TAKING BACK CONGRESS
In response to a Letter to the Editor, Arizona Republic, 10/22/07, concerning government reform.
By Bob Haran
The writer's first suggested, prohibiting; forming, operating and fundraising until a certain date, this may be a good idea but it would require a change in election laws, which are made by Congress.
I disagree with the writer however concerning a same date, early, nationwide primary, that would just benefit the candidates with the most funds, like Bush in 2000. I would go in the opposite direction and urge both major political parties to get together and spread the individual state primaries out from maybe February of an election year to May and, end this front loading of the primaries by every state trying to get in at the beginning.
I'm also not that sure that, "resign to run", is such a great idea. If I elect someone to serve a term of office, that person should serve that term out and not quit to run for another office.
The argument about repealing the 17th Amendment, direct election of U.S. Senators, has probably been around since it's enactment in 1913. I don't think the 17th amendment should have been enacted, the method of selecting a U.S. Senator should be determined by the individual states; direct election, legislative selection or, any other method a state might want.
I too have some ideas for government reform to take back our congress. The first would be to bring the people's house, The House of Representatives, closer to the people by increasing the membership. The size of the House has been by statue 435 since 1912, when the population of the United States was only 92 million. We now have a population of over 300 million and still only have 435 members, which has increased the size of each district to over 600,000. As the size of each Congressional District has increased, the value of each citizen's vote and therefore each citizen's influence with his or her member of congress, has decreased and, the influence over congress has sifted, more and more, from the people to the Washington moneyed special interest.
Second, if the United States Congress is supposed to represent the states and the people in the states, then why are they allowed to determine their own compensation and pay themselves from the U.S. Treasury? Amend the Constitution and allow each state to determine the salary of their own members of congress and pay them out of the state treasury. This would give the states more influence over their members of congress and less to the Washington establishment.
Term limits for members of congress would also be a good idea but it would have to be uniform for all members. If each state were allowed to set the term limit for their own members of congress, each state would try for the longest term to give their own representative's more seniority. I would like to see senators limited to two terms, (12 year), and representatives to six terms, (12 years). Twelve years would preserve institutional memories while still limiting terms and bringing in new blood more frequently.
Also, require members to have a certain number of years of residency in a state and not just, be a resident of the state, which is the current requirement. If a House member must be a citizen for 7 years and a Senate member 9 years citizenship, require House members to have 7 years residency in a state and Senate members to have 9 years.
Here is a big reform that will probably never happen, prohibit registered lobbyist from making campaign contributions. The fact that their business is to influence congress makes every campaign contribution accepted by a Member of Congress a conflict of interest.
Of course the American people would have to take a greater interest in their government to establish these reforms because the Congress surely won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment