Would you be in favor of the following changes in the federal government / congress?

1. Sure, but I'd go with three terms for a senator and 8-10 terms for a Representative. I'm not a fan of the type of stuff that happens when folks in congress are just trying to get re-elected all the time, but the alternative isn't really much better.

2. No. There are too many scenarios where some deficit spending is warranted. The paygo rules they have now don't seem too bad, though.

3. Sure, I don't see a problem with that.

4. No.

5. No. When you say a flat tax applied equally to all citizens, do you mean you want everybody to pay the exact same amount (the same number of dollars)?

6. No.

 

1. I used to be against term limits, now I am for them. Yes.

2. No. Reality is a bit more complicated.

3. Yes. I'd also argue we should cut out all contributions and make it equal exposure for any candidate with x% of the vote.

4. No. But serious reform is needed.

5. Maybe.

6. No.

 

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Yes

 

1 and 3 - yes. No to all the others.

Major - not sure why term limits would make lobbying any worse. It's already absolutely terrible (lobbying influence) and fresh blood in congress is just as likely to bring in fresh ideas and attitudes. I'm not 100% sure if it'd be a good idea, but I think it would be ok.

JV -Can't imagine a worse idea than electing the supreme court. There are flaws with the current system but electing them would merely mimic congressional elections and remove the check the court currently provides.

Deckard - you're not for transparency in campaign finance? Or did I read that wrong?

 

Not to answer for Major, but my "maybe" was predicated on the conditions of the term limits.

For instance, I would much prefer a seasoned legislator that can benefit me and my community than some noob with no clout just learning the ropes.

 

From my understanding, the issue is that lobbyists serve as a source of expertise. You get some rural farmer that gets elected to the House, and he/she doesn't know anything about the banking system, or health care reform, etc. So they rely on lobbyists as a resource. Once you've been there longer, you have a better understanding of the issues - so always having newbie type Reps and Senators means the lobbyists are a bigger source of the information. It's a bigger issue if you have a shorter time frame - so a 2-term max for House Reps is very different from an 8 or 10 term max, for example.

That said, lobbyists can be a really good source of information if the elected official is willing to listen to all sides and not be influenced by luxury vacations and the wining & dining and the like. I think if you can eliminate the benefits to the elected officials, lobbying becomes a more more respectable and useful profession.

 

Not sure that limits would mean rural farmers would get elected. More than likely some other elite (for example, Hillary Clinton).

However, also not sure that rural farmer would be worse than pocket padding elite.

Also, being a rural farmer doesn't mean you are dumb. I bet they'd know more about agricultural policy than a lawyer(who wouldn't necessarily know anything about healthcare or the banking system).

 

1 dont care
2 Yes, but I know that this is the hardest to get out of this list.
3 yes
4 yes if it include corperate and business welfare programs also. If you want to stop "giving money away," it has to be to everyone, not just the stereotypical SS and welfare receivers.
5 nope
6 nope

 

Oh certainly - I used the rural farmer as an example. I just mean you have a wide variety of people - farmers, bankers, lawyers, doctors, businesspeople, etc in Congress. Few to none of them specialize in all the different things they deal with in Washington. When you're dealing with legislation to reform the financial system, few to none of the freshman Reps really understand the impacts of the legislation. It's not their fault - it's just not their background. So they rely on the experienced guys who have been tinkering with the financial system for 10 or 20 years to know better, and also lobbyists to pull them all up to speed. But if there are no guys who've been there 10-20 years, then all you're left with is lobbyists.

Simplified, the less you know, the more you rely on lobbyists. And the more of a newbie you are, the less you know.

 

Do you have any opinions?

 

Disagree. You can still access plenty of different perspectives - government agencies like the GAO or EPA or Fed for one perspective, academia, and lobbyist on both sides - absent financial corruption (see #3) then even new congresspeople should get a full view.

Plus the longer you're in I would think the more likely you are to (a) be corrupted - that just my intuitive sense and (b) be entrenched in your views of what can be accomplished, jaded if you will, and more concerned with staying in power than accomplishing what needs to be done (or maybe I'm jaded?).

I'm not one that is anti-incumbent. I see the value as you lay it out in having some continuity, certainly. But I think the value of fresh blood outweighs that (unless it's someone I like, then I'm against term limits).

 

I don't necessarily disagree, and I do think there are real downsides to the career politician and the corruption/etc. But ultimately, if we're going to reform Freddie/Fannie, for example, I feel more comfortable with someone who's been there, seen previous reforms, has experienced the previous battles with interest groups, etc over a bunch of guys who are newly elected. I don't know that there's an ideal answer there, but I think experience has some very real value, and I want to say studies have shown that newer members are more likely to turn to lobbyists for guidance (whatever I read on this subject was in the 1990's though, so I don't remember it well).

In that regard, I think longer term limits are fine - 15-20 years is more than enough. But I would be hesitant to do 4 or 6 years for House members. I'd much rather lengthen a house term to 4 years (and scatter them with half going to election every other year) and then massively reform the lobbying system.

 

The opposite seems to be true. The fact is that the lobbyists write all the bills anyway. And the longer someone has been in Congress, the more likely they seem to be to defer to the lobbyists that they trust. It's why Chris Dodd let Goldman Sachs write major parts of the Financial Reform Bill that benefitted them directly.

 

FWIW, neither individuals or businesses are held to this standard. We accept that there are years where we spend more than we bring in. Businesses go out and issue debt all the time. Individuals dip into their savings or take out loans if they run into unexpected expenses or people lose their jobs or whatever. We don't think of any of these as a bad thing.

I don't think government borrowing is a bad thing either. Where the problem occurs is systemic government borrowing - that is, consistently living beyond its means as a matter of standard policy. I think the idea should be simply to make that type of system more difficult to sustain.

 

Couple of things here - first, the above is not a bad thing. Anytime you change the law and the processes, there will be winners and losers. Here, Goldman is going to try to make money by providing a new educational service. There's nothing particularly wrong there - other companies can do the same. The underlying reason for the education - a derivatives clearinghouse - is a huge part of reform. Someone is going to educate people on it, and Goldman is jumping into that mix.

But separate from that, Goldman certainly had influence on the legislation. Dodd is associated with that because he was in charge of the committee as a result of his seniority/experience/whatever - he gets credit/blame for everything in the bill. If there was someone who had no experience with financial regulation in charge of the committee, do you think they would have relied on lobbyists even less?

But that goes back to the problem of elected officials personally benefitting from lobbyists. I would suggest that if Goldman couldn't put money into Dodd's campaigns or take him on trips or whatever, they would have had less direct influence. Lobbyists need to be changed to an education resource, more than anything.

I do think Goldman and company *should* be making their views known because they are the ones that truly know how a piece of legislation will effect the financial system. But at the same time, there should be consumer protection lobbyists and others involved as well to provide the other side. Right now, Goldman can wine & dine while consumer protection people don't have that type of resources. If they all become an education source, it takes away the incentive of elected officials to focus on one set over the other for personal gain.

 

You mean, like a lock box?