A U.S. District Judge ruled this week that Ken Lay's death in July required erasing his convictions earlier this May of 10 counts of fraud, conspiracy and lying to banks in two separate cases involving Enron. They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant's death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn't had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn't be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.

This weeks ruling prevents the government from seeking $43.5 million in ill-gotten gains prosecutors allege Mr. Lay pocketed by participating in Enron's fraud. The government could still pursue those gains in civil court, but they would have to compete with other litigants pursuing Mr. Lay's estate.

"On behalf of his estate, I'm really quite pleased with the ruling and glad this brings to a close the criminal proceeding against Mr. Lay," said Samuel Buffone, the attorney for Lay's estate.

Found guilty... yet not guilty until after all appeals heard.

Mr. Lay was found guilty and if his lawyers wish to continue appealing the judgement then they have every right to do that, but he was found to be guilty and his record should not be erased and the government should not be blocked from seeking monetary damages because he died. The crimes happened!

This decision and others further erode the value of judgements made by juries of our peers. Judges and inane upper court decisions such as the 2004 case, reduce or cancel the decisions made by jurors and set up the dangerous idea of someone isn't guilty until after they have completed the often-times long process of appeal. While I agree that everyone has the right to appeal, in this case and in many others, a jury spoke and the defendant found guilty should be sent to prison and not remain in society until every appeal has been turned down.

Our systems of justice have been watered-down over the last 40 years by an over-abundance of deference to and creation by appeal of non-existing rights in our Constitution for people found guilty. Laws are meant to protect the vast majority who follow them and punish those who do not.

The Democratic Party nominee for vice-president only 6 years ago must have changed his views a lot since then!

The recent decisions by prominent elected democratic party members in Congress not to support Senator Lieberman if he loses the Democratic Party nomination for the Senate and decides to run as an independent is disturbing, yet unfortunately not surprising.

Not supporting him because he has already served three consecutive terms (18 years) is the correct reason, but it's not theirs. They put political party first even though I suspect many believe he would be a better Senator than the most likely democratic party nominee.

Our country has a long tradition of its citizens voting as Americans first, while being a member of a particular political party is quite far down the list of what determines who someone votes for. Our current elected long-term out-of-touch members of Congress long ago lost sight of this with the lure and dreams of majority hierarchy dancing in their heads.

It's time to replace these long-term ineffective legislators with people who are closer to our oldest traditions and beliefs of short terms of service in Congress. It's time for limited term-limits for members of Congress.


leadersreport.com
Moderate and conservative political discourse

One would think that agreeing with your liberal minded Congressional nemesis might sound your internal conservative alarm bells. Not in the case of Speaker Hastert's recent romp to the White House to complain about the FBI searching the Capitol Hill office of Rep. Jefferson with a warrant provided by a federal judge. One would have thought from the Speaker's reaction that the FBI was breaking into the Congressman's office in the middle of the night without a warrant to snoop for damaging evidence of secret democratic party plans to take control of Texas.

The primary argument put forth by the Speaker of the House and other out-of-touch long-term legislators in Washington D.C. was that this had never happened before in the Constitution's 219-year history and it was an infringement on the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches. Never happening before was probably something that the congressman from Louisiana, Mr. Jefferson, was counting on after investigators found $95,000 hidden in his freezer at his home in August 2005 that matched the serial numbers of the $100 bills that the Congressman accepted from an undercover FBI agent.

And yes for the moment I'll skip past wondering why it takes the FBI 9 months "after" finding the money hidden in the Congressman's home before they decide to search his office. Sounds like plenty of out-of-line respect for a member of Congress...yet again.

There should be no thought on the part of the FBI or any other investigating unit about giving a member of Congress some slack when investigating suspected wrong-doing. The history of not searching a member of Congress' office before last weekend just proves that it's long overdue. I wonder how many cartons were moved out of offices this week collectively by all members of Congress. Probably just some late spring cleaning.

The new careerism job of Congress must be changed so that we elect more people that were not offended by the FBI searching a suspected and probably soon to be indicted Congressman's office. Changing the Constitution so that members of Congress have limited term-limits is the best way to reduce federal spending by both political parties, reduce the impact of lobbyists, and bring about better governing.

www.leadersreport.com
Conservative & moderate political discourse

While the right to vote is assured in our country, it's not common to every country in the world. We too often take for granted this blessing of liberty and ignore our opportunities to impact our communities, states, and country.

