Thursday, April 21, 2011
Not the final post, but final message
Well, it looks like we are winding down the semester and hence also the end of the blog. The point of this blog was to inform people that there is a noticeable problem in the legislative branch of the government and that there is a solution and that solution is term limits. There is no way to become a master of the subject of politic consequences because of the human condition that leaves everything relying on a person up to uncertainty. But through the research of creating this blog the signs point to Congress members who are aware that their only mission is to stay in Congress and not necessarily what the best for the country.
Are term limits the best solution for all the problems? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the fastest way to put a stall on Congress until deeper legislation can be passed so that those who would corrupt the system for their own benefit would not see a point in running for those offices or if they did they would do so for the actual benefit of the country.
I have covered the fact that good politicians with power and use that power correctly would be taken off the job, that is unfortunate but for all their good work, the few powerful people with no intent of bettering the country have done much more harm than those many good ones who have good will.
Perhaps the best solution is one that restricts the way politicians are elected and not how long they can stay in office, but this is the best way to do so quickly. The need for this done has quick as possible is because of the situation that those long lasting members of Congress have done to the country. Their old solutions are no longer going to work and new ideas are needed by new people.
This blog was supposed to make people aware that there is a way for immediate change and hope for different actions in Congress. If people are pleased with the way there are and have been going than there is no need to read this, but if people are not happy and want to ensure that they do not have to worry that the same people are proposing the same solutions for the same problems. Trying and failing is one thing, but trying the same thing over and over again leads to nowhere.
Are term limits the best solution for all the problems? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the fastest way to put a stall on Congress until deeper legislation can be passed so that those who would corrupt the system for their own benefit would not see a point in running for those offices or if they did they would do so for the actual benefit of the country.
I have covered the fact that good politicians with power and use that power correctly would be taken off the job, that is unfortunate but for all their good work, the few powerful people with no intent of bettering the country have done much more harm than those many good ones who have good will.
Perhaps the best solution is one that restricts the way politicians are elected and not how long they can stay in office, but this is the best way to do so quickly. The need for this done has quick as possible is because of the situation that those long lasting members of Congress have done to the country. Their old solutions are no longer going to work and new ideas are needed by new people.
This blog was supposed to make people aware that there is a way for immediate change and hope for different actions in Congress. If people are pleased with the way there are and have been going than there is no need to read this, but if people are not happy and want to ensure that they do not have to worry that the same people are proposing the same solutions for the same problems. Trying and failing is one thing, but trying the same thing over and over again leads to nowhere.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Brave Newish World
Well, Comcast has apparently deemed that my blogging, or internet use for that matter, is not worthy of their services so I forced to resort to drastic measures: iPhone. Yes, the one time I really needed a certain technology it failed me and I was forced to find a new source of mass communications. Praise be to Steve Jobs and his creation.
Appropriate enough to the theme of my post, but ultimately inconvenient
Anyway, now that my troubles are off my chest, let us find our way back to the post. I feel as though I am have been chasing my tail around in circles trying to prove why this is important, but because of the recent events I have a shining glimmer of hope that this argument may be pointless. With Congress attacking itself from all sides, maybe the American people will get so angry they will use their right to vote in staggering numbers. But, just in case I will continue.
The budget is the new source of my argument. Last post, I stated how Congress found a way to use up all the time on the draft clock and finally come to a decision, a decision which has left us and them at a crossroads.
Congress now has to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion and try not spending that money and start bring down the debt so the ceiling can be brought down. In most recent years the Congress has decided to raise amount of the credit card limit with no intent or forethought of how it was going to pay it back.
The national debt has been a concern of the American people and the government for some time. Nobody likes debt, except for us apparently. Since the WWII we have been building on debt. We chipped away at it immediately following WWII, which peaked just shy of 3.9 trillion dollars, lowering it to about 3.4 trillion dollars at the beginning of the Reagan years (Just to show that while I do lean to the right I am playing no favorites in my blame game) and kept the debt ceiling within range. With Reagan came a massive debt and subsequent raises to the debt.
