Support a 72-Hour Mandatory Public Review Period on Major Spending Bills

Rank 5
Idea#37

Stage: Active

Campaign: Making Government Operations More Open

In effort to help eliminate billions of dollars in wasteful spending, I recently announced my support for a 72-hour mandatory minimum public review period on all major spending bills brought before Congress. This 72-hour review proposal, which would help to prevent taxpayer-funded outrages such as the empty “Airport for No One” in the congressional district of Democratic Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and huge bonuses for AIG executives, is a reform proposal that been advocated by nonpartisan organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a coalition of reform-minded state legislators, and the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation.

If the Administration chose to support such a review, and follow through on its own promise to allow for five days of public comment on all bills before signing, it would represent a good first step toward greater transparency and accountability in government spending.

Find more information at http://gopleader.gov

Tags

Submitted by

Feedback Score

753 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Disagreed
  2. Agreed
  3. Agreed
  4. Agreed
  5. Agreed
  6. Agreed
  7. Disagreed
  8. Agreed
  9. Agreed
  10. Agreed
  11. Agreed
  12. Agreed
  13. Agreed
  14. Agreed
  15. Disagreed
  16. Agreed
  17. Agreed
  18. Agreed
  19. Agreed
  20. Agreed
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 5 ]

ReviewScale

Assessment

Comments

  1. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    STOP rushing junk through before voters have a chance to respond on what their money is to be spent on!!!!!!!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Isn't this the much-vaunted promise of candidate Obama, that any bill would be posted on the internet for 5 days so the public (not to mention Congress) could READ it and respond? It's feet-to-the-fire time!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Why let us taxpayers pay for a new prison for guantanamo TERRORISTS when where they are is safe for Americans and we are Americans.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    It's irresponsible to vote on a bill without reading it. I can buy a rubber stamp anwhere, but when I vote for a man to represent me then by golly he should be responsible

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Yes, this is absolutely necessary. With the Economic Stimulus bill, having time to review it gave us the opportunity to point out some ridiculous measures that were originally in there, like $1bn for nuclear weapons (which was eventually removed). The "Thomas" congress website is a very good resource for this. Of course, the flipside is that our representatives need to listen to us when we raise objections about specific measures of bills, even if we are not privy to the sly dealings that may be driving them into the text.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    YES! YES! I feel like things are happening in the dark of night when no one is looking!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Who are the 20 people who have voted against this so far...and what can possibly be their reasoning?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    I thought this was a pretty good idea myself, and I didn't vote against it. Perhaps the thinking of those who did was that this country does not operate as a direct democracy, and you can't turn all spending bills into a virtual plebiscite. It's already hard enough for the enormous legislative machinery to negotiate the interests of the 500+ stakeholders who are supposed to be representing our interests. Although it's not perfect, THOMAS does give you some pretty good insight into what is being proposed.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    I think we will be able to only comment. You will do what you want anyway.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. Comment
    spamreceiver01

    YES YES YES!! Transparency, Mr. President? Was there an expiration date on that promise, as well?

    Let the PEOPLE KNOW what you guys are doing!! Enact a mandatory 72 hr public review!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    It is very apparent that some of you have elected a Dictator, Tyrant, Socialistic President. For those of you who voted the Obama Clan into the White House, stay quiet and make no noise. For those Conservatives who still believe in Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and Freedom; get off your butts and vote in the elections next year. Start lobbying now for your candidates, let us be the ones to choose our next Presidential candidates, it's time the people take back our government. Stand Up!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    It's good to see Rep. Boehner supporting a public review period, but I'm not sure about the focus on "major spending bills". Was the USA PATRIOT Act a major spending bill? I would've liked some public review of that one.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    The Sunlight foundation advocates in favor of changing the Rules in the House and Senate to provide that all legislation, not just spending bills, be available online, in a searchable format, 72 hours before consideration. From the PATRIOT ACT to spending bills to bills deregulating the financial industry, significant legislation has been rushed through Congress regardless of which party holds the majority. Allowing Senators, staff, the media and the general public access to these bills prior to debate would provide a real opportunity to fix them by amendment before they become law.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Mr. Boehner, if anyone would take a few minutes and walk outside, they would immediately notice the Planet Earth is still working just fine. Sure there is some man made pollution and a whole lot of nature made pollution. Bottom line, any type of climate change/global warming fight to save the planet scheme is a total lie, a total fraud. Be careful, the next statue to be errected will be the mighty Zeus Gore and his catamite Leonardo the pretty hollywood boy actor. Waxman is a con-artist.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    For more detail on the Sunlight Foundation's ReadtheBill.org effort, see http://readthebill.org .

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    How dare Waxman make a mockery of this country's highest public institution!?!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. Comment
    David Finley

    I just have to say, coming from someone whose party, when it was in power, would, with awesome regularity, gut entire bills and put out the substitute language minutes before a vote, hold votes at 3AM, and hold votes open for hours to threaten/bribe enough members to get the results they wanted - you show yet again that there is no limit to your hypocrisy.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    I voted for this idea and I recommend others join me in voting for the "Citizen Portal" idea, as it will allow American citizens to help read long bills and help representatives vigilantly enforce accountability in government spending.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    This is a great idea, however, I think the period of time needs to be more than 72 hours. I think a minimum of week is in order for citizens to review the legislation and then communicate their thoughts to their legislators!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. Comment
    dudemanfellabra

    I think this should not only apply to spending bills, but to all legislation passed. The bills should be posted online for the public to read and comment (and possibly vote positive/negative as on this site). The main thing is, though, that the President should be obligated to address the public's concerns. If a majority of the public has major concerns about the bill, he shouldn't sign it just yet. There should be more debate until the majority of the public agrees.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. Comment
    ericscottlykins

    I'm going to reach across the aisle here despite the many times I have been outraged by your cheap populist obstructionism (Hey, it sells, right?) and say "John Boehner, good idea." I did not expect to see your name at the top of this list. http://www.tndp.org/profile/EricScottLykins

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. Comment

    I want the Congress and the Senate to read the whole bill from front to back before voting on it. Stop rushing bills through filled with pork. Hey BO you said you would read everything line by line LIAR Thank goodness I had the smarts not to vote for you. You said you would have everything up on the whitehouse website 5 days befor a vote for the people to see and protest if they wanted. LIAR again. The pres is nothing but a big rubber stamp rushing things through so me my kids and grandchildren are stuck with a huge bill since when did the govt run auto companies. This country is NOT your piggy bank BO!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  23. Comment

    Leave Gitmo alone! why strangle us to build another site for these TERRORISTS yeah I said a banned word free speech I'll call them what I want and that label fits them. Keep them off of our shores and leave Gitmo alone. who wants to pay for another site or have these men next to them not me. Can we put them in with BO since he wants them on our shores.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. Comment
    carrick.baugh

    How about a mandatory 72-hour moratorium on House floor political theater following the proposal of major spending bills.

