smitty_one_each's Journal: Simple government reform idea 19
Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee
None of the Committe structure or the seniority perks that perpetuate fellows like Mr. Rangel is actually in the Constitution.
I say we randomize the committee rosters for each session!
Don't give me this non-argument about personal expertise/interests: the brain trust is the committee staffs, not the congresscritters.
See http://www.amazon.com/Power-Game-How-Washington-Works/dp/0345410483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215916001&sr=1-1
If the Rangels et al. were not able to distort the public debate (and he is totally case in point; this is by no means a personal/partisan attack) then there would likely be improved turnover, possibly decreased corruption, and an influx of newer ideas.
Or not. Who knows? I'd like to see the concept given a try.
I'd like to see gravity given a try ... (Score:2)
Throw the bums out and see how high they bounce ...
Then again, everyone who gets into the system supports it because they want to get the perks as well, and more "when their time comes".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, skip #3 - the purpose of getting elected would be to fix the current mess and hopefully avoid creating future ones, not personally profit.
Re: (Score:1)
The Defenestration of DC.
Eh, what else is new? (Score:1)
He's New York's Dan Rostenkowski. As far as corrupt politicians go, Good Time Charlie [congressionalbadboys.com] has to be one of the best.
Re: (Score:2)
I could enjoy faintly praising Murtha, for example.
Re: (Score:1)
Congress people on these powerful committees that affect the whole country should be subject to a national ballot. Or preferably, eliminate the whole committee thing entirely. It certainly shouldn't be based on seniority. Then we can do something about people like Lieberman, Hatch, Rangel, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unsure of the value of a multi-way tie for dead last
Term limits (Score:2)
I believe the Republicans in Congress instituted term-limits for committee chairs which lead to a certain amount of turnover. While not random it essentially had the same effect.
Mind you that isn't enough to convince me to vote for them (they've got to get the crazy out of the party first). But it is an idea I'd love to see the democrats adopt.
OTOH I don't really support term limits for the offices themselves. The bums can be thrown out if they get too comfy, on the other hand they can stay if they are doin
Re: (Score:1)
they've got to get the crazy out of the party first
Or better yet, get out of the crazy party. Let's see if they can think for themselves. Oh wait. Lieberman did that and still won. Let's see if genpop can overcome party indoctrination. Heh, I doubt it. Not when they're always being offered free candy, and won't accept that it's poison. Actually, their promises are like the prankster who drops a dollar on the ground and keeps on pulling it away with a thin thread, and like a cat, the people keep chasing afte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well term limits for committee chairs would cut down the influence of seniority some.
As I said I'm not for arbitrary term limits on elected office as people vary from ones who do a great job over a lifetime of service to ones who never should have been elected in the first place.
As for pork, the problem is nobody has quite the same definition as to what is "pork" and what is vital to the national interest.
For example some have labeled Sen. Murray's efforts to increase funding for maritime security and the C
Re: (Score:2)
At least districts would be more incentivized to try different people, as the seniority benefit is diminished.
But the change may be less effective than I'd hope.
Re: (Score:1)
"The bums can be thrown out if they get too comfy, on the other hand they can stay if they are doing a good job."
This is only true in swing districts.
Case in point: William Jefferson was re-elected after the FBI found a $95,000 cash bribe wrapped in foil in his freezer.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, someone could have challenged him in the primary. That certainly is what would happen around here in a similar situation.
And sometimes corruption is enough to swing a district to the other party, though that seems to work better for Democrats than Republicans at the moment. (in 1994 though it was the other way around with Republicans winning some very Democratic leaning districts)
The Republicans actually did this, more or less (Score:1)
It was part of the 1994 Contract with America: the chairmanship rotates rather than being assigned on the basis of seniority. It wasn't quite random, but it was better than "give the most power to those who are best at staying in power."
Agreed (Score:2)