The Tea Party raised the hopes of many though it soon morphed into a right wing social agenda leaving moderates who felt a need for change in the dust. Occupy Wall Street has raised the hopes of many but hope for what? The right wants to pit it against the Tea Party but I think the basis for both is the same. OWS’s lack of a clear agenda is both its strength and its weakness. Without an agenda each hopeful person can hope the agenda will align with their hopes and they grow evermore anxious to see “their” agenda articulated. Once an agenda is articulated there are bound to be many who will feel “that’s not my agenda”.
What brought about the TP and OWS is frustration and anger by many that our system is broken. We are all mad as hell and loosing patience. We blame it on the politicians and the lobbyists, the bankers and the stock brokers, greed and avarice. Our frustration is that in a democracy we the people are supposedly in charge—we are the boss, we can fire those who don’t do our bidding and yet when we fire incumbents, the replacements are little, if any better and often worse. The TP threw out the bums and gridlock in our government got even worse. OWS is focusing more on bankers and stock brokers and avarice but where will that focus lead? Some good was done by picketing a bank. Bank of America was picketed and responded by removing a recently added fee. This worked because there was a specific and easily understood goal and a clear target. The picketing drew enough media attention to get the bank to respond.
That is a great model for OWS—pick a specific and easily understood goal with a clear target and bring attention to it by getting media attention.
Example: A constitutional amendment putting some limits on congress is a possibility that both TP and OWS people could support. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives to start the amendment process. Clearly it would take a lot of pressure for Congress to make a vote that would limit them in any way but if the TP and OWS teamed up to get it done, I think it could happen. Both get a lot of media attention now, imagine the power if they joined forces on one issue. It could become a major campaign issue with candidates signing a pledge to vote for Amendment 28 if elected.
I rather like the idea of term limits and making it illegal for anyone who has served in congress to become a lobbyist. It would decrease the motivation for getting elected to become rich and, hopefully, increase candidates’ interest in moving our country forward. It would also free up a lot of the time now spent by our congresspeople on raising funds and campaigning for the next election, time they could put to good use by focusing on the job we sent them there to do. Or a similar idea from Warren Buffett. "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
Cynic that I am I doubt this will happen simply because the OWS folks wouldn’t want to join an idea that came from the TP folks and visa versa. The Tea Party is and Occupy Wall Street likely will become as polarized as Congress.
FOLLOWING IS A REPEAT OF THE ABOVE WITH COMMENTS (in color) FROM MY CONSERVATIVE FRIEND. MY LIBERAL FRIEND HAS COMMENTED ELSEWHERE. My cynicism is well placed though my reason for it was overly optimistic.
The Tea Party raised the hopes of many though it soon morphed into a right wing social agenda leaving moderates who felt a need for change in the dust. Occupy Wall Street has raised the hopes of many but hope for what? The right wants to pit it against the Tea Party but I think the basis for both is the same. OWS’s lack of a clear agenda is both its strength and its weakness. How can the inability to articulate your position ever be interpreted as a strength? Without an agenda each hopeful person can hope the agenda will align with their hopes and they grow evermore anxious to see “their” agenda articulated. Once an agenda is articulated there are bound to be many who will feel “that’s not my agenda”.
What brought about the TP and OWS is frustration and anger by many that our system is broken. We are all mad as hell and loosing patience. We blame it on the politicians and the lobbyists, the bankers and the stock brokers, greed and avarice. Our frustration is that in a democracy we the people are supposedly in charge Not the way it works, not even the way it’s designed to work … we elect people who are in charge. —we are the boss, we can fire those who don’t do our bidding and yet when we fire incumbents, the replacements are little, if any better and often worse
. Obviously, we’re not making good choices, but in this case you haven’t given the new guys time to do much of anything … first you need to give them a clear majority in both houses. The TP threw out the bums and gridlock in our government got even worse. Nothing could be worse than the one-party system we had for two years starting in early 2009. OWS is focusing more on bankers and stock brokers and avarice but where will that focus lead? Some good was done by picketing a bank. Bank of America was picketed and responded by removing a recently added fee. This worked because there was a specific and easily understood goal and a clear target. The picketing drew enough media attention to get the bank to respond. Methinks that you give them some undeserved credit relative to overturning the monthly charges on debit cards.
That is a great model for OWS—pick a specific and easily understood goal with a clear target and bring attention to it by getting media attention.
