It is becoming increasingly apparent that our system of government, as prescribed by our Constitution, is no longer working. A handful of radical representatives of one party are able to stymie the progress of over 340 million citizens in order to further their warped ideology. I do not believe this extremism is what the writers of our Constitution envisioned in the 1780s. Something must be done.
I propose that the size of the House of Representatives be cut in half. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 limited the House to 435 members but that number is proving cumbersome. Few members of the House actually listen to their constituents anyway. Instead, they respond to the special interest groups that finance their campaigns or push their own short-sighted agenda or stand on extremist ideologies that do nothing but hamper the work of Congress.
Republicans want to reduce federal spending. Wouldn’t the House be a perfect place to start?
Edward F. Murphy
Mesa
bubba posted at 4:36 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
Edward F. Murphy
Good point !! This would be the perfect definition of "Smaller Government".
Arizona Willie posted at 6:41 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
I have long maintained that the House of Representatives should be just that. Representatives should be selected by random from the list of voters in the last Presidential eletion. The computer should be programmed by a joint team of Republican and Democratic programmers with neutral oversight.
People could decline if they could show hardship on their families.
But, if you accept, you get one 6 year term and then CANNOT BE RE-ELECTED OR RE-APPOINTED.
You must return to the home you lived in before appointment and face your old neighbors.
The finances of your immediate family would be audited for 10 years after you left office to prevent Representatives from selling their vote(s) for a cushy job. Or money. Or a job for the wife, kids, grandkids.
As it is now it is full of career politicians who are selling their votes and most of them are lawyers. No representative Representatives at all except representatives of the Bar Association.
onerebel posted at 8:26 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
If your saying we need smaller government, I'm with you. The problem is when you say, "A handful of radical representatives of one party", We don't all agree to which side that is. The truth that many will NEVER admit is, both side have loons. Here is a great example( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg ) One thing we all need to realize is that this country cannot continue to spend money like it is.
Cerulean posted at 8:59 pm on Fri, Jan 11, 2013.
In July of 2011 David Brooks wrote a column about how Republicans were wrong for passing up a deal that, as Brooks describes, “would have been to reduce the size of government by $3 trillion over a decade. … But the Republican Party decided not to pursue this deal, or even seriously consider it.”
Brooks goes on, “Norquist is the Zelig of Republican catastrophe. His method is always the same. He enforces rigid ultimatums that make governance, or even thinking, impossible.
The Big Government Blowhards. [Tea Partiers] The talk-radio jocks are not in the business of promoting conservative governance. They are in the business of building an audience by stroking the pleasure centers of their listeners.”
onerebel, David Brooks knows exactly where the problem is and continues to be as he describes it fairly well in his column. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=0
Leon Ceniceros posted at 5:52 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
Funny how the Democrats now want to ..."change"...the American Legislative Branch when they find themselves having a hard time bring about their....."COMMIE, SOCIALIST, MARXIST AGENDA".
SO NOW, THE 47% OF AMERICAN VOTERS WHO DID NOT VOTE FOR THE ..."MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE".....ARE SUPPOSED TO GO ALONG WITH THE ..."DEMOCRAT PEOPLE'S PARTY"....AND TEAR UP THE ..."CONSTITUTION"......I DON'T THINK SO...........[wink]
Arizona Willie posted at 7:10 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
Cerulean: Norquist should be arrested for extortion.
He tells new Congressmen that if they don't sign ( and adhere to ) his NO TAX pledge that he will not only not contribute to their future campaigns, he will finance their opposition in the next election.
That is a combination bribe and threat.
If he did the equivalent to an ordinary business he would be indicted for bribery and extortion.
And, any Congressman who signs his pledge, is violating his oath of office and putting a pledge to Norquist above his oath of office and is serving Norquist not the people who elected him. I'm not sure what the criminal charge should be, but I'm sure there is one that covers this.
They should be arrested also.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:44 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
The irony of the 2011 deal is that a year and a half later, Obama got most of what he wanted.
And the Republicans got squat.
Had they accepted the deal back in 2011, we would've had some real, carefully-planned cuts rather than the ax-handle sequestration that hangs over Congress right now.
