Props To Ginny
 

Congressman John Fleming (a Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendment (HR 615) that would require Congressmen and Senators to take the same healthcare plan that will result from any proposed healthcare reform legislation.

So far 91 Congressmen from both parties have signed on to the amendment. That includes Ginny Brown-Waite from Florida's 5th district, the Congresswoman for most of The Villages.

Props to Ginny. She's doing the right thing. Probably not enough to get my vote next year under my new policy of never voting for an incumbent, but the right thing nonetheless.

She is having a Town Hall Meeting,I plan on attending.

When: Monday, August 24th
2:00 – 3:30 PM
Doors will open at 1:30 pm
Where: Minneola City Hall – City Council Chambers
800 US N 27
Minneola, FL 34715


About This Event: U.S. Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite (Fl-05) will be hosting a town hall forum in Minneola, Florida, on Monday, August 24, 2009 to discuss health care legislation currently being considered in Congress. Congresswoman Brown-Waite will be joined by a panel of professionals from the health care industry.

Congresswoman Brown-Waite is a Member of the House Ways & Means Committee where she sits on both the Health and Social Security Subcommittees. The Congresswoman believes that we need to fix Medicare first, preserve the doctor patient relationship, and establish tort reform to eliminate the practice of defensive medicine.

This town hall meeting is an opportunity for 5th district residents to discuss their concerns about health care reform with their Member of Congress.


**Due to space limitations, priority admittance will be given
to residents of the 5th Congressional District**

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
CALL TOLL FREE: 866 GWAITE 5 (866- 492- 4895)
HTTP://BROWN-WAITE.HOUSE.GOV

Just curious, why would you adhere to such a policy? Regardless whether it is Waite or anybody else, if they are doing a great job, why not keep them? Why bring in somebody who might be inferior for the sake of change. Haven't we had enough of "change" lately? Look at what "change" has done to the country.

Why I've Concluded I Need A New Voting Policy
 

It's taken me a year or so of frustration, observing Congress consume most of their time with partisan bickering and posturing for TV. Then when they do pass some legislation, it usually doesn't take too much investigation to discover that one or another special interests were better served than the public.

I feel very much the same way as substantially more than 50% of the 300,000+ respondents who participated in a CNN poll a couple of weeks ago, rating the 111th Congress a resounding F (for failed).

I have been strongly for term limits and robust campaign finance reform. Congress will vote for neither. I've concluded that leaves it to the voters.

So what it boils down to is that if the American public simply refused to vote for any member currently incumbent in the Congress, we could achieve a 100% turnover of the House of Representatives and a 33% turnover of the Senate in next year's elections. To me, any new group elected could do better than the 435 members of Congress there now, many of whom have been in office for decades. Enough is enough.

Your question highlights precisely why about 96% of the Congress gets re-elected each election, leading to continued partisan bickering, the occasional passage of flawed legislation, and continued frustration on the part of the public. The vast majority of voters somehow seem to believe that "their" Congressman and Senators are OK--it's all the others in Congress who serve themselves before the public and get little or nothing done for the country. The only way to solve that problem is to simply vote out all the incumbents. That's why I intend the policy I mentioned in upcoming elections.

In the case of Congresswoman Brown-Waite, she will be seeking her fourth term in the 2010 elections. It's difficult to find any meaningful impact she has had either within the House or in representing the 5th District. What she has accomplished is the accumulation of the better part of a million dollars in campaign contributions from banks, investment banks and insurance companies. Somehow I suspect that all those moneyed interests have a greater interest in Mrs. Brown-Waite's votes in their behalf than they are in whatever she can do for the good of the country or the people of the 5th District. Having said that, I like some of the things she says she stands for: fix Medicare first, preserve the doctor patient relationship, and establish tort reform, all that in addition to her willingness to share the same health insurance plan as we will wind up with as the result of the planned reforms. But I simply can't square the circle of accomplishing meaningful changes in Congress without replacing all those that are currently serving with such ineffective, even destructive, results.

