Congressional reform

I think everyone knows or have known that Congressional reform is long over due. However, with the advent of such important legislation as health care reform, that effects everyone except the Congressional members who have exempted themselves, something no one else is able to do, I think the filth of what goes no in Congress has been high lighted and put on center stage for the first time in American politics. It not that it is something new, rather, it is that everyone now has an interest and has been watching very closely, something they are not akin to . So will this motivate change?

Of course in saying this I pick no partisan sides. They should all be hung out to dry. So what say you? What reforms should be implemented, and how in the world can we force Congress to reform themselves? How can we get the fox to agre to gaurd himself from the hen house?

Guillotines.

The big problem is that the very people who have been behaving so badly are the same people that we would be relying on to pass the new reforms.

So maybe we could create a new elected body - call it the SuperCongress. It's one and only purpose would be to make laws regarding how Congress conducts it's business, and how it's members conduct their campaigns. Congress itself would be banned from passing any laws of this sort - only SuperCongress would be allowed to do this.

Of course, there would then be the issue of who would devise the laws regarding how SuperCongress conducts its business....

Originally posted by whodey
I think everyone knows or have known that Congressional reform is long over due. However, with the advent of such important legislation as health care reform, that effects everyone except the Congressional members who have exempted themselves, something no one else is able to do, I think the filth of what goes no in Congress has been high lighted and put on ...[text shortened]... gress to reform themselves? How can we get the fox to agre to gaurd himself from the hen house?

The U.S. needs to invite a panel of consultants and statesmen/women from New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Iceland. Then you need to give them authorisation and autonomy to investigate whatever they want to investigate and gather whatever data they feel they need. Then, with hands-off bipartisan approval in advance, accept whatever recommendations they hand down and implement them.

This issue has drawn a bunch of interest. I would hesitate to draw something up that makes everything more complicated.
I'm a little miffed at the idea, that the man who holds out, and gets a bone is acceptable. But give him credit I guess, or should I say them?
I had an e-mail a while back, that said vote against all incuments. Start fresh.
Hell I don't know?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Guillotines.

😀

Originally posted by FMF
The U.S. needs to invite a panel of consultants and statesmen/women from New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Iceland. Then you need to give them authorisation and autonomy to investigate whatever they want to investigate and gather whatever data they feel they need. Then, with hands-off bipartisan approval in advance, accept whatever recommendations they hand down and implement them.

So the question begs, what would motivate them to accept such conditions?

Originally posted by whodey
So the question begs, what would motivate them to accept such conditions?

Well it as you who claimed "everyone knows [...] that Congressional reform is long over due". So my proposal factors out the partisan gridlock because the consultants from the countries I chose would surely strike "both sides" in the U.S. political system as being relatively 'clean' and relatively 'honest brokers'.

Originally posted by FMF
Well it as you who claimed "everyone knows [...] that Congressional reform is long over due". So my proposal factors out the partisan gridlock because the consultants from the countries I chose would surely strike "both sides" in the U.S. political system as being relatively 'clean' and relatively 'honest brokers'.

Let me put it another way. Lets say that you were dysfunctional FMF and had a negative impact upon society as a result. what would motivate you to change? No one likes to be told they have "a problem". The problem is, however, the more powerful you become within that society, the less influence society has upon you to be able to undergo an "intervention". For example, Michael Jackson comes to mind. He was able to elude charges of molestation based upon his ability to work the system and hire the best lawyers to defend his cause. Having said that, even if the charges were false, everyone could see the man was dysfunctional and had muliple issues. Just the way he died is an idication of that. However, those around him either did nothing, because they were getting hand outs themselves from him, or were unable to persuade him to seek help. No one could force him to do much of anything because of the lofty position he attained within society.

So getting back to the intervention for Congress. I suppose it would take at a minimum voters demanding change. However, you would need politicians who ran from either party to agree to this, otherwise you will continue to have to parties to chose from who are going to to the same things regardless of who is voted in. Simply to miraculously, get one or two politicinas in office with the motive to reform is not enough. Therefore, I think the issue is with the two party system. You then are faced with reforming a party or two, or creating another party from scratch. My guess is that the later would be far easier.

Originally posted by whodey
you would need politicians who ran from either party to agree to this, otherwise you will continue to have to parties to chose from who are going to to the same things regardless of who is voted in. [...] creating another party from scratch.

This is obviously what I meant. A new party is formed that subscribes to the FMF Ten Wiser Peoples Solution and people vote them in. I can't see any mileage in the hope that Americans can solve America's political crisis on their own. It's time for older and wiser nations to step in and help. You need a Third Party to recognize this, package it, offer it to the electorate, and then - on being elected - implement it.

Originally posted by whodey
I think everyone knows or have known that Congressional reform is long over due. However, with the advent of such important legislation as health care reform, that effects everyone except the Congressional members who have exempted themselves, something no one else is able to do, I think the filth of what goes no in Congress has been high lighted and put on ...[text shortened]... gress to reform themselves? How can we get the fox to agre to gaurd himself from the hen house?

I have advocated for a long time 2 reforms: send the house members back to their districts while doubling their number and require ALL business with them to be conducted over the internet in FULL view of every citizen, limit the senate to an advice and consent role so they would only be able to veto house legislation with a 2/3 majority.

In addition we MUST end the legal fiction of corporate citizenship. Corporations are NOT people and we should not pretend that they are. They should not be allowed in any form to participate in the political process.

The Australian electoral format is also worth looking into: how about just offering tax breaks to voters? How about the preferential system and public financing?

Originally posted by whodey
I think everyone knows or have known that Congressional reform is long over due. However, with the advent of such important legislation as health care reform, that effects everyone except the Congressional members who have exempted themselves, something no one else is able to do, I think the filth of what goes no in Congress has been high lighted and put on ...[text shortened]... gress to reform themselves? How can we get the fox to agre to gaurd himself from the hen house?

The only reform that is indispensable is to remove big money from elections. All election campaigns should be publicly financed with a fixed, set amount. All other reforms will flow naturally from that one.

Originally posted by rwingett
The only reform that is indispensable is to remove big money from elections. All election campaigns should be publicly financed with a fixed, set amount. All other reforms will flow naturally from that one.

Agreed. So which party is going to take up the cause?

Like I said, we need another party to come in before being corrupted to inact reforms before being corrupted. Its the only way.

Originally posted by whodey
Agreed. So which party is going to take up the cause?

Like I said, we need another party to come in before being corrupted to inact reforms before being corrupted. Its the only way.

I would quit looking upon politics as a panacea for fixing all ills if I were you. Political systems, by their very nature, are designed to maintain the status quo. More often than not, change is forced upon political systems rather than being brought about by them.

Originally posted by FMF
The U.S. needs to invite a panel of consultants and statesmen/women from New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Iceland. Then you need to give them authorisation and autonomy to investigate whatever they want to investigate and gather whatever data they feel they need. Then, with hands-off bipartisan approval in advance, accept whatever recommendations they hand down and implement them.

Singapore??

Don't they beat the crap out of people for spray painting cars and have the death penalty for drug possession (or is that Malaysia)?

Not that I endorse spray painting cars and illegal drug possession, but the Swedish rep (where armed robbers get 6 months in a 3 star hotel as punishment) and the Singapore rep might get into a fist fight and get themselves both caned, if the conference takes place in Singapore.