of the short term gain mentality is to win re-election bids, and vote however is necessary to increase one's chances of re-election. the reason no one votes for entitlement cuts is because they know that old people vote and theyre not going to re-elect the guy who wants to take their benefits. there should be no such thing as a career politician. representative's votes in congress shouldn't be made for the purpose of winning a re-election. they should be made on principle, and in the interest of long term goals. long term goals shouldn't take a back seat to election cycle politics, and that is what not having term limits creates.

Well, just promise the world to the people, get elected & rake in as much as one can in one's 1 or 2 terms & that's that. There'd be very little incentive for them to work towards anything good. When there are no term-limits, at least they start voting according to how people want them to vote if they want to get re-elected. The problem you've mentioned about old people & benefit is the problem of the electorate not voting smartly; even if we'd term-limits, people'd still vow to vote for benefits even if they were running for the first or second time if old-people continue the habit of voting for such candidates.

And again, if someone isn't doing a good job, people should just not vote for them again, that in itself should work like a "term-limit"; & if people keep voting for same corrupt people over & over again then the problem lies with the people.

sure you would have to lose a good politician every now and then, but to suggest that america is short on good people willing to serve is insulting.

So where are these good politicians? It's not even funny that you think good politicians are so easy to get by. Look at any democratic country in the world, & you'll find that about 99% (if not more ) of politiicians tend to be corrupt, it's just nature of power, government & voters that people regularly elect some of the most power-hungry people that are there.

and public service has always, since the very beginning of the republic, been about sacrifice. you think the guys who signed the declaration of independence and those who formed the continental congress and later our current gov't didn't make sacrifices? do you really believe thomas jefferson thought that the fact that he didn't make 8x the average american wage was "anti free-market"?

I'm not talking about what happened "in those days", I'm talking about TODAY. In fact, the main reason why many prominent Founders were so hostile towards government & argued for extremely limited government & warned people about government's tyranny is because they knew that politics has always been & willl forever remain the belly of corruption & the power-hungry. If they'd believed that good politicians were so easy to get then they'd've been like communist/socialists who think "if only we'd 'good people' running the system, everything would be great", they knew it just doesn't work like that & that's why they knew that the smaller the government, the less people will suffer at the hands of government & politicians' inherently corrupt nature.

Further, basic psychology tells us that humans are largely driven by self-interest & ego & that's why free markets work because the better goods/services you provide, the more you earn; it'd be only too obvious for any free marketer that the same system needs to be adopted into the government in order for it to truly act according to people's wishes, afterall they're people's representatives. But of course, people themselves ought to take the responsibility to select their proper representatives, no system or term-limits can ensure that.

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea."
- James Madison