What's the practical purpose of requiring that congressmen all cluster in the same room, anyway? Since the 18th century, we've developed radio, fax machines, phones, television, e-mail, the internet, and video-conferencing as means of communication. Rewrites to procedure can easily cover the demands of a large body.
Why do congressmen have to leave their districts for 3+ days per week and get harangued by lobbyists, when the technology exists for them to digitally add their comments to the record and deliver their votes via a secured line? It's ridiculous that when an rep has a pre-scheduled commitment at home (such as a major funeral, presidential debate), that the voters of that district lose their say on all of the votes of that day due to congressional rules of order requiring in-person attendance. The pomp and tradition of a national body meeting in one room is great and all, but wouldn't having officials closer to their electorate be more valuable? On Nov 27, 10:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > 11/27/2011 12:16:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] > writes: > > Hello ? > Anyone ever watch C-Span ? When a Congressman or woman speaks > from the floor all the time that is allowed is one to three minutes.With > 435 > people that is all that is possible. Now you want 1500 members of Congress > ? > > "The chair recognizes the Congressman from Pennsylvania's 98th district > for 20 seconds to explain his proposed legislation in full." > > Yes, I get the value of actual representation at the local level. But you > have to take account of trade offs. Also that is another 1000 reps > with $ 250,000 salaries to pay, plus staffs and overhead. > > And you are bitching about "big government" ? > > How about something more feasible ? Vote for precinct leaders. > Each leader meets with the local congressman on a regular basis, > maybe monthly, for an hour, to express local concerns.And, of course, > with this kind of system it becomes far more possible for John Q > to run for an attainable public office. Precinct Leader could be > a requirement to run for Congress. > > Billy > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Excellent. It seems like one of those proposals that could gain a > large amount of support across ideological boundaries. It would be > spectacular having a congressman who's as available to the public as > your average state rep or state senator. The re-election rate would > probably also drop significantly lower than 97% due the increased > importance of a single vote. Gerrymandering would also be more > difficult for legislatures to achieve, due to the sheer number of > seats. > > On Nov 27, 10:29 am, "Kevin Kervick" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Totally with you Mike. One of our contributors is leading that charge. > > > http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ > > > "The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the > > total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 > thousand. > > Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 > > and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable > representation > > has been abandoned." > > > Kevin > > > What if we had 10,000 elected part-time congressmen (a single > > representative per ~30,000 citizens)? That would seem to address > > quite a few workload and expertise questions. > > > Not only that, it would bring many more minor parties and independents > > into representation, flood out lobbyists, and increase representative > > responsiveness. It would certainly also decrease the expense of > > running an election, possibly leading to some middle income or working > > class reps. > > > On Nov 26, 8:01 am, "Kevin Kervick" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The argument that size does matter comes from the idea that our > > > representative system that depends on upward influence cannot be > efficient > > > if it is being asked to do too much stuff. That's why I believe it > would > > > be immediately helpful to shrink the beast. It cannot work if it is too > > > large. > > > > Kevin > > > > Actually, the "issue" of Big Government is mostly a non-issue for me. > > > I want the government to do its job, to be efficient, not to be > corrupt, > > > not to be owned by special interests, to spend in a ruthlessly > responsible > > > way, > > > to levy taxes that are necessary and not one dime more, and to be > based > > > on actual justice and objective evaluations of our problems. The size > > > of gvt is FAR less important to me than if it does these things > > > or does not do these things. > > > > Billy > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 11/23/2011 5:18:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > writes: > > > I thought that you liked big government and lots of regulators and > > > regulations. > > > > And it should probably be titled "How Bigger Government props up Big > > > Finance," because the Government would have to be big enough to support > > > not only its weight, but also the weight of "Big Finance" in order to > be > > > able to prop the latter up. > > > > David > > > > "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned > > > upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea > contrary > > > to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people > > > are." Neal Boortz > > > > On 11/23/2011 5:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Real Clear Politics / Real Clear Markets > > > > November 22, 2011 > > > How Government Props Up Big Finance > > > By Marc Joffe & Anthony Randazzo > > > > Since medieval times, writers and ethicists have counted envy among the > > > seven deadly sins. In utilitarian terms, envy is at best a zero-sum > game > > > because it can only be satisfied when someone loses. > > > > Given this moral and practical failing, it is a shame that envy plays > such > > > a large role in the Occupy Wall Street protests spread around the > country. > > > And, yet, the Occupy movement does have a point that transcends this > > > negative emotion: the financial industry has grown large on the backs > of > > > government handouts, manipulated regulation, and taxpayer bailouts. > > > > While there is no objective size the financial industry should be, it > is > > > fair to say it would never have become this large without the crony > > > capitalist system that has masqueraded as a free market. In the > process, > > > the financial industry has absorbed resources that could better be used > > > elsewhere while imposing large, systemic risks on the economy. > Watching > > > others grow rich from special privilege understandably leads to envy, > but > > > from this perspective, the