THE PLAN TO SAVE AMERICA- GOES PUBLIC TODAY.

Perhaps you didn't understand the plan. There's no retroactive anything when this would take effect. Everybody starts clean. Some members who have been bad actors are so because that has been the de facto rule of the game. They will welcome the order , the end of chaos. Some won't, because that's who they are. Those who will adapt to follow the rules have no problem. Those who won't, cross the line and get removed. The plan sorts them out, without any prejudice or politics.

The incentive to do the right thing- is that if you don't, you are gone. It's not negotiable.
That's the objective here- to be able to remove the bad actors; limit the field to the good ones.

In terms of financial incentive- right now, we have a lot of members of congress saying that due to DC living costs, they can't even afford to rent an apartment. However, raising their salary when the performance is so poor will not go over well with the public. But IF the performance of congress was right, the conditions in the nation would be improving for everyone- and a considerable increase might be well accepted. That's financial incentive- connected to performance. Do your job well, be up for a raise..... And, more importantly to good people- be respected for your performance, by yourself, your peers and the public.

I'm not in favor of paying people not to abuse you. Paying bad people not to be bad is an illusion; you can't change their character, you have only given them leverage for extortion.
There are plenty of very good people who would be proud to serve in Congress- IF it was an honorable institution. But that class of people is not going to jump in a cesspool and destroy their self-respect.
You can't subsidize unscrupulous people and buy honor. You have to remove/excude them. But if we want good people, we will have to have a good environment for them to work in.

 

The project certainly has the best of intentions, but it seems too little too late, and hopelessly idealistic and impractical. On its best day, politics is a very dirty business, and our pitiful 2 party system is notoriously bankrupt, both intellectually and morally. The rules are written, and Congress has never been able to obey its own rules.

 

We discussed this long ago, when we had a constitutional lawyer with us for a while. The power for Congress to make the rules is there. Congress can specify removal for any reason- or none at all. Totally arbitrary. This is not even debatable. That leaves the question of who determines a violation, and triggers it's enforcement. The Congress must make the rules; only the oversight can be delegated. So long as the removal is firm and not a vague maybe in the Congressional dictate, that can delegate too. The trick is that the panel does not have the power of removal. It has the power to investigate and determine if the events in question trigger the will of congress- which will say that violation of the two referenced ethic rules is cause for removal. The action to remove is established by congress. The panel only provides an independent tool to apply it.

The same thing applies with the IRS. They do not create the tax rules. They determine if the rules have been violated and enforce the rules congress has established. The only agency of government that can make laws is Congress- and Congress is the only agency of government that is free to make up its own rules for itself. So while this is certainly subject to argument, it is not without reason and support in common sense and common law. Nor is it without precedent.

Congress has previously set up an independent panel to investigate itself. However, it did not give that panel power to trigger enforcement, nor set up a clear rule for doing so internally as a result, regardless of the nature of violation. Instead, the plan had the investigative panel turn over it's discoveries to the ethics committee, where it invariably faded away without action- effectively killing the value of independent oversight. In other words, it was a cosmetic. Looked independent, but was intentionally made toothless.

Building a Super Majority is a huge challenge, we are not at all sure it can be done. Apathy- either don't care or don't quite like the plan- will be the biggest obstacle. You may have noticed this project has NO political partisan points at all. The reason- is that the moment you go to any debated issue, or any person or party in any way- you divide the potential support, and then have no chance at all for the super majority.
It has to be good for everyone to have a shot. We can't make people care. We are trying to light a fire, give people a tool they can have enough faith in to support. Unless we can do that, it won't happen.
We don't know if America has enough people who have that capacity or not. I do think it's declining everyday, and that is not a good sign. We think time is critical- and procrastination may be fatal.
Good chance it will be argued to death.

 

The people with courage, who can see a way- will try. The people who think it's not easy enough... will not. We can't control that.

 

That's what I've been saying (in red color). And so, ultimately, this panel has an advisory role, not an enforcement role. Enforcement is still left to the congressional political cesspool because the Constitution leaves enforcement exclusively to them.

I still think we could transform Congress for the better through strict term limits and the other changes I suggested earlier. I'm sorry I cannot agree with you because fundamentally we are on the same side.

 

Does you congressman come to your door to collect your taxes?
The authority of the constitution says congress may "lay and collect taxes". They lay (or establish) them. They delegate collection. They constitution does not direct them to collect personally, unlike the power to create the rules, which are specifically granted only to the Congress.

We could have an endless discussion of what the consitution means- but the fact is, that if the pressure is sufficient, they will find a way to interpret it to do this, just as they do most things they want to do.
The Congress claims the constitution prevents them from doing many things they don't want to do. But if they weren't willing to adjust that interpretation, there wouldn't be things like gun registration.
"Shall not be infringed" is as specific as "Thou shalt not kill"- and despite the absolute clarity of that statement, infringement is extensive.