Example: A constitutional amendment putting some limits on congress is a possibility that both TP and OWS people could support. It takes a two thirds vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives to start the amendment process. Therein lies the problem and a bunch of kids sleeping in tens on Public Square aren’t the way to address it. Clearly it would take a lot of pressure for Congress to make a vote that would limit them in any way but if the TP and OWS teamed up to get it done, Somehow I’m having difficulty getting my mind around the notion of a bunch of Ivy League liberals teaming up with a gang of red neck conservatives on anything. I think it could happen. Both get a lot of media attention now, the media has been and continues to do everything possible to completely ignore the TP. imagine the power if they joined forces on one issue. It could become a major campaign issue with candidates signing a pledge to vote for Amendment 28 if elected.
I rather like the idea of term limits (dream on) and making it illegal for anyone who has served in congress to become a lobbyist. Can’t happen any more than enforcing employment agreements that prohibit you from working in the same industry for a competitor … it’s restraint of trade and unconstitutional. However, Congress has passed laws limiting a retired bureaucrat’s ability to lobby his former co-workers for a brief window … it’s either 1 or 2 years. It would decrease the motivation for getting elected to become rich and, hopefully, increase candidates’ interest in moving our country forward. It would also free up a lot of the time now spent by our congresspeople on raising funds and campaigning for the next election, time they could put to good use by focusing on the job we sent them there to do. Did you read the piece I sent yesterday about elected officials trading on insider information on land purchases it was a transcript of something 60-Minutes ran on Sunday. Or a similar idea from Warren Buffett. "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.” And this is going to get passed in the Senate when?
Cynic that I am I doubt this will happen simply because the OWS folks wouldn’t want to join an idea that came from the TP folks and visa versa. The Tea Party is and Occupy Wall Street likely will become as polarized as Congress. They already are. We happen to have a vocal little band of Occupy Cleveland so I get some things that you never get to hear or see … they are remarkably disorganized … I can’t think of any single belief that they share with the TP. I love it when they talk about getting Congress to pass a law to get the rich to pay their fair share … don’t they know that Congress did that a long time ago … it’s called the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and that’s worked so well that guys earning as little as $110K got hit last year, but on a percentage basis old Warren paid less than his secretary.
I think we get too focused on buzz words and fuzzy political double talk. I do know that the media does a piss poor job of vetting candidates that they like and go into assassination mode on the ones they don’t like. I would like to believe that you’re right about the public being angry enough to get off its collective fanny, but I don’t see it. However, they did get mad enough at W to vote for Obama though in retrospect he was less qualified for the job than my Brittany Spaniel. Wish I could embrace one of the GOP candidates. By the way, what is so bad about a Mormon? I’m missing something there … not real excited about the guy, but certainly not over his religion.
Posts
2 comments:
I was going to comment, but it got so long I decided to make it a post. Thanks for the inspiration!
My progressive friend responded:
…[Mort] suggests that term limits might be one such point of agreement. I doubt that because many liberals, like me, don't like term limits. If I managed to get someone I like in congress, who I think does a good job, then why in the hell would I agree to some Teabagger demand that that person be automatically disqualified after a certain amount of time. If I had Sherrod Brown as my Senator, or Bernie Sanders, or Al Franken, why would I want to give that up? Well, I wouldn't.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this point and perhaps have more reason to agree than you do. There have been three senators from Maine in recent history who were outstanding; Muskie (D), Cohen (R), and Mitchell (D). Olympia Snowe is pretty good also. First, any constitutional amendment should be written with a lot of thought and input by a number of people batting around all the “what ifs” and working out solutions so the “solution” I’m putting forward to the problem you raise needs refinement. Let’s put the limit on the number of years a person can serve in the Senate at approximately 12, 2 terms though we word it “No one who has served more than 12 years in the Senate shall be eligible to run again (That would allow someone to actually serve 17 years if they had been appointed or elected to serve a partial term.) unless they have been voted that right by their peers.”
Details to follow: By secret ballot the members of a party represented by at least (number to be determined) senators (either of the senators up for reelection that year or by the whole senate, to be determined) may choose (1 or 2) senators who would otherwise be term-limited out to run for the senate again.”
The goal would be to allow no more than 10% of the senators up for reelection to be senators who have been in the senate for two terms.
Example: Of the 33 senators up for reelection 10 are republicans and 23 are democrats. Half of each are ineligible to run again unless their peers vote them the opportunity. The 23 Democrats all cast a secret vote for a member of their party. Republicans do the same. Presumably they would already know which of those ineligible would like to run again and they would also have their own opinions as to who are the most effective among them. Undoubtedly politics would play into it with votes cast for someone because there is not other viable candidate in their district.
There are many ways this could play out all of which are likely to be dreamed up in the process of wording the amendment.
Post a Comment