The ceiling on spending stayed pretty good considering things like inflation and other rising nations. The fact that Congress seems split and there is a lame duck house doesn’t matter. All happened under Clinton’s eight seasons in the White House and nothing seemed to phase his ability to not only balance the budget but lower the debt and the percentage of the GDP taken up by that debt. Clinton raised the ceiling from 5.5 to 5.9 billion dollars in 1997 and it never moved and, like I said, the debt went down. So for the sake of political fairness (I would like to point out that this not oriented towards one party) let’s see how many members of the Senate and House of Representatives were a part of that. Because these numbers represent the last time they took office numbers could be in favor against my points because some members of the Senate not accounted for were in the House during these times.
SENATE DEBT LIMIT
100 All Senators in 2011 14.7 Trillion
58 current Senators have served since 2005 8.1 Trillion
45 current Senators have served since 2000 5.9 Trillion
37 current Senators have served since 1997 5.9 Trillion
HOUSE DEBT LIMIT
433 All Reps in 2011
262 current Reps have served since 2005
166 current Reps have served since 2000
137 current Reps have served since 1997
Over half of each house has been faced with raising the debt ceiling over and over again and each time they have continued to waste money or not do their jobs and not matter what, people aren’t voting them out. Why? I don’t know. These numbers are not good.
37 Senators and 137 Reps have raised the debt ceiling multiple times since 1997 by almost triple. If a quarter of a committee at a job continue to mess up then they must be fired for the good of the business. Massive spending such as these come from the most senior members of Congress. Continually doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is Einstein’s definition to insanity, and if they choose to repeat their mistake again I can see no other way than term limits to washing out the old ideas.
Just like the previous failure of the internet at my house I had to find an new way to write this post when what I knew failed me and I ultimately found a way to fix the situation.
sent from my iPhone.
Appropriate enough to the theme of my post, but ultimately inconvenient
Anyway, now that my troubles are off my chest, let us find our way back to the post. I feel as though I am have been chasing my tail around in circles trying to prove why this is important, but because of the recent events I have a shining glimmer of hope that this argument may be pointless. With Congress attacking itself from all sides, maybe the American people will get so angry they will use their right to vote in staggering numbers. But, just in case I will continue.
The budget is the new source of my argument. Last post, I stated how Congress found a way to use up all the time on the draft clock and finally come to a decision, a decision which has left us and them at a crossroads.
Congress now has to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion and try not spending that money and start bring down the debt so the ceiling can be brought down. In most recent years the Congress has decided to raise amount of the credit card limit with no intent or forethought of how it was going to pay it back.
The national debt has been a concern of the American people and the government for some time. Nobody likes debt, except for us apparently. Since the WWII we have been building on debt. We chipped away at it immediately following WWII, which peaked just shy of 3.9 trillion dollars, lowering it to about 3.4 trillion dollars at the beginning of the Reagan years (Just to show that while I do lean to the right I am playing no favorites in my blame game) and kept the debt ceiling within range. With Reagan came a massive debt and subsequent raises to the debt.
The ceiling on spending stayed pretty good considering things like inflation and other rising nations. The fact that Congress seems split and there is a lame duck house doesn’t matter. All happened under Clinton’s eight seasons in the White House and nothing seemed to phase his ability to not only balance the budget but lower the debt and the percentage of the GDP taken up by that debt. Clinton raised the ceiling from 5.5 to 5.9 billion dollars in 1997 and it never moved and, like I said, the debt went down. So for the sake of political fairness (I would like to point out that this not oriented towards one party) let’s see how many members of the Senate and House of Representatives were a part of that. Because these numbers represent the last time they took office numbers could be in favor against my points because some members of the Senate not accounted for were in the House during these times.
SENATE DEBT LIMIT
100 All Senators in 2011 14.7 Trillion
58 current Senators have served since 2005 8.1 Trillion
45 current Senators have served since 2000 5.9 Trillion
37 current Senators have served since 1997 5.9 Trillion
HOUSE DEBT LIMIT
433 All Reps in 2011
262 current Reps have served since 2005
166 current Reps have served since 2000
137 current Reps have served since 1997
Over half of each house has been faced with raising the debt ceiling over and over again and each time they have continued to waste money or not do their jobs and not matter what, people aren’t voting them out. Why? I don’t know. These numbers are not good.
37 Senators and 137 Reps have raised the debt ceiling multiple times since 1997 by almost triple. If a quarter of a committee at a job continue to mess up then they must be fired for the good of the business. Massive spending such as these come from the most senior members of Congress. Continually doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is Einstein’s definition to insanity, and if they choose to repeat their mistake again I can see no other way than term limits to washing out the old ideas.