    As much as I appreciate the idea of a healthy review period, I don't like seeing my loyal opposition party feign shock and indignation for the cameras, while GOP legal aides reviews the small changes to the original bill, and everyone gets home in time for an early dinner another night of NOT drafting a serious competing plan.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. Comment
    Mike Liveright

    YES!!! This is the "ReadTheBill.org" proposal.

    The other thing is to request that your representatives commit to voting against any bill, budget, etc. that has not been posted for the required 3 days, so that we and the Blogisphere can uncover the "Time bombs" in the bills before they are passed.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  26. Comment
    gdea3201

    I voted against this nonsense. This is a forum for ideas, not political grandstanding. Come back with a serious proposal.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  27. Comment
    Play-Borstel

    Too bad that this forum has been used for political gain for the Republican leader. Your suggestion is absolutly just, but the way you portrait yourself here is unworthy for a political leader.

    Leave this out 'republicanleaderjohnboehner' & 'Find more information at http://gopleader.gov' and you would have made your point much clearer towards every political preference. Remember it's about putting the well being of America first instead of yours...

    @tghaberkorn: Who are the 20 people who have voted against this so far...and what can possibly be their reasoning?

    Response: I say... well...uhm... style and content are complementary.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  28. Comment
    imstevesteve

    Reform in this government is essential for true representation. I applaud Rep. Boehner's efforts.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  29. Comment
    rrau22

    I'm for this idea with one stipulation-that if it becomes law, it can be repealed only with a 100% vote of both houses of Congress. That way, Rep. Boehners republican associates can not repeal this if and when they become the majority.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  30. Comment
    detnicholls

    What happened to the 5 days Obama promised? Does that guy ever keep any of his promises?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  31. Comment
    rrau22

    "What happened to the 5 days Obama promised? Does that guy ever keep any of his promises?" He has so far-I notice the number one issue, the economy is turning towards positive. Obama has done more to put the public into the driver's seat than any president before him. Hold on to your hat and use the gossip blogs for cheap shots.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  32. Comment
    flomarm

    It's just as important to give individuals the tools to determine if a policy is worth it. Breaking down effects by state and county will be a step in that direction. Also, identify which member of Congress is supporting specific initiatives.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  33. Comment
    Tina

    I don't think Mr. Boehner should direct people to his website, however, I do agree with the proposal. I think we should see the things that both sides, Democrats and Republicans, throw into the bill. Maybe there would be less pork added if we had a chance to comment on the bill before it was signed. Also, members of Congress would not be able to say they didn't have time to read it before voting on it.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  34. Comment
    Jonathan Geeting

    Good on ya, John. I'm a progressive, and disagree with you more often than I agree. But this is a good idea, and I think its a good model for the Republicans going forward. The public wants a more active government, because we see how certain problems just don't lend themselves to market dynamics - they require solutions that aren't going to make anyone money, and might actually cost money or break even. That's ok, but we need the Republicans to be on "harm-reduction" detail. Bureacracy can get out of control, or waste money, and we need conservatives to stay vigilant about real abuses. But so far you've been crying wolf, calling projects waste that plainly aren't, and diluting the effectiveness of this line of criticism for when the threat is real. The GOP should stop being anti-government and start being pro good-government, attacking real corruption and waste. This is a good start.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  35. Comment
    LeMarr Dailey

    Shockingly, this makes alot of sense. It allows emotions to cool before costly descisions are made.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  36. Comment
    DarthNole

    72 Hours?? Is that all?

    Do you think you can actually read through AND understand the substance of a 1200 page bill in 3 days?

    I am not a speed reader, but just having the time to read a bill is not enough (did you see the spectical when a spped reader was brought in so no one could say the bill wasn't read), understanding what the bill will do is what matters.

    There should be a one week delay between the final drafting of a bill and the actual vote on that bill. Any additional admendments should reset that time frame.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  37. Comment
    srana

    What will be the outcome of 72-hour review period and how that will be translated in some form of further decision making on the bills in question?

    Who will be Chief Reviewer? What will be his/her authority (via act/policy)? What should be qualification and term of the Chief Reviewer? Who will appoint? What will be the process?

    Will my 9th grader son refrained to comment? At this time - any one with email address can post/comment from any geographic location.

    What is expected from Chief Reviewer in terms of taking responsibilities for his/her decisions?

    Is it hard to find information on any bill currently and its various stages? Have you explored using "Stage in Legislative Process" option on Thomas.Loc.Gov?

    How will be decided that bill has any indirect or direct impact on spending?

    What make you think once a person becomes Senator or Congressman they loose their abilities to Review Bills in the interest of American Citizens?

    What do you have to claim that you can do better than them?

    How the identify of the person (among reviewers) will be established?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  38. Comment
    jewal

    Agree with srana. Will a 9th grader comment; will the political machine be activated and skew the results just as happened here with twitter? Can you not find bills now? The CBO reviews these bills and they are posted on that site. Srana has also noted a site. The process has many access points for those who are interested.

    My question is what are we paying our congress men and women to do? Probably mostly sef-promotion, I know. But they, the GOP partisians, complained they didn't read the ARRA bill. Excuse me, I read the ARRA bill before it was passed, taking notes and in general understanding where the money was going especially researching the remarks made about "pork". Do they not have staff, resources, access? The final bill had late changes, but just how few pages do they read a day? Again, what do we pay these people for?

