So, I registered with the Nunn for Senate campaign and one of the first communications, after the money solicitations, was an invitation to sign on to her "5 ways to fix Washington" campaign.
Michelle Nunn's 5 ways to fix Washington
That's not just a mealy-mouthed agenda, it sounds exactly like what we'd expect from a Republican -- a person focused on restricting people, rather than providing for the general welfare by managing Mother Nature's cupboard in the interest of sustainable sustenance and comfort.
Never mind that our nation's capital is a place and, as such, relatively "fixed." Some parts of Washington are broken, in the sense that the built environment has been neglected, but that's not addressed in any of the 5 "ways."
None of the five proposals involve direct action.
1. Place a lifetime ban on members of Congress becoming lobbyists
That's both un-Constitutional and unworkable. Every person has a right to petition Congress, freedom of speech. Punishing people for doing the right thing is wrong.
2. Require members of Congress to pass a budget before they get their paychecks
Members of Congress do have duties and obligations. Voting to approve a budget is not one of them because the budget is an exercise in wishful thinking, having no import in the law. State Constitutions may require a budget to authorize spending, but on the federal level, budget deliberations aim to distract public and press, while appropriations are arranged behind closed doors.
3. Put a price tag on every new bill, so that taxpayers know how much proposals will cost
Not only is Congress the originator of all dollars, the cost of goods and services cannot be specified precisely ahead of time, nor should the number of dollars be a determining factor. Dollars should be a measuring tool, not a cutting tool--inches, not scissors.
4. End secret, unlimited special-interest spending in elections
Congress was established to carry out duties and obligations on behalf of the people within its jurisdiction, not to outlaw good behavior. In a monetized society, such as ours, relying on currency (rather than memory) to mediate and memorialize our transactions is routine and beneficial. Using the law to make beneficial behavior a crime is not only perverse, but abusive. That even the original Constitution, in declaring the subordination of some humans as property to be legal, did that, does not make it right. One would think the recent experience with DADT and DOMA would have affirmed that it is wrong to outlaw good behavior.
On the other hand, since Congress is the originator of our dollars, it can define how it is to be used or not. Presumably the whole process of hiring public office holders could be declared exempt and citizens could revert to relying on volunteers and word of mouth, with no money being spent by anyone at all. That would satisfy the equal treatment requirements.
5. Include a personal pledge to meet with every senator in my first year and bring legislators together.
Presumably, members of the Senate retain the freedom of association and cannot be forced to "meet" or be brought together. This is an amateurish proposal. "Personal pledge" is not an improvement over "personal responsibility." Both refer to potential, rather than any particular action. Not to mention that they are reactive.
The email sums it all up with:
These are ideas that can get Congress focused on solving problems and making a difference for citizens in Georgia and across the nation.
Even though ExxonMobile claims "all it takes is the idea," ideas do not DO anything. Nor is it a lack of focus that accounts for Congress creating problems for migrants and immigrants and residents by rationing and cutting and hiding our man-made and natural assets, instead of providing. The problem in Congress and many of our state legislative bodies is that the electeds do not know what stewardship means.
Stewardship in Georgia, for example, would insure that pulp mills and chemical plants do not dump waste into our streams and our air. A good steward of the people's assets is one that is not bought off by corporate contributions to campaign accounts or even a fancy lunch. A good steward is not self-serving because he's sold his service to his masters.
It is true that we need "a difference." What we need is people who are willing to serve -- with pay, of course. If they must be rulers, let them rule themselves.