This is just a bit of a random thought, but I generally trust folks here to give me good constructive criticism:
I do have a libertarian streak, that I do generally favor more local control instead of federal control over programs that affect local people. Things like education. Health care. Et cetera. But it’s a pattern worldwide that governments will tend to grow over time, seemingly out of control of any legislative bodies. What would happen if Congress were unable to pass legislation that provides funding for something which is enacted indefinitely, that there is a mandatory time limit on such legislation? Congress would be forced to either pass each part of government it provides funding for, or watch it expire. The point is not to severely limit government specifically, but to control growth, so that the federal government can only grow at a rate that Congress has control over. This would be a variable, not a constant, as Congress gets more or less efficient. But when government services become too complicated, Congress would be forced through limited time and resources to pass legislation to only deal with what they consider to be most important and let the rest fall to the wayside. This does happen from time to time, but as the system currently works, there is so much which is enacted indefinitely that there’s no way Congress can keep up with it all.
The solution you suggest could have some positive effects, but right now, I fear the Tea Party influence in our government that, these days, seems to be to simply insure that government does not work at all. Your solution could give them another weapon.
I would propose limiting the terms of all congressman to two six year terms. At least in their second term they could then be involved in actually doing something productive, rather than simply perpetually being involved in running for their next term.
Your solution could give them another weapon.Isn't there right now another thread about criticism of the concept that anything Hitler says must be evil? I don't care what the Tea Partiers think. I care about what would work.
I would propose limiting the terms of all congressman to two six year terms. At least in their second term they could then be involved in actually doing something productive, rather than simply perpetually being involved in running for their next term.I don't think this would make a difference. When Congressmen get overwhelmed with sifting through government, lobbyists become the primary decision makers.
I don’t care what Tea Partiers think, but I care about the infouence they have, which right now is helping serve to make Congress not function at all.
As far as the influence of Lobbyists, Congressmen would not be beholden to doing their will, during their final term, if there were term limits.
As far as the influence of Lobbyists, Congressmen would not be beholden to doing their will, during their final term, if there were term limits.It's not just that, but their ability to supply information which a Congressman doesn't have the time or resources to verify.
The solution you suggest could have some positive effects, but right now, I fear the Tea Party influence in our government that, these days, seems to be to simply insure that government does not work at all. Your solution could give them another weapon. I would propose limiting the terms of all congressman to two six year terms. At least in their second term they could then be involved in actually doing something productive, rather than simply perpetually being involved in running for their next term.Hey Tim, glad you're back! As to term limitations, it would of course require a constitutional amendment as the original article allows for unlimited terms. And getting an amendment past the congress would be damned near impossible not to mention the hue and cry from their constituents who have a stake in furthering their careers, you know pork barrel politics and all. That's specifically why the long timers have weathered many a storm and stayed at their posts for so long; they appease the folks back home,e.g. Mitch McConnell, Strom Thurmond who turned 100 in the Senate, And Robert Byrd to name a few. if you could cobble together the tea baggers, libertarians, liberal dems. And independents to force a vote via a state referendum it might pass but good luck with that. We're just too fragmented to force any legislation through without the massive support of one of the partys. Maybe the NRA could whip up sentiment; they sure as hell have enough clout to block anti gun legislation at will. Cap't Jack
This is just a bit of a random thought, but I generally trust folks here to give me good constructive criticism: I do have a libertarian streak, that I do generally favor more local control instead of federal control over programs that affect local people. Things like education. Health care. Et cetera. But it's a pattern worldwide that governments will tend to grow over time, seemingly out of control of any legislative bodies. What would happen if Congress were unable to pass legislation that provides funding for something which is enacted indefinitely, that there is a mandatory time limit on such legislation? Congress would be forced to either pass each part of government it provides funding for, or watch it expire. The point is not to severely limit government specifically, but to control growth, so that the federal government can only grow at a rate that Congress has control over. This would be a variable, not a constant, as Congress gets more or less efficient. But when government services become too complicated, Congress would be forced through limited time and resources to pass legislation to only deal with what they consider to be most important and let the rest fall to the wayside. This does happen from time to time, but as the system currently works, there is so much which is enacted indefinitely that there's no way Congress can keep up with it all.You want MORE local gov't!?! The problem in my area is too much local gov't. To many Chiefs, not enough Indians. The towns and villages, school districts, etc. were all created in horse and buggy days, before telephones, etc. and because of all the interest groups involved we can't consolidate with out major battles. I.e. In the town I grew up in it took ten years and four separate referendums to merge the village and town police. It could only be done after the Village police Chief retired! The combined man power of the two Police Depts. is approximately 70. The same town had its own water dept. At the time it went bankrupt and was taken over by the county water dept. it had nearly twice as many employees as the county dept. which served about 70 times as many people. Oh Yeah every employee of the town water dept. was or was related to a town or village official. When the county stepped in they finally replaced the broken down water lines which all these people merely ran around "repairing" when they weren't sitting in bars or the fire houses drinking.
As far as the influence of Lobbyists, Congressmen would not be beholden to doing their will, during their final term, if there were term limits.It's not just that, but their ability to supply information which a Congressman doesn't have the time or resources to verify. True, lobbyists have undue influence. Time limits on legislation won't help that.
Hi, Cap't. True, it is not a solution that will ever likely be employed.The solution you suggest could have some positive effects, but right now, I fear the Tea Party influence in our government that, these days, seems to be to simply insure that government does not work at all. Your solution could give them another weapon. I would propose limiting the terms of all congressman to two six year terms. At least in their second term they could then be involved in actually doing something productive, rather than simply perpetually being involved in running for their next term.Hey Tim, glad you're back! As to term limitations, it would of course require a constitutional amendment as the original article allows for unlimited terms. And getting an amendment past the congress would be damned near impossible not to mention the hue and cry from their constituents who have a stake in furthering their careers, you know pork barrel politics and all. That's specifically why the long timers have weathered many a storm and stayed at their posts for so long; they appease the folks back home,e.g. Mitch McConnell, Strom Thurmond who turned 100 in the Senate, And Robert Byrd to name a few. if you could cobble together the tea baggers, libertarians, liberal dems. And independents to force a vote via a state referendum it might pass but good luck with that. We're just too fragmented to force any legislation through without the massive support of one of the partys. Maybe the NRA could whip up sentiment; they sure as hell have enough clout to block anti gun legislation at will. Cap't Jack
True, lobbyists have undue influence. Time limits on legislation won't help that.I was thinking more indirectly, that if Congressmen were able to better control what they're responsible for, they would also be better able to understand what they're responsible for.
True, lobbyists have undue influence. Time limits on legislation won't help that.I was thinking more indirectly, that if Congressmen were able to better control what they're responsible for, they would also be better able to understand what they're responsible for. Maybe so, to the extent that Congressmen are rational, competent, clear thinking statesmen, unencumbered by dogmatic thinking or greed, who put the interests of the public ahead of their own.
This is just a bit of a random thought, but I generally trust folks here to give me good constructive criticism: I do have a libertarian streak, that I do generally favor more local control instead of federal control over programs that affect local people. Things like education. Health care. Et cetera. But it's a pattern worldwide that governments will tend to grow over time, seemingly out of control of any legislative bodies. What would happen if Congress were unable to pass legislation that provides funding for something which is enacted indefinitely, that there is a mandatory time limit on such legislation? Congress would be forced to either pass each part of government it provides funding for, or watch it expire. The point is not to severely limit government specifically, but to control growth, so that the federal government can only grow at a rate that Congress has control over. This would be a variable, not a constant, as Congress gets more or less efficient. But when government services become too complicated, Congress would be forced through limited time and resources to pass legislation to only deal with what they consider to be most important and let the rest fall to the wayside. This does happen from time to time, but as the system currently works, there is so much which is enacted indefinitely that there's no way Congress can keep up with it all.You want MORE local gov't!?! The problem in my area is too much local gov't. To many Chiefs, not enough Indians. The towns and villages, school districts, etc. were all created in horse and buggy days, before telephones, etc. and because of all the interest groups involved we can't consolidate with out major battles. I.e. In the town I grew up in it took ten years and four separate referendums to merge the village and town police. It could only be done after the Village police Chief retired! The combined man power of the two Police Depts. is approximately 70. The same town had its own water dept. At the time it went bankrupt and was taken over by the county water dept. it had nearly twice as many employees as the county dept. which served about 70 times as many people. Oh Yeah every employee of the town water dept. was or was related to a town or village official. When the county stepped in they finally replaced the broken down water lines which all these people merely ran around "repairing" when they weren't sitting in bars or the fire houses drinking. I agree. Too much power no matter where it is located can lead to problems. But if we take the OP's idea to its logical conclusion, states would have to give up all Federal education and infrastructure funding, such as highway funds, mortgages, through FHA, the VA and Fannie Mae, student loans through Sallie Mae, and many other Federal programs millions of people depend on. We should never forget the law of unintended consequences. Lois
You want MORE local gov’t!?! The problem in my area is too much local gov’t. To many Chiefs, not enough Indians. The towns and villages, school districts, etc. were all created in horse and buggy days, before telephones, etc. and because of all the interest groups involved we can’t consolidate with out major battles. I.e. In the town I grew up in it took ten years and four separate referendums to merge the village and town police. It could only be done after the Village police Chief retired! The combined man power of the two Police Depts. is approximately 70. The same town had its own water dept. At the time it went bankrupt and was taken over by the county water dept. it had nearly twice as many employees as the county dept. which served about 70 times as many people. Oh Yeah every employee of the town water dept. was or was related to a town or village official. When the county stepped in they finally replaced the broken down water lines which all these people merely ran around “repairing" when they weren’t sitting in bars or the fire houses drinking.Exactly the same here only worse, which is why I still live in a village. This area is a patchwork of small communities including exempted villages which are completely autonomous so none of them wants to consolidate. There are even areas in between the villages that are county controlled. And because our population is under 5,000, we don't qualify for additional state funding for public employees. Our police department consists of one full time and four part time cops with three used cars. The State even cut funds for the county and the mayor laid off half of the county force. Some protection, huh? And with the depressed economy the folks here won't pass another tax levy in my lifetime. Cap't Jack
I agree. Too much power no matter where it is located can lead to problems. But if we take the OP's idea to its logical conclusion, states would have to give up all Federal education and infrastructure funding, such as highway funds, mortgages, through FHA, the VA and Fannie Mae, student loans through Sallie Mae, and many other Federal programs millions of people depend on. We should never forget the law of unintended consequences. LoisUm, what? I don't follow. Why would congressmen not renew important government programs that they have control over and understand? Are you saying that no one in Washington D.C. actually knows anything about (for example) highway funding?