    For transparancy, I would like to see the authors of each segment of the bill, including "pork", any conflict of interest such as campaign contributions from interested parties. I would like to see who is supporting this bill, congressmen and special interest both, and who it will benefit. If we want transparency, then let in the real sunshine, the political sunshine.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  39. Comment
    fallenstar2005

    So... 72 hours review for Congress and then five days for public review and comment before the President can sign a bill? I'd prefer five days for both but it's a start.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  40. Comment
    Ian

    Are you not asking the everyday person to be an economist?

    What if a proposal that really makes sense is turned down do to cost and it bites us later on down the road?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  41. Comment
    Ian

    In some ways this is a great idea. However then again sometimes this could well... frankly suck?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  42. Comment
    Ian

    jewal 4 hours ago

    Warning Report Abuse

    Agree with srana. Will a 9th grader comment; will the political machine be activated and skew the results just as happened here with twitter? Can you not find bills now? The CBO reviews these bills and they are posted on that site. Srana has also noted a site. The process has many access points for those who are interested.

    My question is what are we paying our congress men and women to do? Probably mostly sef-promotion, I know. But they, the GOP partisians, complained they didn't read the ARRA bill. Excuse me, I read the ARRA bill before it was passed, taking notes and in general understanding where the money was going especially researching the remarks made about "pork". Do they not have staff, resources, access? The final bill had late changes, but just how few pages do they read a day? Again, what do we pay these people for?

    For transparancy, I would like to see the authors of each segment of the bill, including "pork", any conflict of interest such as campaign contributions from interested parties. I would like to see who is supporting this bill, congressmen and special interest both, and who it will benefit. If we want transparency, then let in the real sunshine, the political sunshine.

    I agree, lets not over react lets just react with slow logic.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  43. Comment
    joshuadurrell

    this is so important that we as constituents as well as american citizens that we see and know what are elected officials are voting on in Washington D.C.. this is not a Democrat or a Republican right but its all of our right to know and see what they are voting for.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  44. Comment
    1jkg63

    I think this is an idea worth pursuing - and if a 9th grader feels compelled to read through a bill and comment on it, then he/she demonstrates the kind of civic responsibility that is lacking in many of our leaders.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  45. Comment
    dave

    THIS IS CRAP !! when people say "rederic", they mean they are "lieing". This more of the same.

    FIRST....The head of the house ways and means committee should be changed every 6 months.

    SECOND...The bills must be published 30 days minimum. AND nothing added after the 30 day limit... 72hrs is a JOKE

    THIRD... Isn't it funny how the whole deal was out of control over the last 15 years..Now they care?

    FIFTH...This chat box will not change the total corruption in Washington DC AKA.."The District of Corruption".

    SIX.. Do I really need to go on with this..

    I am sick to death of the total crap we have for a So-Called Government.. GET REAL

    WHERE is the oversight?? Do we have any at all?? NO WE DON'T...THAT HASN'T EXISTED IN MANY YEARS.

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS A JOKE..

    I could sit every one of those anti-American political assholes down for a bitch session they never got from their mommy.

    You want real change..

    * band all lobbying from the city limits of Washington..

    * rotate the house ways and means chair.

    * band all members of government from lobbying...ever

    * PUBLISH all congressional and staff travel, other than going back and forth to home base.

    * Force all members to stop acting like a bunch of children.

    * Force all members to take a history class.

    If our founding fathers saw what was going on in our government today, they would pass out weapons to the people and say..."shoot them all"

    dbeall, ohio

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  46. Comment
    klingspoon.troy

    The complexities of business and invention need not be compromised in supporting standard portal connections. The ability to connect to the rest of the world and access the strength of community the web has to offer is vital for all humanity to compete in future learning environments. The fundamental secure portal that this writing refers to is a high level secure portal connection, the device offers the user the immediate ability to connect and transmit or receive data on the move. It unifies what is technically possible and marketable into a single device. Vital statistics would be monitored and available to the user for analysis. Applications that enhance the user in interactions with the community at large offer advantages that right now while available, are weakened in usefulness by fragmented and independent design. The trends in communications design and embedded applications have made rapid acceptance in society. The convergence with green power generation from the user coupled with embedded applications that provide enhancements for connectivity would also assist in societies efforts to reign in cybercrime. A standard portal device will offer encryption levels that are hack proof and will be designed to ensure user privacy. A citizen standard connection portal, in the spirit of transparency the strength in the adoption lies in the societal acceptance. When all citizens have the power of connectivity to participate in the strength of community, opportunity for enhanced learning becomes more powerful as well.

    The costs of governance have the potential for drastic reduction. By merely giving every person in America immediate connectivity no matter where they are in the world reduces the infrastructure costs of providing the services of government and society as a whole. By giving this level of possibility to all Americans the strength of what it means to participate in building success will become immediately apparent. The design of this device through peer review across the population’s diverse spectrum of scientists’, business leaders, social network professionals and government agencies, along with the public at large will give 21st century clout to the protection offered within the constitution.

    Cyber security will be made highly affordable to implement as the standard would have the largest audience not only in its creation but as well in its deployment. Once deployed the increased connectivity to efficiently deliver the services primarily of government but of all aspects of societal interactions, will be the 21st century platform for all cumulative societal efforts engaged in national and global prosperity.

    Wireless connectivity offers the most efficient transition to full participatory access for all Americans.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  47. Comment
    josh.crechriou

    I agree that it would be nice to be able to curtail wasteful spending, but I would worry that this could have the affect of crippling governement. If every piece of legislation that spends any money is met by an uproar from fiscal conservatives then what we are really saying here is smaller government. I want a government that takes appropriate action. I want to pay tax dollars, so long as they are used to make my life, and the life of others more pleasant.

    One could of course argue, that the more liberal individuals inclined to spend money in key location could counter the fiscal conservatives, but it seems (particularly in politics) that the naysayers get the most attention (seen as greater loss of potential votes).

    --personal opinion only.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  48. Comment
    gary

    "I would worry that this could have the affect of crippling governement."

    Of course, that's the point. Keeping Democrats ineffective gives Republicans the best chance to return to power -- and if they do, they can ignore this rule just like they ignore other laws.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  49. Comment
    John Claunch

    As if Congress needed something else to slow down progress. Why didn't anyone call for a 72 hour review period before Congress votes on a major tax cut bill, which is how we ended up in the financial mess we are in to begin with!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  50. Comment
    dave

    You are full of it..why are we in this mess..

