PDA

View Full Version : Why not fire the Legislature?


Rivers
05-30-2009, 3:23 PM
Back in the 1960s, CA had a part-time legislature that was more productive for less cost. Legislators had to have second jobs to make a living, something that (I think) gave them a reality check. No longer were they spending taxpayers' dollars, they were spending their own. No big pensions, no huge political campaigns, no disgraceful scandals - at least by today's standards.

Why not return our Legislature to part-time and force them to attend to business without legislating CA straight to hell? It's not like they're doing a great job with a recent approval rating of a pathetic 14%!

Propositions on the ballot, anyone?

MrClamperSir
05-30-2009, 3:31 PM
Texas seems to have it nailed down and they have a surplus from what I understand.

The Texas Constitution creates a part-time legislature that meets for a relatively brief 140 days every other year. The members, so-called citizen legislators, work within a political culture with a strong suspicion of government and a long history of accepting the involvement of wealthy business interests in politics.
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/2_1_0.html

hawk81
05-30-2009, 3:45 PM
Texas also has no state taxes either.

yellowfin
05-30-2009, 4:01 PM
It would definitely be the right thing to do. Whether we could pitch it successfully is another thing, as every special interest and union would cry bloody hell over it as it would end the fat life as they know it.

bulgron
05-30-2009, 4:03 PM
The liberals in this state would fight that tooth and nail, because their founding philosophy is that all of society's ills can be fixed if only government can be made large enough.

It would therefore be a tough fight, to force the legislature back to being a part-time gig.

It would be a fight worth doing.

We should push for this during one of those off-season special elections when most people don't bother to vote.

RudyN
05-30-2009, 4:06 PM
I can remember when the legislature met one year for budget action and the next year for passing legislation. Why can't that be the norm again?

Mikeb
05-30-2009, 4:11 PM
this is a perfect time. they are ineffectual in the budget process and they are cutting the pay and hours of all the other state employees... so cut theirs... seems only fair. How much would you save if you cut the legislature's budget in half ?
take care
Mike

Rivers
05-30-2009, 4:14 PM
Keep in mind - just 14% of the voters in CA approve of the Legislature's performance. That alone looks like minimal job security, especially if you keep the Legislature as a single body and not individualize the opinion. Act against the methods of the body, not the person.

While other states have done an admirable job and offer good examples of what CA might do, please remember that most of us have to stay in CA. We can't just pick up and move, no matter how green that grass is.

Dark Paladin
05-30-2009, 4:34 PM
I was mulling over this exact same dilemma while driving to pick up some ammo. Having lived in TX for over 20 years, the TX legislature isn't without its faults. . . but it is a far cry better than what we have here. I would be interested to see what becomes of this proposal to rein in the runaway politicians.

bohoki
05-30-2009, 6:01 PM
nader has it right when he said reduce their play untill people stop running for office then you will only have people running to make a difference instead of money

SickofSoCal
05-30-2009, 6:03 PM
You heard this on John & Ken, I'll bet.

We do not need full-time IMO.

CCWFacts
05-30-2009, 6:23 PM
The cool thing about the budget crisis is they are going to have massive cuts in services and Californians will start asking, "waitaminute - we're paying the highest taxes in the US and they can't even keep the state parks open and they have to close schools and police response times are measured in hours? If we're getting no services, maybe we should also be paying little or no state taxes???" I can somehow sense that that logic is starting and was part of the motivation for rejecting all the ballot props. If their current bloated budget isn't enough to run the state, then the logical answer is to cut the budget. I'm glad that is now entering the awareness of Californians.

AngelDecoys
05-30-2009, 6:59 PM
..... will start asking, "waitaminute - we're paying the highest taxes in the US and they can't even keep .........

I agree with the sentiment of your statement and that CA really needs to reevaluate its priorities. However, to say Californians have the highest tax rate is a statement not based in fact.

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

It is estimated by the Tax Foundation that the nation as a whole will pay on average 9.7% of its income in state and local taxes in 2008, down from 9.9% in 2007 primarily because income grew faster than tax collections between 2007 and 2008.

New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts. New Yorkers were close behind, paying 11.7%, and Connecticut was third at 11.1%. The top 10 were rounded out by Maryland (10.8%), Hawaii (10.6%), California (10.5%), Ohio (10.4%). Vermont (10.3%), Wisconsin (10.2%) and Rhode Island (10.2%).

Alaskans pay the least, 6.4 percent in 2008, but Nevada is close at 6.6 percent. In four states the residents pay between 7 and 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes: Wyoming (7.0%), Florida (7.4%), New Hampshire (7.6%) and South Dakota (7.9%). Four other states round out the bottom 10: Tennessee (8.3%), Texas (8.4%), Louisiana (8.4%) and Arizona (8.5%).

I'm betting that car registration, sales tax and other 'sin taxes' will go up again.
I'll also guess essential areas like fire, police, and education will be used as handy scapegoats once again. However it ends, it will not be in areas conservatives will want.

Rivers
05-30-2009, 6:59 PM
You heard this on John & Ken, I'll bet.

We do not need full-time IMO.

Nope. Been thinking this for close to a year now. But since I don't appear to have a monopoly on this idea, how do we go about getting this to the voters? It won't be easy but maybe something like Prop. 13 back in the late 1970s.

BTW, ever think what would happen with our property taxes if we weren't still covered by the constraint on property value increases? Those tax assessors would be going crazy now, jacking up values beyond what most could afford!

CCWFacts
05-30-2009, 7:13 PM
I agree with the sentiment of your statement and that CA really needs to reevaluate its priorities. However, to say Californians have the highest tax rate is a statement not based in fact.

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should say, our tax rates are among the highest. It seems like there's a cluster of high-tax states right around 10%. Ok, if we got some great things for that, I could live with it, but we don't.

virulosity
05-30-2009, 7:20 PM
In other places in the world with government as corrupt as ours, people are usually hanged in public. I am not advocating anything here just speaking the facts :)

AngelDecoys
05-30-2009, 7:26 PM
Ok, if we got some great things for that, I could live with it, but we don't.

Even 10.5% is still too high. And you're right, we don't get much for what we contribute. :( Unfortunately, there's a lot dictated via federal mandate or through the courts. My wish would be for them to use those funds more efficiently (cutting out the waste).

Since that seems unlikely, I keep wondering which areas of new taxes were all likely to see.

darkiceman56
05-30-2009, 7:28 PM
I found out this week that the governor's is phasing out the cal-grants programs, which helps students coming from low income backgrounds to attend college. It frustrates me b/c i receive cal-grants as part of my financial aid :mad:. IMHO, its a bad decision since their obviously destroying a vital investment which may help this state state get back on track. Also, this state needs to stop spending money on futile agendas like selling violent video games to minors would become a felony (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/california-appeals-video-game-law-to-supreme-court.ars & http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/09/taxpayer-bill-for-failed-video-game-legislation-crosses-1-million.ars). This is wasting taxpayer money, since the law has been defeated 12 times in the past 8 years.

Hasta la vista, to the governator next year!

dustoff31
05-30-2009, 7:42 PM
Nope. Been thinking this for close to a year now. But since I don't appear to have a monopoly on this idea, how do we go about getting this to the voters? It won't be easy but maybe something like Prop. 13 back in the late 1970s.




I think it would be very important to make it an amendment to the CA constitution rather than just a law. That way, they can't just pass another law removing the restriction.

AZ has a part time legislature as well. My state senator is my air conditioning man. So he has to at least listen to me whether he wants to or not.

State representatives talk and behave much differently when they have to go home and live and work, and explain their actions to constitients, friends, and neighbors.

Kid Stanislaus
05-30-2009, 8:23 PM
I've advocated for years that we go to a unicameral state legislature with a 90 day yearly session and a limit on the number of bills any member could introduce during the session. They wouldn't be allowed to raise their pay or any other compensation without a vote of the people. If they couldn't produce a budget within the 90 day session the governor would be allowed to write his own.

dustoff31
05-30-2009, 8:46 PM
They wouldn't be allowed to raise their pay or any other compensation without a vote of the people.

Most definitely regulate the pay. Set it high enough to interest people with a brain, but low enough that it doesn't provide a sole full time income. IIRC, our's get about 22K for a 5 month session.


If they couldn't produce a budget within the 90 day session the governor would be allowed to write his own.

That would be OK, as long as it didn't just turn into another finger pointing contest.

Here, if they don't get their work done by the end of the session, the governor calls them into special session with no additional pay, until they do get it done.

Texas Boy
05-31-2009, 12:59 AM
Why do we need 1,000 new laws every year? Heck, we have so many laws no one knows them all anyway. Think about it, if you keep passing more and more new laws every year, pretty soon government and the legal system will crush under its own weight...oh yea, I guess that is already happening.