Creative novels delight the reader with tales of voter manipulation through electronic voting machines and political intrigue, but that fiction "can" come true today if we don't safeguard our treasured right to vote.

Each year a larger percentage of votes are cast across our nation with electronic voting machines. While we are assured that these methods are safe, our daily lives, now intertwined fully with computers, tells us that no electronic device is 100% safe or tamper-proof. Of all the responsibilities of business, government, and life that we transfer to the computer and other electronic devices, can't we agree that the counting of votes should not be included? Doesn't the interest in and the ability to corrupt election results become an increasing possibility as the precentage of votes cast by electronic means increases?

We should not trust such systems with this important role in democracy for the sake of speed, convenience, cost, or any other reasons. The cross-verification method used by poll workers for over 200 years is still the safest, most democratic, and best way to insure that democracy is well served. Let's not allow our "fast food and fast answers" culture to prevail in our voting process, too.

We should also adopt nationally some of the proposals suggested recently for reducing voter fraud by instituting a voter picture ID requirement and not allowing such a high percentage of people to vote absentee. Proof of a physical or job related inability to vote in person should be required "and" confirmed before a vote is finalized. A maximum of 20% of the population of a state should be allowed to vote absentee and that percentage should be much lower. To make the voting process easier and more a part of our national fabric of life for more people, federal general elections should be held on the first weekend of November.

These steps to reduce voting fraud and to safeguard voting can easily be made and will eliminate the new voting fraud possibilities now inherent in the system. The method and security of voting should permanently be added to our Constitution. A few suggestions below.

Upon passage of an amendment to the Constitution plus a minimum of one year, federal general elections shall take place on the first Saturday and Sunday in November.

No state, except at times of explicit declaration of war in effect by the same Congress for more than 2 months, shall allow more than 20% of registered voters to vote by absentee in any election that includes a federal position. No state shall allow electronic voting machines to represent more than 5% of the total voting volume generated in any election that includes a federal position.

Any state, except at times of explicit declaration of war by Congress, producing a voter turn-out of less than 60% of registered voters for any November general election that includes a federal position, shall lose 25% of its current federal fiscal year designated federal highway funds. Any state producing a voter turn-out of more than 75% of registered voters for any November general election that includes a federal position, shall equally divide with other qualified states all federal highway funds forfeited by states not meeting minimum voter turn-out. All new federal highway funds acquired by a state in this manner shall be used exclusively for highway projects.


www.leadersreport.com
Conservative & moderate political discourse

Article II section II of the Constitution deals with which appointments the President can make and gives the authority to the President for nominating judges for the Supreme Court and other federal courts. The only federal office voted on by the entire country, the Presidency, is being overruled by a minority of the members of the U.S. Senate, primarily Democrats, on federal court appointments.

Bucking the Constitution, traditions of the Senate, and the authority of a twice elected President, the Democrats in the Senate have pushed minority rule to new heights of outrage, not an easy task considering recent history of minority rule in our nation and Congress.

The Senate requires a minimum of 60 members approving to end debate on a subject and to allow for a vote to take place. This is supposedly, according only to lore now, "the greatest deliberative legislative body in the world." Minority rules too often. President Bush has several nominees to the federal court and appellate courts that the minority in the Senate has never given the minimum amount of respect to by allowing an up or down vote. Political and partisan gamesmanship, only slighlty muffled underneath by an ever-increasing level of hostility towards President Bush and his choices for judges, has the minority party successfully blocking the opportunity for a vote guaranteed by our Constitution. Local Senate rules do not overrule the Constitution, except in today's bizarre world of minority rule.

The Constitution has a few super-majority voting requirements dealing with amendments to the Constitution being suggested, or to override a Presidential veto, but these are final votes; the vote to end cloture requiring a 3/5 super-majority is a procedural vote that allows minority rule. This is not what the founding fathers suggested when they included in the Constitution Article I, section V,  "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Proceedings is the key word.

The majority in the Senate have allowed this shameful behavior to continue by not requiring the minority to actually filibuster each nominee; instead the majority just continually request cloture votes. The uncomfortable time-consuming measures required of the majority members in pushing the minority to actually filibuster are deemed to be too much work and too much of an inconvenience. I suppose too much time lost with lobbyists is the downside view of too many of our long-term legislators. The members of the majority should stand up and work for what's right and damn the inconvenience. Right equals might!