    I will repeat

    NO OVERSIGHT

    NO OVERSIGHT

    the congressman and senators are not doing their JOB

    Spending bills should be posted on the internet for 30 days minimum.

    those bills spend 90 days getting garbage added to them...

    wake up America

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  51. Comment
    John Claunch

    first off, there will always be give and take in politics. you're a irrational idealist if you think a politician's vote doesn't come with strings attached. Some congress person's and senators do their job, which is to fight for their constiuency, and some don't. The real problem is we must keep the conversation on the spending that matters. i.e defense and healthcare. We need a single payer option NOW!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  52. Comment
    wcrjsr4435

    As a constituent of Congressman John A. Boehner I am accutely interested in what he proposes concerning the legislative process and overall conduct of the government. While the proposed 72 hour review period is certainly a noble idea, even Representative Conyers I believe admitted that "We don't read all of this stuff put in front of us," it is a far cry from what is needed. Probably since the inception of this Republic more bills have been slipped through under the noses of the American people than you would want to be cognizant of and that is frightening! The most recent incident in history has been the disastrous farce of Iraq/Afgan Gate. Knee-jerk responses just don't get it. Congress is not composed of representatives as it is supposed to be; it is a body of agents acting on their own. They don't listen and respond to us except in a put on a show method. Not enough time is 72 hours Congressman. What if we don't have the time in our busy, complicated lives to get the opportunity to review these bills? We could be ill, on vacation, television and/or computer out of service, etc. All the more reason to defeat the proposed bill to allow the President to shut down the Internet. We need a system that continually pipes in to Americans what these legislators and others are up to and allow much more time before they act. Congress loves to spend our money. Hell, we all have deep pockets and orchards of money trees. Like in the halls of the Capitol we need to be able to press a button, yea or nay to proposals. It could be done if they wanted to. I'm afraid I must in clear conscience extend a thumbs down on this as it is a superficial attempt at transparency, the latest brilliant concept to emerge. Respectfully submitted, Bill Cody, named after the infamous.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  53. Comment
    teineitalia1

    72 Hours is not enough time. If you are serious about this, make it one week, and make sure it is written in PLAIN ENGLISH.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  54. Comment
    rrau22

    After reviewing some of the comments from people who would just take pot shots at everything, I've changed my vote to NO. It would be a playground with almost every person 'shouting' to be heard and more than half the comments would simply be garbage.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  55. Comment
    sobi

    If it is to be limited to 72 hours, then it must be limited in scope.

    I like the one idea, one bill thing.

    But I think 72 hours is insufficient.

    On an emergency basis, there should be a sunset provision of 30 days so that handicap is not used as an excuse and barrier for open government.

    I think there needs to be a summary objective as well.

    Why is there a need for a new law? It isn't like there's any shortage of laws now.

    With that, and public participation, we could also demand resolution of conflicting laws and perhaps clean it up a bit.

    Prosecutors should not be able to jail people on whims. As it is they can always find something.

    That shouldn't be possible.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  56. Comment
    wcrjsr4435

    At the onset I believe a vote of thanks is in order to those folks that have tirelessly devoted their time to the creation of this effort. I have been reading additional comments and Boy, what a group of Americans. I was in a bit of a rush during my last post and I would like to thank some of you for covering some items I failed to include, one of which was the proposals being presented in PLAIN ENGLISH. Ever tried to follow legislation through all the steps? It is chuck full of legalese. Know why, with a few exceptions all of Congress and state, county and local bodies are comprised of guess what--LAWYERS! They just can't resist a bunch of wheretos, hereunders, heretofores, hereafters; enough to drive one nuts. They don't need that, it's just their nature from law school. These entities could be in plain English. Insurance companies I believe pioneered this approach. It could be done, again, if they really wanted to but that keeps us in a state of confusion so we have to hire a lawyer to interpret. Anyway, in closing, I am going to so enjoy this site as I am a card-carrying activist. I am still on a one-person campaign to right a wrong. Why over so many years of delighting children and adults was Bob Keesham, aka Captain Kangaroo never promoted to Major? Everyone have a good evening. Yours, Bill Cody

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  57. Comment
    felkakarp

    Isn't this supposed to be a forum for the general public? I believe that the House Minority Leader already has a forum for his "ideas(Congress?)" This is like setting up a little pool for your kids in the back yard and the teenagers from nextdoor run over and jump in. It demonstrates contempt for the people this was set up for.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  58. Comment
    chloe_658

    This is a wonderful idea and I thought Obama campaigned on this? Why hasn't he done what he said he would do by going through line by line and eliminating earmarks/pork?

    We should be able to see these bills and examine them for one week at least without it being posted after midnight and voted on within 24 hours. This was a disgrace and I am disgusted with the democrats for shoving this porkulous bill down our throats without ANY of them reading it. I watched C-SPAN a week or so ago and the republicans and democrats in congress were debating on Murtha's "airport to nowhere." The democrat (I can't remember who it was) was just LIVID that anyone would question the money going for that EXTREMELY important airport. I had to laugh because no one believes this except the democrats. It receives billions each year,has more employees than passengers and only about three flights go out a week and all to Washington. This is a disgraceful abuse of taxpayers money.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  59. Comment
    wgdo1140

    There is another organization also promoting a similar idea, the Read The Bills Act, PLUS lots of other "smaller, saner government" changes such as the “One Subject at a Time Act” (OSTA) and the “Write the Laws Act”. Check out and evaluate the non-partisan http://www.downsizedc.org/. Between the two sites, maybe we can make things happen.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  60. Comment
    felkakarp

    Hey Mister Minority Leader, Where was this brilliant idea when you were in the majority and funding a senseless war in Iraq every year of the Bush administration?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  61. Comment
    bre2002

    I don't see what a 72-hour period will do. Are the bills currently secret? Aren't they public information already? How many people are going to be able to review each bill in 72 hours and distinguish "good" from "bad" provisions? I thought it was well established during the last election that "taxpayer-funded outrages" represented a slim proportion of the overall budget, and that many problems of enormously greater import faced our nation (including many caused by insufficient taxpayer funding for things that would make our country safer, our school and our healthcare system better, and our planet greener).