high compensation received by financial > > > industry leaders is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. > > > > Big finance has achieved its present girth on the back of numerous > policy > > > decisions - some going back centuries. Many of these policies had the > > > intention of protecting the general public, but often had the > unintended > > > consequence of enriching bankers beyond the product of their labor. > > > > For example, central banks often seek to encourage growth by lowering > > > interest rates for small businesses and individuals. But in the > process it > > > is mainly large banks that benefit from higher margins, as the Fed > > > provides lendable funds at a steep discount - not all of which is > shared > > > with borrowers. Federal policies designed to assist homebuyers also > > > benefit mortgage investors and grant them taxpayer supported guarantees > > > they will get paid (bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has already > > > cost $182 billion as a result). > > > > Subsidized mortgages also result in higher home prices - undermining > > > affordability goals. Over the long term, consumers become more > leveraged, > > > while financial firms collect more interest and fees. > > > > But special privileges to the financial industry predate discretionary > > > monetary policy and subsidized lending. Indeed, these privileges are so > > > embedded in our system, they never occur to us. Perhaps the most > > > distortionary of these is banking licenses that offer limited > liability. > > > Without such licenses, bank owners would have to use their personal > assets > > > to redeem deposits if borrowers default. Limited liability reduces the > > > bank owners' risk to just their initial investment. The large number of > > > state banking licenses granted during the nineteenth century allowed > > > "one-percenters" of that era to profit from borrowing and lending, > without > > > worrying about large losses. They could also grow their institutions by > > > making loans to less creditworthy borrowers, thereby creating systemic > > > risk. > > > > This risk was usually shouldered by depositors, who often lost money > > > during bank runs. During the Depression, the federal government solved > > > this problem by creating deposit insurance. FDIC insurance enabled > banks > > > to grow even more, and it also freed them to take on even greater > risks, > > > since depositors no longer worried about how their funds were being > > > deployed. > > > > As financial institutions have grown and consolidated over the years, > some > > > have become so systematically important that they have been deemed too > big > > > to fail. These institutions are now effectively eligible for bailouts > in > > > which all creditors - and not just small depositors - are made whole > while > > > management can either remain in place, or walk away with all their > > > previous compensation plus a severance package to boot. > > > > These protections and hidden subsidies have enabled the financial > industry > > > to achieve enormous size and profitability, while placing the overall > > > economy at great risk. Usually, these protections were accompanied by > > > regulations such as capital requirements or size restrictions. These > > > regulations usually failed to achieve their intended results - > especially > > > over the long term - because financial institutions are able to wear > down > > > the restrictions by lobbying and by hiring away key regulators. > > > > Instead of adding to the quantity of regulation, thereby creating more > > > opportunities for the financial industry to game the system, we should > > > tame the financial beast through greater accountability. One way to do > > > this is to add a 10 percent co-insurance feature to FDIC insurance for > > > deposits above $10,000. Depositors with $11,000 in a failed bank would > > > receive $10,900; while those with a $250,000 balance would get > $226,000. > > > > Depositors would not be wiped out in the event of a failure, but they > > > would have an incentive to select banks that are more careful with > their > > > money (while the poorest are still fully protected). Banks would then > have > > > to compete for depositor business, in part, by demonstrating that they > > > have strong risk management. > > > > Those with exposure above the FDIC limit should take at least a 25 > percent > > > haircut through the resolution process in the event of a bank failure. > > > These stakeholders are often large financial institutions, acting as > > > counterparties, who have the skill and resources to more closely > monitor > > > the banks with which they deal. This reform would address one of the > most > > > disturbing episodes of the financial crisis: Goldman Sachs' full > recovery > > > on CDO insurance contracts that triggered the AIG bailout. Certainly > low > > > and middle income taxpayers had better uses for this money than awardin > g > > > it to the highly compensated financial wizards at Goldman. > > > > Bank managers should also have more skin in the game. If a bank fails > or > > > receives a bailout, directors, senior managers and highly compensated > > > employees should have to repay creditors or the government at least a > > > portion of past compensation they received from their failed > > > institutions - particularly compensation tied to performance. Fear of > > > impoverishment would have a substantial impact on the risk appetites > for > > > those leading major financial institutions. > > > > Finally, federally subsidized or guaranteed loans should be restricted > to > > > the truly needy. Today, mortgages of up to $625,500 can be purchased by > > > Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the federal government's credit card. > This > > > subsidy should be limited to homes that are below the median price for > a > > > given area. If financial industry players want to originate mortgages > to > > > members of the upper middle class, they should be willing to assume > the > > > full risk of providing these loans. > > > > Indiscriminately taxing the rich is an envy-driven policy that only > > > marginally addresses Wall Street's size, profitability and systemic > risk. > > > Vindication should always be discarded in favor of an effective > reprieve. > > > Policies that require financial industry participants to shoulder more > of > > > the risks they create will reduce the burden Wall Street imposes on the > > > general public, will shrink the industry, and will release human talent > > > for > > > ... > > > read more » > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog:http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
