Some unique campaign promises

The approval rating of Congress seems to be at or near an all time low.  Americans are disgusted with the policies, the procedures and the apparent aloofness displayed by our elected officials on a daily basis.

In fact, according to a recent poll,

…if such an option existed, half of those surveyed would gladly check a box on a ballot replacing every member of Congress at once.

So, it should come as no surprise that more and more candidates are throwing their hats into the ring and deciding to take on incumbents in the upcoming primaries and the November elections.  This utter frustration has apparently led to some interesting campaign promises.

In Texas, Nicholas Nix, a Socialist running as an independent argues that Congress should be paid no more than $7.25 per hour, the minimum wage.

If it is good for us, then why not them…

Independent House candidate, Jerry Odom of Omaha, Nebraska believes that congressmen should be required to account for their time by punching a time clock.  And, Jaynee Germond, an Oregon Republican, believes that all bills passed by Congress should have only one purpose.

That’s to ensure there are no more student-loan plans tucked into health-insurance bills, as was the case in the legislation enacted earlier this year.

Brian Miller, a Republican primary candidate in Arizona, wants each and every bill read aloud, and in full on the House floor.

Only congressmen who sit through the entire reading would be allowed to vote…[t]here won’t be any more 2,500-page bills,” predicts the 34-year-old Maj. Miller.

In Louisiana, Tony Gentile, running for the Senate as a Libertarian, is supporting rules that would require all members of Congress to spend 75% of their time in their home state.

They’d be safer from terror attacks, the theory goes, yet more vulnerable to the fury of their constituents.

And, finally, Andy Gross, a Republican running in an Arizona primary, and former member of the United States Army, wants all 535 members of Congress to live in a “to be built” barracks near the Capitol building.

If our military has to live in such a fashion, I think we congressmen should also…

Personally, I think each idea is worth considering.  But, does anyone think Congress will do so?

7 replies
  1. donh
    donh says:

    These "promises" mentioned above all seem like very petty uninspiring nickle and dime PEEVES, but then maybe Americans have become a small minded people.  We don't need Peevish politicians pushing vapid issues of symbolism.. We need people who can see the BIG picture and fight for meaningful substance . America needs  independance from global socialism and global jihad. We need cuts and consolidations in government. We need Laizze fairre freedom of market based economics and changes in immigration . Education reforms that will enforce the teaching of knowledge and skills over slavish political indoctrinations.

    • Delta
      Delta says:

      The 75% in home state one and the shorter bills were the ones I liked out of those, I think they should be spending more time in their home states listening to state issues, even if it is sitting in on state legislature sessions, and 2,500 pages for a bill is plain silly, especially for a party always for environmental issues, think of the paper!

      • donh
        donh says:

        Forcing them to read a bill or live at home does not make any differance if politicians  maintain the cold cruel heart of a fascist . They will still ignore the people and  march in lock step to the orders handed down from the cult leaders at the top. The only rule change that would really help is to make politicians more answerable to the people. A vote of confidance or easier access to recall or impeachment. Make it criminal for  bold face promises to be broken  once authority of office is won. Companies are subject to fraud laws of false advertising why not politicians? When  wide  polling majorities against a law are ignored in Congress , the government is illegitimate. We deserve more recourse than a paltry vote every 2-6 years. With the  omnipresence of modern  technology, a country can be lost in under 2 years. Maybe congressional  elections should be annual  and Senate terms 3 years. Keep them answerable to the people 24/7.

  2. GdavidH
    GdavidH says:

    I LOVE the "single purpose" rule proposal. I truly believe that most of our woes in the federal gov't came about by including irrelevent earmarks or strategical piggy-backing of issues in legislation.  This is the legislative equivalent of "Say what you mean and mean what you say" without the "separation of powers" issues raised by a line item veto.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      I'm with you!  We should add in that it be in readable English, rather than legalese.  Maybe monosyllabic for the politicians….

  3. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    Can it even be called an "approval" rating anymore?  How about a loathing index?  😉

  4. Odonna
    Odonna says:

    I agree absolutely with the single-issue, and shorter bills.  Would solve at least some of the corruption problems, and improve the  "transparency" that they give lip service to.  It would allow for them to get through only those proposals that are truly bipartisan, without slipping in all the garbage. 

    The desire to facilitate recalls against fraudulent/"illegitimate'  representatives is something we need/can do here in Connecticut, I believe.   

Comments are closed.