Make the members of the minority stand up on the floor of the Senate and explain their reasons for thwarting the Constitution and don't allow any more work to be done on the Senate floor until they allow for the federal court nominees to be given an up or down vote. The majority has the Constitution, tradition, and principal on their side. The minority is counting on the press and Americans not to care enough about the federal court positions, but the minority did allow the recent Supreme Court nominees to receive an up or down vote because those positions are deemed of sufficient value by the press and the nation, and the minority's un-democratic maneuvers would not work.

It can be argued that the federal courts have a larger influence on America than the Supreme Court. The federal courts produce far more decisions and are more abt not to follow the moderate to conservative leanings of our nation and legislate from the bench. We've seen this time and time again. The minority in the Senate agrees with judges legislating from the bench because this is their only way to fight the Presidential ballot box that they usually lose.

We the people need to stop this un-democratic process by the minority in this Senate and in any future Senate, whether made up of Democrats or Republicans, by changing the Constitution. A few suggestions below.


Consent by the Senate to a new member to the Supreme Court shall be given by a majority plus two votes of members. A vote of consent or non-consent on a nominee to the Supreme Court, unless withdrawn by the President of the United States, shall take place in the Senate within 6 months of a voluntary end of service, Section I end of service, or death of a member.

Consent by the Senate to a new member to a U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal or U.S. Federal District Court shall be given by a majority plus one vote of members. A vote of consent or non-consent on a nominee to a U.S. Appellate Court or U.S. Federal Court, unless withdrawn by the President of the United States, shall take place in the Senate within 9 months of a voluntary end of service, Section IV end of service, or death of a member.


www.leadersreport.com
Conservative & moderate political discourse

The U.S. didn't invade the Soviet Union before they developed the atomic bomb, nor did we before China, India, or Pakistan went nuclear. Is Iran somehow more dangerous to our security than those countries were at the time? Will Iran really sell nuclear bombs to terrorists or is Iran viewed more as a threat to the major oil producing nations of the region and thereby a threat to our need for oil? Just as we didn't invade those other countires, we shouldn't invade Iran, it's not our fight.

Most of the world's opinion of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons appears clear... just another genie let out of the bottle by some of the countries who already have the technology and Iran has the same rights to produce the weapon as any other country. Russia and Pakistan have been the biggest help this time in allowing another country into the nuclear family. Interestingly, currently both allies of ours.

Mutual assured destruction, or MAD, was a cold war theory that held that one side would not attack another because common destruction would fall upon both nuclear powered sides. Let MAD take hold in the Middle East just as it did and still does between India and Pakistan, the U.S. and China, and others.

Are the irrational rantings from Iran's leader towards Israel really worse than what the Soviet Union said about our country in the 1950's and early 1960's? Israel has the strongest and best trained military in the Middle East. The primary threat from Iran is to them and they should decide what measures to take against Iran if they feel sufficiently threatened. They did just that against Iraq over 20 years ago when they were attempting to build facilities for producing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. should not invade another Middle East country because we rely on oil and don't like their leaders. We should not be the sole protector of oil fields that service many countries with standing armies. Our Constitution divides the responsibilities of war making by giving the Congress the authority to declare it and the President the authority to lead it as Commander-in-Chief. Congress should not declare war against Iran and make it clear that the President doesn't have the authority to unilaterally try to destroy another nation's nuclear facilities when that nation hasn't attacked us or any of our allies in the Middle East.

There are many things that our country, along with a few allies, and other interested countries, can do to discourage Iran from continuing their nuclear ambitions. Most importantly, universal trade and banking sanctions instituted against Iran by the European Union, England, the Middle East, and the U.S. would put up a collective road block against the Iranian government that very few countries would try to engage.

We can't police the entire world and shouldn't try. At a time in history when more people are enjoying liberty and freedom than ever before, we have a limited responsibility as a free and wealthy nation to assist others when we can, punish countries that limit or prevent liberty with economic and political sanctions, and support the will of the world when appropriate on the most important issues being faced that don't directly affect our security. The current opinion of the world is that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons. I hope that opinion changes.


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

Once upon a time, not long ago, the ability to trade with the huge U.S. market place was considered a powerful tool in helping to convince nations to move towards a more democratic society and improve human rights. Today the U.S. has free trade agreements primarily with countries that follow those admirable guidelines.

