My Political Views

[Traveler]

Introduction: In light of the many misleading political statements (kind way of saying lies). I am offering one man’s political views - my own. Our once great nation has abandoned principles for a corse of tyranny. Politics has forgotten freedoms and rights of citizens and become a battle ground for seizing power from the populace and forcing a minority agenda. I believe politics should define the legal means by which differing segments of the population deal with each other and their differences. I am aware that “the majority should have the majority say” is not without flaws but all other methods are in every way more destructive of rights and freedom in society.

Corrupt politics: This is anything aimed ad bringing someone to political office or governing law to ratification under false or unsubstantiated premisses. Example: I believe President Bush should be voted out of office because he had an agenda of war with Iraq. This is a display of corrupt politics. It could be correct to say President Bush should not be president because of several official documents or sworn statements that prove he had an agenda of war with Iraq. (Just a side note - to produce forged documents or false statements should be a felony which should end forever all guilty parties from ever participating directly in any political process.)

Campaign financing: I believe campaign financing is the single most corrupting influencing in American politics. In my mind the only way to turn away this corruption is to strictly enforce three new laws of campaign financing: One - no non voting entity can contribute money or disperse any information without contributing the same amount of money and same means of dispersing information to all candidates. This means that political action committees or businesses (including news agencies) cannot favor a candidate during the campaign process - only individuals registered to vote in the specific election. Two - No candidate can spend more of their own money on their campaign that any of the other candidates running for the same office. If they wish to use their own money above what other have committed it must be distributed equally among all candidates. Three - all contributions (amount and who contributed) must be made public before they can be used. Violation of these three laws would result in forfeiture of the candidate office or presentation or passage of supported measures.

Representative Seniority: There is a pecking order in the halls of our representation that invites political underhandedness. It is called the seniority system. It determines who serves on what committees and what laws are presented and the form in which they are presented. It is at the core of how our government represents it citizens. I believe a change is necessary based on how the representative represents their constituent citizens. I believe seniority should be determined in the following manner: The percentage of votes actually cast for the candidate to all registered voters in the representative’s area or district. The representative with the highest ratio has their first choice of committees as chair. All representatives are selected in ranking order - regardless of party affiliation. This will insure that a representative represented those that vote for them.

Compensation of Representatives: First off representatives should serve the public - not live off of them. I have a big problem with representatives making more than the people they represent. It has a tendency of making the representatives think they are more important than their constituents. I believe they should receive a stipend of no more than the average (within 10%) salary of their constituents and only while congress is in session. In addition they may receive housing in government supplied dorms or apartments comparable to housing supplied by the government for servicemen in the military. Also they should be able to eat for free in government cafeterias. There should be no retirement, gifts, junkets, perks or any kind of extra compensation for services. Government service should not be a profession. One exception of retirement could be offered to the president that should have two additional offers. One a lifetime privilege to government housing (on the same level as military servicemen) access to PX and compensation on the par of retired officers in the military. And no double dipping if they already have access to a government retirement program they get nothing extra.

In summary I do not support any political party. I was raised Republican in a family that exerted great political influence. I have experienced first hand the evils of political corruption. We do not live in a free country. The worse of it is all the dirty political tricks that are paid for by the freedoms of citizens. The best way to spot corruption in politics is complete endorsement of one party and complete blame of the other. (See war thread for many examples). Welfare reform really means that more money will be collected from citizens and less money distributed to the needy. Social security is anything but secure and is so corrupt that if any other retirement program was run in a like manner our representatives would demand that the overseers of the program be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment.

We have been so lied to by both parties about war, taxes, education, public services, and the role of government we have forgotten what freedom is or what a free citizen is. Every military conflict since World War II have been illegal wars undeclared by congress. No president has the right to attack anybody, or anything without a declaration of war. The meaning of war has become so meaningless and common that it is applied to efforts concerning poverty, drugs, crime and almost any public concern. The only result of war should be surrender or treaty. Any citizen aiding the enemy by protest or other action should be tried by military court for treason and executed if found guilty. But we no longer take war seriously - our wars have become political banter and complete disgrace.

Education has become so political and subject to federal regulation that our teachers and system have become the worse of all other industrial nations on the planet. There is no one more responsible than the idiots that blame one party and praise the other. We are trading our freedoms for party membership - and both of the major parties intend to divide the country with such hatred that civil war may be the only solution. I am ashamed of our political partisans and extremist.

