*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

What would START to improve government?

Posted Saturday, November 3, 2007, at 2:58 PM
Comments
View 9 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • I can think of a few things that would improve Government. Stop PAC contributions. No more lobbyists.

    Finally and I know this is a radical dream, but why not make it where people that wanted to run for political office all had a level playing field. How do we do that?

    Let those interested get signatures for petitions that allow them to qualify for office. Then those candidates that qualify are given a set amount of money from an election pool strictly to run a campaign and this money could only be used in certain ways of which lining those candidates pockets would not be one of them.

    Candidates would be forced to debate the issues and the questions would be determined by current issues faced in the city/county/state or country depending upon the office being sought.

    Lots of specifics to figure out , but if every candidate had a level playing field, then perhaps we would get people that actually were competent and interested in improving our nation, instead of their own financial well being.

    Also of course there needs to be strict term limits and easier to recall elected officials that say they support certain issues, but then vote opposite the way of which they said they would, when they campaigned for the office.

    Like I said lots of specifics to work out and I'm sure it would take somebody much more intelligent than me to figure it all out, but I'm just as sure that the system we have now is broken and needs to be fixed.

    William

    -- Posted by HorseGentler on Sat, Nov 3, 2007, at 3:30 PM
  • Someone like you helped build this great nation years ago, so there is no reason we can not re-build it.

    Easier recalls, ditto.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Nov 3, 2007, at 4:59 PM
  • Life would indeed be different if governing bodies were allowed no amendments to bills. I wonder how many times I have seen our own congressmen critized becaused they voted against a bill which the public felt was a good bill. However, the one thing the public was interested in was not the only provision in the bill. There was something else that made it impossible for the congressman to vote for it with a clear conscious.

    -- Posted by bettyhbrown on Sat, Nov 3, 2007, at 7:47 PM
  • We need to have a form of a recall election that a simple majority of the Congress can call for and that would enable the recall of any Congressman or the President in a national general election. I would NOT recommend a way for Congress to remove the President, they already have that and since nobody has any confidence in our current Congress, it wouldn't do any good.

    -- Posted by Thom on Mon, Nov 5, 2007, at 9:04 PM
  • Some of our newspaper people could help with this. If an office holder, (Congressman, Senator, Mayor, Alderman etc.) went public with their reason for voting for or against something that was added to a bill, would they get ample coverage by the press? If so, do they very often. I don't recall many explanations.

    Just throwing ideas out here folks. I see faults and benefits in the following thoughts.

    A simple majority of Congress would be better to call for a recall vote. What about a simple majority of ANY governing body?

    Recall votes would cost the governing body some money to handle the voting process. To avoid witch hunts or frivolous recalls there should be a limit of only one per official's term and maybe the ability to allow a recall on those remaining as well. (all on the same ballot to save time and money)

    If the public felt the recall was correct, the targeted incumbent goes, but if the public feels it was frivolous or someone else was really the one who should leave, they could clean house.

    Of course, that opens up who should replace them, which is another election. Who should govern while all this is going on, etc.

    Your thoughts?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Nov 6, 2007, at 6:41 AM
  • We need to have a form of a recall election that a simple majority of the Congress can call for and that would enable the recall of any Congressman or the President in a national general election. I would NOT recommend a way for Congress to remove the President, they already have that and since nobody has any confidence in our current Congress, it wouldn't do any good.

    -- Posted by Thom on Mon, Nov 5, 2007, at 9:04 P

    There is a reason nobody has faith in the current Congress, because the president has the sole power to override every piece of legislation. The Congress is pressing for change and a way forward, but then again when you face a "Conservative" president, that isn't likely...

    And the people do have recall power, they just aren't aware of it. We also have the power of impeachment, but as long as you aren't supposedly having secret sexual relations, you are exempt from such measures.

    -- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Nov 6, 2007, at 12:28 PM
  • There were several presidents who had less than perfect morals and at least one of them I admired very much in the 60's and still do admire because I was not there, so I don't really know.

    No party is exempt from having representatives who disappoint us, but few have looked the U.S. population in the eyes (figuratively) and asked them to believe him, then after all lies could not stop the truth, admitted he lied.

    Then add this President's wife who is admittedly an intelligent, sharp woman, who develops selective memory loss about details surrounding great investment gains, (something I would remember well and revel in) and I could see where people might lose faith in the integrity of our leaders.

    If President Bush has the same volume of evidence around him that says he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction and dishonestly took us to war, or if he admits it, I would expect no less than a recall and/or impeachment, maybe more.

    But I am still at a loss as to how the people can do it and without Congress. Granted, Congress should represent us, but what referendum would they use to take the vote? Just those who yell loudest? Take the unbiased press' word for it?

    Is there a method

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Nov 6, 2007, at 3:06 PM
  • I am 99% sure that there is no referendum or recall in our national government.

    -- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Nov 7, 2007, at 8:52 AM
  • This level of opposition virtually assured that Bush would have a veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. He has used the veto very sparingly for most of the time he has been in office, but has made more use of it recently.

    "When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

    Congress is finally going to override a veto.

    However, the call to impeach the Vice-President was not passed.

    The People need to quit electing Money if they don't like spending it.

    -- Posted by neena on Wed, Nov 7, 2007, at 7:53 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: