Absolutely right. The main issue for me about this silly idea to make a giant congress is it's already difficult for most people to keep track of the people at various levels who represent them. It would actually be much easier for special interests, who often have PACs who have a $5k donation limit that they could afford to give to tons of congresspersons, while regular people have a limited amount of funds that would be spread even more thin. It would be much harder for the media to keep track of them locally... it's just a big mess.
Solomon Kleinsmith Rise of the Center On Nov 27, 9:08 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 > > ... > > 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
