SnotGoblin

The Decison Makers..

I think it is funny how many people don't understand that the president might be the leader, but he/she is not the decision maker. That is Congress. They are the ones that make laws. The president has no more say than the other two branches of government under democracy. You wanna bitch about what the President is doing?? Bitch about Congress. They are the ones that have the say on what he does. Yes he President has the veto power. But it's like a catch 22. You veto every bill you don't like that Congress sends, and you will never have any influence on some bills you would like to see. Give and take...or the way The Constitution words it..Checks and Balances.

The uproar I hear of soft money in politics.

Senario.... you are running for president. I give you $500,000 to your war chest to help get you elected. Now you have been elected. Am I going to want a little something/break for my company/cause/state? Well yes I am.

Ok well now it's "If I can't take money to run for the nomination of my party/president, then how will I fund it? Only the super rich will be able to afford the campain!"

Proposal.

Take away soft money. Provide all travel expenses, ads, and supplies are for viable candidates.Who is going to pay for that??? Well the airlines will donate there businesses to them. The government has bailed them out enough, time to give back. Viable candiates? Who determines that? Well that would be simply if you won the run-off in your own state. Simple enough. So we got 50. Now you have your Dem/Rep Conventions. Just like always. Independents?? Well your super rich here.


Ok, let's get this straight right now. Bipartisian is here to stay. You wanna make a diference? Then start with your local government. They are the ones who afect your day to day lives the most anyway. Don't like something? Get involved. I am tired of hearing in the forum, "Well I think..." Stop thinking and doing! It's like a damn armchair politican convention in here at times.

Ok carrying on...

It would be so simple and yet complicated at the same time. Since there is nothing like this in place.

OK, now pork in bills.

Pork is "vital" at times for Congress. It's how they get certain projects done. Example being Robert C. Byrd of WV. He has done so much for the state of WV it's not funny. People there love him because he actually gets things done. And they are are named after him. The Robert C. Byrd MEPS Center come to mind.

Next, Communication.

Another thing with Congress is they "rarely" comminicate back with their consticuits. I mean we elected you, and you dissapear to DC!! They alreasy get free travel..use it to come back to the home state and tell us what's going on up there. Another example of this is Rick Boucher of VA. He holds a "town meeting" every quarter at a different location in his district. Send out mailings a month prior to inform people of it. Dem/Rep/Anbody is invited to attend. Open forum, Q/A time..you name it. Now it should be required that you have to go back and speak to your people twice a year. Two weekends out of your time. Not to much to ask, huh?


Just some of my thoughts as to all the misinformed and bandwagon talk I hear in here.

balderdash111

Wow, so much to say, so short an attention span (that's a reference to me, not you)

Based on a strict literal reading of the Constitution, you are absolutely right.

However, you have not captured the way the system actually works today.

The political reality is that the President sets the agenda on the big ticket, high-profile items. He has the benefit of the "bully pulpit" - he gets the TV cameras, the print journalists, etc.

Congress (and, to a large extent, the various federal agencies - which are of course part of the Executive Branch) do a great deal of the smaller-scope actual governing of the country - getting roads built, approving budgets, setting safety standards, etc., but you are very mistaken if you think Congress drives the ball on the issues that people actually pay attention to.

Yes, Congress can always refuse to enact legislation requested by the President, but the reality is that the they enact what the President wants them to, unless their constituents oppose it. Do you appreciate the subtlety here? Their constituents will only bother to oppose things they see covered in the media - and the President essentially controls the agenda covered by the media.

Soft money is a big problem, but is a very thorny issue to solve. Your proposal has a couple of problems:

(a) forcing airlines to transport candidates is a non-starter for a bunch of reasons.

Assuming you mean that the candidates would fly for free on existing flights, here are just some of the issues:

The secret service imposes such strict requirements on security, etc., that it would severly interfere with the airline's normal operations.

Candidates' schedules are so unpredictable that the candidates would need to get many tickets at the last second - and we all know how often flights are sold out. What do you do then? Make the candidate wait (see the next point)? Bump someone who bought a ticket?

There would be an enormous advantage to the incumbent - who has Air Force One to take him/her wherever he wants whenever he wants, while the other candidate is subject to availablity, flight times, etc.

