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