The Traveler

[Guest curvette]

<<Compensation of Representatives: First off representatives should serve the public - not live off of them. I have a big problem with representatives making more than the people they represent. It has a tendency of making the representatives think they are more important than their constituents. I believe they should receive a stipend of no more than the average (within 10%) salary of their constituents and only while congress is in session. In addition they may receive housing in government supplied dorms or apartments comparable to housing supplied by the government for servicemen in the military. Also they should be able to eat for free in government cafeterias. There should be no retirement, gifts, junkets, perks or any kind of extra compensation for services. Government service should not be a profession. One exception of retirement could be offered to the president that should have two additional offers. One a lifetime privilege to government housing (on the same level as military servicemen) access to PX and compensation on the par of retired officers in the military. And no double dipping if they already have access to a government retirement program they get nothing extra.>>

Oh Trav--I completely agree with you here! (It won't ever happen, but we would most definitey have a fairer, more representative government with the scenario you propose instead of these career politicians.)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Sep 25 2004, 12:25 PM

Corrupt politics: This is anything aimed ad bringing someone to political office or governing law to ratification under false or unsubstantiated premisses. Example: I believe President Bush should be voted out of office because he had an agenda of war with Iraq. This is a display of corrupt politics.

Traveler,

Where have you been traveling to? The 5th dimension.

To you, that someone believe President Bush should be voted out of office because the believe he had a war agenda is an example of corrupt politics?

HUH?

Sorry Traveler but that is absurd. What that is is an example of someone having a belief. An example of corrupt politics would be something of a political nature that was also corrup. Your example doesn't even relate to the principle you are describe. Your second bit about documents showing the President has an agenda of war and therefore should not be President is even more absurd (if that is possible) than your first point. President Bush better have had an agenda of war. Otherwise he invaded Iraq by accident and that would make him incompetent, even more so than the critics claim. Bush ought to have an agenda for everything he does.

You campaign finance laws are, um, un-American, beside being goofy.

[One: "no non voting entity can contribute money or disperse any information without contributing the same amount of money and same means of dispersing information to all candidates."] In your brillant policy (note the sarcasm) it would be illegal for my company to tell it's employees, "Hey, if candidate x gets elected, he will enact policy y and that will cause reaction z in the marketplace and that is bad for business." So too for schools, churchs, artisan guilds, football teams and The Dog Walker's Society of America. Lunacy. An entity ought to have the ability to further its cause politically.

[Two: "Two - No candidate can spend more of their own money on their campaign that any of the other candidates running for the same office. If they wish to use their own money above what other have committed it must be distributed equally among all candidates."] In your crazy world a candidate could only contribute to his campaign the same about as the most broke or stingy of candidates. If Al Sharpton contribute zero, then Kerry has to contribute no more than zero unless he ponies up for everyone. That called socialism. You're a socialist.

Your idea for seniority is not an idea for seniority. It is an idea for popularity and I wonder exactly how that would result in any less underhandedness that the system you oppose. My guess is that you don't know either.

Your idea for compensation (110% max of average income of population they represent) is, and I didn't think this was possible, even more flubbery than your other ideas. The average income in Mississippi is $22,000 per year. In your world the only ones who could serve in public office would be the idle rich and the uneducated. How is that better? The elected officials whole staff would make more money than their boss. Dumb idea Traveler.

I am ashamed of our political partisans and extremist.

Maybe, but they (the politicians) are positively moderate compared to you.

[Traveler]

Snow: What you seem to have missed is; currently only the idle rich can run for office especially at the national level. If you do not have 1 mil of your own money you have no chance in today's political system. But lets take someone running for county commission. Why would someone run for that office and spend 2 million of their own money? Because the county commission oversees zoning and the re-zoning of property can make land much more valuable (specially farm land). The process or re-zoning will make someone multi millionaires. Sometimes this is the primary reason someone seeks office or seeks to have connections for someone running for office.

It is why someone will contribute large amounts of money - since there is no accountability in our current system the citizens have no idea what returns high contributors get for their contribution.