Just like the previous failure of the internet at my house I had to find an new way to write this post when what I knew failed me and I ultimately found a way to fix the situation.
sent from my iPhone.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Crisis Averted. Sort of...
Depending on how much news you ingest in any given week, you might be aware that the National Government was a little less than an hour away from shutting down.
What happened? Well, I can try and give you an interpretation from my own little arm chair parked in front of my living room TV. The new budget needed to be set. One side wanted to make cuts, and the other side didn't.
Democrats wanted to keep the spending as is and Republicans tried to get as many as 64Billion dollars in less spending for the next year. Neither side was willing to give in to the other side's demands and so a budget was not going to get set. Without a budget the government doesn't operate.
Spending has long been the means by which representatives on both sides of the isle get re-elected over an over again. But strangely enough, the American people wanted the budget balanced and and the debt to be chipped away at.
New members of Congress, especially the new Republicans, were voted into office because they said that they would stop spending. If they didn't get this done the people would get rid of them next time and eventually find someone they liked who could cut spending, or, in most cases of the past, get spending directed towards them.
This, read on the surface, would seem to be an argument that the system works and that the American people vote out the bed reps. What I am actually pointing out is that it has taken a state of financial emergency to get people involved and willing to vote out their long time, good time Charlie representatives.
It has taken 1.2 trillion dollars in debt, financial crisis, recession (an impending second one), and what seemed to be a dooms day clock on government operations before people are willing to get involved. The system is designed to stop these things from happening before we get to panic mode.
Yet, with a debt of over a trillion dollars, Congressmen and women afraid for their future in Congress debated over a few billion dollars in spending. Was it over the price or what would get cut.
House leader Rep. John Boehner would tell you that the areas getting cut have already been decided and the Democrats are stalling at the price tag. Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid would tell you that the amount of money had been decided on and it was completely about issues. Somebody was lying.
Regardless, this farce just showed a complete lack of caring for the taxpaying American. I know I have been on a bit of money kick recently, but I would like to know if any of these millionaires have ever actually balance a checkbook.
If government would have shut down, billions would have immediately been added to the debt, 800,000 government employees would not have jobs until it was resolved, and, for the sheer sake of fun, the active military members would not have gotten paid.
Does government need to stop spending and try and get the American government out of the red and in the black? Yes. Is 32 Billion in spending cuts going to do that? Not really. It would be like paying back five days of interest on a 10 year loan. So was this really the time to get this underway? Nope. Were Democrats scared this battle might end their careers? Probably.
Excess spending and loopholes stem from re-election. I do not know if term-limits would mean that we would make more than we spend in this country but they really couldn't hurt. The reason we have administrators in other businesses is because we like to keep our spending under control.
We came 55 minutes away Friday night. Let's see if we can reproduce the fun
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/us-budget-deal-avoids-shutdown-fight-ahead_535242.html
What happened? Well, I can try and give you an interpretation from my own little arm chair parked in front of my living room TV. The new budget needed to be set. One side wanted to make cuts, and the other side didn't.
Democrats wanted to keep the spending as is and Republicans tried to get as many as 64Billion dollars in less spending for the next year. Neither side was willing to give in to the other side's demands and so a budget was not going to get set. Without a budget the government doesn't operate.
Spending has long been the means by which representatives on both sides of the isle get re-elected over an over again. But strangely enough, the American people wanted the budget balanced and and the debt to be chipped away at.
New members of Congress, especially the new Republicans, were voted into office because they said that they would stop spending. If they didn't get this done the people would get rid of them next time and eventually find someone they liked who could cut spending, or, in most cases of the past, get spending directed towards them.
This, read on the surface, would seem to be an argument that the system works and that the American people vote out the bed reps. What I am actually pointing out is that it has taken a state of financial emergency to get people involved and willing to vote out their long time, good time Charlie representatives.
It has taken 1.2 trillion dollars in debt, financial crisis, recession (an impending second one), and what seemed to be a dooms day clock on government operations before people are willing to get involved. The system is designed to stop these things from happening before we get to panic mode.
Yet, with a debt of over a trillion dollars, Congressmen and women afraid for their future in Congress debated over a few billion dollars in spending. Was it over the price or what would get cut.
