News Qualifications of a Congressperson in 2010

[WhoWee]

Recently, Congressman John Conyers made a very interesting statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2301941/posts

"Congressman John Conyers Says There's No Purpose to Reading Health Bill
CNSNEWS/the lid ^ | 7/27/09 | The Lid

Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 9:56:25 AM by Shellybenoit

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

I've been thinking about his comments ever since. However, I've come to a different conclusion.

Why don't we elect people who can understand what they are reading?

With this said, I started wondering what the job description of a Congreeperson would look like if posted on a job site, like Monster or Career Builder, or if listed on the "Ladders" or another executive search board?

Why don't we compile a list of our expectations - the way an employer would.

I'll start:

1.) No felony convictions.

 

[WhoWee]

This is what I had in mind.
http://jobview.monster.com/Vice-President-Statistics-Actuarial-Services-Job-Bowie-MD-US-83410865.aspx

This is a Monster ad for an executive position in healthcare. Should the people writing legislation to govern this industry be expected to have comparable education?

By comparison, and after reading this, I don't believe the average Congressperson is competent enough to make decisions about healthcare reform.

"MedAssurant Inc

MedAssurant Inc



Job Summary

Company
MedAssurant Inc
Location
Bowie, MD 20716
Industries
Healthcare Services
Job Type
Full Time
Employee
Relevant Work Experience
7+​ to 10 Years
Education Level
Master's Degree
Career Level
Executive (SVP, VP, Department Head, etc)
Salary

Competitive

Vice President, Statistics and Actuarial Services
About the Job



MedAssurant, Inc.​ is currently seeking a Vice President of Statistics and Actuarial Services that desires to use their extensive background in healthcare analysis and statistics to lead our Statistical and Actuarial Services group and be a part of a company that is transforming the healthcare industry! Not only will you take the lead on the actuarial and statistical functions within our product design, development and implementation, you will have the unique opportunity to be involved in business development and the expansion of our Company’s business and product lines.​

Your experience with healthcare data and expertise with a broad range of statistical and analytical techniques will enable you to demonstrate your leadership ability in this area and manage a complex analytic function and a top notch analytics staff.​ You will be responsible for assuring that MedAssurant’s statistical and analytical work is aligned with best scientific practices, and that the information provided by the Statistical and Actuarial Services group is timely, trusted, and useful to internal and external customers.​

Responsibilities:





* Lead, and be ultimately responsible for, all actuarial and statistical capabilities, tracking and reporting of data analytics, quality, compliance, outcomes, product development, and financial performance pertaining to the Company’s product offerings in a timely, accurate, and comprehensive fashion.​
* Lead, and be ultimately responsible for, the analytical, actuarial and statistical functions within the areas of product design, development, implementation, and business development for the Company's business and product lines.​
* Coordinate with all resources and manage personnel to provide all actuarial and statistical services necessary to support the Company’s client relationships, strategies, products and service lines.​
* Participate with Company leadership in the strategic development of initiatives to identify product and system enhancements which may improve client appeal, process flow, overall Company business function, industry reputation, and financial performance.​
* Adhere to all confidentiality and HIPAA requirements as outlined within the Company’s Operating Policies and Procedures and fulfill the responsibilities and/​or duties that may be reasonably provided by MedAssurant for the purpose of achieving operational and financial success of the Company.​

Job Requirements:



* 5-10 years experience with analysis of health care data, including analysis of clinical outcomes, financial outcomes, and health care process.​ Experience working with large healthcare databases.​
* Demonstrated leadership ability and success managing a complex analytic function and staff.​ Ability to build and to grow a management function.​
* Experience working with systems development and information technology personnel.​
* A positive, flexible and self-motivated attitude, with excellent teamwork skills in a multi-disciplinary environment.​
* Strong work ethic and good interpersonal and project management skills.​
* Excellent written and verbal communication skills.​

Who we are:



MedAssurant, Inc.​ is a leading provider of nationwide medical data abstraction, analysis, and verification solutions for the U.​S.​ healthcare industry.​ MedAssurant delivers unparalleled and truly end-to-end solutions to address matters of quality of care, cost improvement and containment, risk adjustment, clinical outcomes analysis, and healthcare data verification.​



Originated in 1998 and headquartered outside of Washington, D.​C.​ in Bowie, Maryland, MedAssurant also maintains primary offices in Annapolis, MD and Lansing, Michigan and other offices in many markets around the country.​ Employee field review staff and operations are maintained in all 48 continental States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.​ Our track record of superior customer service is the result of a commitment to excellence shared by all of MedAssurant personnel.​ This commitment is fostered by a dynamic, energetic, and team-oriented company culture.​ We offer competitive salaries and a comprehensive benefits package including Medical and Dental insurance, 401(k) plan, Life Insurance, Vision and Prescription Coverage, PTO (paid time off) and seven corporate holidays.​ If you enjoy a culture that rewards passion and creativity, we want to hear from you! "

 

[Al68]

Recently, Congressman John Conyers made a very interesting statement.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2301941/posts

"Congressman John Conyers Says There's No Purpose to Reading Health Bill
CNSNEWS/the lid ^ | 7/27/09 | The Lid

Posted on Monday, July 27, 2009 9:56:25 AM by Shellybenoit

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

I've been thinking about his comments ever since. However, I've come to a different conclusion.

Why don't we elect people who can understand what they are reading?

It's amazing that a congressman would claim an inability to understand a bill, but favor it becoming law and expect others to understand and follow it. And ignorance of the law is supposedly no excuse for breaking it, even when it's passed in ignorance by people who know it will be impossible for those expected to follow it to understand it.

Some would argue that congressmen should not be expected to be an expert in every subject, and I agree. I don't expect them to understand every subject. Just the laws they pass.

Of course that would be a hindrance to passing so many huge, complicated, burdensome laws. Wouldn't that be horrible?

 

[WhoWee]

I'm very serious about this. Our elected officials have a great deal of control over our lives. Some of them, Obama included, have no prior executive experience. Others, like Kennedy, Dingell, and Gore hail from a "ruling class" of politicians - it's a family business.

I've been thinking about the CEO's being grilled by Congress over the past few months as well. It would be interesting to see a real debate between the CEO's and the same Congressional leaders - without the protocol and authority of the Government. Instead of debating each other, maybe candidates should debate business leaders?