Every non-democratic country wants the most powerful currency in the world, the U.S. dollar, but usually we have small trade deficits or none at all with them. Our annual trade deficit is nearing $200 billion with the largest communist country in the world...China. The long held theory in the diplomatic world is that nations that trade goods and services reduce the chances for war between them. Ok fine. We do want to prevent war with China and we want to trade with the most populated country on the planet. Trade needs to be thought of differently with China, though.

We are allowing a huge trade deficit with a country strongly under communist rule and offering limited human rights. We are supplying the leaders of China with what they treasure most to continue their nation's booming economic expansion and communist rule, the powerful U.S. dollar, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year at that.

Our trade policy with China should only offer fair and equal trade that requires no trade deficit and requires equal trading opportunities and appropriate currency valuations. We should not continue to assist the communist rulers of China grow and defend their government with our weak free trade policies that they often ignore. We should not continue to view China only as a nation of rice farmers and bicycle riders that need our help to bring them into the 20th century, but as a major economic competitor of ours today for oil supplies, a large military arms exporter, and still a communist ruled country that prefers North Korea, Cuba, and Iran over free nations.

China is rapidly moving out of the 20th century and we should stop providing them with the extra money to compete with us as long as they restrict rights and don't allow free elections. Has the "free traders speak" of NAFTA become so entrenched in Congress and the White House that they ignore their responsibilities to our economy and the withheld freedoms of over 1.5 billion people in China? Has free speech been completely replaced by free trade in our nations diplomatic policies?

I believe in free trade as an enabler to creating and strengthening democracies around the world. I agree that we can help poorer nations employ more people, bring a higher standard of living, save lives, and that we have a limited responsibility as the world's richest nation to do these things.

When President Bush recently said he believes that illegal immigrants do the jobs that Americans won't, we now better understand both the weak policy of enforcement of our southern border, compliance enforcement with businesses, and the weak free trade policy with a communist ruled country. Free trader speak has won in Washington.

We have the power of the ballot this November to take back the meaning of the words "free trade."


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

Democracies procrastinate, always have and probably always will. Free market and capitalism don't require a company to lose money producing oil when it costs more to find it and get it out of the ground than what it can be sold for. That is why new oil drilling was scarce from 1996 to 2005. The price of gas was too low, briefly below $1 a gallon in 1998 and below $1.75 most of the time until 2004.

In today's world of record oil company profits, high gas pump prices, and for the first time in most people's memory, actual insufficient supply worldwide to meet demand, it's easy to forget that gas was $1.50 a gallon 18 months ago. At that price oil companies had some renewed interest in exploring and drilling new wells. With supplies lacking because of increased demand, oil companies and oil producing nations will now go full-tilt towards drilling new wells, but adding enough supply to make a short term difference is unlikely. It will be at least 2 years before gasoline prices can be sustainable below $2.25 per gallon again. The sustainable below $2 per gallon is probably gone forever unless we have major new oil reserves discovered in the United States. Procrastination has caught up with us.

We dabble with alternative energy sources, ones that produce less results for usually a higher cost than oil, but neglect the most glaring crucial facts. Our nation can't operate without importing over 40% of its energy needs. We are captive to others wanting to sell to us and today fewer countries want to do that, while China and India are requiring a larger share of the oil pie. We are closing in on a time of critical mass and we must take control once and for all with an energy independence plan. Paying more for energy over the next 10 years to reach energy independence is acceptable.

Energy independence should finally be considered by Congress and the White House as an economic and national security issue. It has needed to be that for nearly 40 years, but procrastinators that we Democracies are, we have waited until the brink to seriously address it.

We must dramatically reduce the oil quotient in our future energy plans with a higher percentage of ethanol in the short term and either hydrogen, solar or electric power as the primary source or shared sources for automobiles 5-10 years from now. Cars and trucks are not the majority of our energy needs, however; the federal government must continue to lessen the restrictions on building new nuclear power plants, and expanding others. Solar power is the newer energy option that should be most pursued for homes and businesses.

Congress should pass "Race to Energy Independence" legislation making very large expenditures available to companies that will rapidly advance the scientific end of new energy research. Every incentive possible should be made available to the business community. This is one of the few things that federal government spending can do well: increase the rate of new discovery. It was done in the 1960's for the space program and this is more important and affects more Americans.

