Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > US Congress & The Legislative Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

US Congress & The Legislative Branch Discuss Tea Party Rep. Refuses Congressional Health Plan at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by AK Gandy I don't fundamentally disagree. Make it a 5 year term, with a maximum of two ...

Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 12-29-2010, 08:57 AM
Conservative Sage
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,314
Thanks: 11,692
Thanked 12,533 Times in 7,369 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Tea Party Rep. Refuses Congressional Health Plan

Originally Posted by AK Gandy View Post
I don't fundamentally disagree.

Make it a 5 year term, with a maximum of two terms...........and I believe you can minimize the problems.

Guess what?

The world is a little different than Washington's time.

Just think about how a national military was addressed for a big clue.
Duh, the world has changed since Washington's time. But the danger of creating an elite political class to rule us as an entitled aristocracy is timeless. It was the wealthy Progryssve FDR who decided he and he alone knew what was best for the great unwashed masses so he had to become President for life. Thanks to a Constitutional amendment the Presidency is term-limited. We need to exercise our voting power to "term limit" Congress members like Pete Stark who have become disconnected from their constituients.

When I said "campaigning," I was talking about "fundraising" for the next election.
Perish the thought the Congress member would have to actually get out and mix with constituents like businesses. It's much better to have them financed by tax money so they don't have to listen to the voters at all.

Oh c'mon, be serious.

It's not like there are "pro-war" and "anti-war" candidates..........that will always feel/vote that way.

Too much is dependent on situations that are constantly changing.
Yes, they don't always vote like they promise do they? How do you send them a message you are displeased? With campaign donations, either withholding them or giving them to an opponent or challenger. If the Congress member can just rely on a stream of tax money to finance their campaign, they become insulated from public accountability.

Quite the leap you make from being "influenced" to being "corrupt."

Typically, that is the type of black/white argument that never works.

I supported Obama for many reasons.

I wished he had chosen to be publicly funded though.

And yes, I believe that by doing it he has compromised himself.

However, I don't believe for a minute that McCain would have been immune from influence just because he wasn't privately funded. Nor do I think either of them would become "corrupt."
Private campaign funding is either a significant problem or it isn't. If donations "influence" a candidate's position as you claim then it is an exercise of citizen's Constitutional rights. If they corrupt Congress as in getting them to change policy for money, which you have yet to provide examples, then it must be important enough to determine your vote. But it isn't all that important as you chose the privately financed Presidential candidate over the publicly funded one with the weak rationale of they are both corrupt. Face it, you just want to use public financing to promote the policies you want at taxpayer expense.

We still have the issue of lobbyists, which if you actually read my other posts...........you would have seen where there is a big problem also.
As I wrote earlier, exercising Constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances and free association is neither an "issue" nor a problem. If you think they are, the Constitution has an amendment process to fix the "problem."

So what changes if the candidate's campaign is publicly funded?

Nothing of course, except the potential to vote for those things that the special interests and big donors want.

And that happens all of the time.
Public funding deprives the people of an important control over the candidate by taxation. You can no longer decide to express your will via campaign donation instead you are taxed to support candidates selected for you by Federal appointees. Congress then becomes the plaything of the Federal election funding board no doubt populated by Executive appointees. Vote against confirmation of the appointee? You will become ineligible for some reason for Federal campaign funds. This isn't a problem with private donations because the donors are free to pick and choose the candidates.

Yeah, in a perfect world that might work.

In reality, all of us tend to give more credence to those who support us.

Just look around here if you think I'm wrong.
It works in an imperfect world of competing special interests AKA reality.

My "point" is that you are trying to use the exception...to prove the rule.

It fails miserably.

In a majority of cases, those with the most money to spend on advertising..... wins.

Who raised more money..........Obama or McCain?
Kindly re-read my assertion. During the primaries having more $ is not predictive, another example would be Hillary Clinton circa 2007. The presumptive winner attracts more donations in the general because donors want to back a winner, they don't win because they have more donations.

I don't know you that well so I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous on purpose, or you actually believe it.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think you know darn well that serving the many....should outweigh the few (big donors).
With all due respect, I am not seeking your validation only your logical debate supported by facts. The policies to, as you put it, serve the many are determined by politics. It is not some process by the political elites devoid of the people's input like Federally funded elections creates.

The big tent items are one thing.

It's all of the earmarks, tax loopholes, special rules, etc......where the real damage is done.
The budget numbers don't support this assertion, earmarks, lettermarks, Congress member phone calls, etc. account for a small percentage of the overall Federal budget. It is the big ticket entitlements SS, Medicaid/Medicare along with the "emergency" spending like the Porkulus that are the major sources of the deficit. Some Congress members are always going to find a way to channel taxpayer $ to their home district or State, indeed the late Senator Byrd and Rep. Murtha bragged about their ability to bring home the bacon. What party were they? The only way to deal with this is to cap the amount of money Congress has to fritter away, tax revenues is a workable number.
Reply With Quote

congressional, health, party, plan, refuses, rep, tea

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0