Our Elected Officials......The System needs to change

[FLOG4]

I would like to hear others points of view on this.  My opinion is we have a governmental system that pertends to be for the people and yet every facet of their being is a perversion.  For instance.

1] How can elected officials have a system of retirement savings seperated from social security?  They vote on our plan, they allocate the monies elsewhere and the whole time keep their seperate plan safeguarded....That's just not right.

2] How can elected officials have a healthcare plan seperated from medicare?  They vote on our plan, they allocate monies elsewhere and the whole time keep their seperate plan safeguarded...That's just not right

3] Elected Officials are permitted to Inside Trade.  Prior to the Meltdown in 2008....Numerous elected officials were advised by Paulsen that There was a huge storm brewing and they should sell any bank holdings.  You or I would be arrested for such an indiscretion.  Not our elected officials.

4] Were you aware that our elected officials can be on the job one day.....and receive full pension allocation.  And this allocation provides cost of living increases.

I believe it is time for these things to be changed.  I believe it is time for an amendment or two to be added to the Constitution.

First, No elected Official should be allowed to vote on any provision on any program that represents all of his constituents without the elected official being a part of that system.....ie Social Security, Medicare, Pensions....

Your thoughts?  This is only forum I'm a member of.  Just wanted to get that off my chest.

[uttexas]

Agree. Greed has corrupted the system. Many politicians at the state and federal level seem to think of their jobs as a profession not as a service. A career in politics is potentially very profitable. When the fundamental goal of a politician becomes one of career preservation and advancement, the politician will tend to do what is best for him/her and not what is best for the people. Term limits would appear to be a reasonable solution. Of course, those voting on potential term limits have some personal bias. The following is compiled from a google search of "term limits congress" The Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) included term limits for members of Congress "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years." Despite Jefferson's, Mason's and Henry Lee's objections the Constitution omitted mandatory limits. Of particular interest The United States Supreme Court, which just so happens to be a group of life-time members, ruled in 1995 that state governments can't limit the terms of the members of the national government.

[FLOG4]

I wonder.  Is there a way to bypass elections with regard to some potential changes?  How do we wrest control away from a corrupt and self serving system?

[uttexas]

..... Is there a way to bypass elections with regard to some potential changes? ....

Sure, that's how it's done now....Lobbying We have a good system in place...write your representatives, email the newspaper, and vote the bad politicians out of office.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by uttexas

Sure, that's how it's done now....Lobbying

We have a good system in place...write your representatives, email the newspaper, and vote the bad politicians out of office.

...and replace them with equally bad politicians, which is what's been going on for decades.

IMO the system is broken - for the reasons outlined by the OP.

[FLOG4]

My real point is I want elected officials that participate in the system the same as their constituents....Put em all in Social Security, If they want to extend retirement age to 80 ...fine...that's when you collect too.  You want to make cuts to medicare, no problem, but it's your system too.  To make negative changes to systems they aren't in...BS....And then they make sure their programs are not changed and fully funded.....BS

[newtogolf]

Excellent post, this was my exact issue with Obamacare - we were all getting stuck with the plan he wanted us to have while government officials maintained their "Cadillac" health care programs.    Both parties are corrupt, it's just who they look out for that differs.  The newest abuse is large bills that include piggy back bills with entitlements and special interest funding that are attached to help get it passed but we aren't even aware of.  It's insane how many of these piggy back bills are getting passed and we don't even know they were voted on.

Unfortunately the entire system is so corrupt I don't think there's an easy solution short of a revolution.

[FLOG4]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Excellent post, this was my exact issue with Obamacare - we were all getting stuck with the plan he wanted us to have while government officials maintained their "Cadillac" health care programs.    Both parties are corrupt, it's just who they look out for that differs.  The newest abuse is large bills that include piggy back bills with entitlements and special interest funding that are attached to help get it passed but we aren't even aware of.  It's insane how many of these piggy back bills are getting passed and we don't even know they were voted on.

Unfortunately the entire system is so corrupt I don't think there's an easy solution short of a revolution.

We slide along until the crap hits the fan....It's not beyond the realm of reason that the US will be forced into austerity measures like so much of Europe right now.  And what would happen if the $ were replaced as the international currency.  Much like many fatcats who had glory days the US is continuing on a path of reckless spending based on credit.....And all any single politician cares about is their little world and making sure they get their handouts.  Corrupt is a tad strong. My take is they play the game by a misguided rulebook.