With energy independence we can stop sending more young Americans to die in the deserts of the Middle East to protect the supply of oil and the dictatorships they prop up. We have the talent and resources to bring about true energy independence much faster than most think with a committment from all. The greatest inventions of the 21st century will deal with medical advancement and energy independence. Will America lead the way again?

www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

The federal government's responsibilities should be drastically reduced in many areas, for many reasons, but primarily because it does a below average job with most things asked of it. However, the federal interstate highway system was one of the best ideas of the 20th century: a transportation, travel, and work project that revolutionalized travel and commerce in our nation. It reduced the cost of moving goods throughout the nation. The system should be expanded and it's something that we actually "want" the federal government to be involved with.

Anyone traveling the interstate highway system (IHS) today longs for the days when there were sufficient lanes for the traffic. As the federal highway administration strains to keep from getting even further behind in upgrading the IHS, I submit that the best way to improve the system involves doing what was done in the beginning of the project. Don't add lanes to present crowded highways, many near large or medium sized cities that involves huge costs in buying land and demolishing businesses and homes, but build a second IHS using the same process begun in the 1950's, consisting of completely new routes.

The old road building axiom that it costs twice as much to widen a road as it does to build a new one has us wasting billions of construction dollars each year expanding the current IHS, while still the average commute time grows longer across the nation and travel between states gets more congested and slow, wasting billions of dollars and tens of millions of gallons of gasoline.

We should design and build the second IHS for the 21st century that can easily answer the upcoming needs for alternative fuels for automobiles. Include sufficient space for an easy addition of fast rail services for both goods and commuting. Make the new IHS primarily for car traffic and let the big trucks use the current interstates.

The second IHS will be easier to build because we don't need as many miles of roads this time and it will not need to be built to the more expensive road surface standards necessary for heavy truck travel. Also, require that the new IHS pay for itself by charging tolls electronically with the latest technology that doesn't require a vehicle even to slow down.

A revenue neutral transportation, travel, and work project for the early 21st century that will reduce the cost of transporting goods throughout the nation.


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

We must change the view permeating our nation that retirement is supposed to begin when someone reaches the Social Security Administration's set age for receiving benefits. That number was never intended to represent a target retirement date, but it has become that and the Social Security program has long since reached a critical mass of inappropriately high benefits expectations. Better health care, therapies, and other conditions have expanded life expectancy way beyond what was expected when Social Security was set up in 1937.

Social Security has become the sacred cow of entitlements, a long term government promise of a modest retirement that was initially intended to be merely a fund for the old aged and disabled when it was approved in the 1930's. Far too many people in the 1930's experienced an extremely difficult end to their lives and Social Security was meant to assist them. Everyone contributed in the spirit of "it could happen to me when I'm old or disabled," it was a helping hand for some that needed help in their later years of life. Our long-term legislators have turned it into an impossible-to-sustain program with its current set up: a modest fund that taxed income at 1% in 1937 when the average life expectancy for someone born was 62 and the benefits would not be available until someone was 65.

It has become a program with the aim of providing sufficient retirement benefits so that someone can live in modest comfort during their later years of life. This aim is not affordable and not appropriate to our nation's tradtional work ethic. Is it any wonder why our savings rate has plummeted in the last thirty years. The opinion of "I don't need much money for retirement, Social Security will be there," has taken over for too many Americans.

By 1983 when Social Security saw its first major overhaul, the tax rate was 5.4% and life expectancy for those born that year was 74. The 1983 changes in the program raised the full benefit retirement age to 67 for those born after 1959. Self-employed workers were required to pay a combined rate equal to 100% of what employers and employees paid (formerly they paid only 75%). Benefits of higher-income workers would now be taxed, too. The no longer modest old aged fund was now agreeing to pay people for an average of 7 years longer than the average life expectancy.

The Social Security tax is now over 6% and life expectancy, that many believe will only continue to expand during the first half of this century, is now over 77 for someone born in 2002. Those starting to receive Social Security this year had a life expectancy of just over 62, but are living much longer.

President Bush last year to his credit tried to get the nation involved in addressing the impending deficits in the Social Security program. America didn't want to listen to the plan of taking some of the tax money and setting it aside in higher earning investment accounts. Primarily Democrats, but also many of our long-term non-term limited Republican legislators, wouldn't discuss touching, as former Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil called it, "the third rail of American politics." We must have more forward thinking or the next time Congress overhauls Social Security, the taxes will be increased even more, there will be only a minor increase in the retirement age, and the program still an afront to our nation's traditional work ethic.

