Next they need to ban paid lobbyists.If a company wants to lobby congress, they'll have to send their CEO.Average people should have the same access to their representatives.
Finally! Just need publicly financed elections and the deal is done. No more earmarks or favors. No more "gifts" like free lunches, hotels, or plane fairs for any Congress member. No more promises of high-paying jobs in the private sector for Congress members when they retire. Just the salary we pay them and the pension they collect upon retirement.Also, term limits would be nice. I'd say 12 or 18 years is enough time for a senator/representative before they step aside and let someone else represent the people. After all, governors and presidents have term limits.
Gotta start somewhere and this is a good a start as any. Now the real test will be to see if they actually follow through or if this turns into an appeasement of the masses. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
There should be a law that any entity receiving contract money from the federal government should not be able to spend any money on lobbying.Otherwise, an entity can "earn" say a $20 million contract, and turn right around and spend $2 million of the taxpayer loot on "earning" another round of government contracts, and so forth. Classic racket activity.
I am shocked that right now that Democrats and Republicans are trying to out-good each other...It would be nice if this actually gets pulled off. Then I can't wait to see the lobbyist go away...
This is just all a shell game. Ear marks absolutely don't matter. All they are designations of how to spend money that is already budgeted. They are not new additional expenditures. This is one again just a political ploy to make us feel like they care about what the nation wants, which is fiscal responsibility.The article even said that ear marks only account for 16 billion of the trillion dollar budget so what does it even matter if they even canceled the entire portion of the budget that was earmarked? The budget would still be 984 billion dollars (it'd probably still be over 1T I'm just rounding). The issue is out of control spending.Ear marks are a convenient scape goat and America is easily fooled in politics because the populace as a whole doesn't care enough to dig deeper.
elsewhere42Mar 10, 2010Buried
Next they need to ban paid lobbyists.If a company wants to lobby congress, they'll have to send their CEO.Average people should have the same access to their representatives.
photek00Mar 10, 2010Buried
Finally! Just need publicly financed elections and the deal is done. No more earmarks or favors. No more "gifts" like free lunches, hotels, or plane fairs for any Congress member. No more promises of high-paying jobs in the private sector for Congress members when they retire. Just the salary we pay them and the pension they collect upon retirement.Also, term limits would be nice. I'd say 12 or 18 years is enough time for a senator/representative before they step aside and let someone else represent the people. After all, governors and presidents have term limits.
izultMar 11, 2010Buried
Gotta start somewhere and this is a good a start as any. Now the real test will be to see if they actually follow through or if this turns into an appeasement of the masses. It is up to us to hold their feet to the fire on this one.
kemp34Mar 11, 2010Buried
There should be a law that any entity receiving contract money from the federal government should not be able to spend any money on lobbying.Otherwise, an entity can "earn" say a $20 million contract, and turn right around and spend $2 million of the taxpayer loot on "earning" another round of government contracts, and so forth. Classic racket activity.
cysailorMar 11, 2010Buried
From the article "Republicans responded immediately by proposing a moratorium on all earmarks"GOOD!
stabile007Mar 11, 2010Buried
I am shocked that right now that Democrats and Republicans are trying to out-good each other...It would be nice if this actually gets pulled off. Then I can't wait to see the lobbyist go away...
4ndr01dMar 11, 2010Buried
f**k lobbyists and corporate shills down with corporate personhood
theskunkmonkeyMar 11, 2010Buried
Riiiight. I'm sure in the coming weeks we'll learn about the loopholes you can drive a bus through in this legislation.
neutron7Mar 11, 2010Buried
Now the politicians will have to go back to good old back room bribe taking just like nature intended.
h8f8kesMar 11, 2010Buried
The cynic in me says they will not abide by this - but it looks good on paper in a tough election year.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#U.S._Congress" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO#U.S._Congress</a>
momsshizzleMar 11, 2010Buried
Oh snap! The Repubs must be pissed now!
wangaliciousMar 11, 2010Buried
I am f**king shocked. This is the first step in the right direction in a loooooooong time.
fyberopticMar 11, 2010Buried
Somewhere, Dick Cheney is fuming. More than normal.
hetmanMar 11, 2010Buried
I agree I really am sick of people like focus on the family getting earmarks.
darkenedMar 11, 2010Buried
This is just all a shell game. Ear marks absolutely don't matter. All they are designations of how to spend money that is already budgeted. They are not new additional expenditures. This is one again just a political ploy to make us feel like they care about what the nation wants, which is fiscal responsibility.The article even said that ear marks only account for 16 billion of the trillion dollar budget so what does it even matter if they even canceled the entire portion of the budget that was earmarked? The budget would still be 984 billion dollars (it'd probably still be over 1T I'm just rounding). The issue is out of control spending.Ear marks are a convenient scape goat and America is easily fooled in politics because the populace as a whole doesn't care enough to dig deeper.
bcamp1973Mar 11, 2010Buried
whoa...wait...congress did something?
rustymanchesterMar 11, 2010Buried
Saddly, the Supreme Court will overturn any deeds done by Congress to restrain business in the next few years, so all of this may be pointless.
charlie6969Mar 11, 2010Buried
Its so sad that I don't believe a word they are saying.
skywiseMar 11, 2010Buried
Meanwhile a federal court ruled that congress can't block funding to ACORN
wargalaMar 11, 2010Buried
And how about we back this law up with jail time for offenders of this new law?