Oh, right, the topic! While I agree that a single small business will look out for itself, I place more trust in the collective community of small business owners to know how best to propel job growth in this country than any of the other folks on the list of options.
If we were talking about who we most trust to regulate the free market, well, I'd probably still trust the community of small business owners over any of the other choices. Again, individually, they're each going to take the path that gives them the biggest bite of the apple, but working as a community, they'll be forced to mitigate their solipsism against the outcome that would result in everyone making choices that only benefited themselves.
To go back to the earlier example of the guys in a bar talking about game theory as it relates to trying to pick up the hot girl, I'll point out that, as a group, they chose the path that benefited them all, rather than each singly acting for personal gain. Had they not spoken about it as a group beforehand, that outcome never would have happened. It's all about forcing them to act within the scope of the larger whole.
In theory, this is why we have a House of Representatives. They're supposed to be the small business owners or motivated common-folk, taking their ideas to the federal scale. By contrast, the Senate was meant to be the appointed representatives of the state governments, there to represent their state interests. Needless to say, neither body actually operates this way any more. Both houses are largely populated by people wealthy and connected enough to buy their way into the positions. There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare.
I support term limits, because I believe that when you get too many of these Methuselah plastic immortals entrenched in the government, they're so disconnected from reality that they couldn't represent their people's needs if you stapled a copy of Maslow's Heirarchy to their foreheads. These 400-year-old Civil War vets, like Robert Byrd, Strom Thermond, etc. haven't known what 'the people' wanted or needed since people first thought it might be nice to have indoor plumbing.
Vote them all out. Then, vote all the new people out. Make these people sweat a little, so they remember they work for us, and not the other way around.
That being said, how do we voters not react to things like...
Things used to buy votes...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/11 ... z1dvH2pHsD
And lack of real understanding of main street pain...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/11 ... z1dvH2pHsD
As to the whole campaign contributions HORROR STORIES...What can I say? OH...don't even think it is persuasive to solely blame Unions, industry, or what ever...the campaign contributions process is corrupted from every side of the political spectrum.
Rolled over to Fidelity 2/24/18.
Fantasy still playing with Daily Strategy 12767.
I submit that the reason for this is intrinsically related to those laws that our Lords and Masters don't have to follow, while their opponent does. Need money for some TV face-time? An incumbent can call in a favor with a media heavy, or they can just do a few minutes of insider trading and cough up a couple million to throw at the syndicate. Simultaneously, an incumbent can create 6 or 7 shell corporations, have each of them form a political action committee, and have those start taking donations from the public. In this way, they can easily bypass the contribution limits placed on campaign finance.
Sure, their opponent can make a PAC or two, but they're unlikely to be as heavily connected, nor have the easy access to resources that the incument is going to have.
The reality is that the system is hopelessly broken. We'd be far better served forcing all candidates to take a fixed amount of money (let's say $25 per election per candidate), disallow all outside contributions or personal wealth use, and force them to run their campaigns on that budget. This would have the added benefit of showing them what a budget looks like, for the first time in their sheltered trust-funded lives.
I'd also love to see mandatory IRS audits of all candidates coming in, and all elected officials going out, and confiscating any amount in their net worth greater than their starting net worth plus the sum of their annual salaries since elected. No profits for you. It's not like they aren't going to go straight to that billion-dollar-a-year lobbying job the day after they leave office, anyway.
I'm probably too angry to be posting today. Please take everything I'm saying with a grain of salt.
Although we would like it to run like a business, the government is not. The government legislates and the effects are slow. In business, the bottom line is tangibly measured in currency, and it is simple to analyze how well a CEO or business is performing. For example, health care is a social issue. People will be divided on this subject and argue about whether we should have it and about how to implement it.
Term limits provide focus. Typically, the second term is when the president attempts to solidify his legacy and spends less time running for relection and campaigning. It would be ideal to keep great leaders in office, but power tends to corrupt. It is unfortunate we would have to resort to term limits to exclude both the good and bad apples.
I am all for the people deciding their own representatives by voting. However, each of us only get to vote in our own state or district. If some state insanely continues to elect some scumbag into the senate that scumbag can and usually does hang on for way too long and that negatively affects us and the country as a whole. If we had term limits then the rest of us would at least make that state pick a NEW scumbag every once in awhile.
At least one name comes to mind when reading your post (Pelosi). I just can't believe the people of CA keep sending her back. (I was born/raised in CA, so I can say that about the state).
However, your statement kinda rubs me the wrong way. Each state has the right to elect their own representatives, even if that person is so far from reality we could easily assume they are from another planet. At what point would you suggest we take away a states right to elect the representative of their choosing?
Bottom line, we have the bunch in DC because we elected them. It's all our fault.
I do indeed understand your concerns over each state having the right to elect their own representatives. I would never want to lose that right and would never lobby to take it away from others. I would be willing though to force states (including mine) to find a new representative (from whatever planet) a least every two terms though.
My father was always good about letting us kids order whatever we wanted when we went out to eat (which was rare). He did though have a firm rule that we couldn't order hamburg and fries every time. A little forced variety we found turned out to be a positive rather than a negative and in reality didn't harm us even though we really loved our hamburgers!
Sarah wrote:If you eliminate a good one and get a bad one, you haven't "cleansed the herd."
Instead, you have introduced corruption and/or incompetence where it did not exist before.
IMHO at least 75-85% of the ones that get elected fall into the scumbag category. So in my view any forced turnover gets rid of more bad ones than good ones.
Sarah wrote:Perhaps a new scumbag is an improvement for you, but not for me. The problem isn't reelecting good people over and over.
The problem is reelecting bad people over and over who are solely reelected as a result of that candidate having a massive advantage in political contributions, resulting in a massive media advantage.
I found myself strangely enough agreeing with you here (that scares me ). The scumbags that keep getting reelected gain more power and influence each time they are reelected. They get better subcommittee and leadership roles and hence have more influence over outcomes. It becomes even harder to extricate them.
It is almost like the horrible situation that occurs in a lot of academia where tenure trumps performance for teachers and professors. I believe at some point seniority should switch from being a positive to a negative. Try suggesting that at the next union meeting though!