House leader Rep. John Boehner would tell you that the areas getting cut have already been decided and the Democrats are stalling at the price tag. Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid would tell you that the amount of money had been decided on and it was completely about issues. Somebody was lying.
Regardless, this farce just showed a complete lack of caring for the taxpaying American. I know I have been on a bit of money kick recently, but I would like to know if any of these millionaires have ever actually balance a checkbook.
If government would have shut down, billions would have immediately been added to the debt, 800,000 government employees would not have jobs until it was resolved, and, for the sheer sake of fun, the active military members would not have gotten paid.
Does government need to stop spending and try and get the American government out of the red and in the black? Yes. Is 32 Billion in spending cuts going to do that? Not really. It would be like paying back five days of interest on a 10 year loan. So was this really the time to get this underway? Nope. Were Democrats scared this battle might end their careers? Probably.
Excess spending and loopholes stem from re-election. I do not know if term-limits would mean that we would make more than we spend in this country but they really couldn't hurt. The reason we have administrators in other businesses is because we like to keep our spending under control.
We came 55 minutes away Friday night. Let's see if we can reproduce the fun
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/us-budget-deal-avoids-shutdown-fight-ahead_535242.html
Thursday, April 7, 2011
West Hollywood hotbed for Term-Limit Debates
Apparently real Hollywood politicians are debating the legitimacy of term limits in the West Hollywood City Council. I find it strange that the picture of one of the challengers to the incumbents in the upcoming election has his picture in the LA Weekly blog and it looks like he is trying out for a part about Johnny Cash. Anyway, in this race there are six challengers against three incumbents. Two of the incumbents have been in office for a total of 40 years. Guess who is supporting term limits and who is opposing them.
That's right, the people who have been there for years and years do not support something that could end there career. City Councils usually don't put term limits on there members because it is such a small election that slight increase in voter turnout has the ability to reshape the whole council. Historically, or at least since 1984 when West Hollywood was established as a city, West Hollywood has an extremely low voter turnout. Out of the 23,000 registered voters, only a few thousand actually vote.
Another thing that people like with long serving City Council members are the friendships made with local business owners and higher echelon members of the community, that is unless you are trying to open new businesses or set up new ordinances.
Everyone of the challengers support term limits for the West Hollywood City Council. The longest serving member of the West Hollywood City Council is John Heilman. Heilman was elected in 1984.
Challenger Scott Scmidt had this to say about how long Heilman has been in office, "A lot has changed since 1984. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president, the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics , Dynasty was the number one show on television, the Los Angeles Raiders won the Super Bowl."
He argues that time has changed since then and that he needs to be removed from office. Perhaps the most damning thing to Heilman's record was his campaigning against Proposition 20. Supporting Californians overwhelmed the opposition. Prop 20. reform gerrymandering in California that had grown out of control. Politicians would redraw their districts and make it impossible to lose an election.
Would term limits reduce the need for reforms like this? Who knows but it would make it so somebody couldn't reap the benefits of redistricting.
That's right, the people who have been there for years and years do not support something that could end there career. City Councils usually don't put term limits on there members because it is such a small election that slight increase in voter turnout has the ability to reshape the whole council. Historically, or at least since 1984 when West Hollywood was established as a city, West Hollywood has an extremely low voter turnout. Out of the 23,000 registered voters, only a few thousand actually vote.
Another thing that people like with long serving City Council members are the friendships made with local business owners and higher echelon members of the community, that is unless you are trying to open new businesses or set up new ordinances.
Everyone of the challengers support term limits for the West Hollywood City Council. The longest serving member of the West Hollywood City Council is John Heilman. Heilman was elected in 1984.
Challenger Scott Scmidt had this to say about how long Heilman has been in office, "A lot has changed since 1984. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president, the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics , Dynasty was the number one show on television, the Los Angeles Raiders won the Super Bowl."
He argues that time has changed since then and that he needs to be removed from office. Perhaps the most damning thing to Heilman's record was his campaigning against Proposition 20. Supporting Californians overwhelmed the opposition. Prop 20. reform gerrymandering in California that had grown out of control. Politicians would redraw their districts and make it impossible to lose an election.
Would term limits reduce the need for reforms like this? Who knows but it would make it so somebody couldn't reap the benefits of redistricting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)