And the budget - I'd really like to see a breakdown where the money goes. CA locks up a staggering percentage of its population so that has to be a big chunk. We also needlessly duplicate many branches of the Fed gov - like EPA and OSHA - I wonder how much all that costs? Services to illegal emigrants has to be a significant chunk too.

CCWFacts
05-31-2009, 1:29 AM
And the budget - I'd really like to see a breakdown where the money goes.

Here it is. (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf)

CA locks up a staggering percentage of its population so that has to be a big chunk.

According to the budget, it's roughly 7.3%, but it must be more than that, with the court supervision of inmate healthcare. Does anyone know how that's calculated in? In any case, yes, we sure do have a passion for locking people up.

mp55
05-31-2009, 10:03 AM
There has been a ballot initiative request filed several weeks ago by a group called Citizens for California Reform. They are spear-heading the effort to get an initiative on the ballot, for a Part Time Citizen Legislature, by November 2010. Visit http://www.reformcal.com:thumbsup This looks like an awesome endeavor and I am full on board.

mp55
05-31-2009, 10:06 AM
In my prior post I referenced the part time legislature ballot intiative - it is a Constitutional Amendment.

mp55
05-31-2009, 10:07 AM
I think it would be very important to make it an amendment to the CA constitution rather than just a law. That way, they can't just pass another law removing the restriction.

RRangel
05-31-2009, 10:46 AM
Here it is. (http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf)



According to the budget, it's roughly 7.3%, but it must be more than that, with the court supervision of inmate healthcare. Does anyone know how that's calculated in? In any case, yes, we sure do have a passion for locking people up.

Wow. 41.6% of the state's expenditure is K-12 education. Second in line is Health and Human Services at 31.4%. I've never had the chance to partake in any of the Health and Human Services. I'm sure they do provide beneficial services for all, but that's some budget.

CCWFacts
05-31-2009, 10:56 AM
Wow. 41.6% of the state's expenditure is K-12 education.

Hey, when you can't fire teachers (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,5765040,full.story), you end up spending a lot of money and not getting anything in return.

Second in line is Health and Human Services at 31.4%. I've never had the chance to partake in any of the Health and Human Services. I'm sure they do provide beneficial services for all, but that's some budget.

Yeah, I also have never used the state's HHS stuff. I wonder what it even does. All I know is my company has to pay a lot for health insurance and if I don't have it, I don't get health care. Who is getting that 31.4% of the state's revenues?? Certainly not me.

Too Slow
05-31-2009, 12:11 PM
I agree with the sentiment of your statement and that CA really needs to reevaluate its priorities. However, to say Californians have the highest tax rate is a statement not based in fact.

http://www.retirementliving.com/RLtaxes.html

It is estimated by the Tax Foundation that the nation as a whole will pay on average 9.7% of its income in state and local taxes in 2008, down from 9.9% in 2007 primarily because income grew faster than tax collections between 2007 and 2008.

New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts. New Yorkers were close behind, paying 11.7%, and Connecticut was third at 11.1%. The top 10 were rounded out by Maryland (10.8%), Hawaii (10.6%), California (10.5%), Ohio (10.4%). Vermont (10.3%), Wisconsin (10.2%) and Rhode Island (10.2%).

Alaskans pay the least, 6.4 percent in 2008, but Nevada is close at 6.6 percent. In four states the residents pay between 7 and 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes: Wyoming (7.0%), Florida (7.4%), New Hampshire (7.6%) and South Dakota (7.9%). Four other states round out the bottom 10: Tennessee (8.3%), Texas (8.4%), Louisiana (8.4%) and Arizona (8.5%).

I'm betting that car registration, sales tax and other 'sin taxes' will go up again.
I'll also guess essential areas like fire, police, and education will be used as handy scapegoats once again. However it ends, it will not be in areas conservatives will want.

There are a couple of things missing in tis however. We also have amongst the highest gas taxes which doesn't appear to be factored, we pay more in workers comp than most states, our fees for things are off the charts (read car registration), and who knows what is coming down the pike.

Too Slow
05-31-2009, 12:18 PM
At least here in Ventura, we are again protesting against our tax issues and the lack of accountability for our government and we're doing it on the 4th of July. I'd highly encourage people to get involved. We are currently organizing the event and I will follow up with more info once we get closer.

