Congressional Reform Act of 2010

[Outlander Systems]

Found this gem this morning.

The Congressional Reform Act of 2010

Thesis: Service in Congress is an honor and a duty, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not career politicians. Elected representatives serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work like the rest of us.

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below. a) Two 6-year Senate terms, b) six 2-year House terms, or c) one 6-year Senate term and 3 2-year House terms.

2. No tenure/no pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present and future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11. The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

[Business_Casual]

No offense, don't take this the wrong way, caveat emptor, etc. etc.

What is the point of these resolutions, threads, videos, tea parties, etc? Does anyone really think that the entrenched interests in Washington are going to make the least little bit of change that is detrimental to themselves? Are the administrators, bureaucrats and staffers just going to *poof* disappear? Are the local, state and federal unions going to stop enforcing work rules and are the postal employees going to give up their benefits and streamline the delivery so they don't have to keep raising the price of stamps? And what about lobbyists, the ones you like (NRA) or the ones you don't like (HCI)?

Shrug.

M_P

[teh1000]

Greetings. I discovered this site a while ago and have been lurking for the past couple weeks getting familiar with the posts. I have two AR's -- a S&W MP15 and a home grown from a S&W lower and LMT complete upper, but my first post on the site turns out to be political.

I've been thinking the same thing, term limits for congress is the way to go, but congress would never do that to themselves. So maybe we should look to the states for our salvation? A 2/3 majority of states can create a resolution for a constitutional amendment and a 3/4 majority could pass that amendment. It's still a long shot, but our only hope at this point.

[Outlander Systems]

No offense, don't take this the wrong way, caveat emptor, etc. etc.

What is the point of these resolutions, threads, videos, tea parties, etc? Does anyone really think that the entrenched interests in Washington are going to make the least little bit of change that is detrimental to themselves? Are the administrators, bureaucrats and staffers just going to *poof* disappear? Are the local, state and federal unions going to stop enforcing work rules and are the postal employees going to give up their benefits and streamline the delivery so they don't have to keep raising the price of stamps? And what about lobbyists, the ones you like (NRA) or the ones you don't like (HCI)?

Shrug.

M_P

I wholeheartedly agree with you, bro.

That being said, whenever I hear the phrase, "term limits", I get the warm 'n fuzzies inside.

Not that any of this will work...but it's nice to know someone else out there is thinking "term limits" for the Congresscritters.

[Business_Casual]

Never ask for and never support a constitutional convention. It will be hijacked and the tattered bill of rights will be used to wipe up the coffee rings left on the tables by progressives.

Oh, and welcome.

M_P

[glocktogo]

The biggest problem is not how long they're there, but how free they are to do whatever they damn well please. They can enact any legislation they get enough votes for. They can sell their votes, as Nelson did on health care. They can publicly say one thing, then do something entirely different once the cameras are off.

Every law they pass should meet strict constitutional standards. It should be necessary for the continued health and welfare of the country. It should not be written by outside interests. It should be in plain language that is understandable by those who must abide by it. It should be written in a manner that avoids vague interpretations.

Most of the laws passed by our legislators these days are complete garbage. I'd like to see a Congressional session where they were required to pass no new laws, and spend the entire session repealing some of the more ridiculous BS they've foisted on us.

[Business_Casual]

...but it's nice to know someone else out there is thinking "term limits" for the Congresscritters.

I agree. It is inspirational.

M_P

[Outlander Systems]

It should be written in a manner that avoids vague interpretations.

Yeah, but if you do that there won't be any bench-legislating...

[glocktogo]

Yeah, but if you do that there won't be any bench-legislating...

Pretty much anything in written form will be interpreted. Look at "Thou shalt not kill". It's universally accepted that it's bad to take a life, yet it happens daily. We even set conditions where it's acceptable (self-defense).

But some of the crap they write is so vague as to be useless. Then you have a situation where one set of people will try to comply with the spirit of the law while another set exploit and twist it for their own benefit.

I deal with federal regs daily and 95% of them are pure drivel. I wind up going back to the same old tried and true passages because the others are nearly unenforceable.

[photosniper]

Pretty much anything in written form will be interpreted. Look at "Thou shalt not kill". It's universally accepted that it's bad to take a life, yet it happens daily. We even set conditions where it's acceptable (self-defense).

But some of the crap they write is so vague as to be useless. Then you have a situation where one set of people will try to comply with the spirit of the law while another set exploit and twist it for their own benefit.

I deal with federal regs daily and 95% of them are pure drivel. I wind up going back to the same old tried and true passages because the others are nearly unenforceable.

In the original text, I believe it said "thou shalt not kill the innocent." But then again, it depends on which "version" of the original text you read.