[newtogolf]

It's corrupt in the sense that these politicians are more concerned about losing their power and perks than they are with doing the job they were elected to do.  Each candidate promises to change how their existing politician is doing things but when they are elected into office they do nothing different.  We saw Obama rip Bush for how he ran the country and nothing has changed under Obama.  Now we have a bunch of republicans ripping Obama  telling us how they will be different if we elect them.  It's all rhetoric because IMO the federal government is just an extension of our welfare system only the benefits are better.

Originally Posted by FLOG4

We slide along until the crap hits the fan....It's not beyond the realm of reason that the US will be forced into austerity measures like so much of Europe right now.  And what would happen if the $ were replaced as the international currency.  Much like many fatcats who had glory days the US is continuing on a path of reckless spending based on credit.....And all any single politician cares about is their little world and making sure they get their handouts.  Corrupt is a tad strong. My take is they play the game by a misguided rulebook.

[jamo]

I don't think I fully agree with y'all on the reasons, but yeah, the system's broke, and it needs fixin'.

[Mr. Desmond]

I'll make this short and sweet:

They are all bought and sold.

Bring in the ones that don't make pledges, act in a reasonable manner to govern, and don't think a simple EPA regulation is tyranny.

[Blades4me]

Having been raised in the 50 & 60's and coming to age in 1970 it is very sad to see what has happened. Way back then it seemed we had a very bright future, that our politicians have sold off. I love it when they say, "I don't want to morgage out my kids future"; lol, hell they are working on morgaging your grandchildrens future. I'm glad I don't have a dog in the fight. Oh, and I do agree with the OP.

[clubchamp]

It's not so much the system that's flawed it's the people in the system that seem to be flawed. As for "vote the bad politicians out" I wish it was that simple but our country has moved more to vote for who's popular not who's the better candidate.

[GJBenn85]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

It's not so much the system that's flawed it's the people in the system that seem to be flawed. As for "vote the bad politicians out" I wish it was that simple but our country has moved more to vote for who's popular not who's the better candidate.

It is worse than that, our elections have evolved into electing the "lesser of two evils."

The system itself is flawed and our two party system is the primary culprit.  There is no real chance for change, it is either Democrats or Republicans.  Their lone goals are to continuously block the efforts of the opposing party, seeking reelection, and actually doing very little to better the country.  Smaller parties have little hope of actually gaining office because Congressional seats, for example, are not allocated proportionally based on votes but rather based on the popular majority for each district.  You can have a small party gain 30% of the popular vote but they actually stand the risk of not gaining a single seat.

I think another issue is career politicians.  There need to be additional limits concerning the length of time politicians can be in office.  Additionally, they also need to have experience in the private sector.  Too many have only ever lived the Washington life and they are completely ignorant of the real world.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

It is worse than that, our elections have evolved into electing the "lesser of two evils."

The system itself is flawed and our two party system is the primary culprit.  There is no real chance for change, it is either Democrats or Republicans.  Their lone goals are to continuously block the efforts of the opposing party, seeking reelection, and actually doing very little to better the country.  Smaller parties have little hope of actually gaining office because Congressional seats, for example, are not allocated proportionally based on votes but rather based on the popular majority for each district.  You can have a small party gain 30% of the popular vote but they actually stand the risk of not gaining a single seat.

I think another issue is career politicians.  There need to be additional limits concerning the length of time politicians can be in office.  Additionally, they also need to have experience in the private sector.  Too many have only ever lived the Washington life and they are completely ignorant of the real world.

I couldn't agree with you more...

[zeg]

I agree with the basic premise that the system is flawed, although like at least one other guy above, I disagree that you've called out the biggest problems. Identifying the fundamental problem, if that's even possible, is extremely difficult. Every system yet devised has had serious flaws...

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Excellent post, this was my exact issue with Obamacare - we were all getting stuck with the plan he wanted us to have while government officials maintained their "Cadillac" health care programs.

This is not a fair criticism, at least, not with the implication that this is Obama's intent. First of all, you're free to purchase your own "Cadillac" health care program, just as you are today. It isn't taking away anything that you have now, but it may help some people who currently have no insurance get some.

Second, actually providing solid insurance for everyone is a non-starter in this country. Because of the pervasive (and unfortunate) belief that our expensive, poorly-performing "free market" health system is preferable to socialized health care, attempts to improve our broken system are stymied. There's simply no politically feasible way to provide insurance or health care coverage for everyone.

And, finally, if we actually want to elect qualified, experienced people to Congress, etc, a better-than-minimum benefits package is probably required. Essentially every Senator and almost all Representatives (perhaps excluding some of the weirdos) could rake in far larger incomes in the private sector than they do in government. Now, many of these people are wealthy enough that they could pay their own way without thinking twice. However, we don't want to make extreme personal wealth a requirement for these positions. Providing a benefits package that's at least vaguely comparable to what a high-level management-level employee in a private company might make increases the odds that qualified candidates will consider seeking office.