    In fact, this seems like a cynical suggestion from the outset. If we want to stop "pork," which is what this proposal seems to be suggesting, then why don't we simply outlaw it? Maybe the Republican leader who proposed this idea doesn't really want to do that. Maybe he just wants to stir up a little antigovernment sentiment, lest we all be too enamored of our current Democratic leader.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  62. Comment
    tttahiti

    A 72-hour review period would be a good thing. WOULD THAT HAVE PREVENTED the current wars or the bailouts? And how about all the secret deals that never get to the house? Or the covert operations that are denied, even after the fact? Or the trashing of the Constitution itself?

    [See “End Imperial Presidency,” Idea # 571, http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3161-4049]

    Sure, I'd like to see some real transparency. It ain't gonna happen until we restore FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

    “Who Owns the Media,” Idea #664, http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3276-4049

    PS: John, would you please let your buddies know that words like "bipartisan" are getting a little warn out? We know that you guys are sleeping together, that the republican and democratic parties merged years ago, and that we no longer have a representative government. You don't have to keep rubbing it in.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  63. Comment
    Mike Liveright

    Re: felkakarp's comment.

    I'd vote to let even politicians, CEO's, lobbyists, etc. comment, approve or disapprove, and submit ideas, though I would prefer, as a courtesy that they posted their affiliation.

    Certainly John Boehner has his own "Soap Box", but if he had a good idea, and I think that assuring that all bills are posted before they are voted on is, I makes sense to me to have them discussed here.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  64. Comment
    metropol_47

    This is only being presented by the GOP because it serves their purposes to delay and drum up criticism for Dem. initiatives. I support the idea as long as it's equally applicable to future administrations and can't be repealed.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  65. Comment
    felkakarp

    Can you say ASTROTURF?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  66. Comment
    felkakarp

    I'm sure the victims of 9/11 and hurricane Katrina would have appreciated waiting 3 extra days for disaster relief to be funded.

    The Republicans aren't obstructing progress enough?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  67. Comment
    Mike Liveright

    Re: felkakarp

    1) I agree that many of the comments, and perhaps ideas, are AstroTurf, and that if this site is to grow there need to be ways to reduce this clutter. Have you seen other sites that do a better job and how do they do it while not requiring costly and dictatorial human monitors?

    My thought is to allow threading so that readers can view the main comment topic and then drill down to the comments on the comments where they seem interesting, and to allow votes on the value of comments and allow readers to decide if they want to restrict their reading to comments that others have determined are valuable.

    Thoughts?

    2) Certainly any real 72 (or 7 day) restriction will have an escape clause for Emergency, Special, cases, though given the pace that the Governments implements things, I doubt if most bills will be effected by a 3 to 7 day wait before they are enacted. I don't see this proposal as preventing th Government from acting, but as allowing us, and the Wisdom of the Blogisphere to uncover the Time Bombs in the legislation, though intelligent people can, of course disagree

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  68. Comment
    ddunn

    For sure. 72 hours (business hours) is a MINIMUM. I rather thing 5 business days is not too much to ask. Ya'll will just have wrap up your debates early in the session or vote remotely somehow. There should be NO excuse for curtailing the public time to review.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  69. Comment
    felkakarp

    1)This particular "idea" is astroturf because it comes from a politician who's hijacking a public forum for partisan purposes(if it is not partisan then where was this idea when he was in the majority and kept funding George Bush's senseless war in Iraq?[yes I know both parties are at fault for Iraq but it is Bush/Cheney's war and that's beside the point anyway]and why does the only porkbarrel project mentioned "happen" to be in a Democratic district?[now that's what I call trasparency!])and magically got it to #1 on the list. That's why it's astroturf(artificial grassroots) It's a lame attempt to make it appear as though it got to the top by Popular Demand.

    2)The original post says nothing about an escape clause for Emergency, Special cases, because it's not a serious idea so it doesn't matter. And given the pace that the Government implements things I don't see how you can say that slowing it down any further when lives are on the line can't do much harm.

    This idea should be removed from the site as the partisan astroturf sham it is and this forum given back to the people, which is what it was supposedly made for.

    P.S. Votes on the value of comments are OK on Youtube, I think they'd be an enormous waste of limited time here.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  70. Comment
    hovelandc

    This is fine but look to California gridlock on too much review....having a bill to review is already on the congressional websites...Also it should be CONGRESS putting out the review not the Administration. I can comment all I want on reviewing a bill but them most important thing is making sure I pay attention to my representatives and if I don't like them fire them at the voting booth.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  71. Comment

    This would have been a MARVELOUS idea if it would have been in force when the Congress and the President ramrod'd the stimulus and spending bills through. This review period would have given even the representatives time to read the bills before they voted on them, which they didn't even do! Rarely does a spending bill deal with "lives on the line", and there would be an emergency/special exception for that nonetheless. Maybe it would actually give the people a little chance to get back control of their government... at least give them opportunity to view what is coming up and contact their reps beforehand!

    My goodness folks... the Federal government is putting us, our children, and grandchildren in the poor house, and in debt up to our ears, with no hope of getting out.

    Things will not change until we start standing up and saying enough is enough. Lets grow the private sector... not the government. That is where REAL economic expansion will occur. All that is needed for evil to prevail, is for good men to stay silent.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  72. Comment
    felkakarp

    Would this have been a MARVELOUS idea if it would have been in force when three Republican administrations were running up more than 10trillion dollars of debt or just when Democrats are in power? And it doesn't say anything about an emergency/special exception. It says "a 72-hour MANDATORY minimum public review period on ALL major spending bills brought before Congress." It would literally require An Act Of Congress to allow Congress to act. I said it before and I'll say it again:

    This "idea" should be removed from the site as the partisan astroturf sham that it is and this forum given back to the people, which is what it was supposedly made for.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  73. Comment
    tttahiti

    Maybe the point of this item was to put someone important in here to make it seem more legit. Maybe Ol' Johnny got the short straw.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  74. Comment
    bp

    edmarcy said: "STOP rushing junk through before voters have a chance to respond on what their money is to be spent on!!!!!!!"

