Diego, I in turn, respectfully submit my comments about your rebuttal and intend to be a little kinder in my critique of your comments by not calling you a name for not getting it. I’m reminded of a favorite T-shirt I found that says, “I’m not arguing, I’m just explaining why I’m right.” Lol. The subheadings below, of course, are from your article, the comments are mine.
It shouldn’t be assumed that it is human nature to succumb to temptation and follow a dark path. Also, some wayward politicians genuinely believe that following the age-old edict of ‘bringing home the bacon’ is what it is all about and actually righteous.
It is about knowing our Constitution and following their oaths to it. Bad decisions are just that, and shouldn’t be accepted as human nature, which sounds too forgiving. They need educating or voted out!
HUMAN NATURE DICTATES THAT CONGRESSMEN BECOME MORE CORRUPT OVER TIME
The reason that most private sector employees are not, likewise, also corrupt is that employers watch them and have procedures in place to affect accountability. We used to have a pretty effective method in place to monitor elected officials. It was a concept called the free press. So much for that in these days of the ‘Fake News’ big media controlled by the establishment that is running both parties. We get by the best we can with Fox News, talk radio, and alternative media, but it is not enough. The voting indexes are a grand help, if only more voters knew about them.
Most of us become wiser and more effective from all our increasing experience as the years unfold as do our elected representatives. Those good ones that apply themselves and honor their oaths to our Constitution are to be cherished and kept in office doing their good work for posterity. Voters must determine when they go.
These people you speak of who should be doing their jobs well in 90 days generally are selected by a screening process that determines they have qualifications and some experience to apply in those jobs. Most elected officials have much more to learn about way more issues, laws, regulations and considerations in a much larger pressure-packed arena than an average new hire who’s selected by qualifying criteria to fit quickly. Many of those we elect have virtually no qualified experience to capitalize on and unfortunately begin relying on help from lobbyists and their party’s controlling leadership that’s influenced by others.
Your point on saying NO to 99.9% of what Congress wants to do is a good one.
RICH’S “NECESSARY CORRECTION” IS RIDICULOUS
Your comments about my necessary correction remind me of soldiers in George Washington’s army losing battle after battle, with little food, shoddy clothing and maybe no boots in cold winter snow storms. Your insights speak to a mindset that would have said: “Get real. You’re crazy, I’m outa here.” We must keep our chin down, our hopes up and keep slogging. Voters can be educated and inform others. They just need help. I suggest The John Birch Society for guidance on how to do it, by using the voting indexes and information that can be gleaned from the Idaho Sunshine Report to find out who are the funders that support elected politicians. It is truly time for patriots to get off our butts and activate!
TRUE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT
Speaking of dead wrong: You say the true purpose of government is to create boundaries to protect ourselves from ourselves. And you say “The best thing humans can do for themselves, and we specifically as voting Americans, is to work to create boundaries to prevent ourselves from damaging one another.”
Who would believe we would follow new boundaries any more than current boundaries? We have them already, as you acknowledged, they are listed in the U. S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are covered much too much more thoroughly in myriads of other laws, rules and regulations, THAT WE ALREADY ARE NOT FOLLOWING!!! We are already heading into socialism and don’t need any more boundaries! We need adherence to laws, law enforcement, prosecution, and convictions!
Regarding your proposed Constitutional amendment, the Congressional Anti-Corruption Act, on your proposal No. 1, of course, I stand on my reasons stated in my article for opposing Term Limits.
I agree with your points 2, 3 and 4 although I prefer seeing former elected officials banned from lobbying for life. Even better than the line item veto would be to actually require all bills to be free standing and not attached to anything else effectively killing lobbyists’ ‘bread and butter’ pork project riders. Besides, as we agree there shouldn’t be so many bills (99%) in the first place. Laws would become easily identifiable and not dependent on other issues making them more accountable. Most things run best, when they can run most simply.
I would add a 5th point: Repealing the 17th Amendment to restore direct voting control of U.S. Senators by state legislatures, actually giving the states true representation and taking some DC lobbyists out of that loop.
We can minimize evil as assuredly as an employer controls his employees’ productivity and accurateness by also following accountability methods. In the world of politics, there is no finer measuring device for checking accountability with sworn oaths to our U.S. Constitution and Idaho’s Constitution than the voting indexes called the ‘Freedom Indexes’ of the JBS and IFF in an age when the news and polls cannot be relied upon.
Good luck with getting the Congressional Anti-Corruption Amendment passed in Congress. I hope you do not advocate getting this done in a Constitutional Convention. Or, do you?
See: Do Congressional Term Limits Restrain Our Rights?