Three laws that would change Washington for the good.

[Guest cardcutter]

I have been considering our current situation in Washington. The problem as I see it is that they have lost sight of who they work for and why. I would like to see the following laws, amendments, whatever enacted.

 

1. No immediate member of an elected official can engage in business with the federal government for the term of the elected official and for a period of five years after the elected official leaves office.

 

mothers,fathers,sisters,brothers ,children , or spouses. This would end the practice of steering lucrative contracts to family members.

 

2. All assets, except their government salary and benefits, of elected officials shall be frozen upon their first day of office and remain so until they leave office. Said elected officials are further prohibited from working for or lobbying the federal govt for a period of five years after they leave office.

 

I am tired of seeing them go to Washington worth a few hundred thousand and leaving there worth millions. It shouldn't be about the money!

 

3. At any time the national debt reaches ten percent  more than the tax revenue taken in for that year, no member of congress or the senate will be eligible to run for federal office ever again.

 

The budget can be balanced with the stroke of a pen. It is high time it was done and the only way they will stop the spending frenzy is if their job is on the line.We would not need term limits. They would limit themselves.

 

I am through ranting now. I know that none of these would ever see the light of day in Washington,but one can hope.

[UncleJak]

I like the third one!

[JohnC]

Add to it if they violate their oath of office to protect the constitution such as Feinstein attacking 2A, they immediately be impeached and will be banned from ever holding public office, even down to their home sate, ever again! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnC]

We need to start making more rules for them to follow like they do every day to us. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DWARREN123]

Would not pass, the crooks um I mean politicians would be hinded in their ability to work harassment free.

[RAJTENN]

The founding fathers did not anticipate that the country would generate thousands upon thousands of "professional" politicians. We need term limits for all elected federal senators and congress persons...one - four year term (25% of them would be replaced every year). All elected officials would then know that after four years they would have to return to the live and work with the people who elected them...Oh, it might be nice to have all elected and appointed federal officials read the Constitution (then take a written exam to see if they understood the words therein).

 

No special retirement benefits and no lobbing jobs for 5 years beyond their single four year term. Might even be a good idea to exclude anyone with a law degree from the House of Representatives...leave the Senate to the lawyers...this might create balance with the House generating commonsense legislation and the Senate making sure that the language of that legislation is Constitutionally correct.

 

Require that all bills must remain singular in purpose, i.e., education bills contain only education related funding, military appropriations contain only military issues, etc. This might help reduce the PORK...

[Blitzen]

I like them all. Would add term limits to #3 or just make it #4. Then run it up to about 20. No elected official shall hold more than two consecutive terms for US Congress or Senate. Term limits is needed bad no matter what the party affiliation.

[1gewehr]

Numbers 1 and 2 will not work.

 

For 1, you have not considered a situation where the family member ALREADY works for the government.  What about a family member serving in the military?  Or as a civilian contractor for the government?  Do you really want to take away someone's livelihood?  I believe it would be enough to make it illegal to use their influence to help a family member receive a government contract.  But that is already covered as a 'conflict of interest'.  It's just not enforced.

 

For 2, I have a serious problem with that.  We already have too much government sizing and freezing of assets going on.  Do you really want to allow them MORE power to do that?  And what's to stop them from expanding that to others?  You are setting a very bad precedent!

 

The main problem we have right now is that the group responsible for upholding the law, The Justice Department, is instead the organization that gets to choose WHO to prosecute and who to ignore.  In fact, the Justice Department can be said to be the biggest crooks of all.  After all, they gave us Fast&Furious, have not prosecuted Jon Corzine (remember MF Global and the 'lost' $1.6Billion), allow Democrats to get away with pretty much anything, and ignored all instances of Democrat voter fraud from 2008 through 2012.

 

We have a classic case of the Wolf guarding the Sheep.  Or, you might view it as the old 'protection racket'.  As long as we allow ourselves to get fleeced and don't cause government any problems, then they will make sure that nothing bad happens like an IRS investigation, criminal prosecution for violating environmental laws, accidental SWAT raid based on a confidential informant, etc.

 

I fear that we are beyond having the ability to muzzle the Federal wolf by voting.  I believe that our last hope for reducing Federal power is through the power of the states.    If our state governments stand up to the Feds, then we have a chance.

[JayC]

I've got #4 - Any member who votes for a law that is deemed unconstitutional (in part of as a whole) by SCOTUS will be sentenced to 10 years in prison, will be ineligible to any office or job with any level of government for life, and will forfeit all benefits from government service.

 

 

I have been considering our current situation in Washington. The problem as I see it is that they have lost sight of who they work for and why. I would like to see the following laws, amendments, whatever enacted.

 

1. No immediate member of an elected official can engage in business with the federal government for the term of the elected official and for a period of five years after the elected official leaves office.

 

mothers,fathers,sisters,brothers ,children , or spouses. This would end the practice of steering lucrative contracts to family members.

 

2. All assets, except their government salary and benefits, of elected officials shall be frozen upon their first day of office and remain so until they leave office. Said elected officials are further prohibited from working for or lobbying the federal govt for a period of five years after they leave office.

 

I am tired of seeing them go to Washington worth a few hundred thousand and leaving there worth millions. It shouldn't be about the money!

 

3. At any time the national debt reaches ten percent  more than the tax revenue taken in for that year, no member of congress or the senate will be eligible to run for federal office ever again.