    Here;s an idea--why not also give our elected representatives time to read the bills before voting on them? That would be a good start!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  75. Comment
    patti

    Why is this idea no longer available on the public voting section? It is only now accessible by a direct link, and it is flagged "Pending Moderator Approval". Is this an attempt to squelch the public forum on this?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  76. Comment
    Rob Wheeler

    Why does this proposal focus only on spending bills. Seeing as how it has come from the GOP majority leader I would suggest that the real intent is for the GOP to be able to try to block any spending proposals it doesn't like.

    I prefer the proposal that legislation should only address one issue area and unrelated matters can not be included in the bill.

    Rob

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  77. Comment
    papaj1

    The idea should be to have spendig bills for one area with no add ons.Congress must read a bill before they vote.The notion that the Bush Administration spent wildly is absurd.Remember it was a Democratically Controlled House.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  78. Comment
    tttahiti

    Rob Wheeler asked, "Why does this proposal focus only on spending bills?"

    Hey - wait a minute - what kind of crap is that? How can I change my vote?

    patti asked, "Why is this idea no longer available on the public voting section?"

    Good question. What else has changed?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  79. Comment
    al

    I would vote a "thumbs up" for this proposal if I could. Interesting that it is locked so that I can't. I guess they only want to hear from citizens with ideas that agree with theirs.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  80. Comment
    Tina

    I think the voting is closed. The questions with the most votes are being collected now, if I read correctly. Also, Al, you should read the posts - they are hearing all opinions.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  81. Comment
    CATHY LANE

    STOP RUSHING EVERYTHING THROUGH. WHAT IS THE HURRY. THESE THINGS ARE SUPPOSE TO BE REVIEWED. WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY? SO FAR WE HAVE SEEN NONE.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  82. Comment
    opengove

    All congresscritters should be required to read a bill before casting a vote. Of course, that's something that will never pass. I would support a 72 hour review instead.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  83. Comment
    phbura

    This should apply to any bill, really. Someone earlier mentioned the Patriot Act, a classic example of quick wrong thinking that is now a national albatross.

    The wheels of government move exceedingly slowly, once a decision has been made, however rapidly arrived at. I'm not criticizing, this is just how it is because of the massive machinery involved. There is ALWAYS time to add a few days to the process.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  84. Comment
    opengov

    If Republican Leader John Boehner _actually_ thought that this was a good idea, he is in a good position to personally force this public review period into existence without any change to the rules of congress. He gets his kicks championing this cause but in reality he is just as eager to rush through spending as any other politician. Beware politicians pretending to exert restraint on politicians, on either side of the aisle!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  85. Comment
    pnass

    This proposal is an end-run on the congress re the line-item veto. Several presidents (from both parties) have tried unsuccessfully to implement the line-item veto. All efforts were stopped cold. Clearly, the business sector and the corrupt politicians do not want the President to have this power.

    If, we the people, do have a say about what is pork, how will our wishes be enforced? Congress can, and very probably will, ignore us. They feel that they know better than us.

    I've experienced this first-hand at the state level when a state rep voted against his constituents' wishes despite the fact that there was an overwhelming majority. (ie, we were against something and he voted for it.) In that particular case, we fired (recalled) him within 3 months.

    If all the states start thinking like this about their political leaders, we might see true accountability again. But I don't believe there are enough people with stout heart and mind to do that. They're all watching, with empty expressions and drooling mouths, some lame talent show, some vapid reality show, or some empty-headed soap opera.

    However, I also agree that 72 hours is not nearly enough time for a review. I'm not sure that 5 days is enough time, but it's more appropriate than 3.

    I also agree that lobbyists should NOT be allowed to have any contact with any congress person or his/her staff. Period. We have all seen just how wasteful, if not economically destructive, the lobbyists' influence can be (re adding to the debt).

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  86. Comment
    dudemanfellabra

    Does anyone know how to disable emails for comments on specific items? I get 98390480832 emails a day from comments on this topic, and I'd like it to stop.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  87. Comment
    felkakarp

    I doubt it. They're all addresed from [Open Government Brainstorm] - [Comment] I'm pretty sure you'd have to shut them all off.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  88. Comment
    dudemanfellabra

    How do I do that?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  89. Comment
    pnass

    In my notifications I see a link near the bottom of the message that is labeled as "Manage your notification settings at (some link here)." That will take you back to your personal settings. In the box that is at the top of that page is an "Edit" link in the upper right-hand corner. Click on it and a popup opens giving you a form with which you can change your personal info. One of the things you can change is notifications. You have three choices. Disable, New Topics/Ideas [Realtime], New topics/Ideas [Weekly digest]. It looks to me like "Disable" is the only viable option.

    Be sure to click on "Save changes" before closing the popup.

    Good luck with that.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  90. Comment
    pnass

    @dudemanfellabra

    Check my previous message for a possible solution.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  91. Comment
    dudemanfellabra

    I already did that haha.. I set it to disable and clicked save changes. When I go back to that menu, disable is still selected..... yet I still get these emails.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  92. Comment
    pnass

    Maybe there's some latency in the system. Or maybe it's a poor design.

    I'm considering doing the same thing (disabling responses, whatever).

    The only other possibility is using the "Contact" link in the footer of the page. Go directly to Ideascale and ask for support/advice.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  93. Comment
    pnass

    Scratch that. It's a freakin' postal address. WTF?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  94. Comment
    ricardomigrant

    This post is popular but not nearly as popular as the posts asking for Obama to make his birth certificate, college record, health records and the like available.

    Count Birth Certificate comments here and you will get over 7,000 But, this site has been rigged so that the posts asking for Obama to support transparency by providing his own birth certificate, health records and college records are not properly counted, even when they do not get deleted. All of the multiple posts would not need to exist if the honest reporting of this site showed the number one request here is for Obama to release his records.

    I have done a personal count of more than 1,000 requests for his birth certificate. My analysis suggests there have been at least 7,000 request for Obama to produce his real birth certificate, college records, health records and other financial records.

    It is possible to review this site to find the most requested ideas by scanning "Top Rated" posts, but the requests for Obama's records do not show up as being top rated. Those runnig this site are cooking the results. If the results were honest people would be able to continue to vote on a single post asking for transparency of Obama's records.

    According to the liars running this website the most requested item has NOT been Obama's birth certificate.

    (My email is ricardomigrant@aol.com - inlcude your email address if you want me to reply to you)

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  95. Comment
    pnass

    @dudemanfellabra

    I contacted Ideascale. FWIW, here's the response.