This is not to say that the specifics of the system now are ideal, but simply pointing to these as not being the bare-bones Social Security or Medicare programs and screaming about it is an unhelpful knee-jerk response. What do you propose instead, and how does it actually solve a serious problem? If you drop the pensions and health care, you'll get a MORE elite, detached ruling class than you have now, simply because these are the guys who don't need any support.

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

I think another issue is career politicians.  There need to be additional limits concerning the length of time politicians can be in office.  Additionally, they also need to have experience in the private sector.  Too many have only ever lived the Washington life and they are completely ignorant of the real world.

This is another very tricky suggestion to implement. It sounds good on paper, but there are benefits to having experienced lawmakers. Some of our worst lawmakers are "career politicians," but so are some of our best. Also, "lame duck" politicians in their last term lose a lot of sway. I think getting people more involved in the process and addressing this in other ways is preferable, simply because I don't think that term limits target the problem precisely enough. If voters were attentive and engaged enough to pay attention to what their electees were doing, these problems should be limited without the crude hammer of rigid term limits.

One severe problem with term limits is that coherent strategies over time periods longer than that limit are unviable. This can lead to unfortunate or even dangerous short-term thinking. If we want our nation to survive for another 100 years, I think we're going to need to be able to implement and stick to plans that last longer than, say, a decade.

This, of course, isn't solved just by doing away with term limits, since there's still the "not invented here" syndrome. That, it seems, is another of the problems with government, although it goes beyond democratic forms. There's a huge pressure to tinker with systems that are working well, since there's no glory (read: increased electability) in being the candidate who stayed the course in the middle of a successful voyage.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, but I'm leaving that in just as an example of something that I think is broken that's a more severe problem than the specific examples raised in the thread starter. There are plenty of specific problems with our government, but I think systemic trends are the real threats.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by GJBenn85

The system itself is flawed and our two party system is the primary culprit.  There is no real chance for change, it is either Democrats or Republicans.  Their lone goals are to continuously block the efforts of the opposing party

I think that's not necessarily a bad thing - the rationale being, you're not going to be able to catastrophically bungle things too badly if the only possible change is small, incremental change. If something gets done, it must be good because it was good enough for both parties (who as you say are primarily in business to block each other), to have found some kind of compromise that both agreed on.

That's the theory, but the problem is it doesn't work in reality - partly because of the other issues you cite, partly because of the issues the OP cited, partly because of a myriad other things probably.  Wish I had a solution.

[Bullitt5339]

Originally Posted by zeg

This is not a fair criticism, at least, not with the implication that this is Obama's intent. First of all, you're free to purchase your own "Cadillac" health care program, just as you are today. It isn't taking away anything that you have now, but it may help some people who currently have no insurance get some.

This sounds good in theory, but as someone who has one of those "Cadillac" health care programs, let me tell you how it really works.  Because of the mandates that started this year, my health care plan cost has doubled.  So you're free to purchase your own program, if you don't mind spending outrageous amounts for it.  I choose to spend the money because I am completely against the Government being involved in things that the private sector can do better.

How many things does the federal government do well?  Whenever they get involve, costs go up, service goes down, and it's always more expensive to run than they think.  The health care mandate will be just another failed social program.

Here's some raw numbers from my own life:

2 Years ago, I was paying $3380 a year in healthcare premiums.

This year, because of the new mandates, and the "expected" rise in costs for the insurance company under obamacare, my premium is now a whopping $6240 a year for the exact same coverage I was getting 2 years ago.  How much has my income went up in the past 2 years?  Not a cent.  So I'm almost $3000 poorer by proxy.  And while the news will cover some college chick who says she spends $3000 a year in contraceptives, so they want it covered by their free health insurance, I am spending that $3000 additional a year trying to take care of my family in a responsible way.

As far as gas prices, they are what they are and it ticks me off.  What makes me even more mad is when our politicians stand up there and claim that drilling here in the U.S. more WILL NOT seriously effect gas prices because it's the global market.  As someone who travels to the Middle East and around the world, let me tell you that's simply not true.  Countries who produce more oil simply have lower prices at the pump.  Last time I was in Iraq, gas prices were the equivalent of 80 cents a gallon.  Saudi Arabia was even cheaper.  Kuwait was around $1 a gallon.  We were paying around $2 a gallon around that time. Venezuela was paying around 15 Cents a gallon.  So this "Producing more oil locally won't help" is a bunch of crap and anyone can do their research and see that is simply not true.