Yes, it is time for another change...a 100% change if it can be accomplished.

I agree with you 100% for term limits. But to endorse a complete replacement at one time, I believe, is not a good idea. I would love to see a 2 or 3 term office. Eliminate that 50% of the most senior representatives and senators in 2010 followed by the remaining members when their current term runs out. I think there would be just as many, if not more, problems with a complete greenhorn congress than we have now.

Congress will not impose term limits upon itself, so it's up to the citizenry to keep situations like 15-20-30-40-45 year congresspersons from happening. We can't complain that congressional approval rating is <20% and them keep reelecting the same folk.

The Founding Fathers never anticipated that being a Member of Congress was going to be a career, complete with retirement program. The 2 and 6 year terms for Congressfolk were meant to allow for seat rotation.

Key point is that under current rule, Congresspersons have full vesting for retirement at five years. That's three terms for House members and one for a senator. Like any retirement package, it grows with longevity.

So, two terms in the House should be enough. One would like to think that there is more than one person in a congressional district who is qualified to that seat. The alternative is like any business - increased retirement costs, protectionism setting in with the incumbent, and worse is the psychological transition of the person from being a resident of their district to being a resident of the DC area where they spend the majority of their time.

I have no complaint with Ms. Brown-Waite's service, but I don't see her (or anyone else) becoming a career representative for this district.

Yeah, But...
 

The problem is, where does the individual voter begin to accomplish even a 50% replacement of members of Congress? We only get to vote for 1 Congressman and 1 Senator in 2010. If the electorate opts to vote "their" representatives back in and rely on everyone else in the country to vote out those that are partisan, ineffective, elderly and sick, and even untrustworthy and blatantly subservient to special interests, we'll have 96% "recidivism" in Congress yet again. It has to start with our personal votes in our own Congressional districts and for our own Senators.

As I said, even though I like many of the issues that Ginny Brown-Waite is campaigning on, six years in Congress is enough. She hasn't elevated herself into any sort of leadership position in the House and her representation of the 5th district has been tepid, at best. She's now qualified for a lifelong Congressional pension and healthcare. As far as I'm concerned, it's time for a change. With all respect to Ginny, I'll be voting for whomever her opponent is in 2010. (By the way, at this point at least, she's unopposed. That's a sad commentary on the democratic system, isn't it?)

We have less of a problem in filling Mel Martinez' seat in the Senate. He's resigned and whomever is appointed to replace him won't have been there long enough to qualify as an "incumbent" in my opinion. In the case of the 2010 Florida Senate race, we should be studying what the candidates stand for and vote for the one most qualified and who stands for most of what each of us believes in. Please note that I have specifically NOT said that we ought to vote for the candidate of one party or the other. The effect of who we elect in the Senate has on the majority or minority parties and how that might affect how the Senate works is a factor to be considered--but only one factor.

Kennedy seeks to change law
 

is today's headline in the Worcester, MA newspaper, The Telegram.

It's seems that the ailing senior member of the Kennedy dynasty wants the enormously Democrat controlled statehouse to change legislation to allow our Democratic governor to appoint an interim replacement for the Senator if Kennedy vacates office before the end of his term.

Under current law there would be a special election 145 to 160 days after the vacancy.In 2004 the Democrats changed the law to prevent the then Republican governors appointment of a republican, making it harder for the Dems to challenge an incumbent. Now the Dems want to change that law to allow, what the Dems fought against in 2004, the appointment of an interim Senator. It seems that Kennedy feels that the state of Massachusetts MUST be represented by two Senators, I feel because he doesn't want to loose even one Democratic vote in the Senate with a health care bill in the works.

How convenient to want a law changed that was proposed and passed buy the ever dominant Democratic statehouse in 2004 that prohibited what he now wants to do.

The link to this thread is that this is another example of politicians being more concerned with party politics than representing the people. I do feel sorry for his family and his health, but look forward to the end of his endless term of office and an end to the Kennedy dynasty.