This is your chance to publicly express your discontent. I am middle aged and the first protest I ever attended was the tea party and I have to tell you it was a life changing event for me. I didn't realize how many people feel the same way I do about the lack of government accountability. The 4th is a symbolic day and you already have it off. I'd highly suggest that you think about participating in this. I guarantee that if you do, your bbq and fireworks will mean a whole lot more to you.

missiondude
05-31-2009, 12:25 PM
nader has it right when he said reduce their play untill people stop running for office then you will only have people running to make a difference instead of money Or you get a bunch on the dole from special interests...:rolleyes:

Model X
05-31-2009, 7:00 PM
Every other year like in Texas seems too non-responsive. California has a lot more people in it than Texas after all. However meeting once a year for a period of time seems reasonable.

I would be in favor of returning our legislature to part time.

AngelDecoys
05-31-2009, 9:45 PM
Hey, when you can't fire teachers (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,5765040,full.story), you end up spending a lot of money and not getting anything in return.

We could totally remove tenure, and most of the teachers cited in that LA times story would not get fired. You could remove tenure statewide and you wouldn't see much change in employment. You're placing blame in the wrong direction. Even the worst teacher out there is only responsible for a portion of product produced. Most administrators recognize this already. Criticizing teachers is a handy scapegoat (and one primarily used by conservatives), but not one that really fixes anything. BTW - CA (even at over 30% of the budget) is still 50th in the country on dollars/student allocated.

There are a couple of things missing in this however. .....

Don't forget other states have car registration, gas, workers comp, and tobacco taxes as well (those also aren't cited). Can you cite me a source saying its higher here than in all other states? I've been trying to find a more comprehensive source myself, but haven't had much luck in finding something with every tax under the sun.

socal2310
06-01-2009, 8:36 AM
I found out this week that the governor's is phasing out the cal-grants programs, which helps students coming from low income backgrounds to attend college. It frustrates me b/c i receive cal-grants as part of my financial aid :mad:. IMHO, its a bad decision since their obviously destroying a vital investment which may help this state get back on track.


And that, my friend, is why nothing ever happens. Liberals want to keep all the services and conservatives want to eliminate all of the services except for the ones they themselves are using. Everyone wants to cut the fat until they realize that someone else's fat is their financial security.The divisions among the electorate prevent any meaningful reforms.

Ryan

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 8:39 AM
I agree. I can't see how the Leg. going full time has made anything better. I was saying the same thing a couple of months ago. The Leg.'s job is to make laws. I saw we have anough laws.....we don't need anymore. What need is the money/resources to be directed towards enforcing the laws that already exist. But since the Leg. is there full time, they have to do SOMETHING to justify their existence......so they just keep making more stupid laws. so cut them all down to half-time and impose a moretoreum on the passing of any new laws, but allow the repealing of existing laws which are worthless or impede civil rights or the economy.

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 8:42 AM
Originally Posted by darkiceman56
I found out this week that the governor's is phasing out the cal-grants programs, which helps students coming from low income backgrounds to attend college. It frustrates me b/c i receive cal-grants as part of my financial aid . IMHO, its a bad decision since their obviously destroying a vital investment which may help this state get back on track.

And why exactly is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund your college education?

AngelDecoys
06-01-2009, 9:14 AM
And why exactly is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund your college education?

Or more to the point, minimum wage has doubled in the last 15 years, while college tuition has not. Living expenses may have risen, but they have not doubled in the last 15 years. CA also has a plethora of junior colleges to offset the cost even more. Suffice to say, it is more economical now to go to college and pay one's own way then it has been in past years.

My wife (1st generation bilingual Hispanic) put herself through college (undergraduate and graduate school) paying her own way without the handouts, without the loans. It can be done. It might be a challenge for some but more often then not, its a matter of choices. Some would rather have the 40k automobile then invest in their own future.

calixt0
06-01-2009, 9:24 AM
lets just face it... our system is screwed. When people (law enforcement or not) can throw out allegations and the legal system (including lawyers and judges) say it doesn't matter that they proved nothing we have to protect the kids, others, illegals, etc.. you're guilty... the system is doomed to fail. We have entirely too many free loaders that feel that the state owes them because they paid a single year of taxes if that. Our legilator while may work 5 months get huge kick backs from large lobbies.

Its been my thought for several years now that if want to make the system what it is supposed to be it will be a change that many don't like.. who cares... get rid of the lobby special interests entirely... they are supposed to represent the people in their district not just big business in their district. If the business is important to the people in said place they will make that clear to their representative if not that business gets 1 vote of whats important like every one else.