We need not only to fix Social Security so it can meet most of its current promises, but return it to where it began, as a means to help those most in need, and bring it into the realities of the 21st century as far as life expectancy is concerned. This will not be done by our non-term limited legislators, far too many of whom are more interested in re-election than leading and governing. We must suggest to our Congressman and Senator that we will accept less generous Social Security benefits and that we will vote for those willing to represent that change.

The minimum age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits should be raised immediately to the following and later adjusted as life expectancy continues to go up. The option to receive less than full benefits at age 62 or at any age, should be cancelled.

Born in             Year to begin receiving benefits
1976-1980                          68   
1981-1985                          69
1986-1990                          70
1991-1995                          71
1996-2000                          73
2000-2005                          75

Only increasing the retirement benefits receiving age doesn't return the program to its roots. The tax rate should be reduced by half and the percentage of people taking part fully in paying the tax should increase. Everyone born after 1975 should receive 40% less in benefits than those born earlier and those born after 1985 should receive 50% less than those born prior to 1975. They will be paying less taxes and should receive benefits that are an assist, not a primary income.

The increase in the retirement age will have many favorable affects, not the least being that our savings rate will increase and the lower Social Security tax rate will also assist with that. With these changes we will be closer to a return to our traditional work ethic and the low federal government involvement society that served us well for over 150 years.

www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

My calculator only has spaces for 8 digits.

The chairman of Exxon, Lee Raymond, will receive a retirement package worth nearly $400 million. His company's stock price went up 500% during his 12 year reign and that is the new going rate for such performance. He said last year after a gallon of gas was routinely over $2, "that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand". Today with gas near $3 per gallon, roughly twice of what it was 1 1/2 years ago, the world is apparently demanding a huge increase in supply in a very short period of time. Seems odd to me too.

I would prefer to use my calculator to determine how many teachers or firefighters can be employed for a year on $400 million, but it only has room for 8 digits. The new frontier of corporate greed has bypassed my 5 year old calculator. In 1960 corporations paid 23% of all federal tax revenue. Today, only 10%. Glad to hear that all of the huge tax savings are being spent on worthwhile forward thinking exploration techniques and technology.

We're told that a lower corporate tax rate produces more investment and I agree with that to a point. We must not lose sight of the facts though: a company wants to earn more money and they will invest, receive investment money if necessary, and will add jobs to meet those desires if demand exists for their products. Let's stop treating the corporate tax rate as a 100% trickle-down mechanism of economic and job growth.

At a time when many large companies are decreasing health insurance coverage and eliminating pension funds for employees and most small companies can't afford to offer them at all, isn't it time for Congress to make corporations increase their share of the tax burden. Let's say until it gets to the point that we're reading about $10 million retirement packages and under $5 million dollar CEO salaries, after stock options. You know, back when my 8 digit calculator was sufficient.

Generating a slightly higher percentage of our federal government's tax revenues from corporate taxes, along with reducing the impossible to fully fund social program mandates, we can get much closer to balancing the budget.

I did the calculation the old fashioned way... 5,000 teachers and 5,000 firefighters for a year!


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

Multiple attempts at campaign finance reform from Congress in the last 30 years, none with entirely 100% good faith intentions, have failed to address a major corrupting element in deciding federal campaigns. It has become common for Congressional candidates, especially long-term incumbents, to accept more campaign money from outside their state than from within. The increased sophistication in national party fund raising, along with the desires of too many of our long-term representatives to get re-elected by having more to spend on crucial television ads, has made this common place. The same sometimes is the case for statewide ballot initiatives. Why do we allow this?

We are further weakening the already near vacant citizen-legislator tradition that served our nation well for over 150 years. This latest trend puts in serious jeopardy our entire system of representative government when people not from a Congressional district can be "the" deciding factor in who represents you in Congress. Which people do our representatives in the "Peoples House" or Senate really represent?

We don't require hundreds of lines of campaign finance reform verbiage in yet another bill from Congress that merely nibbles around the edges of the problem. Just a few sentences are necessary.

Section I, No national, state, regional or local political party nominee, a person requesting
acceptance or accepted to be placed on a ballot for the position of member of the U.S. House
of Representatives or U.S. Senate, shall accept monetary campaign contributions or other
support contributions from any person or other entity not residing in their state or having
a primary place of business within their state employing 1 or more persons.
Section II, A person, company, or other entity shall not contribute monetary or other
support contributions to a state-wide ballot initiative if said person, company, or other
entity does not reside in the state voting on the ballot initiative.