No Other Alternative
 

Kennedy is not alone is being too sick to be able to represent the residents of his state in the Senate. Neither he or Robert Byrd of West Virginia have been in Washington very much recently, nor have they voted on much of anything. I'll bet that when the vote comes up for healthcare reforms, they'll wheel them both into the Senate chambers on gurneys in order for them to cast their votes. Somehow, I don't think that this is the kind of democratic representation that the founding fathers had in mind when they so brilliantly crafted the structure of our government.

There may actually be others in the House and Senate who are incapacitated in one way or another and unable to do their jobs as elected officials, but I just can't think of them. Yet, I'd bet if an election was held in Massachusetts and West Virginia tomorrow, both Kennedy and Byrd would be re-elected in landslides. It's the inattention of the public to this kind of thing or their blind voting for a particular party that results in this kind of thing happening. And it happens a lot--as I've reported here, 96% of the members of the House and Senate are re-elected when they run. Yet, after they're firmly encsconced in their comfortable and profitable Washington offices the public rails against them, as in the recent CNN poll. But then, a year or so before the next election, when all the special interest money cranks up the ad campaigns for their re-election, the public forgets and votes them in again.

Nope, in that Congress will never vote for term limits to prevent this type of stuff from continuing, the only choice is for the public to enforce it's own term limits by voting out the incumbents in each election.

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;221540]Kennedy is not alone is being too sick to be able to represent the residents of his state in the Senate. Neither he or Robert Byrd of West Virginia have been in Washington very much recently, nor have they voted on much of anything. There may actually be others in the House and Senate who are incapacitated in one way or another and unable to do their jobs as elected officials, but I just can't think of them. Yet, I'd bet if an election was held in Massachusetts and West Virginia tomorrow, both would be re-elected in landslides. [QUOTE]

My point was not that he or anyone else is currently ill or that they probably would get reelected, but the hypocrisy of Kennedy wanting to change MA law, to accommodate his desire to keep Democratic control of the Senate, after the Dems changing the law to keep the Republicans from doing the same thing in 2004. I guess its different when the shoe is on the other foot in MA. Power, not performance, rules in government, both state and federal.

It's Simple
 

I don't disagree at all, Gnu. It's just another example of partisan politics being more important than elected representatives actually doing "the work of the people".

What's aggravating, although difficult to really prove, is that the root cause of all this ugly polarity and partisanship is the members of our Congress scheming to do what they're paid to do by the special interest lobbyists. I don't believe for a minute that the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are against a "public option" because of firmly-held, high-minded ideological principles, any more than I believe that the Democrats refuse to consider tort reform in the proposed legislation because they are so firmly committed to protecting the rights of citizens to litigate. Nah, one group is paid off by the insurance and drug companies and the other by the trail lawyers.

In the meantime, we have important members of Congress still in office even though they're far too sick or incapacitated to participate in governing the country. Why wouldn't they resign or retire, you ask? Because the K Street crowd needs their votes to satisfy their clients. Simple.

A Big Problem with "Vote them all Out"
 

While it may relieve high blood pressure to call for throwing all the bums out, our two party system makes such a proposal unworkable. How many of you on the right would vote for the liberal Democrat who is running against the incumbent? I certainly can't imagine any Democrat who would simply vote for the other party to "change out" the entrenched legislature.

And independents wouldn't vote forcefully either. There are many good legislators on both sides, and many bad ones as well. Reality suggests that the system will never change within the status quo. It's been this way since the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.

Why do we think that America could so definitively change the way people think about politics when we can't even speak the same language on these boards? Without a multi-party system, we are condemned to an endless pendulum swing, within another endless pendulum swing, etc., etc.

And That's Why We'll Still Be Arguing In 2011
 

That's exactly why we wind up with 96% of the incumbents being returned to Congress every time we have an election. People who are dissatisfied with the performance of Congress simply can't draw themselves to replace them. They allow their habitual loyalty to a party or an ideology to overcome the logic of how they really could accomplish a change in the governance of the country.