Reduce the pay of legistlators to beginning teacher levels. If your want to do it to serve or make a difference then so be it, If you want to do it to make money, contacts, etc etc.. so find something else.. Make it so that there is a full financial disclosure at any time... account for not only money coming both in and out but also Trips, gifts , etc.

The plane and simple fact is this.. the system needs to be changed and now is the time... we need to start getting good people in elections so the choices are not the lesser of 2 evils... that will help a lot. add term limits so that people who want to serve can only serve 2 terms.. if 2 terms is good enough for the president why should state legislators or congressmen be allowed to spend entire careers in this stuff.

STOP THE INSANITY

calixt0
06-01-2009, 9:29 AM
ooh yeah forgot to mention.. if they want to pass a new law.. make them pick an old law they are going to repeal or make void... give them a set number of laws. If new situations come about for example 100 years ago identify theft wasn't an issue... make it a special ballot before the people to see if the people really care about it. otherwise if you want a new law.... kill and old one.

rolo
06-01-2009, 9:45 AM
Pass a law lose a law? That's too conservative, pass a law, lose ten laws. We have enough to spare. Lawmaking should be expensive and painful, just like lawbreaking.

bsim
06-01-2009, 10:34 AM
Call me crazy, but with an approval rating in the teens, how in God's name do they keep getting re-elected?

The problem isn't the gov't, it's the sheeple.

Silverback
06-01-2009, 10:51 AM
In other places in the world with government as corrupt as ours, people are usually hanged in public. I am not advocating anything here just speaking the facts :)


I still like the idea of Tar and Feather. :D And I would surely vote for a part time Legislature as long as it is permanent. The next thing we would have to do it take back the retirements and perks.:mad:

motorhead
06-01-2009, 12:50 PM
i agree the time is right for this. the tax and spend libs and unions are at their weakest in years. we saw how their whining about state cuts worked in the last election if anyone gets any petitions going please let me know. i'll help out. pm with details.

BroncoBob
06-01-2009, 12:53 PM
You mean they would have to get a real job? Outstanding idea!

jerryg1776
06-01-2009, 2:58 PM
Here, if they don't get their work done by the end of the session, the governor calls them into special session with no additional pay, until they do get it done.

Oh yes.. get the job done or stay till its finished without any pay. I have worked projects like that! When they risk burning their own dimes they will move faster!

Untamed1972
06-01-2009, 4:09 PM
You mean they would have to get a real job? Outstanding idea!

The other thing I have thought is that if they are full time on the Leg (this could go for US/Fed Leg. as well) They may not have income from ANY other source other then their govt paycheck.

I say this because for example I know that some federal agencies like the DOI for example....DOI employees cannot own certain oil, gas or mining stocks and may not hold and active real estate license, as it is deemed a possible conflict of interest because the DOI handles minerals contracts and so on. Even if you work for a Dept. of the DOI that doesn't have anything to do with mining or land deals you still can't own those stocks or have an RE license.

So would it not all the more so be for a senator that has the ability to make, propose, vote for, or influence any new law that might benefit himself in anyway? So just make it so they are not allowed to have income from anywhere else but their gov't paycheck while in office. It would make finding corruption much easier because you should know exactly how much income they had during the year. And they must submit receipts, proof of personal payment for any travel, vacations and so on that they do.

Make being a leg./senator much less lucrative and the people you have signing up to do it will more often be there for the right reasons and not to line their own pockets.

Rivers
06-01-2009, 4:24 PM
So would it not all the more so be for a senator that has the ability to make, propose, vote for, or influence any new law that might benefit himself in anyway? So just make it so they are not allowed to have income from anywhere else but their gov't paycheck while in office. It would make finding corruption much easier because you should know exactly how much income they had during the year. And they must submit receipts, proof of personal payment for any travel, vacations and so on that they do.

Make being a leg./senator much less lucrative and the people you have signing up to do it will more often be there for the right reasons and not to line their own pockets.

That might be swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. If we make it that burdensome to be a legislator, we will just get more of the ones we have today. Granted, today's legislators are motivated for "life after the Legislature" with perks and retirement, and to exploit the connections and power they've generated while elected officials. If we don't pay a reasonable amount, no competent businessman or civic-minded Californian will dive into poverty to be a good citizen. We need to strike a worthy balance to get respectable representatives who will actually work for us.