    "Just visit the OpenGov portal, just click the My Profile link towards the left bottom >> Edit options >> Here you can disable the notifications. Thanks,"

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  96. Comment
    sobi

    As to:

    Executive branch commanding the legislative branch...

    That is the argument used to disregard the popular demand for ending the war on drugs.

    It is diversionary. Health care is also in the hands of the legislature, the administration has no problem involving itself there.

    So was the bailout. Administration made demand after demand on legislature.

    When it is a policy the administration wants, it is called leadership.

    When it is a policy the administration does not want to touch it is called legislative territory.

    We do not have to accept and be bound by the parameters of that game.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  97. Comment
    Debra Bryant

    Google CAFR1 then you will see where the money is

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  98. Comment
    Debra Bryant

    Do a search in Google on "Government Wealth" then if you are inclined, support this man that has provided this great service for us that make up the USA. We need volunteers to audit their city, county, state, etc...

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  99. Comment
    DarthNole

    Mr Boehner:

    As the Minorty Leader of the House and a person that believes in the rule of law and person freedoms, I have a serious question for you:

    Why doesn't the Republican Party support the idea of Medical Marijuana?

    Currently Congress has left marijuana as a Schedule I substance according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. But the definition in the Act states that in order to be classified in Schedule I there must be NO accepted medical use for treatment in the US. But currently there are 13 states that have already ACCEPTED the use for medical treatment. On top of that the Federal Government supplies 4 US Citizen with Medical Marijuana each month and has for the past 26 years. I think that this is pretty simple, and will garner the Republican Party a lot of support, if you would get out there and push that we either do one of two things. Either the Congress decides to re-define the CSA OR you decide to follow the law as it is written and move Marijuana from Schedule I.

    I realize that you might be concerned with doctors widely prescribing it but is it the Government's role to dictate forms of treatment or is that the doctors job (you know the thing they went to school for)? Now I would concead that it is the Government role to keep me safe, but in this instance that should not be a concern. Can you name one person in the past 5000 years that has overdosed on Marijuana?

    And before you talk about the risks of smoking anything, there are alternative ways to extract the medicine from the plant. The most obvious is through baking cookies, cakes and other items that you can eat or drink. Most people don;t like those because it is harder to titrate the doses as the effects take longer to arrive. The second way is to use a vaporizor that heats the plant below the combustion point for the palnt material but above the point for the THC and other cannabinoids which turn to vapors that are collected and inhaled. This keeps all of the carcinogens out of the human body but allows the medicine to be injested. The misconception that smoking a joint is the only possible way is not only absurd but can be fixed by educating the public (something your doctor would do when he presribed it to you).

    So what's your stance? Will you get the Party behind the rule of law and get the CSA corrected? Will you fight for the rights of the sick and injured to receive any treatment that their doctor believes can help?

    I'll look forward to your response over on the Idea: "Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act".... good or bad I'll be looking to hear your views.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  100. Comment
    jsnow

    I voted for this, but I don't think it should be limited only to spending bills. Also, I'd be in favor of extending the deadline further for verbose bills; i.e. an extra day for every 50 pages.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  101. Comment
    tttahiti

    Or maybe put the porker on line, and let us comment on each line-item. Not like this format, but with a few simple symbols (thumbs up or down and a few in-between symbols), a single line of comment, and a box you can open if you want to see the rest of the person's rant. (Up to 100 words. If you want more, use your own blog space.)

    DarthNole said, "a person that believes in the rule of law and person freedoms..." (Chuckle.) Good one.

    PS: Cool name, too. I need a "darth" name.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  102. Comment
    Bill Hedgecock

    Spending bills that are also Borrowing bills should have at least a 30 day review period. If the money for the bill is not appropriated, an explanation of where the money will come from should be given.

    If the President wants to be transparent, Americans need to know if we have the money or will it be borrowed.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  103. Comment
    sueb244

    Our government is a republic and in this day of computers, we can indeed share our ideas and opinions like never before in history!! So we should get to read before they vote...maybe that would make them more honest!!!!!!!!!!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  104. Comment

    Amen! For all the hyper-speed devices that have been invented, Wisdom still takes its own sweet time and WILL NEVER speed-up!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  105. Comment
    ruthb4

    I think this is an EXCELLENT idea! Maybe then they would actually be able to read a bill before they sign it!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  106. Comment
    moosedapoop

    Nice idea, but you're playing into typical politics. We need to go a step further then this.

    EVERY "SINGLE" ITEM NEEDS TO BE SEPARATELY INTRODUCED, DISCUSSED ON CSPAN, DEPICTED IN THE MEDIA, and after a MONTH of AMERICANS SOUNDING OFF, Then and only then, VOTED ON.

    IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE CORRUPTION and FRAUD! Not to mention, it will FORCE them to actually WORK for the MILLIONS we pay each one.

    Our liberal jokesters have slid abortion into military bills, homosexual themes in education have been added to completely unrelated spending bills. WHY? Because they know they AMERICANS WOULD NEVER STAND FOR IT! Only in the perverted districts of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc are poeple "glaad" about these perverted ideas!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  107. Comment
    ailene_randolph

    a person may also go to congress.org whereby they can sign up to receive email updates on pending bills and votes re: the issues that are important to you.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  108. Comment
    wcrjsr4435

    Moosedapoop as have most has hit it right on the mark. However this slipping other issues that have no relevance into a bill just to get one passed is ludicrous and it's nothing but plea bargaining. It must stop and it's not limited to liberals. Pulling stunts like adding carrying firearms in national parks onto a critical credit issue is insane. What does one have to do with the other? Let's get a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw such assinine ways of doing such important business. While we're at it, let's get an amendment that Congress cannot grant itself a pay raise; the people decide on that. It's sickening the way this government works and it's going to get worse before it gets better. I love the post of placing bills on the airwaves which coincides with my earlier recommendation. Keep up the good work my fellow Americans. Bill Cody

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  109. Comment
    ruthb4

    Hey Moosedapoop! I totally agree with you, but TRY getting that through Congress! They are like little children who need some sugar with their medicine. One step at a time. Boehner just might be able to get enough support for the 72-hr. wait period. And, while we are complaining, let's start an uproar over "The Czars"! This can't be Constitutional!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  110. Comment

    This sounds good in theory, but it would take a lot longer than 72 hours. Heck, legislators themselves often don't read entire bills before voting. What I would like to see, at a minimum, is an outline of a bill and what gets attached to it--often something totally unrelated.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  111. Comment
    ruthb4

    kiefferstl - Isn't this what the Obama said he would do? Post everything on the internet for all to see before being voted on? Oops! So much for transparency!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  112. Comment

    I'm not familiar with that quote, Ruth. Where did it originate? I'm familiar with the interest in transparency, but not that particular promise. (?) Can you help me out?

