Posted on 07/17/2008 7:53:42 PM PDT by dvan
I think it's time to let Congress feel our election fury this November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, "Just 9 percent (of Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job." It is the first single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen's history, and it makes Bush's 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast.
The study went on to explain: "Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008."
Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story "Congress mostly going through the motions for now," that "some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters."
If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans' lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!
If you ever have heard the saying "too many cooks in the kitchen," then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives.
Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders' time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College.
(At the other extreme, it states, "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.") So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.
The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House?
I believe just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can't it work for the rest of the states? Here's a movie we all can star in: "Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!"
I agree with the rationale of James Madison, a member of the Continental Congress and our fourth president, who advocated keeping the number of representatives within limits:
"Nothing can be more fallacious, than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men, may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power, than six or seven. But it does not follow, that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed."
If we follow Madison's advice and have fewer representatives, then they couldn't put the blame for their incompetence upon other members of Congress. There would be less gridlock. They probably would get more done. Plus financially speaking, reducing Congress would save us at least $200 million, if you consider all their staff, overhead, travel, pension plans and other perks. And if we didn't like how the few represented us, we would have an easier time correcting their voices or disposing of them. Just a thought.
Bottom line: It is "we the People" who have power over the government, not them over us. They are called to protect our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not vice versa. And if they don't, the Declaration of Independence states, in no uncertain terms, that we are "to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for (our) future Security." It's time to replace most members of Congress with "new Guards" who do the following:
-- Uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
-- Protect Americans' inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
-- Promote less government.
-- Fight for fewer taxes.
-- Demand balanced budgets.
-- Secure our borders.
-- Reduce our national deficit, debts and dependence upon other nations
...I’ll try to act surprised when 98% of these people are reelected (with the other 2% retiring.)
Who are the 9% that think Congress is doing a good job?
If there truly was a way to successfully keep stupid people from actually voting, then all of politics would truly be better for it, IMHO! Unfortunately, politics is truly getting worse overall instead of getting better overall, and more voters in general are truly getting dumber overall instead of truly getting smarter overall. The worsening of all political correctness on all of the issues is also proof of the continued worsening of all of politics. This ongoing trend has truly got to stop before the entire U.S. is truly turned into a third world socialistic country forever!
Now let's say we reduce the number of representatives to 100. There will be almost 2,500,000 people in each congressional district. It will be absolutely impossible for a district to share a source of income, local pride, or identity.
What you would get instead are politicians who specialize in pandering to the least common denominator. Historically, this is a measure of how much money (pork) they can return to the district. And once in office, it would be nearly impossible to get them out of office. Who could challenge a sitting senator as a fresh face in a campaaign? The success rate of people who have done this is next to nothing.
If we had smaller districts, the people in the district would actually have something in common. Whether this be an instinct for small business, or membership in the union at a large employer, smaller districts make it more difficult to eliminate the voice of the opposition when redistricting is voted. That practice, gerrymandering, results in serpentine districts whose only common interest seems to be the reelection of the occupant of that house seat when the district was drawn.
People say that congress doesn't do anything, and if there were more representatives, congress would do even less. Congress isn't supposed to do things. That's the job of the executive branch. Congress is supposed to consider what laws are needed and vote wisely when the laws of this country are increased. Who thinks we need more laws?
Finally, in a district of 600,000 people, the representative can hide from most of the constituents. He never has to talk to you. He has no reason to talk to you. He's too busy raising money to run his next campaign. The only way you can get his attention is to write a large check. This is not the way the country was supposed to be run. When a representative has 50,000 constituents, he can't hide. If he avoids his electors, they'll know. It doesn't take millions of dollars to campaign against him in the next election. It can be done by knocking on doors. A party boss who used to dole out money, endorsements, and power finds his own power diluted. A few angry towns can remove his men from the seat of power, and he, the loser, has to get a job.
Increase the number of representatives. The worst thing that can happen is the congress will never again do anything. That thought is comforting.
I've been pondering that for the last 10 minutes. Other than the military appropriations bills, I'm not sure I can think of a single thing any Congress has done over the past decade to improve life in the U.S. Anybody have any ideas?
I would add that they have enough Gubmint handouts to afford their high.
Why should they complain?
Although I have my share of problems with his Big Government actions, the tax cut was a Good Thing (TM).
LOL. I was thinking of the gazillions of bills spending kachillions of our dollars and how nothing good comes of them. I totally forgot that the tax cuts were the result of legislation.
Hat tip to you!
I had also forgot until yesterday how good W's Energy Plan was, the first year he took office. But, Oh, No, we can't have that. It was prophetic, but Evil Dick Cheney, Evil W, were in *SECRET* cahoots with Evil Big Oil, Evil Big Coal, and Evil Big Nuke Energy, so we can't have that!
You just watch how much the Anti-Evils WHINE as the prices rise.
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.