Twenty years ago when I was a member and active with "Common Cause" the money received in campaigns had a ratio of about 100 to 1 for dollars contributed by non voting organizations compared to citizens - guess who gets represented. When I lived in Washington I was the state coordinator for the PTSA (Parent Teacher Student Association) with our lobbyist. I will tell you this - ever piece of legislation we asked for sponsorship was not only sponsored but passed exactly as we wanted. Usually on the first day of legislation. Anything we opposed was defeated. Not one exception. I will bet you cannot get anything more than a form letter from your representative. I know we live in a dream world but I believe the government should be of, by and for the people not political action committees. You are correct about one thing - most people I have encountered that are involved in the power of party politics think it is stupid to allow average citizens any say in government and do many things to keep the truth and power from the public. I once sat in a meeting when funds were hidden and changed to keep the public (especially opposition) from the possibility of criticism. Not because the funds had not been spent correctly but because it was not part of the original budget.

There is a saying the if you want to know who has power in politics - follow the money. In today’s world money has a greater say than voters. On rare occupation grass routes movements will start out to make a difference but in every case I have seen the politics of money will eventually take over any political movement in this country.

For years I have tried to find a way to take money out of politics and return the power to citizens. It may be stupid but that is how I feel and think.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by curvette@Sep 25 2004, 01:26 PM

Oh Trav--I completely agree with you here! (It won't ever happen, but we would most definitey have a fairer, more representative government with the scenario you propose instead of these career politicians.)

Curvette: Thank you - I am pleased when someone that usually disagrees with me finds something to agree with. You are right - I have worked for years and it will never happen.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Snow: Can you name someone in congress that is not a millionair?

The Traveler

[Lindy]

Traveler- I also agree with a lot of what you posted....and I think that many who read it will also agree with several points...they just won't say they do.

I have been disenchanted with politics for awhile now, cause like what you said in one post....this country should be run for the people, by the people.....and it isn't.

I talk to older people who remember a lot of history, facts and what have you.

It isn't hard to see the wolf in sheep's clothing if you aren't blindsided by the fancy fleece.

I think that it stinks that money talks in politics....and I don't really care if others agree with that statement or not...in my mind's eye it's the truth. Oh, and this too...when the voters of my state were told that we needed to choose a party and then vote for the canidates in that party for the primary.....I about blew a gasket....what kind of freedom is that? This gal votes for whoever she feels would do the better job! It wouldn't matter if they are representing a donkey, elephant or alien. I shake my head at the fools who thought up THAT rule.

I know that you have spent time outside the US, can you give examples of governments that don't make rules to bind or sway the minds of their people with unreasonable "rules" or huge amounts of campaign dollars?

[Matt]

The situation in Britain is different. The only people who are elected are: Councillors, MPs and Mayors in some large cities.

ALL other jobs, chief constable (police chief) prosecuters, judges, etc., etc., are career people who are in their jobs not because they fought a good election, but because they are good at their job.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Sep 25 2004, 08:31 PM

Snow: Can you name someone in congress that is not a millionair?

The Traveler

I am from California. Bill Thomas (Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee) comes to mind. Net worth: under $200,000

Snow: What you seem to have missed is; currently only the idle rich can run for office especially at the national level. If you do not have 1 mil of your own money you have no chance in today's political system.

Traveler, you are so wrong. Do you know the meaning of idle rich? While their are plenty of well-off members of Congress, few of them are/were idle. In point of fact only about 40 Senators are millionaires. and only 43% incoming congressmen are millionaires. Besides which, being a millionaire is hardly something to get worked up about. In my neighborhood/city (not the nicest in So Cal or No Cal by far) owing your own home makes you a 1/2 millionaire by that fact alone.

Granted, the average congressman is much better off than the average American but I don't want to be represented in government by the average American. The average American's favorite shows have included the Duke of Hazard, Baywatch, and The Apprentice. The average American ain't so good.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/...3/sen-j07.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1225-02.htm

[Snow]

Originally posted by Matt@Sep 26 2004, 04:17 PM

ALL other jobs, chief constable (police chief) prosecuters, judges, etc., etc., are career people who are in their jobs not because they fought a good election, but because they are good at their job.

News flash, police chiefs, prosecutors and judges aren't generally elected here either but I would associate being a career bearucrat, necessarily, with being good at their job.