This will create better campaigns which require more time spent by the candidates in their district or state in front of the people they are suppose to represent. Then we will be closer to our representative governing tradition!


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

The parallels to the 1994 Congressional elections are surfacing. The anger over the attempt at socialized government health care by the Democrat controlled House of Representatives and President Clinton was a rallying point, as was the committed campaign by Newt Gingrich and other Republicans to end the 40 consecutive years of Democrat control in the House. Today, we see with ever increasing certainty that the sun is setting on this attempt at Congressional rule by the Republicans.

What started out so impressively with Congressional reform and budget restraint from 1995 to 2000, budget surpluses of over $350 billion, has regressed to the dark jungle of lightweight lobbyist reform, ineffective budgetary constraint, and deep helpings of pork. The elephant has gotten chubby, slow, and can't remember how it got up the hill.

The "People's House" will be different in 2007. I don't look forward to it as much as I did in 1995. Revolutions have their time and sometimes must reload and make their way out of the thick brush to form again in the clearing light of consensus, forward thinking ideals, and regain the realization that serving our nation in Washington D.C. is their goal, not getting re-elected.

The elephant will get up the hill again, but not until it has lost its largeness and becomes a majority of citizen-legislators again.


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

The founding fathers set out a plan for government in the young United States that suggested people got their power and rights from God and then the people loaned some of that power to their "republican style" of government. Even though our first Constitution didn't include term limits for Congress, the Executive or Judicial branches, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 considered them. It was thought at the time to be unnecessary because the common practice was to offer your services in Congress for 6 years or less, a citizen-legislator. Congress was not meant to be a career, but a brief service for your state and country and then you returned to your real job.

We need to change our loan agreement with those who choose to serve and are elected to Congress. Tougher safeguards need to be added to bring back better governing and close down the loophole on careerism in Washington D.C.

Limited term limits that reduce the number of consecutive years someone can serve in Congress and the number of years someone can serve during a specified time period should be added to our Constitution. A member of Congress should not serve more than 12 consecutive years nor more than 12 years in any 18 year period, thus bringing back the citizen-legislator who must return home and experience the life of their area before returning to represent people again in Washington D.C.

The phrase "term limits" increases some heartbeats because it blocks "we the people" from having the choice of electing someone for an unlimited number of years. I suggest limited term limits as a mechanism to offer people the opportunity to serve, return to where they came from, and then if desired and chosen again, return to Congress after a minimum number of years intervening.

I don't like restricting how many times I can vote for someone, but the effects of our current careerism Congress over the last 40 years is very clear. Extended stays in Congress produce less leadership, too much power in the hands of a few committee chairman for too many years, a higher percentage of our income being taxed and spent by the federal government, too many unfunded long term social programs, and too much interest in bringing home the pork by members of Congress because Congress has become a good gig.

We've allowed this to happen and we can fix it by changing our Constitution to reflect the challenges of the 21st century and beyond. Getting Congress to approve these changes is very doubtful, so we should utilize Article V of the Constitution that allows for 2/3 of all states to recommend a Constitutional Convention for the sole purpose of agreeing on the wording for amendments to then be agreed upon by 3/4 of the state legislatures. Congress and the President have no say in the changing of the Constitution under these guidelines of Article V. We the people can do it!

Visit www.leadersreport.com to get the website address and email address for your state legislator. Technology gives us the opportunity to make change faster in our country than ever before. Your help is needed.


www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

As the Senate stumbles over itself to create a viable immigration reform bill that is less than 90% amnesty, it might be of value to consider that twenty-one current members of the Senate were around in 1986, the last time the Congress passed a "non-amnesty" immigration "control" bill. That attempt wasn't called amnesty then either, but now most Senators around for Amnesty I, consider it amnesty today.

The compromise believed by Senate leaders to have been agreed to by a sufficient number of Senators on April 6th was rebuked on the floor of the Senate that same night for not allowing more than two opportunities for members to present and debate up to twenty amendments. Imagine that... a compromise heralded in a news conference by the Senate "leaders" a few hours earlier did not meet the standards of more than 60% of the members of the Senate, who wanted the supposed world's most deliberative body of government to actually deliberate and discuss the most important immigration bill in our nation's history. Do the leaders talk with their "followers" anymore? Are the leaders too busy considering how their efforts will relate to their presidential aspirations?

