When conservatives win, how does the NEW congress move forward?

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

Some "First Step" suggestions:

October 27, 2010 | By Bethany Murphy

Heritage's Plan to Reform Congress

The midterm elections are now exactly a week away. And these elections could transform the way that government in Washington runs.

The Heritage Foundation doesn’t have a dog in any of the election fights. As a
non-partisan organization, we are in the unique position of being
able to hold members of both parties accountable to uphold conservative values and principles.

Heritage has developed a plan that could help make congressmen more accountable to the people that elected them. If enacted, this Heritage
proposal would change what elections cannot: how Congress itself is
run. A shakeup of Congress’ internal structure could help newly-elected
conservatives get a hearing for their ideas.

We have four major recommendations that both parties should implement before November 15, when new committee members will be chosen.

• The steering committee, rather than party leaders, should select all committee chairmen and members.

• Party leaders should no longer dominate or control the steering committee. This would allow rank-and-file Representatives to nominate and elect
  the controlling votes on
  each steering committee.

• Term limits should apply to all House and party leaders, including the Speaker, as well as to committee chairmen and ranking members.

• A cap should be placed on the overall size of each committee—such as a 50-member maximum—to avoid scenarios where committees wield a disproportionate amount of influence over the House.

“Over the last several decades, legislative branch authority has become overly concentrated into the hands of a
few select leaders of the majority party,” Heritage experts Ernest
Istook, Matthew Spalding and Michael Franc argue, “rather than the
decentralized lawmaking body that is more consistent with its
constitutional responsibilities.”

What does this mean? Because Congressional leaders often require that their members to vote in a bloc, lobbyists and members of the executive
branch only need to convince a few Congressmen of the merits of the
bill before it is voted on.

Currently, party leaders choose committee chairmen, who have enormous power to shape legislation. Changing the way committee chairmen are chosen is
just one important step in reforming the way that Washington operates
on a day-to-day basis.

Heritage’s proposal is a useful guide to how the House can be made more responsive to public opinion. By diluting the
authority of party leaders, the reforms could create a less partisan
Congress. This, in turn, could allow lawmakers to more easily seek
solutions across party lines, as they would be less beholden to party
leaders.
Bringing fresh faces to Washington may change the appearance of
Congress, but structural changes will change Congress’ performance –
for
the better.

> Other Heritage Work of Note

• Unions—and particularly teachers unions—are notorious for keeping even bad workers on the payroll. But while bad teaching may not be a good enough reason to fire a teacher, Heritage’s James Sherk reports, political disagreement is enough
  reason to fire a union worker. “Duane Hammond . . . had a job helping
  build a stage for an upcoming Obama rally in Los Angeles,”
  writes the Heritage labor expert. “His union fired him because he wore
  a sweatshirt with the name ‘Bush’ on it.”
• National Public Radio, a supposedly unbiased company that receives government funding, has come under attack for its recent politically-motivated firing of Juan Williams. Heritage’s Mike Gonzalez examines this situation and concludes: “They present themselves as an objective media organization, but they’re not.”
• “In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, they came out by the thousands. They were some of
  the first on the scene and among the last to leave,” writes James Carafano
  about the State Defense Forces, groups
  of state volunteer militia that provide invaluable disaster relief
  without very much funding. Because of their low-cost, invaluable
  assistance,
  Heritage’s expert on homeland security believes that these forces
  should be expanded in various states.
• “When King George III asked if the colonists could boycott British goods, his
  solicitor general informed him it was beyond the power of the king to
  mandate
  that his subjects buy specific goods like tea,” writes Heritage’s Conn Carroll.
  Virginia’s Attorney General Ken
  Cuccinelli compared this to the new mandate to buy health insurance.
  “The power of the United States government under the Constitution must
  be
  smaller than that of King George,” Cuccinelli said.

Or, at least change their rules and regulations and add TERM LIMITS !

[Darlene Littlejohn]

Well, Sandra, most of us can disagree and still be friends... However, some people are vicious when you don't totally agree with them. Mostly I get it from the "left" but I have seen some from the "right" too.

[Sandra]

That is what is so great about us Americans, we can disagree and still be friends... Every other position has term limits and I think they all should, it may just help stop the greed,power and the corruption?

[Darlene Littlejohn]

I would vote against term limits, but in favor of them having the same healthcare as we do. Really, though, we can talk about this later, because right now we need to get the Obama agenda stopped. I need to get on with helping our iCaucus candidates.

[Sandra]

Well said Phillip and they should have the same heathcare we have....

[PHILIP SCHNEIDER]

I have examined the lobbying relationship and extended terms of politicians in office.
There is a direct correlation between corruption, pork barrel spending, government waste, votes exchanged for donations when a legislator holds office for years and years.
TERM limits would eliminate almost all of that.
I don't like the idea of professional politicians, life time politicians. I would rather have people run for office knowing they were going to SERVE for two or three terms.
The current system of pensions, health care, and benefits paid to legislators is outrageous. With their reelections guaranteed by lobbyists and other benefactors they can give themselves a kings ransom PLUS the fact they exempt themselves from requirements they place on us. Term limited legislators wouldn't be able to do that.

[Darlene Littlejohn]

I disagree. I will try to educate, but if that's what they want, well, I will have to deal with it. The fewer rules, the better for me.

[Sandra]

Unfortunately Darlene, with no term limits on them, we get people like Specter, Reid, Boxer, WaltersPelosi etc. Most people are stupid, they do not check things out, they take the lazy way and believe the crappy ads, almost like they have no brain that God gave them, I for one am tired of being stuck with other peoples poor choices.. If they haven't figured out that they are being lied to and used, then shame on them.. why should the rest of us suffer to?

[Darlene Littlejohn]

Sounds OK to me except Term Limits which I am NOT in favor of. I can "term limit" them at the ballot box. I think if people are too stupid to do that, we get what we deserve.

[Sandra]

They need to start by delivering some honest work in DC. Sure some RINO's will get in, however, they all need to realize we are watching and we will hold them accountable! Repeal zero care, demand zeros records, stop the VAT, Cap and crap taxes and tighten the belt like we have to do! NO more pork, and set term limits as they should do, but will not this time around. Vote the bad apples out in 2012, maybe then they will pay attention to us and not the lobbyists that get and give special favors...