IF they were doing their jobs and actually legislating then I might be more forgiving, Red. That said, they've done neither. I feel the same way about CEO's who bounce from company to company, bankrupting them all as they go while collecting a massive salary and a going away bonus that is more money than the average person will see in a life time. Pay should never be predicated upon the amount of responsibility but how well one handles those responsibilities. I get what you are trying to say but for many of these guys it's a glorified welfare check. They work 4-5 months a year, collect $175,000 for those 4-5 months, and don't even have the curly ones to accept some blame when things go south. I completely agree about electing more average people but IMO it will never happen because of the way our political system works. I like to imagine Abraham Lincoln trying to run for President today. Lincoln was clinically depressed and often held cabinet meetings in bed, didn't dress to the style of the day and wasn't given to the whims of party politics. The media would eat him alive and the public would chastise him for being mentally ill. His opponents would marginalize him by making the election all about his personal short comings. What average Joe wants to subject themselves or their family to that kind of scrutiny?
You can't get the best and the brightest by dumbing down the pay. The problem isn't the pay of the Congress, it is the influence of the political parties and the special interest groups that push the wishes of the constituency down to third and the best interests of the country down to fourth. The best way to improve government is to eliminate lobbyists special access to Congress and to eliminate the winner-take-all primary systems that are designed to prevent the rise of viable third parties. The electoral college needs to go as well. It is an outdated relict of the 18th century, when there was slow communication, many small regional parties, and a fear of Balkanization.
Fair points Red. Another thing to handle is the gerrymandering of congressional districts that allow congressmen to take absurd stands with no penalty. The Ds started it but the Rs have taken it to a place that endangers us all. Also they need to limit the ability of staff to move from their congressional office to lobbyist positions as well as the representatives. One of the reason the big lobby groups have such access is the abundance of ex congress and staff in lobby position.
@red55 One point I think the parties have less power today to influence. It is special interest groups and permanent campaign organizations that put pressure on. I don't think the Republican party organization is calling the shots today. It is the Koch brothers et all who stir this pot. Rience Preibus isn't even along for the ride. The parties both R& D have little power to discipline their members anymore. This isn't the day of Sam Rayburn & LBJ twisting arms.
The Whigs and the Federalists started it 200 years ago, but it is an easy fix if the Congress had any balls or morals. A geographic information system is a computer map integrated with a relational database. It could easily make redistricting into a party-neutral process and draw the lines based solely on population density and contiguous polygons. Ban the lobbyists from the Capitol and from Congressional offices. Make them jump through the same hoops that you or I would have to go through to see the representative. And limit that. Soon, the special interests would have little incentive to hire ex-congressmen to be their mouthpieces.
They have the almighty checkbook. Politicians must kowtow to the party to get their financial support on the campaign trail. That is another important reform area. Our elections go on for too long and cost too much. Elections are simply being bought with TV time by special interests with no limits on the money they can bring into the game. Presidential electioneering goes on for almost two years now. In Britain elections are strictly limited to 4 months. It sounds smart and cost-effective to me. The primary system needs reform. All the primaries should happen on the same day. We have mass communication now. The time is past for New Hampshire and Iowa to be the process that winnows out over half of the candidates before places like Louisiana ever even gets a chance to vote on them. Those two states do not represent the nation.
@KyleK not entirely true. It is illegal for an insurer to offer my plan anymore. I agree with you about moving on as I've expressed in this thread but make no mistake, in getting screwed on this insurance deal.
Lots of people are getting screwed so that others, once again, get something for nothing. More farming of the vote.
I would like to point out that while there are polls that exist that show an majority of certain groups who do not approve of "Obamacare", I have yet to see any polls where a majority of people disapprove of specifics that Obamacare provides. Allowing kids to remain on heir parent's insurance until they're 26 Preventing insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions Disallowing lifetime and annual coverage limits Preventing insurance companies to drop people when they're sick Reforms that reduce a lot of wasteful spending by the industry (like using standardized forms) The word "Obamacare" has been deomonizd so much the associations are automatically assumed to be negative...
Mobius, you are correct, sorry if I failed to articulate that. Yes, some people's existing plans don't meet new minimum standards. I don't agree with this, if the person with the plan can demonstrate financial responsibility, as I am sure you can. I'm not sure what specifics need to be hammered out, but people should be able to self insure, perhaps with some type of catastrophic coverage in place. This would be one of those modifications to the law I was speaking of before.
