..............."I’ve always said that the way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places, and surely that’s the right answer here: let’s get rid of the byzantine campaign finance rules that stifle political expression or limit it to the insiders like Rove and Axelrod. But the opposite is likely to happen. The so-called “reform community” (Fred Wertheimer, chief nanny), which is very well organized and has media sympathy, is going to argue that the IRS scandal shows that we need more regulation of political speech, or at the very least, disclosure of donors, so that more people can receive the Koch brothers treatment by the left. (Of course, the so-called “reformers” always want to change the subject when you bring up the exemption from campaign contribution disclosure that the Socialist Workers Party still enjoys; most reporters don’t even know it exists.) At the very least, the IRS will argue that it needs a bigger staff to handle the workload from the confusing and admittedly vague regulations in this area. The New York Times, furiously working on the counter-narrative, says the IRS Ohio office was “unprepared and unclear about the rules.” Isn’t that always the way of government failure? If a government agency screws something up, obviously they need a bigger budget. For example:"...................
"Simple solution - we need another level of government to run the government. We need more supervisors to supervise the supervisors, and all problems will be behind us."
archer wrote: We need term limits, on everyone in an elected, or appointed, position.
What would that solve? Do you think a new US senator can't go corrupt in six years? Or will he be doing special favors for the corporations that could hire him six years later?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: We need term limits, on everyone in an elected, or appointed, position.
What would that solve? Do you think a new US senator can't go corrupt in six years? Or will he be doing special favors for the corporations that could hire him six years later?
Anything we as voters can do to mitigate the cronyism, paybacks, bribery, wealth accumulation, power accumulation, and pure addiction of our elected officials to all of these is worth doing. I think term limits would work in that direction. It seems that conservatives have this mantra that if something won't solve the whole problem then it isn't worth doing. If corporations did business that way they would all go bankrupt. You do what you can, when you can, and keep working on the problems till they are solved. More often than not problem solving takes many steps/stages to accomplish.
Personally if the press is doing their job candidates would be more responsible because if they were blatant cheats the voters wouldn't get re-elected. Or they would not need to shower their districts with pork if they weren't worried about being re-elected. The current system has worked for over 200 plus years so changing it should be done very cautiously. Your expected solution might be worse than the problem.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote:
Anything we as voters can do to mitigate the cronyism, paybacks, bribery, wealth accumulation, power accumulation, and pure addiction of our elected officials to all of these is worth doing. I think term limits would work in that direction.
<snip>
More often than not problem solving takes many steps/stages to accomplish.
Yes but.
There is always a but isn't there. :
If you are down wind of a forest fire and try to create a fire break by pissing on the ground, you are going to die. I don't care how much beer you drank.
For once I agree with archer... I'd like to see people in congress as part-time servants of the people instead of tenured career politicians who seem to get re-elected based more on their name recognition than their 'accomplishments" (which are rare). These people are no more special than the people who pickup my garbage, but they would disagree.
Too bad we can't replace them with the runner up the second they prove to be corrupt, or lie, or don't pay their taxes, or act like perverted creeps etc. (yes on both sides)
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
I also agree but is unconstitutional and is not going to happen except at the ballot box.
SO, if we are going to wish for solutions I will wish for the only one that has a snowballs chance in hell. Get rid of high places.
Rick wrote: For once I agree with archer... I'd like to see people in congress as part-time servants of the people instead of tenured career politicians who seem to get re-elected based more on their name recognition than their 'accomplishments" (which are rare). These people are no more special than the people who pickup my garbage, but they would disagree.
Too bad we can't replace them with the runner up the second they prove to be corrupt, or lie, or don't pay their taxes, or act like perverted creeps etc. (yes on both sides)
:
