Some of the more pro-active Congress critters (current and wannabes) have made noises about a new “Contract With America” ala the 1994 set of promises that breathed life into a moribund Republican Party during the Clinton administration.
Because I’m just one of those really thoughty kind of people, I figured that I’d give my loyal readers an opportunity to develop a new contract between the American people and those they elect to serve them. So let’s combine our collective wisdom and come up with the terms of an agreement that spells out the expectations we have for those who are seeking our vote.
“We the People”, being the party of the first part and all candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives (Congress) in 2012 being the parties of the second part, do hereby agree:[Contribute your proposals below]
That congress not be exempt from any laws.
That any elected congressmen must put all stocks and holdings into a blind trust and left there till 90 days after they leave office.
That all congressmen be subject to random drug tests and the results of any tests be given to their constituents.
All pay increases must be approved by the electorate.
That all political contributions be limited to residents or companies located in the state they represent.
All air travel must be on a regular commercial airline unless travel is directly related to their work. No relatives or family will be allowed on any travel flights. Family must always fly commercial. Absolutely no booze allowance (you listening Nancy Pelosi).
You’re on a roll, Loki.
I would change just a few things from your list:
1. All members of congress and their staff will be subject to all laws and rules without exemption or other consideration. Rules of the House and Senate cannot supersede or invalidate any existing law or rule.
2. Upon election, a member of congress and his/her spouse must convert all market holdings into Treasury, state, or municipal bonds which will be managed as a blind trust, and annual statements will be released to the public. Sale or purchase of any land must be subject to review by the constituents of the member and the public in the area of the land if it is outside the member’s district.
3. [Good as is.]
4. Pay increases may only be given if: a.) The House and Senate have passed a budget for the previous and current fiscal year; b.) The budget is balanced and contains no increases in the tax rates; c.) The increase is approved by the electorate in the next scheduled general election.
5. [LOVE this one!!! But I would add to it.] Contributions from unions are limited to the amount collected from union members residing in the district from which the member is elected.
6. [I’m a little confused about how to interpret “unless travel is directly related to their work.” Please explain what the exceptions would be and how they’d work.
Anybody else????
Fact finding junkets to the Cayman Islands, NO.
Confrences to Vegas, NO.
Confrences to Hawaii, NO.
Fact finding junkets to Afghanistan YES.
Attendance records to be taken at conferences. Missing a meeting while out of town must have a doctors excuse.
Now how to write that and make it consistent, easy to understand, and so they can’t cheat.
p.s., no golf clubs, tennis racquets or other sporting equipment allowed.
#2 I think needs to be changed. One’s spouse ought not to be penalized. S/he is an individual apart from elected official. Additionally, for some, conversion of stocks to bonds might have significant tax consequences. On the other hand, there would need to be oversight of so-called “blind” trusts, some of which have been less than “blind” but have had eyes wide open.
Annie;
Respectfully disagree.
How about pillow talk, “Hey honey, why don’t you sell all of your AT&T stock short tomorrow. We are going to open an anti-trust investigation next week”.
Elected office is an office of trust that has different rules and great influence and power. After all you can’t ask anyone else looking for a job for their tax records and medical history. If they don’t like the rules don’t apply for the job.
If it were up to me we would have a public lottery for office like jury duty. Get called, serve 4 years then out. Probably a lot less corruption and better leadership.
I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. William F. Buckley.
Or two thousand elected East coast lawyers.
Annie – Look at how much money Nancy Pelosi’s husband has made as a result of her position – just for one example. This would still leave the door open for children, parents, friends to profit from insider information – but if the Congress critters are subject to all the insider trading laws, they could well find it in their own best interest to keep their mouths shut, and their listeners might just figure the Martha Stewart incident to be a cautionary tale.
You raise a valid point about tax consequences – maybe this would be sufficient impetus to eliminate the capital gains tax. Win – win.
Mmmmmm…so if hubby decides to be a Congressman, I have to divest myself of my portfolio….I’m not considered an individual with rights….
Oh, Annie – there you go complicating a perfectly wonderful fantasy! You do bring up great points about individual liberty, but the history of Congressional abuse of insider knowledge is serious.
What would you suggest would be a fair way to protect a spouse’s rights while preventing the abuses of the current system? Maybe significantly harsher penalties for both the member and the spouse than would apply to others engaging in insider trading?
And Annie – how would you prevent the spouse who is elected to Congress from turning his/her portfolio over to the other spouse to avoid placing his/her assets in the blind trust?
Martha Stewart was convicted. One only has to follow the money. I think it is the application of the laws on the books BUT increasing penalties for such a violation of the public trust would be a great option….flogging perhaps?…..just kidding – it is serious and such abuse is going on now. As the Stewart case demonstrates, there are attorneys good at ferreting out wrong-doing. Just let them loose. If windfalls seem too good to be true, chances are there has been wrong-doing. Regarding the transfer from spouse to spouse – easy to track.
Loki: If those elected to ANY office at ANY level in government “of the people, by the people, FOR the people” are subject to ALL of the laws/regs. that the rest of this Country, I sincerely believe that ALL of our problems would soon disappear!
Great site, and comments… Thanks
sorry, a small grammatical error there.