 

The budget can be balanced with the stroke of a pen. It is high time it was done and the only way they will stop the spending frenzy is if their job is on the line.We would not need term limits. They would limit themselves.

 

I am through ranting now. I know that none of these would ever see the light of day in Washington,but one can hope.

Edited January 4, 2013 by JayC

[Guest cardcutter]

Numbers 1 and 2 will not work.

 

For 1, you have not considered a situation where the family member ALREADY works for the government.  What about a family member serving in the military?  Or as a civilian contractor for the government?  Do you really want to take away someone's livelihood?  I believe it would be enough to make it illegal to use their influence to help a family member receive a government contract.  But that is already covered as a 'conflict of interest'.  It's just not enforced.

 

For 2, I have a serious problem with that.  We already have too much government sizing and freezing of assets going on.  Do you really want to allow them MORE power to do that?  And what's to stop them from expanding that to others?  You are setting a very bad precedent!

 

1. Doing business with and working for are two different things. I know I never thought of my time in the Corps as doing business with them.

Take away their livelihood, Yep darn tootin . I am tired od seeing congress critters families getting rich because of them.

 

2. Damn straight I want their assets frozen. I don't want them to see a dime that is not part of their govt paycheck. If we remove money from the equation we remove corruption. If they truly want to serve for the betterment of the nation and not their own enrichment there is no problem. If they are only in it for the money then we don't need them!

[Guest cardcutter]

I like them all. Would add term limits to #3 or just make it #4. Then run it up to about 20. No elected official shall hold more than two consecutive terms for US Congress or Senate. Term limits is needed bad no matter what the party affiliation.

I am all for term limits.Say 12 years in each house. Thats two terms in the Senate and Six in the house. No federal pension just what the rest of us get and no free medical afterwords. I could get behind that.

You do of course know it will never happen. They are never going to voluntarily vote themselves out of power.

[Guest cardcutter]

I've got #4 - Any member who votes for a law that is deemed unconstitutional (in part of as a whole) by SCOTUS will be sentenced to 10 years in prison, will be ineligible to any office or job with any level of government for life, and will forfeit all benefits from government service.

I only see one problem with this Jay. often as not it can take decades for the SCOTUS to decide if something is unconstitutional. How about an independent review board that has to review each bill submitted for constitutional compliance. They could be appointed like SCOTUS or simply be set up like the CBO. Either way they would have to weigh in on the constitutionality of each bill.

[Guest cardcutter]

Require that all bills must remain singular in purpose, i.e., education bills contain only education related funding, military appropriations contain only military issues, etc. This might help reduce the PORK...

 

This +100. I could not agree more!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

After looking at all this, how are you going to get them to vote on this, since they are the ones setting the rules once

they are in Congress. I like the attitude, just don't see how to do it.

[JayC]

I only see one problem with this Jay. often as not it can take decades for the SCOTUS to decide if something is unconstitutional. How about an independent review board that has to review each bill submitted for constitutional compliance. They could be appointed like SCOTUS or simply be set up like the CBO. Either way they would have to weigh in on the constitutionality of each bill.

 

While it can take decades, most laws are fought to SCOTUS within a 4 or 5 year time frame...  Laws that are extremely unpopular tend to get there even quicker (for example the healthcare law).

 

Just think if every Senator and Congresscritter who voted for Obamacare was sitting inside a federal prison for the next 10 years right now?

 

While not perfect, it would prohibit them from ever getting reelected or collecting a penny from the government.

[Guest cardcutter]

After looking at all this, how are you going to get them to vote on this, since they are the ones setting the rules once

they are in Congress. I like the attitude, just don't see how to do it.

Alas that is the heart of the problem.

[Guest Bassman17SC]

Term Limits!  Nothing else need be done.

[ShamGlock]

Number 3 is powerful. I like it.

[Blitzen]

Term Limits!  Nothing else need be done.

I agree. Would help to solve a lot of probems. If the people wanted it bad enough it could happen. I would also like to see a "Balanced Budget Amendment".

[Guest TNSovereignty]

Laws, laws, and more laws.  How many pages in the federal register these days?  

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the pure motive & intent of these proposals.  If nothing else they allow us to vent our rage at the predicament we find ourselves in.  But there's no way to legislate our way out of the mess we're in.  

 

Our founding fathers were successful because they were able to rouse a moral people & waken them to revolt against tyranny ... a tyranny of man-made laws.  Today, I would argue that we are NOT a moral people, and we are a people that want 'security' over liberty.  

 

Most of us here are on the same side of the argument ... want to see the 'bums' thrown out, want to see constitutional government, judges & congressmen impeached, etc etc.  The only way I can see out of this mess is to stop thinking about changing DC with more laws.  Our focus should be on Nashville, and getting a governor & state legislators who will thumb their sovereign nose at the federal government & their blackmailing policy initiatives (e.g. health care).  Our focus needs to be on sherrifs who will thumb their nose at federal law enforcement when they seek jurisdiction.  County Commissioners who will thumb their nose at federal education money.  Too many of our state legislators are political whores ... they'll do ANYthing to ensure the federal dollar faucet keeps running because they think that's what we (the constituency) wants.  If a handful of states seriously & rigorously implemented the 10th Amendment we might, maybe, possibly have a slim chance at turning this mess around.  

[DennyB]

Repealing the 17th amendment would give the states back their say so in the federal government too.