--So, you say you want to James Bond?
Give this a whirl. They̢۪re advertising in The Economist. I̢۪m sorry
I couldn̢۪t print the ad itself, because any job ad that claims it̢۪s
"Possibly, the most demanding job in the world" should really attract some primo candidates.

--Have these nimrods absolutely no idea that they̢۪re going the wrong way with this?
Now, I don̢۪t really care much for James Madison and those lovely
Federalist Papers. But I have to think he̢۪s right on this one. Four
years in office for a congressperson? I don̢۪t think so. This would
have the exact opposite effect Stenholm and Bartlett are hoping for.
There would be more fundraising, not less. There would be more grandstanding, not less. And, most importantly, it would mean more worthless legislation
that doesn̢۪t do a damn thing but take up more space on law library
shelves nationwide. Do we really need yet another Defense of Marriage
act, or more time spent on a flag burning amendment? I don̢۪t think
so. Do we really want Tom DeLay or John Bonior in office for fouryears
at a shot? I̢۪ve said it for years: cut the money out of politics and
no politician will spend more time than absolutely necessary in
Washington. Money is power and as Mr. Kissinger said, power is the
ultimate aphrodisiac. Right now, we have a governmental and party
system in place where the people who bring in the most cash have the
most power on the Hill. They did their bit for the party, hence the
party is doing their bit for them. And this doesn̢۪t even touch on how
much cash the lobbyists put forth. It̢۪s disgusting and it makes me
want to take a shower every time I think about it.
I suppose it̢۪s a testimony to our capitalist inclinations that
campaigning has become a serious, money making, business. Some would
applaud the Adam Smith rightness of it. I don̢۪t, and it̢۪s really
quite simple: if you don̢۪t have money, you don̢۪t have access, and
in a government by the people, of the people and for the people, the
people don̢۪t have a lot to say about the goings-on in Washington. As
far as campaign finance reform is concerned, I would like to propose we
go to England̢۪s system for electing their MP̢۪s. When a general
election is called and parliament is dissolved, MP̢۪s get three weeks to campaign. THREE WEEKS!
Not three years, not three monthsâ€Â¦three weeks. I hope the glory and
wonder of that notion is wrapping itself around you right now, like a
warm blanket on a cold Sunday afternoon. Also, according to the guide Parliament provides to teachers,
each candidate receives ₤5,483 for campaigning in their district,
plus an allowance per each registered voter in their district, which
varies by 2 pence depending upon whether the district is in the city or
country. If an MP̢۪s district is in the city you get 4p. In the
country, they would only receive 6p per voter. Granted, all this is
made possible by the UK government, who funds the election. The
government gives the funds to the candidate, and they only get what the
government can affordâ€Â¦which is ₤5,483. There are no television or
radio ads, as they are strictly verboten in the UK. They can advertise
in newspapers, however, and no doubt it̢۪s a great boon to the
newspaper̢۪s advertising departments. The government also places
strict limits on how much a party can spend in a general election, and
it is in force for one year before a general election. Each party can
only spend ₤19.77 million per election cycle for all the seats it’s
contesting. Now think about that for a minute and compare it to our
elections which run close to half a billion dollars, all told,each election.
Three weeks of campaigning, no television or radio advertising, and
MP̢۪s restricted to a spending a little over $7000 US per election
cycle and the political parties restricted to less than $25 million US.
How good can it possibly get? The frenzy of campaigning restricted to
only three weeks? And the joy of being able to watch television in the
weeks before an election without having to sit through endless campaign
ads? Utopia.
Yes, yes, we have a federal system, not a parliamentary one. The UK has
no First Amendment, either. (It̢۪s true, believe me. The UK can
restrict free speech, no matter how unlikely it sounds) Money and the
ability to spend it to get oneself elected to Parliament is not
considered an act of free speech in the UK, like it is here in the US
and this is precisely the area in McCain/Feingold that is being
contested in the courts currently. Why on earth should we ask the
government to regulate campaign financing when they can̢۪t regulate
anything else effectively? Wouldn̢۪t Congress be in charge of it? They
hold the purse strings, after all. I understand all these concerns.
Believe me, I do. But the system can and should be changed to make sure
our representatives in Congress are responsible only to the voters.
Changing a congressperson̢۪s term to four years will not do this. It
will only allow them to become further entrenched and that̢۪s the last
thing anyone wants. I do so get sick of Tom Delay̢۪s bad combover on
the Sunday morning talk shows, and I̢۪m sure I̢۪m not the only one
out there who thinks this way. The UK̢۪s system might not be for us,
but it has some very good points to it that could be modified easily to
suit the US’s needs. I’m not so naïve not to realize there would
be many pitfalls to such a system, but that can be worked out later. I
always enjoy the five minutes of idealism you̢۪re allowed with any new
thought in the realm of government. Let me enjoy my five minutes before
you start shooting it down.
Question is, who has the balls to suggest such a thing in Congress? One
thing̢۪s for sure, though. It̢۪d give Mitch McConnell a coronary. It
might be worth it just to open up one senate seat in Kentucky.
--Chuckle for the day.
I̢۪m honestly having a hard time seeing why this guy is having such an
issue with getting some. A man whose house is paid for, has a nest egg,
and takes care of his chores? And he wants to get married? Gracious!
What more could a girl want?

Posted by: Kathy at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1092 words, total size 7 kb.