The objective is require congress to follow the rules of it job in order to keep their job. We expect them to fight that idea, of course. That is the nature of dishonor.
If enough of the people want to help them keep that privilege and will defend it for them- nothing will change.

Our effort will lose. And sadly, the people that helped the dishonorable retain the power to abuse them will lose too.

My career experience has had me involved in many litigations over the years. If you watch the way lawyers distort the laws to fit their case, often quite successfully despite violating the intent and spririt of the
law, it's quite educational. Most don't see that side of it because they are furious over the evasions and distortions. As an expert witness several times, you aren't winning or losing; it's easier to keep focus.
After a two hour grilling in a pretrial deposition, the side I testified against decided to settle- and paid in full. Their lawyer, who had used every trick he could think of to destroy or dilute my testimony, came over. He said- "you are one hell of a good witness. I wish you had been ours". I knew how they play their game, and didn't allow them the latitude to dilute my testimony.

You have to know how they play the game, or you don't have a chance. It's not fair, not by the book, certainly not by the rules people think are the rules. That is why entrenched politicians continually succeed in abusing their positions, and yet we keep giving them the power to do so. I described it once as being in a poker game, where we have to play by the rule book they wrote, and while they use the rules to control us- they simply adjust the interpretation of the rules when it serves their purpose.

Our advisor and teacher in this area was a professor of political science and a PhD with 50 years experience and a lot of Washington experience and connections. He died last fall, but he was with us as many years as well as being a personal friend of mine well before we started. Over those years he had taught us what goes on behind the public facade pretty well. He had no illusions about it being strictly by the book, he always knew the rules were adjustable or avoidable. Interpretation, distortion, concealment- but never genuine honesty.

You can't walk up to Congress and point to the Constitution and expect them to say- Oh, our mistake, you are right. The only time you would get that is if you offered them a raise of more power.
The ONLY way they will agree to allow the people to have the power to remove the abusers- is if all those in office will lose their jobs if they don't.

The message to Congress has to be- Find a way to do this, or you won't survive the next election.
No excuses, no dodges- just do it.
What does it take to make that a dictate to Congress that will stick? Super Majority.
YOU have to be sick and tired of being the pidgeon in the game, and quit letting them use their adjustable interpretation of rules to keep you there.

We can get this done- IF the people help us- and everyone, including Congress- will win.
IF the people help Congress, we will fail- and everyone, including Congress and the nation- will lose.
It's that simple. Those are the win/lose positions. You either use your power to win, or give it to them to use against you.

If you want an Honorable Congress, settle for nothing less.

 

If anyone is still reading this thread- you can see what the real opposition to this plan is. It's not the politicians, it's public apathy- the idea that something else will come along and we don't have to become involved in a solution. Criticism and complaints aren't solutions, they are venting, but change nothing. A solution requires taking action in a way that can make a difference. This plan has the potential to change America for the better. The question will be if enough Americans will give it the power to do so. We have discussed this aspect of our initiative extensively; we know that apathy is a much greater barrier than political resistance.

 

Perhaps you should sell it to democrats as a good way to eject dishonorable republicans from Congress.... and vice versa. It seems that democrats regard republicans as being "the evil", and republicans regard democrats the same. They won't talk to each other. Perhaps you should have split sales tactics. Perhaps even two different "products" that actually are the same thing, just focus-marketed to the opposing factions.

 

But sometimes criticism of an idea is good for the ones who are putting forward the idea. It can cause some introspection and re-evaluation. It can lead to modifying the idea to make it better or more viable.

I am certainly not apathetic, or I wouldn’t have engaged you with my issues. I believe in your goals, and I think they’re critically important - a better Congress.

You clarified that this panel would not have enforcement power. So in the absence of enforcement power, it would become an advisory panel, and it could bring pressure on members of Congress to walk the straight and narrow.

That would be good to have in conjunction with term limits, campaign finance reform, and a BBA.

In combination, we would see a true reformation of Congress. It would be a holistic approach to the problem. I could get behind your effort if it expanded its goals to include those other things I’ve talked to you about.

Seth

 

The panel IS NOT making the rules, and I never said ti was It is determining when the rules have been violated, and if the violation indicates the consequence congress has established applies.
That is the power of enforcement that works in the identical way that the IRS enforces tax law- but this is domestic in mature, compliance with the terms of employment.
Umpire in a ball game throws out a pitcher. Not arbitrarily, but because he observed the pitcher breaking a fundamental rule- that the umpire did not make, but is authorized to make the call.

Water this concept down and it's dead. Weigh the consequences for the future of America if we don't restore order soon, and figure out how long America can wait for an answer that everyone likes.
Since I've never even seen a comprehensive plan to do the job before, I don't think there is another plan, let alone one that would make everyone happy.

As I said- Apathy is the greatest barrier. By far. I know you are interested in changing things, I don't question that. But there is nothing to lose here, everything to gain- and if you find supporting that a waste of time, it has the same affect. To change things you have to actually do something.