Cruz has already stated, that the govt need not be shut down. Once the bill goes back to the house, they can pass individual bills funding individual agencies ... nothing needs to shut down at all. If the Senate votes against those bills, who is shutting down the govt?
If I had to guess, I believe Cruz has studied long and hard on the inner workings of both houses and how the system can be tweaked. I would expect that of a kid who could memorize the Constitution when he was still in high school.
Hearing McCain speak on radio, it is just plain embarrassing to listen to him. He sounds like an envious man ... he might have wanted to be the leader that Cruz is being.
I agree with you. I feel that there ought to be a minimum tax that everybody pays. No loopholes or exceptions. Everybody has a stake in this country and ought to contribute. I was asking though about how congress acts. I don't like it and was wondering if you all mind it or not.
WRT how Congress acts, it is a group of individuals. If Congress acts badly, it is because the individuals act badly.
Too many of these individuals have made a career of Congress. That, to me, was not the intention of the Founders. Clearly, the Founders did not want a king. Basically, 30-year Congress-people have taken on the trappings of kings.
Congress' pension plan would be much less of a burden if individuals did not serve 30 years! There would be much less opportunity for corruption with shorter terms due to less power vested in a small number of individuals for such an extended period of time. And, as someone else suggested, after leaving Congress they should not be allowed to become lobbyists. I think they finally passed a law against the insider trading that was permitted to members of Congress. It is shameful that it ever was allowed.
At the very least, perhaps Cruz will accomplish some important revisions to O-care ... such as eliminating ALL exemptions ("waivers") ... Congress should live by the law, just like their constituents will have to do.
Congress does act as a group. Their are the individual problems also, but by and large their are not enough individual actors. I don't feel that the length of a members term is that important, but I do feel that a reelection ought to be a condemnation or an admiration of the job they have done. Law Makers have done to much to stack the odds in their favor. The way that congressional maps are drawn out is a joke. It almost insults the idea of a democracy. I don't even feel that party names ought to be allowed on ballots, much less if the are incumbent or not. Straight party voting ought to be done away with also. If you don't know who to vote for then don't vote! I do not feel that any entity other than a human being ought to be allowed to contribute to a campaign. I do not think house members ought to have access to the house floor during votes after they leave office. I do not think they ought to be allowed to be lobbyist either.
From the experience we have had, I just can't agree that a legislator serving 20 or 30 years is a good idea. By being in The Beltway that long, they lose touch with the realities of their constituents. Many of these legislators have done nothing but be govt employees.
They have no idea about balancing a budget in a private sector company, nor effective cost controls, nor the problems and costs that govt mandates create for the private sector. They make laws about things about which they have no knowledge, and don't seem to care about finding out about those things at the grass-roots levels. Before they could make laws about gun control, they should have to attend seminars to learn what the heck kinds of guns they're regulating, for example. Then they go and exempt themselves from laws!
Can't recall if it was Romney, Sr. or McGovern who, a while back, made a statement to the effect that after leaving govt and going into the private sector, their whole perspective changed; that if they had known, while in govt, what they learned from the private sector experience, it would have made a large diffrence in their lawmaking votes.
Since the electorate is so heavily influenced by sound bites and half-truths, it seems that the only way to solve the problem is with term limits. After FDR was elected 4 times, it became evident that a POTUS could become king-like, and the precedent set by George Washington was not enough to assure that would not happen. Yet many legislators have fiefdoms. How else could Nancy Pelosi remain in Congress so long? or that fellow who thought Guam would tip over from too many people?
I don't mind if a legislator is continually elected. I don't like how easy the parties have made it for them to be reelected. With a reelection rate of 85% and an approval rate of 19% there is something broken in the election process. The biggest problem I see with that how congressional district maps are drawn up. There are more, but I feel that is the place to start. If a representative can win 15 fair elections that is fine, but I don't think most elections are fair.
A lot of good business practices do apply to government. There are lessons to be learned there, but it is very important to remember that government is not a business and should not be run like one.
Since the electorate is so heavily influenced by sound bites and half-truths, it seems that the only way to solve the problem is with term limits
I don't see how term limits would make the electorate more critical thinkers. There is an advantage of having some stability in government. We have term limits here in Michigan and our state politics are a joke. Once in their final terms none of our lawmakers care about the long term effects of the laws they pass, because it will no longer be their problem. There are big problems with the system and the parties themselves. No restraint, no compromises, no ethics.
Bingo ! Great post. FDR really messed up a lot of things. Younger people who did not live during his time in office just don't get the harm that his terms did.
Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy
And McCain calls Paul and Cruz "wacko birds"?
Today Obama is declaring that "there is no evidence that O-care is hurting jobs." Remember how he found out in the news that there was a problem at the IRS? (or was it one of the other scandals?) Evidently, now he isn't even reading/watching news anymore ... much less the letter from the AFL-CIO.
This is such a blatant untruth that if the MSM don't call him out on this, they are even worse than we believe.
I agree with a lot of what you all are saying, but I do not believe that we and others will be motivated enough to act until we feel more pain. Until that point is reached, most will set around a tell others what is wrong with it, and what needs to be done. Then we go vote and don't understand what the heck happened! Couple that with the fact that most young and many middle aged adults have no knowledge or interest in our Government, they cannot name their Congressional Representatives, or talk intelligently about our Constitution. Until the pain comes, they will not do anything other than take what they are given and maybe vote for whom ever they see on the Internet.....Hope is hard to find....only Mark Levin and his book Liberty Amendments has offered a solution...but no one is listening! So let the pain begin....next week with Obamacare!
Should they just start shooting at each other?
Originally Posted by Henlee