Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (180)	1/20/2002 6:30:01 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

1) The framers could not imagine the evolution congressional service would make from 1776 to 2002. At the time the constitution was written, it was considered a terrible burder to serve in congress. I think you're short changing the Framers. I've read some pieces where they considered a rather large and expansive population, sic 100 million; along with projections of problems that would arise. And there was a nice piece written at the time of the drafting of the Constitution where the writer envisioned a school in which aspiring politicians could learn the facets of governance and hoped that politics would be a lifetime occupation. Look at Gary Condit....can't believe he has the gall to run again---what a characterless jerk. There are many politicians that I wouldn't vote for, including my own House representative [I disagree with him on virtually every issue], but that's what the voters of his[my] district want. So be it. The only reason that the incumbent has an "advantage" is because the voters let it be an advantage. Generally, there is little difference in the substance of the issues expressed by the candidates. Money allows one candidate to repeat himself/herself 100 times instead of the 15 times the other candidate can repeat himself/herself. IMO, incumbent advantage is a problem the voters need to resolve within themselves. Those in office spend more time raising re-election funds than on any other endeavor. Term limits would free them from that pressure. I would agree that there is a need for election reform. The USSC has ruled that there can be limits on both hard and soft money. The Framers understood the power of money to corrupt and so does the current USSC. So, we end up with the same tired & ineffective ideas yet again for another term. I belong to a very small minority that believes that overall our government is pretty effective. [I'm not a government employee]. We complain about the potholes and forget that we have an immense road and highway infrastructure that is pretty damn good. We might complain that they don't pick up the trash enough, but the local governments move and dispose of mountains of refuse. Weather satellites, the initial internet protocols, clean water, the communications infrastructure, roads, university education, the cleanup of the Great Lakes, damns....I think that one could go on for days just looking at what great things have been accomplished. Fresh ideas? It takes years to figure out the complexities of the Defense and Intelligence programs as one example. If one has a notion of solving poverty, that doesn't occur in a year or even a generation...trying fresh ideas every n years doesn't intuitively follow. jttmab