But let's not be so eager to blame all Republicans. What's happened to that party is that it is being held hostage by a relatively small group of Tea Party Representatives in the House. They can gum up the works enough to stop any legislation in that part of Congress.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:44 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
Edward,
You seem to be confused as to is holding up the work of congress. The House has passed budgets, work bills, reform legislation and many more. The hold up seems to be the senate that hasn't passed a budget for over 3 years. Now even the majority party in the senate is calling for the president to become an imperial president and a raise the debt limit higher without the approval of congress.
While your at it why don't you start calling our federal elected officials "comrades" instead of senators and representatives and starting calling the president "commandante", because we are becoming a third world state with all it's failing socialist/communist policies.
Masterrogue666 posted at 11:10 am on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
Edward: Are you aware of the process of making new law? ONE person is enough to stop something by using his Veto. He also can enact Executive Orders to FORCE HIS DESIRE (because his only party didn't support previous attempts) and do something like say, grant amnesty to an untold number of CRIMINALS.
It's the system, and EACH SEGMENT of it should receive an overhaul.
onerebel posted at 3:32 pm on Sat, Jan 12, 2013.
Cerulean, I did check out your link, thanks. Here is the problem we are up against, the NYTimes leans left. I'm sure you probably don't believe much that comes from FOX NEWS? I honestly do try to listen to both sides and I am amazed how the same story can slanted to sound plausible from both directions. As for the mess our country is in, I feel all sides deserve blame including all of us. How many of us vote strictly down party lines? The reelection of Ann Kirkpatrick here, after giving out thousands in bonuses to her staff after she was booted from office the first time for not listening to the voters. How many voted in the expectation of getting something that the rest of us pay for? The majority of the Politicians we have running this country appear to be incompetent and self serving. My link from my prior post is evidence of that.
Cerulean posted at 8:43 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
AzWillie, I think your posts have interesting ideas. I am particularly fond of the notion that Norquist be arrested and hung for extortion.
Mike, Sequestration; here we go again. This is a perfect example of why I hold the Tea Party segment of the Republican party in the House responsible. I hear the Tea Partiers trying to blame President Obama for spending too much. When, in fact according to Forbes he “has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D Eisenhower”
The debt ceiling needs to be raised to pay the bills that the House and Congress have already agreed upon. It is about the United States living up to our agreements. The Tea Partiers want to hold the United States credit rating hostage for the sake of - what? Cutting Social Security and Medical insurance.
We must do more to reduce the cost of health care.
onerebel, When Fox (an entertainment company) News earns a journalistic award for their work as a news organization then I might give more attention to the channel. So far, it is just entertainment.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:44 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
Cerulean: I don't believe I advocated hanging Norquist.
In fact, I'm certain that I don't think hanging is appropriate.
Being impaled on a sharp post in front of the United States Capital sounds more appropriate [censored] [wink]
VofReason posted at 2:07 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
"I do not believe this extremism is what the writers of our Constitution envisioned in the 1780s" This guy is normally to be dismissed, but I couldn't pass. Is he then saying that what they envisioned was barrowing money from communist countries to pay for an exorbetant Government? Running a yearly deficit and yet unwilling to trim any expenditures?
Abstract01 posted at 11:39 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
Rather than try to reduce the size of congress, what if we reduce the size of the country?
Make the dividing line at the Mississippi River (or some other marker) and form an East United States and a West United States. (Texas can become its own country, just as it always wanted!)
Why do it?
To reduce the regional politics and the size of the behemoth in Washington DC.
The east coast cares not a whit about the Rocky Mountain region and its particular problems. The western states don't have the hurricane and flooding problems that happen every year on the east coast. Why should we pay for it?
In order to have a peaceful transition, it would have to be a 20-30 year plan --or it could happen when we hit the ground????
Arizona Willie posted at 8:52 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
Why is it that right wingers always talk about " reducing spending " --- but ONLY on certain programs that they don't like. Programs that help people. Never our overgrown defense industry.
Why is it that right wingers refuse to consider raising more revenue to pay the bills created by 8 years of BORROW AND SPEND under the Bush administration?
They want to balance the budget on the backs of the old and the sick, even though if those programs SS and Medicare were completely eliminated it would hardly touch the National Debt.