Posted on 01/07/2010 9:27:47 AM PST by neverdem
Way to go John, American Thinker is a big outfit to get published!!!!!
Bump
They're the exception not the rule. With incumbents getting reelected at rates of ninety percent or better, do you really want more of the Bobby Byrd and John Murtha types. Twelve years in each house is plenty.
As opposed to the need for relying upon more experienced staffers we don't elect to explain how things work?
Let them stick to the Constitution. The less laws they make the better. They can start repealing stupid laws.
This is just not true. With term limits, it takes LESS money to buy a candidate, run him, and offer him a cushy job on the back side up front. It also increases the likelihood for a chain of complete unknowns running for office with little identifiable record by which to qualify their integrity under pressure.
That assumes they're all bought, and that they have no record as local and state politicians.
"As for shifting power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy, that was needed before the computer when all these laws, regulations and rules were on paper. With computers and the internet, much of the staff and bureaucracy could be eliminated."
Please explain the basis for this claim.
Information technology greatly reduces the need for staff devoted to researching printed paper copies of anything, IMHO.
IIRC, dalereed had unkind words for American Thinker. I forget the thread, but the admin mod removed them.
Actually, from what I've seen, California politicians are now more "bought" than ever, in part because they need a job after their terms. More importantly, very few have the faintest idea what they are doing. Yes, we got rid of Willie Brown, but we termed out the likes of McClintock, Richardson, Haynes, and Kopp (a Dem, but an honest man). In only one of those cases did the pol move up and he would have done so anyway.
Term limits have not worked in California; they made things worse. Willie Brown may have been a crook, but at least he was competent. This crew is not only crooked, but downright dangerous.
Some kind of weird liberal logic going on there - segregating people by their skin color, so that they can have someone of their own race represent them.
In a true capitalist society, wouldn’t it be better to gerrymander people based on their economic status, then make it a law so that only people that live in the district are allowed to donate money to their candidate? This would keep outsiders from buying the election, so they would be more likely to have someone that truly represents them.
There’s reason for you receiving no response?
proud of you. really. thanks for all you do for us.
Do any states have BBAs currently in place?
How are they working? I live in IL and they gimmick it up to “balance” the budget breaking the laws legally.
What’s the experience base in the other 50 American laboratories called states?
How about the states with line item vetoes (43 per the article)? Are they in good shape? IL has the line item veto and it’s made little difference.
How does the single-subject requirement work in the 41 states that have it? IL judges use it to overturn legislation, some of it good. It locks out the minority party from attaching bills that would change things in IL for the better.
I do appreciate the ideas and FR seems to have an overabundance of ideas for fixing America.
But, to me our best move is to walk the people, the executives, the legislatures and the judges back to our existing Constitution as written.
I don’t see anything past the 15th Amendment that improved on the original.
John / Billybob
What causes one BBA to be more effective in one state than in another?
Doesn't it net out to who the voters elect, not the Constitutional provisions? Isn't the real problem thieves electing theives?
I don't think tinkering with the Constitution will make a difference if voters continue to elect and accept socialists as their masters.
So the wild card, per normal, are the people themselves. If they tolerate thieves and liars they get theft and lies.
The solution is shrink government down. PSS has a great solution that even a child can grasp and that is politically feasible. The conservative movement needs to embrace it and then you'll have majorities forever.
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.