I agree that democracy at the Fed level dilutes democracy at the state and local levels. I favor state and local influence over federal, therefore, I oppose an expansion of federal influence such as increased national elections or national control over state elections.
I have not said that the federal government shouldn't be reigned in. I have said that the tools necessary are all in good working order. The system is not broken. It works. If there is a problem with the results, it is due to the limits of human nature. But, there's always tomorrow.
Therein seems to lie the the difference of opinion. Calling it "broken" is something of an analogy to a mechanical system. You perceive the "tools" as an integral part of the system, and therefore do not see it as "broken", because the tools are still there to fix it.
It's like saying a car with a seized water pump is "not broken" as long as you have tools and and spare water pump in the trunk.
Slow down Huck and read each of your sentences individually and carefully. Then think about them taken as a whole. I think you are saying that there are some problems, but they are not beyond solution. And from your position on term limits, you are expecting the people who caused the problem to fix it. If they can't then ultimately the people will figure out how to vote the incumbents out of office. Incumbents win more than 95% of their elections. I have not seen how many congresscritters retire or volutarily decide not to seek re-election as opposed to how many are thrown out of office, but if no one reviewing this site can provide us that information, I will let you fill in the blank for your self. In my own mind, I am assigning the incumbants something below 95% but it is substantially above half. It is not the political campaign money that incumbants use to win re-election it is your federal tax dollars that they bring home to their districts. And they bargain with each other in vote trading to deliver more to each other's districts.
Congress people do not stay in power because of their integrity or their merit. They stay in power by bringing home the bacon. Promise them anything but deliver the money. Those with principles, abilities, and integrity leave voluntarily because they cannot stand the frustration, the cronyism and the corruption. Washington is like Las Vegas, great fun when you first arrive, but after a few days, decent people can't wait to leave because they can no longer stomach the sleeze.
What would I specifically recommend for TERM LIMITS?
Ten year terms for federal judges, so that no president could reappoint the same judge. I actually would not object to a President having the power of reappointing a federal judge as long as they had to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
Three, four your terms, for members of the House and two, six year terms, for Senators. Any man with real ability could potentially serve their state for twenty-four years in Congress. I believe it takes any Congresscritter several years to learn how Washington works and learn how to do their jobs. After that they would have roughly eight years to contribute and give the country the benefit of what they know and can contribute. Then they would have a few years to recruit or train their replacement. After that they would have to go home and live with the laws that they have passed. I can not understate the importance of that. If you look at the laws passed by Congress, look at how many they have exempted themselves from in various categories and ways. Check their health care plans as opposed to Medicare or Medicaid. Check their retirement plan; are you aware they are exempt from Social Security? Are you aware there have been many attempts to make Social Security a voluntary as opposed to a mandatory program. Does the word mandatory stick in your craw? Even for just a minute before you can pass on? It does in mine. Nothing is mandatory to me. I am a free man and I don't take orders from any one any time. I will never forget my first experience with the word. The Air Force saw fit for me to do my duty as a medical officer in England. There was mandatory formation at the officer's club. I didn't attend. First off, I wasn't a member and I told them I don't "do mandatory". They cut me some slack and I got away with something most folks would not have managed. Turns out that in those days there was an extreme shortage of pathologists. I was one of only 64 pathologists in the entire United States Air Force and they needed them badly. Putting me in jail would have left a hole they could not comfortably fill. For the two years that I was enslaved, I did learn to do some "mandatory" stuff, but by and large they went out of their way not to be confrontational and the fact that the number two ranking officer on the base was my immediate supervisor didn't hurt. There is nothing like a friend at court who is a part of the benevolent dictatorship. Scarcity and demand are all that kept me out of a very difficult situation. The worst part of this, is that this is exactly how government works. In a government that proposes that we are all equal, nothing is farther from the truth. No one understands the power heirarchy, favoritism and cronyism better than the bureacracy. And nobody understands the squeeking wheel or whistle blower routine better. Every law is hard to pass because they are trying to tailor it to offend as few as possible, and certainly not to offend anybody with power. And they are determined to appease or please their own constituency groups who can deliver the votes. Equality is the fartherest thing from their minds. It is the very last thing they want or seek. I will be happy to discuss specifics by freepmail. I would prefer not to clutter the threads with off topic pet peeves. I apologize for this rant, but I do feel the United States has no chance to survive without TERM LIMITS being part of the solution that we are discussing on these threads. And I know there are a number of people opposed to the concept. For those who would like to discuss TERM LIMITS in more detail, please send me a link to the thread where you are posting it. It is an important issue, and is integral to this debate, but the details of a debate on term limits has the potential to keep the rest of the discussion from moving forward.