 

[WhoWee]

Here's a bit on House Speaker Nancy Pelosu - 2nd in line to be President of the United States. http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/nancypelosi.html

"Nancy Pelosi
U.S. Representative

Born: 26 March 1940
Birthplace: Baltimore, Maryland
Best known as: The first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Name at birth: Nancy D'Alesandro

Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 4 January 2007. She is the first woman ever to hold the post. Pelosi graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C. in 1962, then married businessman Paul Pelosi and moved to his native San Francisco. She worked her way up through the state Democratic party before entering Congress after a special election in California's 8th District in 1987. The 8th District, which includes much of San Francisco, is considered one of the more liberal districts in the United States, and thus Pelosi has often been accused of extreme liberalism by her political opponents. She was named Minority Leader in November of 2002, becoming the first woman to lead a political party in the history of the U.S. Congress. After Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in the national elections of November 2006, she was elected Speaker of the House for the session beginning in 2007.
Extra credit: Pelosi is the mother of filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, director of the documentaries Journeys With George (2002, with George W. Bush) and Friends of God (2007, featuring Ted Haggard)... Nancy Pelosi was first elected to congress in a special election to replace Representative Sala Burton, who died in office... Pelosi's father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. was a congressman from Maryland (1939-47) and mayor of Baltimore (1947-59). Her brother, Thomas J. D'Alesandro III, also was mayor of Baltimore from 1967-71."

 

[WhoWee]

This is fun - Harry Reid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

"Biography

Reid was born in Searchlight, Nevada, the son of a miner in the camp 50 miles southeast of Las Vegas. He attended Basic High School in Henderson, Nevada, where he played football and was an amateur boxer.[1] While at Basic he met future Nevada governor Mike O'Callaghan, who was a teacher there. Reid attended Southern Utah University and Utah State University. He then got his juris doctor from George Washington University, while paying for law school by working for the United States Capitol Police. Reid became Henderson's city attorney after law school, then a state assemblyman. At age 30, Reid was chosen by O'Callaghan as his running mate for Nevada's lieutenant governor.
[edit] Political career: 1966–2009
Further information: Electoral history of Harry Reid
[edit] Nevada politics: 1966–1981

Reid was elected to the Nevada State Assembly in 1966. He left after being elected lieutenant governor in 1970, the same year his mentor O'Callaghan was elected governor. He served in that office until 1974, when he ran for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Alan Bible. He lost by fewer than 600 votes to former Governor Paul Laxalt. In 1975, Reid ran for Las Vegas mayor and lost again, this time to Bill Briare.[2]

Reid then served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission from 1977 to 1981, a post that subjected him to death threats. Jack Gordon also tried to bribe Reid. Reid allowed the FBI to tape Gordon's attempt to bribe him with $12,000. Reid lost his temper and attempted to choke Gordon, "You son of a *****, you tried to bribe me!", and was pulled off by FBI agents. Gordon was convicted in federal court in 1979 and sentence to six months in prison.[3] In 1981, Reid's wife once found a bomb attached to one of their cars, a bomb Reid suspects was placed by Gordon.[3]
[edit] U.S. Representative: 1982–87

Prior to the 1980 census, Nevada had only one member in the United States House of Representatives, but population growth in the 1970s resulted in the state picking up a second district. Reid won the Democratic nomination for the 1st District, based in Las Vegas, in 1982, and easily won the general election. He served two terms in the House, from 1983 to 1987.
[edit] U.S. Senator: 1987–present

In 1986, Reid won the Democratic nomination for the seat of retiring two-term incumbent Paul Laxalt. He defeated former at-large Congressman Jim Santini, a Democrat who had turned Republican, in the November election. He coasted to reelection in 1992. However, he barely defeated 1st District Congressman John Ensign in 1998 in the midst of a statewide Republican sweep.

In 2004, Reid won reelection with 61 percent of the vote, gaining the endorsement of several Republicans.

Ensign was elected to Nevada's other Senate seat in 2000. He and Reid have a very good relationship, despite their bruising contest in 1998. The two frequently work together on Nevada issues.
[edit] Leadership

From 1999 to 2005, Reid served as Senate Democratic Whip. He served as minority whip from 1999 to 2001 and again from 2003 to 2005, and as majority whip from 2001 to 2003 (except for a brief period from January-May 2001). From 2001 to 2003, he served as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee.

Reid succeeded Tom Daschle as minority leader in 2005. He became majority leader after the 2006 elections.

Reid was re-elected Majority Leader by the Democratic caucus without an opposition on November 18, 2008, winning all 57 votes.[4]"

 

[WhoWee]

Now here's a guy with qualifications - a Harvard graduate. But other than teaching a little, what is his real world experience?

Barney Frank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

"Frank is the subject of an upcoming biography entitled Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman..."

"Early life

Frank was born Barnett Frank[9] to a Jewish family in Bayonne, New Jersey, one of four children of Sam and Elsie. Frank's father ran a Jersey City truck stop—a place Frank describes as "totally corrupt"—and served a year in prison, when Frank was 6 or 7, for refusing to testify to a grand jury against Frank's uncle.[10] Frank was educated at Harvard College, where he resided in Kirkland House and then Winthrop House, graduating in 1962. Frank's undergraduate studies were interrupted by the death of his father, and Frank took a year off to help resolve the family's affairs prior to his graduation.[10] He taught undergraduates at Harvard while studying for a Ph.D., but left in 1968 before completing the degree, to become Boston mayor Kevin White's Chief Assistant, a position he held for three years. He then served for a year as Administrative Assistant to Congressman Michael J. Harrington. Frank later graduated from Harvard Law School, in 1977, while serving as Massachusetts State Representative.
Career

In 1972 Frank was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives where he served for eight years. While in state and local government, Frank taught part time at the University of Massachusetts Boston, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Boston University. He published numerous articles on politics and public affairs, and in 1992 he published Speaking Frankly, an essay on the role the Democratic Party should play in the 1990s.

In 1979, Frank was admitted to the bar in Massachusetts. A year later, he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 4th congressional district, hoping to succeed Father Robert Drinan, who had left Congress following a call by Pope John Paul II for priests to withdraw from political positions. In the Democratic primary held on September 16, 1980, Frank won 51.3 percent of the vote in a four-candidate field. His nearest opponent, Arthur J. Clark, won 45.9 percent and finished almost 4,500 votes behind.[11] As the Democratic nominee, Frank faced Republican Richard A. Jones in the general election and won narrowly, 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent.[12]
1981, Congressional Pictorial Directory - Frank's first term as Congressman

For his first term, Frank represented a district in the western and southern suburbs of Boston, anchored by Brookline and Newton, Massachusetts. However, in 1982, redistricting forced him to run against Republican Margaret Heckler, who represented a district centered on the South Coast, including Fall River and New Bedford. Although the newly configured district retained Frank's district number — the 4th — it was geographically more Heckler's district. Frank focused on Heckler's initial support for President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts, and won by 20 percentage points. He has not faced credible opposition since, and has been reelected thirteen times.[13][14]

Frank is known for his witty, self-deprecating sense of humor. He once famously quipped that he was unable to complete his review of the Starr Report detailing President Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky, complaining that it was "too much reading about heterosexual sex".[15] In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian gave Frank the title of the "brainiest", "funniest", and "most eloquent" member of the House.[16]

A 1990 investigation by the House Ethics Committee was prompted by Steve Gobie, a male hustler Frank befriended and housed, who attempted to profit on his allegations that Frank knew he was using the home to see clients. Frank confirmed that he had once paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia state probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that prostitution clients were visiting his apartment.[17][18] "Two years [after Frank fired Gobie], Gobie tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to the Washington Post. He then gave the story to the Washington Times for nothing, in hopes of getting a book contract for the male version of Mayflower Madam."[19] After the investigation, the Committee found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in the alleged illegal activity and dismissed all of Gobie's more scandalous claims; they recommended a reprimand for Frank using his congressional office to fix 33 of Gobie's parking tickets.[20][21] The House voted 408-18 to reprimand Frank.[22][23] The attempts to censure and expel Frank were led by Republican Larry Craig, whom Frank criticized for hypocrisy after Craig's own later arrest for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom.[24][25][26] Frank won re-election that year with 66 percent of the vote, and has won by larger margins ever since."

 

[f95toli]

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you seem to assume that a CEO of company is more well-informed about the details of the decisions they make than a politican(?)

Most people that are in some high level leadership role don't know -and are not expected to know- much about details. They always rely on others to give them the necessary information. This is why it so much easier for them to move from one type of business to another than for an "average" worker.

Also, requiring politicians to understand all the details of a law is quite unreasonable. The problem is that a law is something very different than a policy, the former is ideally watertight and without loopholes whereas the latter is all about intentions. Someone who e.g. writes a political speech can do so knowing that there won't be any army of lawyers waiting to go over it to find a small inconsistency that they can exploit.
The "problem" with a law is that at the end of the day it is the actual text that matters and not the intentions of whoever wrote the text (which is why laws are very different from any other type of text). This is the main reason why laws are so complicated, it is also the reason why you DO need legal experts to tell you exactly what they mean.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you seem to assume that a CEO of company is more well-informed about the details of the decisions they make than a politican(?)

Most people that are in some high level leadership role don't know -and are not expected to know- much about details. They always rely on others to give them the necessary information. This is why it so much easier for them to move from one type of business to another than for an "average" worker.

Also, requiring politicians to understand all the details of a law is quite unreasonable. The problem is that a law is something very different than a policy, the former is ideally watertight and without loopholes whereas the latter is all about intentions. Someone who e.g. writes a political speech can do so knowing that there won't be any army of lawyers waiting to go over it to find a small inconsistency that they can exploit.
The "problem" with a law is that at the end of the day it is the actual text that matters and not the intentions of whoever wrote the text (which is why laws are very different from any other type of text). This is the main reason why laws are so complicated, it is also the reason why you DO need legal experts to tell you exactly what they mean.

We expect citizens to understand the laws that govern them. We expect CEO's to spend whatever sums necessary to abide by the laws Congress imposes.

I expect an elected official to read EVERY word of a Bill. I expect the elected official to hire experts to explain every sentence that he doesn't understand. I expect an elected official to do his job.

Maybe the question is who is writing the Bills and do they understand the contents?

 

[Cyrus]

We expect citizens to understand the laws that govern them. We expect CEO's to spend whatever sums necessary to abide by the laws Congress imposes.

I expect an elected official to read EVERY word of a Bill. I expect the elected official to hire experts to explain every sentence that he doesn't understand. I expect an elected official to do his job.

Maybe the question is who is writing the Bills and do they understand the contents?

Ugh, no WhoWee...no. A congressman has a staff of lawyers and speech writers for a reason. Their job is to meet with people from their district that they reperesent.

 

[turbo]

I think the basic flaw in your argument is that you seem to assume that a CEO of company is more well-informed about the details of the decisions they make than a politican(?)

Most people that are in some high level leadership role don't know -and are not expected to know- much about details. They always rely on others to give them the necessary information. This is why it so much easier for them to move from one type of business to another than for an "average" worker.

When I was running SD Warren's newest high-end paper machine, the CEO of Scott (parent company) toured the place and came into the control room to look around. I asked him why the company was spending mega-bucks to build a new high-loft (think Charmine) tissue machine in Washington state, when Scott tissue in the 1000-sheet roll was the best-selling tissue east of the Mississippi. Why take on P&G on their home turf instead of just stealing the market with a superior product? He couldn't make a cogent argument for the company's bone-headed decision, and that was sad. He was on the boards of many companies making consumer goods (including Campbell's soups) but didn't have a bit of technical expertise in the company he was heading, nor did he seem to have any real appreciation for the marketing of our products.

 

[WhoWee]

When I was running SD Warren's newest high-end paper machine, the CEO of Scott (parent company) toured the place and came into the control room to look around. I asked him why the company was spending mega-bucks to build a new high-loft (think Charmine) tissue machine in Washington state, when Scott tissue in the 1000-sheet roll was the best-selling tissue east of the Mississippi. Why take on P&G on their home turf instead of just stealing the market with a superior product? He couldn't make a cogent argument for the company's bone-headed decision, and that was sad. He was on the boards of many companies making consumer goods (including Campbell's soups) but didn't have a bit of technical expertise in the company he was heading, nor did he seem to have any real appreciation for the marketing of our products.

It makes you wonder why he was taking a tour. I had a similar experience when I was in my early 20's. I had been with a company for about 4 years and earned a mid-level management position. The new President was touring the facilities (he was touted as having 20 years of industry experience) and made an effort to talk to everyone. That part was good, the bad part was that nearly everyone on the floor realized they new more about the operation than he did - it took us about 6 months to convince everyone that he was "up to speed". I like old sayings - the relevant one here might be "familiarity breeds contempt" (in my example specifically).

 

[turbo]

It makes you wonder why he was taking a tour.

Just to be able to say he saw the place, I guess. It's certain that he didn't learn enough to pay for his trip from Chester, PA to Skowhegan, ME. Scott Paper and their fine-paper subsidiary SD Warren had a stranglehold on portions of the paper industry, but by the time the idiots in the head office got playing "me too" putting out directly competitive products and butting heads with other consumer-products companies, they had squandered their advantages in the industry. When the economy is soaring, idiots play for short-term gains even if they are reducing their products to the level of commodities in the process. The smarter direction would have been to market the core products more intelligently while letting R&D develop even more innovative products. Let Kimberly-Clark, P&G and others beat each other up trying to out-do each other with "softness" and "sqeezability" etc, then start a modest ad-campaign demonstrating that one roll of Scott tissue has 4-5 times as many sheets as a whole 4-pack of the "soft" tissues.

The most profitable product made in Warren's Westbrook plant was release paper. Paper that is very strong with lots of "sizing" to make it dimensionally stable, then coated with a very slippery finish. The paper could be used as backing for adhesive labels, etc, and it could also be embossed. Embossed with appropriate patterns, it became a disposable substrate upon which patent leathers could be formed, giving the finished product the texture of cow-hide, alligator, etc. That is technology that other companies would have a hard time replicating - at least at the price point that we could hit.

The biggest problem with the big boys making the big bucks is that they never seemed to understand our technology and our position in the current market well enough to see our strengths and take advantage of them. To them, it all came down to short-term goals, market share, and stock price.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, if education and experience (quality) doesn't really matter to anyone, I guess lie detector tests are out of the question?

Term limits might be our only hope.

 

[turbo]

Term limits might be our only hope.

That's a really good idea, but the major parties would not let you enact them. Much of their power derives from the ability to award plum posts on the basis of seniority, longevity, and loyalty. Bring in a fresh crop of newbies every time there is an election, and the power of the parties would be diluted.

Not a bad thing, IMO, but then again I don't belong to either party and would prefer to see their powers diminished.

 

[WhoWee]

The biggest problem with the big boys making the big bucks is that they never seemed to understand our technology and our position in the current market well enough to see our strengths and take advantage of them. To them, it all came down to short-term goals, market share, and stock price.

For this my friend, we need another thread. Using a Wiki definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_capitalism to frame the statement.

"A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud. The terminology is used by economists and in popular culture. A free market requires protection of property rights, but no regulation, no subsidization, no single monetary system, and no governmental monopolies. It is the opposite of a controlled market, where the government regulates prices or how property is used."

As long as the (Quarterly) 90 day mentality exists, maximized potential of Free Market Capitalism will never be possible. The (Wall Street) market pressures to perform lead to short term schemes over long term investment strategies.

 

[WhoWee]

That's a really good idea, but the major parties would not let you enact them. Much of their power derives from the ability to award plum posts on the basis of seniority, longevity, and loyalty. Bring in a fresh crop of newbies every time there is an election, and the power of the parties would be diluted.

Not a bad thing, IMO, but then again I don't belong to either party and would prefer to see their powers diminished.

Someone presented a proposal this week to double the size of the House - sounded like another redistricting scheme. That aside, I'd be in favor of more seats in the House coupled with short term limits (and partial pensions). In this manner, I wouldn't care if Bozo the Clown was elected - as long as the people elected him from that District.

On the other hand, I'm for longer term limits in the Senate (maybe 12 years?), coupled with an expectation of higher standards. It might be reasonable to make them first serve in the House and earn eligibility for a Senate position.

Does anyone really believe Al Franken is the best candidate Minnesota can find? I know people in the Twin Cities that are mortified. Actually, I'd even be in favor of multi-million dollar compensation packages for Senators, to attract better talent and to hold them more accountable.

 

[skippy1729]

House of Representatives:

1. Set minimum standards: residency, age, citizenship, no criminal record, high school or GED.

2. Accept applications. Applicants agree to random drug testing.

3. Choose by lottery. Pay will be Minimum Wage plus travel and housing allowance.

4. At the END of the 2 year term, hold the election. Choices: Approve, Disapprove or No Opinion.

5. If Disapproval Votes are more than Approval Votes: A) by 10% then go to jail for one year, B) by 20% or more then go to jail for 5 years.

6. If Approval Votes are more than Disapproval Votes: A) by 10% then collect $250,000; B) by 20% or more then collect $500,000.

Skippy

 

[WhoWee]

Ugh, no WhoWee...no. A congressman has a staff of lawyers and speech writers for a reason. Their job is to meet with people from their district that they reperesent.

Basically, you are stating that a Congressperson's job is public relations, and their work is outsourced.

I find that unacceptable. I want my representatives to be qualified and engaged. I expect them to read the Bills before voting and make sure they understand every detail as well as the long term ramifications of their decisions.

I have no problem with them hiring as many people as necessary to explain complicated issues. I've been involved in complex business negotiations involving thousands of pages of documents. It is totally unacceptable to take anything for granted or to assume everything is "in order". At the end of the day, the executive must have confidence in the document he signs.

During the campaign, Obama said his door would be open and he'd be glad to go through every piece of legislation "line by line". I think we should hold him to that standard.

If a Congressperson isn't competent to work at that level - they shouldn't be employed at that level.

You're a smart guy, as a pilot, you would never trust your aircraft to someone who isn't competent or qualified to fly it. Why trust your Government to unqualified people who are more concerned with re-election than governance?

Until we begin to expect more from our elected officials, all we'll get is window dressing and double-talk.

 

[turbo]

I don't remember the title of the short story, but I probably read it in one of the many Sci-Fi fan magazines that I used to borrow from my friend's father. It was about a delegation from Earth (PTA members, I believe) that visited an extraterrestial human culture to study their methods for producing such smart, capable students. They were shocked to find out that there were some very harsh penalties for students that had not mastered advanced fields at very young ages.

What I liked about the story was that anybody could go to a local repository (like a high-tech PO box) and make a law. If the law was rescinded, and the person wanted to make another law, he or she would be required to leave a finger as a show of good faith when submitting the new law. I don't remember exactly, but if that law was rescinded, I think that the penalty was death.

It sure would focus some of our law-makers' minds if there was any personal responsibility (and consequences) related to their activities.

 

[WhoWee]

It sure would focus some of our law-makers' minds if there was any personal responsibility (and consequences) related to their activities.

I agree.

 

[Cyrus]

Basically, you are stating that a Congressperson's job is public relations, and their work is outsourced.

I find that unacceptable. I want my representatives to be qualified and engaged. I expect them to read the Bills before voting and make sure they understand every detail as well as the long term ramifications of their decisions.

That is beyond unreasonable: that is why they have a staff of lawyers.

I have no problem with them hiring as many people as necessary to explain complicated issues. I've been involved in complex business negotiations involving thousands of pages of documents. It is totally unacceptable to take anything for granted or to assume everything is "in order". At the end of the day, the executive must have confidence in the document he signs.

Ok, and that doesn't negate what I said. So I fail to see the point you're making here.

During the campaign, Obama said his door would be open and he'd be glad to go through every piece of legislation "line by line". I think we should hold him to that standard.

You've got to be joking me. This is beyond absurd: if you really think this, I have a bridge to sell you in NY.

If a Congressperson isn't competent to work at that level - they shouldn't be employed at that level.

...okay... sure...

You're a smart guy, as a pilot, you would never trust your aircraft to someone who isn't competent or qualified to fly it. Why trust your Government to unqualified people who are more concerned with re-election than governance?

This analogy makes no sense. Anyways, why do you think they are 'unqualified'? Again, this makes no sense. Are we to say they are 'unqualified' because they use speech writers? Obviously, the answer is no. Why do you think they should read thousands of pages of bills...

Until we begin to expect more from our elected officials, all we'll get is window dressing and double-talk.

...?

All of this 'big talk' really is divorced from reality. I will posit a better question for you: have congressmen ever read bills in their entirety?

 

[WhoWee]

Here's a bit on House Speaker Nancy Pelosu - 2nd in line to be President of the United States. http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/nancypelosi.html

"Nancy Pelosi
U.S. Representative

Born: 26 March 1940
Birthplace: Baltimore, Maryland
Best known as: The first female Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

Name at birth: Nancy D'Alesandro

Democrat Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 4 January 2007. She is the first woman ever to hold the post. Pelosi graduated from Trinity College in Washington, D.C. in 1962, then married businessman Paul Pelosi and moved to his native San Francisco. She worked her way up through the state Democratic party before entering Congress after a special election in California's 8th District in 1987. The 8th District, which includes much of San Francisco, is considered one of the more liberal districts in the United States, and thus Pelosi has often been accused of extreme liberalism by her political opponents. She was named Minority Leader in November of 2002, becoming the first woman to lead a political party in the history of the U.S. Congress. After Democrats won control of the House of Representatives in the national elections of November 2006, she was elected Speaker of the House for the session beginning in 2007.
Extra credit: Pelosi is the mother of filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, director of the documentaries Journeys With George (2002, with George W. Bush) and Friends of God (2007, featuring Ted Haggard)... Nancy Pelosi was first elected to congress in a special election to replace Representative Sala Burton, who died in office... Pelosi's father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr. was a congressman from Maryland (1939-47) and mayor of Baltimore (1947-59). Her brother, Thomas J. D'Alesandro III, also was mayor of Baltimore from 1967-71."

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/congress/p/nency_pelosi.htm This link adds that she was a stay at home mom prior to her first run.
A little more from Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi

This says she has a BA from Trinity
http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/id/447

http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Community/Nancy_Pelosi_Biography
http://speaker.house.gov/about?id=0001
http://www.answers.com/topic/nancy-pelosi

Here's a challenge to the entire PF community.

Take a minute and read this bio of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and 2nd in line to be President of the United States.

Next, compare YOUR resume to hers, education, work experience, political views, and anything else that matters to you in the voting booth.

Now honestly ask yourself who is more qualified to be President of the US - YOU or Nancy.

If you don't want to consider yourself, pick a PF staff member that you're familiar with and compare.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Astronuc, Evo, and Russ are all better qualified to be President than Nancy Pelosi - what say you?

 

[Astronuc]

I'll go out on a limb and say that Astronuc, Evo, and Russ are all better qualified to be President than Nancy Pelosi - what say you?

I have to recuse myself, but Evo and Russ are elligible in 2012.

If Evo wins then Kurdt can be First Dude.

 

[WhoWee]

I have to recuse myself, but Evo and Russ are elligible in 2012.

If Evo wins then Kurdt can be First Dude.

Can't say I blame you - I wouldn't want that job either.

 

[Cyrus]

Can't say I blame you - I wouldn't want that job either.

Hell: I would, it's an awesome job. I was just at congress last week. You get to meet all sorts of people there.

 

[Al68]

Also, requiring politicians to understand all the details of a law is quite unreasonable.

The real question is, then: Is it reasonable for them to require us to understand the details of the same law?

 

[WhoWee]

That is beyond unreasonable: that is why they have a staff of lawyers.

Ok, and that doesn't negate what I said. So I fail to see the point you're making here.

You've got to be joking me. This is beyond absurd: if you really think this, I have a bridge to sell you in NY.

...okay... sure...

This analogy makes no sense. Anyways, why do you think they are 'unqualified'? Again, this makes no sense. Are we to say they are 'unqualified' because they use speech writers? Obviously, the answer is no. Why do you think they should read thousands of pages of bills...
...?

All of this 'big talk' really is divorced from reality. I will posit a better question for you: have congressmen ever read bills in their entirety?

I can't believe your attitude - let the lawyers handle it? - the elected officials are too busy shaking hands and kissing babies and they aren't smart enough to understand the legislation anyway? That sir, is beyond unreasonable.

Have you ever considered the Bills are 1,000 pages long so that legislators have an excuse NOT to do their jobs or be accountable? The House doesn't HAVE to write 1,000 page documents - they choose to - it helps them slip in as much nonsense as possible.

If you've ever hired an attorney to review a business document or assist with negotiations, you'll know their job is to mark it up and show YOU the parts that concern them. They consult with YOU about the contents and YOU make a decision based upon their explanations. You don't just give lawyers free reign to do as they please. The executive needs to be engaged in the process. If the executive isn't competent, they shouldn't hold the position.

As for Obama - this is what he said on July 29, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Town-Hall-in-Raleigh-North-Carolina/

"So I just want everybody to know, Congress will have time to read the bill. They will have time to debate the bill. They will have all of August to review the various legislative proposals. When we come back in September, I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that."

I'm not the only one who thinks Congresspersons should actually read the Bills. It's their job.
http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws

" Part 1: What RTBA does and why

Most Congressmen are lawyers, and many others are businessmen. They know what “fiduciary responsibility” is. For Members of Congress, fiduciary responsibility means reading each word of every bill before they vote.

But Congress has not met this duty for a long time. Instead . . .

* They carelessly pass mammoth bills that none of them have read. Sometimes printed copies aren't even available when they vote!

* Often no one knows what these bills contain, or what they really do, or what they will really cost.

* Additions and deletions are made at the last minute, in secrecy.

* They combine unpopular proposals with popular measures that few in Congress want to oppose. (This practice is called “log-rolling.”)

* And votes are held with little debate or public notice.

* Oh, and once these bills are passed, and one of these unpopular proposals comes to light, they pretend to be shocked. “How did that get in there?” they say.

There's a basic principle at stake here. America was founded on the slogan, “No taxation without representation.” A similar slogan applies to this situation:
“No LEGISLATION without representation.”

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that those in Congress who vote on legislation they have not read, have not represented their constituents. They have misrepresented them.

And since Congress has repeatedly committed “legislation without representation,” strong measures to prohibit these Congressional misrepresentations are both justified and required. "

I'm not sure I agree with everything his group prescribes, but I think they are on the right track.

Then we have this from CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5110850.shtml


"With a full House vote just days away, the authors of the deal are still negotiating the details, the New York Times has reported. In a measure as complex as the energy bill -- which consists of around 1,000 pages -- the details can make a big difference.

"The fastest speed-readers and the most intelligent minds can't make informed decisions with that much time. How can Congress?" Sunlight Foundation Engagement Director Jake Brewer said today in a statement. "The problem here is the bill wasn't developed in the open in a committee, so no one -- including those members of Congress not on the Energy Committee -- knows how this latest version was created."

The foundation points out that while the bill, formally called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, was 946 pages long last week, it has ballooned to 1,201 pages in recent days with little explanation for how or why. The group is supporting a bill introduced last week that would require the House to post all non-emergency legislation online 72 hours before debate begins.

Hanna said Congress could benefit by keeping legislation simpler.

"Legislation has become so complex, you can really make the arugment the system the framers devised is broken," he said. "Most bills are voted upon without those voting understanding much of what's in it."

That's when members are forced to resort to speed readers. "It makes a mockery of the process," Hanna said. "

Like it or not, Congress can't just outsource their own jobs.

 

[Al68]

If the law was rescinded, and the person wanted to make another law, he or she would be required to leave a finger as a show of good faith when submitting the new law. I don't remember exactly, but if that law was rescinded, I think that the penalty was death.

This sounds good to me! Seriously, a stiff penalty for a congressperson that votes for a law that is found to violate the constitution seems reasonable.

"A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right." Barry Goldwater

I like this jewel from Goldwater: "I think every good Christian ought to kick Jerry Falwell right in the a$$."

 

[Cyrus]

I can't believe your attitude - let the lawyers handle it? - the elected officials are too busy shaking hands and kissing babies and they aren't smart enough to understand the legislation anyway? That sir, is beyond unreasonable.

You're right. Letting lawyers draft and review laws. What was I thinking...

FYI: It isn't about them not being "smart enough" to understand legislation. It's about them not having the time to read every last detail in a bill (That's why they have a staff of lawyers).


OoOOOo...ERRRRR...ARRRR...(Shakes fist in the air)..GRRRr. this is outrageous! Glenn Beck, O'Foolery, gather the troops! It's time for 9-13! (See, I even used red font to make it look angry. Grrrrr )

Now, poking fun of your weak argument aside: If you really want to make a point, then show that historically, congressmen have read every line in the bills they pass. Otherwise your complaint is as bogus as someone claiming they should write their own speeches. Then, and only then, will I take you seriously. So that there is no doubt in your mind: I am not arguing that it's good or bad that congressmen don't read the bills in their entirety. I'm simplying waiting for an argument that provides an answer using some facts about the historicity.

As for Pelosi (who I don't care for):

Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California's Eighth District in the House of Representatives.

Hmmmmmm, she's been in the house for 22 years and you're questioning her credientials. You must be kidding me. You have got to stop with these cartoon characterizations you post.

 

[Jasongreat]

Can't say I blame you - I wouldn't want that job either.

Thats exactly what I'm looking for in a politician, someone who doesn't want to be one. So far I have two candidates for the 2010 election WhoWee and astronuc.

 

[Al68]

FYI: It isn't about them not being "smart enough" to understand legislation. It's about them not having the time to read every last detail in a bill

I would agree with this if we were talking about a law that only applied to specialties, like a ban on removing tumors from the hypothalamus gland. It's fine that the average American couldn't understand the law, since it only applies to brain surgeons that know what a hypothalamus gland is.

But the context of the OP was a law that applies to average Americans and imposes penalties on average Americans for "failure to comply". If the average American is expected to comply with a law, there is no reason for a congressperson to approve it without reading and understanding it.

As far as having enough time, would it be the worst thing in the world if the number of laws passed by congress each year were limited to the number they actually had time to read?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Seriously, a stiff penalty for a congressperson that votes for a law that is found to violate the constitution seems reasonable.

The problem is that it's not always so obvious what will and will not violate the Constitution ahead of time. Have you ever heard of the supreme court decision Wickard v. Filburn? It held that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own consumption was engaged in interstate commerce.

Maybe it's me, but I don't think it's obvious that this would be the case.

 

[Al68]

The problem is that it's not always so obvious what will and will not violate the Constitution ahead of time. Have you ever heard of the supreme court decision Wickard v. Filburn? It held that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own consumption was engaged in interstate commerce.

While I agree that it's hard to predict how the courts will rule, making my suggestion unworkable, the fact is that many cases, like the one you cite, is obvious.

Presidents (we all know which) have chosen nominees based on their willingness to ignore the constitution in favor of their social and economic agendas, and declare obviously unconstitutional laws valid, knowing that their constituents won't know or care.

 

[WhoWee]

You're right. Letting lawyers draft and review laws. What was I thinking...

FYI: It isn't about them not being "smart enough" to understand legislation. It's about them not having the time to read every last detail in a bill (That's why they have a staff of lawyers).

OoOOOo...ERRRRR...ARRRR...(Shakes fist in the air)..GRRRr. this is outrageous! Glenn Beck, O'Foolery, gather the troops! It's time for 9-13! (See, I even used red font to make it look angry. Grrrrr )

Now, poking fun of your weak argument aside: If you really want to make a point, then show that historically, congressmen have read every line in the bills they pass. Otherwise your complaint is as bogus as someone claiming they should write their own speeches. Then, and only then, will I take you seriously. So that there is no doubt in your mind: I am not arguing that it's good or bad that congressmen don't read the bills in their entirety. I'm simplying waiting for an argument that provides an answer using some facts about the historicity.

As for Pelosi (who I don't care for):

Hmmmmmm, she's been in the house for 22 years and you're questioning her credientials. You must be kidding me. You have got to stop with these cartoon characterizations you post.

I think you agree that Congress needs to be held accountable. To analyze your statement, you believe the issues are so complicated that lawyers need to be involved - I get that.

But why doesn't Congress have time to read the legislation? This is their job. They find time to tour Iraq and Cuba and everywhere else.

As Al68 said "As far as having enough time, would it be the worst thing in the world if the number of laws passed by congress each year were limited to the number they actually had time to read? "

As for my weak argument in red. These are the words of Barack Obama on 7/29/09.

As for Obama - this is what he said on July 29, 2009.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...orth-Carolina/

"So I just want everybody to know, Congress will have time to read the bill. They will have time to debate the bill. They will have all of August to review the various legislative proposals. When we come back in September, I will be available to answer any question that members of Congress have. If they want to come over to the White House and go over line by line what's going on, I will be happy to do that."
What does this have to do with Fox commentators? Obviously Obama thinks Congress should read the Bills also - he's willing to make take the time to do it.

I believe Obama because I hold a man to his word. If I tell my employees, clients, vendors, wife, kids, neighbors, or anyone that I'm going to do something - I'm held accountable as well.

As for your challenge:
"If you really want to make a point, then show that historically, congressmen have read every line in the bills they pass. Otherwise your complaint is as bogus as someone claiming they should write their own speeches. Then, and only then, will I take you seriously. So that there is no doubt in your mind: I am not arguing that it's good or bad that congressmen don't read the bills in their entirety. I'm simplying waiting for an argument that provides an answer using some facts about the historicity."

So far I can't find evidence to support whether they read or don't read the legislation. This is a good link to research Bills.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsblink.html#anchor1

It appears Congress would have no reason not to read these Bills - 16th Congress, 1st session, 1820. The average length of the 124 pieces of legislation appears to be about 1 - 2 pages.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsb&fileName=001/llsb001.db&recNum=399

From the 103rd Congress, 1st Session 1993-1994. H.R.1 (To grant family and temporary medical leave under certain
circumstances.) is 58 pages.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:h1eh.txt.pdf

Historically, Bills were shorter in length. However, I can not prove or disprove that elected officials ever read them. The only conclusion I can draw from the evidence is that it used to be easier to read and understand legislation than it is now.

I want Congress to read the Bills. It is my opinion that if the Bills were shorter or the Congresspersons more competent, they could be expected to read and understand and understand the legislation to which they are voting - on our behalf.

As for speech writing, I certainly expect them to outline what they want to say and be familiar with the contents prior to reading from a teleprompter. Otherwise, I want to meet the "Puppetmaster" - and commence the vetting process.

Likewise, if Congress is allowing lawyers to "draft and review laws" as per your post, then I want to know more about these lawyers and their affiliations.

Since YOU brought up Fox commentators, Beck claims the Apollo Alliance designed the stimulus legislation. If it's true, maybe we should hold Apollo responsible for fraud and waste - since Congress didn't read the Bill.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/apollo-beck.php

Last, Nancy Pelosi has 22 years of Congressional experience - the voters obviously want her to represent them in Congress. However, from her bio, she has a BA (could be in basket-weaving? can't find specifics) and apparently worked in PR at some point. A lawyer once told me an attorney with 40 years of experience handling only divorce, has less credibility than an attorney with 4 years of criminal courtroom experience - in the context of criminal experience. In his analysis, after 4 years, you don't really learn anything new. I think, aside from the political power games, a Congressperson with 1 term is as qualified a legislator as a Congressperson with 10 terms.

I don't believe her specific experience qualifies Nancy Pelosi to be second in line to serve as President of the United States.

Her voting record
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000197/

"Voting with Party

Nancy Pelosi has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 100.0% of the time during the current Congress. This percentage does not include votes in which Pelosi did not vote. See a list of her votes against her party since 1991, a list of all Representatives in the 111th Congress with a similar score, or a full list of party voters."

Also
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400314
"Nancy Pelosi has sponsored 56 bills since Jan 16, 1991 of which 45 haven't made it out of committee and 4 were successfully enacted."

Based solely upon her experience (not her contacts), would you hire her to run YOUR company?

 

[Vanadium 50]

While I agree that it's hard to predict how the courts will rule, making my suggestion unworkable, the fact is that many cases, like the one you cite, is obvious.

Really? You think it's obvious that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use is engaged in interstate commerce? It sure wasn't obvious to me!

 

[Al68]

Really? You think it's obvious that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use is engaged in interstate commerce? It sure wasn't obvious to me!

No, the opposite. It's obvious that the farmer didn't engage in interstate commerce, but the court "determined" otherwise (violated their oath) to serve a political agenda.

 

[WhoWee]

This Left Wing Liberal organization has very specific requirements for experience. They appear to be very well managed.
http://site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_employment

"Employment, Internship and Volunteer Opportunities

People For the American Way is a nationwide advocacy organization that mobilizes its members and activists to fight for public policies that reflect the values of freedom, fairness, and equal opportunity; to champion constitutional protections and civil rights; to hold public officials accountable to those standards; and to promote strong democratic institutions, including a federal judiciary that upholds individual rights.

The affiliated People For the American Way Foundation conducts research, legal, and education work on behalf of First Amendment freedoms and democratic values; monitors, exposes, and challenges the Religious Right movement and its political allies; identifies, trains, and supports the next generation of progressive leaders through its Young People For youth leadership programs and its Young Elected Officials Network; and carries out nonpartisan voter education, registration, civic participation, and election protection activities.

People For the American Way and People For the American Way Foundation have a national office in Washington, D.C. and program staff who work in Florida and New York. We have a variety of staff positions, including field organizers, legislative and media representatives, internet strategists, research analysts, writers and administrative positions. Some are suitable for entry-level applicants. We also have internship opportunities for college students in several areas.

Members of our staff work in a dynamic professional and collaborative environment. We are pleased to offer them excellent benefits, including medical and dental plans, life and disability insurance, 401k plan and generous holiday and leave benefits.

If you are interested in helping us defend the democratic institutions and freedoms that are every American's birthright, please consider the following positions.

* Director, African American Religious Affairs
* Director, Young People For
* Capital Volunteers
* Internships

Director, African American Religious Affairs

People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF) is a national organization dedicated to defending constitutional and civil rights and promoting the democratic values of citizen participation, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and respect for diversity.

The Director of African American Religious Affairs is responsible for outreach efforts to build a stronger presence and institutional relationships with African American churches, organizations, leaders, and youth on the national, state and local levels. The Director will administer and staff the African American Ministers Leadership Council (AAMLC) and African American Ministers in Action (AAMIA) programs by coordinating grassroots activities, programs, and media outreach in order to increase the support and mobilization of the African American faith and surrounding communities around PFAWF issues. The director will focus on issue advocacy and leadership development around PFAWF issues. The position is based in Washington, DC.

Responsibilities:

* Oversee and manage the day-to-day operations of the African American Ministers Programs and the staff assigned to projects of the ministers programs.
* Build a diverse coalition of churches and organizations designed to ensure coordinated grassroots efforts around issues facing African American communities; mobilize members of the African American clergy to launch effective programs in their cities.
* Train, educate and empower local ministers on First Amendment issues as it relates to People For’s program agenda.
* Serve as one of the organization’s spokespersons on African American and related issues.
* Oversee development and management of campaigns and volunteers among the African American faith community.
* Develop and implement community, state and national level programs designed to engage the African American faith community in PFAWF initiatives.
* In consultation with the public policy department will maintain communication and develop outreach opportunities around faith messaging with local, state, and national elected and appointed leaders.
* Ensure that ministers programs actively engage ministers in public policy discussions related to PFAWF issues.
* Develop and maintain contacts with and lists of public officials, organizational leaders, and activists in assigned states.
* Maintain a high degree of knowledge of the political and issue concerns related to People For’s goals and projects.
* Oversee the writing of reports, letters, and action alerts; brief staff about programs and strategic partnerships.

Qualifications:

* Strategic thinker with rigorous intellect, creativity and entrepreneurial approach.
* Ability to develop plans and respond to new opportunities.
* Passionate interest in issues relating to the intersections of race, religion, values, and public policy.
* Demonstrated ability to lead and manage staff and programs.
* Excellent interpersonal skills; ability to work with wide variety of people and develop collaborative relationships.
* Familiarity with the elements of the Religious Right’s tactics and strategies.
* Excellent oral and written communication skills.
* Ability to work independently, to organize and manage a variety of projects and priorities simultaneously and effectively.
* Substantial experience working in African American communities with clergy, statewide and local organizations.
* Advocacy and social justice experience highly desirable.
* Ability and willingness to travel frequently and extensively.
* Degree in theology preferred.
* Strong commitment to People For the American Way Foundation’s issues agenda.

To apply: Send resume and statement of interest to Human Resources, People For the American Way Foundation, 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036. Email hr@pfaw.org.

People For the American Way Foundation is an equal opportunity employer.

September 2009

Director, Young People For

Young People For (YP4) is a progressive leadership development program focused on identifying, engaging, and empowering the next generation of progressive leaders. YP4 is dedicated to identifying young campus and community leaders, engaging them, and supporting them with the skills and resources they need to create change. Together, People For and YP4 are building a long-term network of emerging leaders committed to protecting our nation's fundamental rights and freedoms.

YP4 has three overarching priorities: 1) to diversity leadership in the progressive movement; 2) to support young leaders to effect change in their communities now; and 3) to ensure that young leaders are sustained in their leadership over the long term. The core of YP4 is our one-year fellowship for progressive college students, which supports and empowers them to create change now on their campuses and in their communities. The 2009 fellowship class & 150 fellows from 86 campuses in 29 states & is the next generation of YP4's growing network of over 650 alumni across the nation.

The position is located in Washington, DC and reports to the Director of Youth Leadership Programs.
Responsibilities:

* Ensure the planning and implementation of all YP4 programs and initiatives guided by our mission and values.
* Working with the Director of Youth Leadership Programs, establish annual program goals and quarterly benchmarks to achieve our vision.
* In collaboration with the Finance and Development Departments and the Director of Youth Leadership Programs, develop the annual budget and monitor monthly financial reports compared to budget.
* Working with the Development Department and Director of Youth Leadership Programs, assist in establishing and raising revenue goals, and assist in developing proposals and reports to investors.
* In collaboration with the Human Resources Department, manage staff recruitment, selection and evaluation to ensure that staff are adequately trained and supported in their professional development.
* Assist in outreach and coalition activities including strategic partnerships with local, state and national organizations.
* Manage a dynamic team of young professionals to ensure that staff are working towards weekly, quarterly and annual goals. Facilitate and coordinate weekly staff meetings, quarterly goal meetings and biannual retreats and reports.
* Serve as chief spokesperson for Young People For and represent YP4 on the Leadership Team of People For’s Youth Leadership Programs.

Qualifications:

* Demonstrated management skills including effective staff supervision and project planning. Ability to collaborate across departments and motivate and train a diverse team of people.
* Previous experience in developing and managing programs including fundraising and budget management.
* Extensive knowledge of youth leadership development and the larger progressive landscape.
* Previous grassroots/political/campus organizing experience.
* Excellent communication skills including strong writing and public speaking skills.
* Ability to communicate effectively with fellows and a diverse constituency.
* Ability to work effectively in a fast paced environment, be well organized, and effectively manage competing priorities and frequent deadlines.
* Previous grassroots/political/campus organizing experience.
* Demonstrated experience in developing partnerships and coalitions with progressive and or youth organizations.
* Ability to think creatively with an entrepreneurial approach.
* Commitment to progressive ideals and interest in People For’s issues and activities.

To apply: Send resume and statement of interest to Human Resources, People For the American Way Foundation, 2000 M Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036. Email hr@pfaw.org.

People For the American Way Foundation is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

August 2009
Capital Volunteers

If you live in the Washington DC area, become a Capital Volunteer and start working directly to combat intolerance and preserve constitutional freedoms! We are currently looking for individuals for the following volunteer position(s)."

I'm not sure they're REALLY an equal opportunity employer though, these requirements seem biased against otherwise qualified applicants.
" * Commitment to progressive ideals and interest in People For’s issues and activities."
and " * Strong commitment to People For the American Way Foundation’s issues agenda."

As per the original post, I think we the people should have higher expectations of our elected officials as well. Our politicians should be as passionate about their jobs as these folks.

 

[Jasongreat]

Really? You think it's obvious that a farmer growing his own wheat on his own land for his own use is engaged in interstate commerce? It sure wasn't obvious to me!

Sounds like we need to pick people that can understand basic english(that excludes most modern day lawyers). Interstate commerce and the general welfare clause are the two most mis-used phrases in the whole constitution. Interstate means between 2 or more states, not that someone growing their own food would interfere with interstate commerce since he no longer has to buy food off the market.
General Welfare means everybody, not certain groups, but everybody. If it doesn't help 100% of americans, such as national defense, it can't be considerered general welfare.
My list so far:
1) A person that doesn't think they are the one, and doesn't want to run for office.(little ambition)(humility)

2) A person that understands what words actually mean, not what they can mean.

3) People that don't love money, and think that money is an end all, but one who understands that money is a tool nothing more.(no avarice)

4) People that understand that their job is not to pass bills, but to read, understand, and then vote on bills accordingly.(This one will take a public that doesn't believe that government money is free, since most people would vote out somebody that doesn't bring the pork home, it will also take a government that doesn't believe its entitled to our money, since most people just want their politicians to bring home the money they had confiscated.)So we will need to change our tax system back to a voluntary contribution, instead of a forced contribution. I think that politicians would walk a lot softer if their revenues were based on peoples agreement with the plans put forth, and not their coercion. The way it is now politicians can buy our vote with our own money(that is if we allow them to do so).

5)Someone principled, that understand that sometimes the right vote is sometimes the vote going to get you booted from washington(because of the public listed above).
That was one of my favorite sayings of Calvin Coolidge, I have seen too many people come to washington and change the rest of their life to fit in in washington, then they can no longer afford to leave Washington, since they have to keep their job because they can no longer afford the life they are now living.(not an exact quote)
Or the fact that Calvin Coolidge stayed living in a two familiy house, throughout his presidency. A man that actually believes in what he says, and actually lives what he believes.

6) We also need politicians that understand that they work for us, not that we work for them.
Without government we could survive, without us the government could never survive.

7) Most of all we need politicians that understand we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. (Since that is the biggest justification ever, well the majority wants it so we must pass it. If you read some supreme court rulings you will see how many times this justification is used.)

So basically it just boils down to a person with principles, everything else comes from these core beliefs. It seems todays politicians' principles change with the weather or atleast with the vote. The one thing I have come to learn about life is the right choice is never the easiest one to make, it is more times than not the hardest decision you'll ever make, so can we atleast find some people with a backbone.

 

[BoomBoom]

Why don't we elect people who can understand what they are reading?

Perhaps this is because the majority of the American public don't bother to educate themselves on who they are voting for.

But I do agree that every congressperson and senator should read every word of every bill they vote on and understand it!