Fortunately, work by some newbies in the Senate brought about some needed debate and realities to the immigration topic. Senators Sessions (R, AL), Martinez (R, FL), and Graham (R, SC) bolted from their "leadership" and spoke on the floor for many other members, I suspect, that were incredulous to the compromise made by Senator Frist.

Unfortunately, using the word leadership seems less and less appropriate when discussing either the Republican or Democrat leaders in the Senate, and is a rapidly dying art in our nation's capital.

How healthy is it for our nation to have twenty-one Senators getting a second chance at deciding major immigration reform? Twenty-one members serving during at least four presidential administrations and several for many more than that. Twelve states have elected both of their current Senators for more than two consecutive terms (12 years) and 41 of 100 current Senators are in at least their third consecutive term. Do these states really expect representative governing by people that have lived only part-time in their state for the last 13 - 47 years?

The citizen legistator tradition our founding fathers presumed would continue and therefore didn't feel the need to include limitations of service for in the Constitution, is over. We need to add safeguards in the Constitution to recreate the citizen legislator that doesn't allow Congress to be a career, but instead an opportunity to serve briefly, and then return to from where he or she came. Over thirty years of deficit spending under both Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses make the need clear. We are a large and talented country, so having over 40% of the current Senate serving for at least the last 13 consecutive years is preventing both fresh new approaches by talented people and truly representative government.

We are allowing this to happen and we can fix it. We should make our long-term representatives short-term again.

www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

Now that the media feasting is about over dealing with Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga) allegedly punching a Capitol policeman, hopefully the important news to most of us that came from this incident can be discussed. Why are members of Congress not required to go through metal detectors inside the entrances to the Capitol building and the nearby Congressional office buildings?

In addition, any person with a member of Congress as they bypass the metal detectors security areas does not go through the security. This is just another in a long line of insulting steps taken by Congress that says to the people that sent them to Washington D.C., "we're too important and our time is more important than yours".

Members of Congress have an underground subway from their offices to the Capitol building and are able to avoid most security checks by this means, which is fine, but on the occasions when they're coming into the Capitol building or Congressional office buildings from other entrances they should wait in the security lines with everyone else.

Possibly too much of their time is taken up off Capitol Hill with paid meals by lobbyists and they can't be bothered with the same experiences of the people they are suppose to represent by standing in a security line.

Once again, short term hierarchy thinking by "our" long term public servants.

Read my suggestions at leadersreport.com and throughout this blog for making our representative government more representative of what we want by adding limited term limits to the U.S. Constitution. We should to make "our" long term public servants short term again.

www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse

The Great Wall - Maginot Line - The 38th Parallel
In a time of concerns about terrorists and illegal immigration at our borders, a dual 2,000 mile fence system with Mexico isn't the answer. It might make us feel more secure just as the Chinese and French felt with their walls of comfort. It could dramatically slow the flow of illegal immigration, but it won't prevent terrorists from entering our country.

It's unfortunate that our long term elected federal officials, hungry for re-election to the Congressional buffet, eager not to anger too many with the facts, are primarily selling the new wall as protection against terrorists. Terrorists will just get a boat and float up on our shores, come through Canada, or by plane. The next successful terrorism strike on our country won't be from anyone on a known terrorist list checked at a border crossing or an airport.

Enforcement of current law and adding more laws that prevent and penalize businesses severely for hiring illegal aliens is the best way to stop the flow. It's the law now but our elected federal government has been sold the idea that we can't operate a fast food restaurant, drive an 18-wheel truck, or operate a gas station without the help of illegal aliens. With teenager employment still over 10% and all unemployment over 4.7%, we have the labor.

It also comes down to a question of fairness and what we want to require of people choosing to live in America. We should expect people to want to follow our laws and choose America not only for the opportunities she offers, but to appreciate and respect America enough to learn our language and to proudly fly our flag. After passing the citizenship tests, every person is as much an American as those born here. That is our tradition and it served us well for over 200 years. Are we going to keep it or continue the expansion of requiring dual textbooks in our public schools be available, one for those who speak English and one for those who speak Spanish?

Who else has a wall? We can do better than building a wall around part of our country in the 21st century. Who else has needed a wall?

www.leadersreport.com
Moderate & conservative political discourse