    As I said, I think Boehner's suggestion in good in theory, but it would take a long time for people to review these bills, certainly longer than 72 hours. I have a day off from work today, and I still wouldn't have the time to get through a really long bill.

    In any case, I like this site and am interested in exploring phase 2. I hope that this suggestion makes it to that phase and that people will at least consider Boehner's suggestion as a starting point.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  113. Comment

    tttahiti--

    "Or maybe put the porker on line"

    I am laughing out loud!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  114. Comment
    luvwith

    This is not gonna happen without public financing of campaigns. They are not going to get rid of their ability to pad bills with giveaways for their contributors until we finance campaigns through taxpayer budgets instead of corporate budgets.

    Please vote for PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCE

    http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3989-4049

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  115. Comment
    luvwith

    PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING

    We must have public financing of campaigns. I know you think you don't want to pay for it...but you already ARE!

    You pay hundreds and thousands of times what you would if the politicians actually answered to you and not greedy corporate criminals. You pay thousands of times more in a CORRUPTION SURCHARGE!

    YOU PAY FOR PRIVATELY FUNDED ELECTIONS RIGHT NOW!

    Every no bid contract, every unpaid royalty on an oil lease, every blocked piece of legislation, every blocked investigation, every effort to get healthcare for all, every blocked attempt for a living wage, every needless nuclear warhead that will never be used, every mountaintop removal mining permit OK’d, every case of cancer caused by lax environmental rules or enforcement, every prison built instead of a school...YOU PAY AND PAY AND PAY!

    And to add insult to injury, where do corporations get the money they give politicians in order to insure they can roll right over you whenever they want? FROM YOU! The cost of these payoffs is passed on to YOU the consumer!

    THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THE COUNTRY!

    Whatever you think is the most important issue facing the country…forget about it. It’s going to be decided in favor of those in power. It will be watered down in favor of those who finance campaigns and control corporate media sources.

    You think the health care debate is going to come out in your favor or Pfizer’s? You think we are really going to cut military spending when more than half of the military budget for the entire world is being lavished on some of the biggest campaign contributors there are? How about Bank reform? Wall Street? Big Pharma? Iraq? The environment? Just exactly how do you see any of that working out in your favor in our current system?

    Our system is broken. Our government does not work for the people. It works for – or in fear of – people who can spend a lot of money, access a lot of media, or have a lot of power in society.

    IT’S THE MODERATES!

    What people don’t understand is that it is not necessary to buy off the whole government in order for corporate, big money interests to get its way…every time. You merely need to control either the moderates and/or the committee heads in order to assure that whatever compromise is reached it will ALWAYS benefit BIG MONEY!

    In Congress, you have partisans on either side, in safe districts, with entrenched interests who won’t compromise and are at no risk of being voted out.

    Then you have the folks in the purple districts. They could get the ax anytime. Their elections could come down to which candidate has a few thousand more to spend. If Big Money goes their way they stay, if it goes to their opponent they are out.

    These are the people you count on to forge the compromise between the two extremes and these are the very people who are most vulnerable to big money coming in hard and heavy against them.

    COMPROMISE IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF BIG MONEY!

    The current system assures that any compromise between the partisan extremes will be concluded in favor of big money. Even the most conscientious moderate politician in a contested state MUST cater to big money or they will not stay in congress.

    WHAT HAPPENED TO CONGRESS?

    Do you wonder what has happened to democrats in congress over the last 8 years…the spinelessness and cowardice evidenced by these people?

    This is the result of what happens to an organization over time when anyone who fights big money gets weeded out…even if it’s only one or two per election. Eventually you are left with …well, what we have now…a bunch of corporate lap dogs.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  116. Comment
    tttahiti

    luvwith --

    When you go off topic like this, it's called hyjacking.

    When you post the same thing all over the place, on multiple topics that have no connection to your topic, that's spam.

    At least it's intelligent spam.

    Unlike the local trolls going on and on about nonsense...

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  117. Comment
    christoff eddleman

    and why do our kids have to bail out the banks and cars companies,?perhaps if people had a opportunity to vote or at least look at all the deciding factors mabye the people would make the right choice

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  118. Comment
    bre2002

    The reason we have to bail out the banks and car companies is that the people who were supposed to be watching them were asleep at the wheel -- a situation which Reagan and Bush put into place as a matter of policy (can you say deregulation?). It's not as though it wasn't predicted that this would happen. But with both Democrats and Republicans controlled by the wealth and the wealthy, of course no one did anything about it. So long as the rich are getting richer, and the politicians are getting re-elected, why bother?

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  119. Comment

    Democracy:

    A government of the masses.

    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

    Results in mobocracy.

    Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

    Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

    A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

    A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

    Republic:

    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

    A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

    an executive and

    a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

    a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

    certain inherent individual rights.

    Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

    Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

    A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

    Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:

    Democracy:

    a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.

    b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences

    Republic

    a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

    b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

    Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

    The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.

    Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

    Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  120. Comment
    brookwassie

    There is a reason we have politicians. Most people do not have a well enough understanding of our legal system to make an educated decision on the subject. We elect politicians to do this job for us.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  121. Comment

    Democracy:

    A government of the masses.

    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

    Results in mobocracy.

    Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

    Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

    A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

    A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

    Republic:

    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

    A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

    an executive and

    a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

    a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

    certain inherent individual rights.

    Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

    Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

    A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

    Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:

    Democracy:

    a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.

    b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences

    Republic

    a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

    b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

    Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

    The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.

    Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

    Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  122. Comment
    ruthb4

    Brookwassie: Just noticed your post. Our elected politicians are doing their jobs. That's why they need input from us - the people who elected them in the first place and for whom they are supposed to be working!

    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed