"And then, I get called by a guy that can't buy a pair of pants, I get called names?
---Donald Trump on Jonah Goldberg, July 8, 2015
That's July of 2015. And Goldberg is still looking down to make sure his zipper isn't stuck.
Posted on 01/15/2017 7:48:45 AM PST by Mean Daddy
I see the real problem as being a permanently sitting congress that feels it needs to "work" to justify its existence. NO! Work less you bastards. Thinking you need to "produce" only leads to more laws and regulations.
Solution: part-time employment (with a salary to match) meeting twice a year--one session in the fall and another in the spring--perhaps six weeks each.
Go home. Run a business. Meet your constituents. Serve them.
I agree with expanding the number of congressmen.
The 435 number was set by F. Roosevelt.
With modern technology this number could be greatly expanded. But limit them to no more than 2 assistants each and add term limits.
Repeal the 17th amendment to give the States more power.
Finally add an amendment so that the Court rulings can be overturned by a 2/3 majority of the states.
These measures would help reign in our out of control Federal Government.
However I don’t expect this to actually happen. Reducing Washington’s power is the last thing that many powerful people want to see happen.
It would take at least one Constitutional amendment (term limits) and a lot of statute law. The latter is particularly tenuous because it can just be overturned by the next Congress, so that would necessitate at least one more Constitutional amendment to take the changes out of the hands of Congress.
Congress today is filled with a bunch of Democrat @ssholes and Republican @ssholes. Expanding the pool of @ssholes from 435 to 2,435 isn't going to accomplish anything.
Another argument is that there would be more politicians to cover each other while all screw over the citizens.
One interesting proposal I've seen is called the "Wyoming Rule," which would set the average House district at a population equal to the size of the U.S. state with the smallest population.
Jonah once famously said he was a lucky guy. “I got my brains from my father and my balls from my mother.”
"And then, I get called by a guy that can't buy a pair of pants, I get called names?
---Donald Trump on Jonah Goldberg, July 8, 2015
That's July of 2015. And Goldberg is still looking down to make sure his zipper isn't stuck.
“I personally believe if states want their votes to count, they should adopt a model like Nebraska and Maine, but THEY won’t.”
I believe in a county by county model of voting. It needs to be taken down to its lowest common denominator which will prevent disenfranchisement. Right now, one city can determine the winner of an election. This gives rise to cheating. At the county level, cheating is easier to weed out as well as voter rolls being maintained.
As an example, a state like NY has 62 counties. Trump won 46 of them. Why should Clinton Win NY?
>
>>Really good article from Jonah Goldberg from 2001. I agree with his premise that congress should be larger to be more representative of the will of the people. When the country was born, the population ratio was 1 to 30,000. Today, it’s 1 to 600,000!!<<
Do you really want the House to be 2,000-5,000 representatives?
That would be unwieldy to say the least. I am all for gridlock, but since the House controls the purse strings nothing would ever get financed, even the good stuff.
>
Care to define ‘the good stuff’? My copy contains *VERY* little Congress need ‘worry’ about to begin.
IMO, nothing should be done until the 17th is abolished. Even so, I see nothing wrong w/ a better ratio of representation.
Nobody would be saying the same % would be just swell if it came to doctors or the check-out lines.
Liberal Fascism was very good.
Agreed.
Personally, I think he has neither. Lucky, though, he’s got.
Actually, I think he is a rather talented writer, and, once upon a time, I enjoyed his work. Then he showed his GOPe side....
That would be unwieldy to say the least.
It would make alot of sense, but only if you gutted the entire rule making part of the executive bureaucracy and replaced them with congressman and their small staffs. Congressional committees would become issuers of regulation. Every government rule would be an act of congress. So you might still have a Department of the Interior, but they could not write rules or issue regulations. The could only enforce what they were given by Congress.
Congress doesn’t need expanding. If anything we should emulate Texas, whose legislature only meets like every other year, and then for only 140 days. Then maybe the annual growth of the Federal Register could be measured in pages and not in pounds. Congress is rated by the public just below used car salesmen. And you want more?
I wasn't aware of the above.
You’re both right. I get some news over at Lucianne.com, but FR is where I hang out. It’s a better website, IMHO.
Somewhere in my photo archives I have a picture of me, Lucianne, and Matt Drudge at a Free Republic after-protest party.
These idiots (yeah) have too much leisure time. More representation sounds good, but it doesn’t work large scale. Use school districts as an example. Bloated, top heavy districts pay tons of admin salaries, but nothing EVER happens to benefit the families represented. Herding cats is another example.
Very large, much-removed, bodies of THEORETICAL representatives don’t act like individuals. We need our representatives to be upstanding, greed-resistant citizens, is all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.