Forcing a corporation to fly someone for free is essentially coerced speech (on the theory that giving money to a candidate of your choice is an exercise of your first amendment rights). Or at least a taking. Coerced speech is unconstitutional, of course. Takings are subject to various rules on appropriate policy, etc., but the key is that you have to pay it all back.


If, on the other hand, you mean that airlines should donate a private plane for use by the candidate during the campaign, well I'm sure you can understand why they'd balk at that.


On who determines who is a viable candidate..... I didn't really follow your proposal. Seems like it's based on a primary system so that each state's party makes a selection, with the national convention making the final decision for each party. The question is: where do they get the money for the primary? Your proposal doesn't solve the problem.

And you have a throw-away on a big issue: independents. Sure they can finance themselves, but you can see how that hugely discriminates against third party candidacies, right?


Maybe that's what you were getting at with this point (otherwise, I'm not sure how it ties into the rest of the paragraph)...

Yes, bipartisan government seems locked in place for the time being, and that's not necessarily inherently bad. We can have a long dialog about how the massive national parties inevitably result in a creep towards the middle of the political spectrum, etc., but that's too much to go into here.

I'm all for local participation in government. The conservative movement caught on to this in a big way, and they are being very active in supporting local candidates for school boards, etc. (discussing religious-based theories on evolution, anyone?).

I don't agree with you that people should stop talking, but I don't think that's what you really meant.

?

You are right - Pork is very important to how the process works. Has been for a very long time.

I'm not sure that makes it something to be favored, though (and I'm not sure if that was your point). "Getting things done" is not inherently good if it means spending a large amount of money on useless projects.

Also, lest there be any confusion on this point: pork is not the source of the government's budgetary problems. It's entitlement programs (medicare, medicaid, welfare, etc.). I happen to favor these programs, but the truth is that they account for the vast majority of the spending our government does. Cutting pork would barely make a dent in the deficit.


Boucher's policy is a good one. I'm all for communicating with local constituencies. I'm sure any congressman or senator would tell you, though, that they live with unbelievably tight schedules, with many many people all clamoring for their attention. So as nice as it would be, I don't think you can mandate visitation.


I'm all in favor of eveyone speaking their mind, but this is a little dismissive. I actually find the level of knowledge and insight on this board to be impressive.

Frankly, at the risk of starting a flame war, I'm not sure you are in a position to be accusing people of being misinformed.

SnotGoblin

Thank you for your comments!!

I see a different side to this and I thank you. As for the last comment, I posted this on a more "political" board full of more bickering than actual disscusion. I accidently left that last part in. Please disregard it.

EDIT--

I hope you don't mind, but I posted your response on the other board as I felt that very insightful and pointed at flaws in my questions. Always like to hear other opinons on things and after reading yours..I value it.

balderdash111

Feel free to post it - once I slap it up here, I suppose I lose the right to try to keep it from spreading.

Mind dropping a link to the other board?

SnotGoblin

No prob!

http://www.eclipseforums.org/forum/s...hreadid=156521

Rekna

i sware presidential politics work like this

President proposes something

congressmen agrees

President declares congressmen unpatriotic

no one else dares disagree

proposal goes through

smooth

just one point to balderdash:

I don't agree with your assessment of the "pork" situation. But I attribute that to our definition of pork. I'll leave it at the notion that major economic dents are coming from social welfare programs. While they make sizeable expenditures, they pale in comparison to various corporate welfare expenditures--many of which people who believe like me call "pork."

If pork can be said to encompass corporate welfare, that is by far the largest expenditure of our government.

To the issue of seperation of powers, and etc.:
I agree with your assessment of the President's wielding of power. I would like to add, however, that neither Congress nor the President micromanage our affairs. Those are usually done by various government organizations. And these orgs are headed by presidential appointees. We only hear a few of them when scandals and changeovers occur, but people the president has direct power to put in place are the ones who most directly affect the people.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

galadrium

I'm sure you can all understand why the president gets all the blame (and credit) for what goes on in the country. He is a singular person, hense it is much easier to focus on him, than the legislative branch... which has 535 members.

__________________
Leading the Way

speedofit

they did get rid of soft money. campaign finance reform.