As far as how "unworkable" it is, you're talking to the wrong person. Even though I voted for Barack Obama and even now don't think his performance has been bad enough to cause me to seek a new President in 2012, I will be voting for whomever is running against him in that election. If it's a Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh ticket, I'll really have to grit my teeth. But they will get my vote without question. Same for Ginny Brown-Waite. I like a lot of what she's campaigning for, but six years is enough. Time for new blood representing Florida's Fifth.

If everyone would do the same, we'd have a chance for some real change in Washington. Most people won't, of course. And 3-4 years from now we'll still have the paralyzed, polarized Congress with the same old Barney Frank's, Chris Dodd's, Nancy Pelosi's, John Boehner's and Mitch McConnell's dominating the evening news and CNN and continuing to serve the special interests and accomplishing little for the people.

I'm only one vote, but I intend to use it even though it probably will be an exercise in continued frustration and disgust. One other thing will be as certain as my votes in 2010 and 2012--you won't find me continuing to debate on this forum with people who had the opportunity to accomplish positive change, but didn't.

Firs of all, that's why primary elections exist. That's the first shot to get the incumbent out. After that, it becomes a question of guts. Would I vote for someone who is counter to my way of thinking? Yes, as long as the person is not party hack and lapdog! For two years, a change sometimes has great value and eliminates stodgy thinking. The real key is to get them in-and-out before they learn how to get rich playing all of us.

Second of all, if there are good legislators, why is there a composite <20% approval rating?

Can anyone name me five in Congress worth a retirement plan?

There is nothing wrong with the two or multi party system. There is a problem when the party leadership has more power than the voters.

:agree::agree::agree:

The leopard in most of us will not change spots per say, but whether we are liberal or conservative we need to NOT vote in the incumbent, not necessarily change parties. As been said in these post over and over again, the forefathers never intended the office of House or Senate to be career positions.

The important results of "voting all the bums out" will be the message that the American public will no longer support a candidate for office just because they won one election. Maybe if politicians realize that they only have one or two chances, because of term limits, they will seize the opportunity to accomplish honest governance while they are in office.

Throw them out, insist on term limits if they want re election for a second or third term, or face being thrown out again. Also, I don't believe that politicians should be rewarded with retirement after office, considering how little service is necessary to earn (most don't EARN anything) it. Since when or where can one retire after 6 years on their jobs? Certainly not you or I or anyone we know!

Another Solution
 

I know this would never fly, but take away their obscene retirement program and I betcha that would take care of the career politician problem.

Please check out the actual retirement system (& health and life insurance programs) --- for Congress --the facts, not somebody's interpretation. Yes, relative to those of some people, they're quite generous. But compared to some unions and especially some private employment contracts big business has for major execs, the Fed Gov't (even Congress) benies are chump change. Compared them to CalPERS, GE, Morgan Stanley.

I could be wrong --- but I'm not.





`

Now that you mention it, will Burriss (sp?), who filled Obama's seat and will not seek re-election, be eligible for a lifetime of benefits for his short time in the Senate? (I'm afraid of the answer)

You may be right about some others, but they are few and far between. They are not your average Joe nor are they supposed to work for the average Joe. They only employ the average...they are the employers. Also, either they produce or they are history. Politicians, Congress or whatever you want to call them are supposed to be working representing us....not feathering their own nests at our expense. We are supposed to be their employers. My whole point about taking their obscene retirement is that only those who truly want to be representatives of the people would go there. Voting out the whole bunch would be a moot point. I certainly don't consider what they get for retirement and bennies to be "chump change", either. Most of us do not get all of that and what we do get, we certainly had to work well over 20 years, not 2, 4, or whatever few years it is for them to be assured of it for life. We also had to show up for work consistently, not just whenever we felt like it. We had to do our jobs or we would be free to seek employment elsewhere, not just be counted as present for the record.

I Don't Think So
 

Being a former Illinoisan, I checked that out awhile back. Roland Burris won't be eligible for any pension benefits. The Federal Employees Retirement System Handbook explains...