I agree. Too much power no matter where it is located can lead to problems. But if we take the OP's idea to its logical conclusion, states would have to give up all Federal education and infrastructure funding, such as highway funds, mortgages, through FHA, the VA and Fannie Mae, student loans through Sallie Mae, and many other Federal programs millions of people depend on. We should never forget the law of unintended consequences. LoisUm, what? I don't follow. Why would congressmen not renew important government programs that they have control over and understand? Are you saying that no one in Washington D.C. actually knows anything about (for example) highway funding? Well, if you look at what is going on now, with the sequester, programs like Head Start and many others programs that effect the poor or lower socio-economic working class have lost funding. Congress is not about to do anything to re-fund those programs. However they did, quickly re-fund a program that effects the financially well off and themselves when they took care of the air traffic problem.
I agree. Too much power no matter where it is located can lead to problems. But if we take the OP's idea to its logical conclusion, states would have to give up all Federal education and infrastructure funding, such as highway funds, mortgages, through FHA, the VA and Fannie Mae, student loans through Sallie Mae, and many other Federal programs millions of people depend on. We should never forget the law of unintended consequences. LoisUm, what? I don't follow. Why would congressmen not renew important government programs that they have control over and understand? Are you saying that no one in Washington D.C. actually knows anything about (for example) highway funding? Controlling Congress is a fine idea if you can figure out a way to do it. Just remember that changing the power of Congress would require the consent of Congress itself and possibly a change in the Constitution. When has any body agreed to lessening its power?
Controlling Congress is a fine idea if you can figure out a way to do it. Just remember that changing the power of Congress would require the consent of Congress itself and possibly a change in the Constitution. When has any body agreed to lessening its power?Go read some of the earlier posts in this thread bemoaning problems with local governments. People giving up local power in favor of centralization is pretty common. And Congress does it every time they blame the President for a problem, indirectly telling people that it's the President, not they, who should be responsible. But, yes, going the other direction, to less centralization, isn't common at all.
Controlling Congress is a fine idea if you can figure out a way to do it. Just remember that changing the power of Congress would require the consent of Congress itself and possibly a change in the Constitution. When has any body agreed to lessening its power?Go read some of the earlier posts in this thread bemoaning problems with local governments. People giving up local power in favor of centralization is pretty common. And Congress does it every time they blame the President for a problem, indirectly telling people that it's the President, not they, who should be responsible. But, yes, going the other direction, to less centralization, isn't common at all. I am quite aware of problems with local governments. Local control is certainly not a cure-all or even something to be desired most of the time. Blaming the president for problems is not exacly giving up control. It's just shifting the blame. Not unusual. But, no matter how you cut it, it's Congress that passes legislation, not the President. All legislative problems belong solely to Congress. Problems with executive decisions belong solely to the President. Nobody is served by muddying the waters. Lois
Blaming the president for problems is not exacly giving up control. It's just shifting the blame. Not unusual. But, no matter how you cut it, it's Congress that passes legislation, not the President. All legislative problems belong solely to Congress. Problems with executive decisions belong solely to the President. Nobody is served by muddying the waters. LoisBy law, yes. But shifting blame does actually convey some amount of social power. Look at how important the President's committee has become to Congress for introducing major legislation lately. I don't think that this would be the case if we didn't see so much blame shifting toward the Presidency.
Blaming the president for problems is not exacly giving up control. It's just shifting the blame. Not unusual. But, no matter how you cut it, it's Congress that passes legislation, not the President. All legislative problems belong solely to Congress. Problems with executive decisions belong solely to the President. Nobody is served by muddying the waters. LoisBy law, yes. But shifting blame does actually convey some amount of social power. Look at how important the President's committee has become to Congress for introducing major legislation lately. I don't think that this would be the case if we didn't see so much blame shifting toward the Presidency. Shifting the blame and taking credit (especialy when it's not warranted) is the essence of politics. It will never change, IMO. Lois