One thing about the movie "Dave" (Kevin Kline) is the oft-forgotten concept that "It's only a temp job" and not to forget that the People are the employer. Our elected officials, and even those appointed by those elected, are working FOR the People, not the other way around!

CCWFacts
06-01-2009, 4:28 PM
Call me crazy, but with an approval rating in the teens, how in God's name do they keep getting re-elected?

Because people in this state will vote for anyone with a "D" next to his name. The "R" party is evil.

For example, SF is having massive layoffs and cuts in services. What could be the cause of it? Could it be related to the 480 retired city workers or their survivors who are knocking back $100,000 or more a year in pension money (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/01/BAN017TOP0.DTL)? Yes it could! And yet, SF's voters continue to be fanatically devoted to the various public employee unions who have bankrupted many cities, and perhaps the state itself, with these insane compensation packages.

The highest-paid is Bruce Malkenhorst, who, as the former city manager of the tiny industrial town of Vernon (Los Angeles County), earned $600,000 a year.

His retirement pay: $499,674. Which he continues to collect, even as he's under indictment for allegedly stealing city money.

By the way, Malkenhorst's son, Bruce Jr., now has his dad's old job.

You would think that the tiny industrial town of Vernon would ask itself, how did we end up paying this guy half a million dollars a year FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE (total benefits could easy be $10mil to $20mil FOR ONE GUY). Oh, and this is a city with a population of 91 (2000 census). Yes, that's not a typo. 91 people live in Vernon. So, assuming this guy lives for 40 years after his retirement (maybe a bit high, but just approximately), and collects his $20mil in pension, that means that the 91 people of Vernon have paid $200k EACH for this ONE EMPLOYEE. Each resident of Vernon, from the little babies to the old grandmothers, basically contributed a house, or a Bentley, or a full college+medical school tuition, to this ONE GUY.

The answer is, the Democratic political machine that is based in public employee unions and has a lock on state politics.

But that machine is good because they're Democrats!

That's how it works.

PatriotnMore
06-01-2009, 4:45 PM
No one is asking them to be paid at a level of poverty however, if the job were part time, and paid as part time income, we would entice people that are civic minded and more interested in serving their communities than those looking for a golden parachute and career in politics.

As it is, we don't have any civic minded businessmen in the legislature, we have a bunch of flunkies/politicians who are ruining the State, and the same at the Fed Congressional level.

We can not continue doing the same things, and expect different results.


That might be swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. If we make it that burdensome to be a legislator, we will just get more of the ones we have today. Granted, today's legislators are motivated for "life after the Legislature" with perks and retirement, and to exploit the connections and power they've generated while elected officials. If we don't pay a reasonable amount, no competent businessman or civic-minded Californian will dive into poverty to be a good citizen. We need to strike a worthy balance to get respectable representatives who will actually work for us.

One thing about the movie "Dave" (Kevin Kline) is the oft-forgotten concept that "It's only a temp job" and not to forget that the People are the employer. Our elected officials, and even those appointed by those elected, are working FOR the People, not the other way around!

Rivers
06-01-2009, 6:14 PM
We can not continue doing the same things, and expect different results.

Absolutely agree! We also can't go to the opposite extreme, as happened with our national politics. Is the left extreme any more effective or fair to middle America than the extreme right? I very much doubt that.

Whatever we do, we must plot a path that holds to the wisdom shown by the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. Foreseeing the pitfalls and enabling a means to self-right the ship of government is hugely important.

yellowfin
06-01-2009, 6:16 PM
How short should sunsets on all budget items be set? 5 years? 10? Or maybe 2? Make them have to revote on every item and every tax no less often than 10 years like Florida does.

dychen
06-01-2009, 8:53 PM
I'm thinking this whole national Army deal is a shame. ....

Per the constitution the army is suppose to be national. That is one of the few things the federal government is suppose to do.

The key is getting the federal government back into doing the things its suppose to do per the constitution, and having the states deal with the rest.

If new york wants socialized health care, great, it can pay for it (and fail miserably) as a state. If Utah wants to ban alcohol, great thats there deal. If california wants to legalize marijuana but Mississippi doesn't, leave it to the states.

Bugei
06-02-2009, 11:09 AM
I prefer we fire them all and never allow them to assemble again. I say proposition to ban the governor and the legislature, hell while we are at it ban the courts as well, start all over.

Go! Go! Go!