If you are a Member of Congress or a Congressional employee, with at least 5 years of Congressional service, your annuity will be...

1.7% of highest-3 years average pay times years of Congressional service up to 20 plus 1.0% of highest-3 years average pay times any other federal service.

I haven't been able to find an authoritative source, but I don't think he gets any retirement healthcare benefits either. I think the minimum qualifying amount of Congressional service for retiree health benefits is either five years or three terms for members of the House.

Thank goodness he won't get his nest feathered just because that scumbag Blagovevich stuck him in the job for 18 months or so.

But the question remains, do you have the faintest idea of the facts of what these benefits actually entail or are you just parroting the rants and raves of someone who sent you an email. Notice VK went to a real source to get facts on the Burris situation. The information --- true stuff --- is out there. It can be found.
`

Primaries are a part of the Problem
 

While voting in the primary may seem lke alogical way to get a better candidate on the opposition ballot, that system is more rigged (especially in Florida) than the general election process.

Already, the parties have "agreed" on their candidates- no primaries possible. Republicans are notorious for NOT having candidates compete with each other, while Democrats are notorious for letting the most mediocre compromise reach the top.

Even though Florida voters put in a primary amendment to allow all voters to cast ballots in a primary if the other party doesn't run a candidate, former psycho Sec. of State Katherine Harris encouraged phony paper candidates to run in districts where no Democrat would challenge. By having the Republicans post a phony candidate to vote for in a fictitious primary, Harris was able to skirt the will of the voters by certififying a valid primary candidate.

Currently, even though there are more registered Democrats in Florida than Republicans, the Republicans have gerrymandered the districts so that they "own" 3/4 of the seats. Of course, the same is the case in states dominated by Democrats. That's where the root of 96% incumbency comes from- not from the national parties.

All politics is local- and that's where the corruption starts. Changing out the national candidates may bring a feel-good emotion, but the local, feet-on-the-ground workers will never give up their advantages. They don't even recognize their corrruption or entrenchment- it's seen more as a combination of hard-work and spoils.

Tip O' Neill was right about that. However, the rest of the problem still lies with the voters. The prties are not responsive to the electorate,, but the electorate still contributes to the parties when the parties come a-looking for money. That's like paying the local brat to vandalize your car.

If you want to send a message to the parties, don't send them any money. And if you want to see why they don't need your money, please go to: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php

Who's Trumping Us?
 

Just an observation on that list, Steve. Adding up all the contributions to the various parts of both parties, I arrive at a total of $475,325,000. The current population of the U.S. (as of tonight) is 307,273,028. So the amount contributed to both political parties amounts to a buck and a half for every man, woman and child in the U.S. WikiAnswers.com tells us that the current number of households in the U.S. is 111,162,259. So every household in America, on average, made contributions to either the GOP or the Democrats of $4.27.

Just for the heck of it, let's see how "average" the participants of this forum are? How much did each of you contribute to either of the two major political parties? In my case, the number is zero.

I'm just wondering--if all of us turn out to be well below average with our funding of the political parties, then where do all those contributions come from? You wouldn't think that any of the corporate special interests might be trumping all of us with their contributions, would they?

They got $0 from this household!!!

Muncle, when you quote me (or probably anyone else for that matter), please don't edit the quote. I did not bold any of what I had to say, but you seemed to deem it necessary to do it for me. I was not parroting rants and raves, either, nor did I do any "research". It is common knowledge now and has been for years, that politicians receive pensions thousands above most of their constituents, excluding CEOs, etc. As for the length of time they have to "serve" to be eligible, I am not sure nor did I say that I was. As for the Burris situation, I have no idea and don't recall having anything to say about him myself. I don't claim to have answers, so I have to ask questions in an effort to learn and don't really need to get chewed out for it or for taking an interest. I do have opinions, be they right or wrong, to which I am entitled. Last time I checked, that is one freedom we still enjoy for the time being.