RE: Please don't stop at campaign reform

[Al Kolwicz <AlKolwicz@qwest.net>]

Denise,

It is not my intention to in any way change the role or function of Federal Government.  It is definitely my intention to change the way that Legislators conduct the business of elections and the business of government.

By implementing a secure, high speed, wideband network for use by Congress and Senate, all meetings can be held online, and in the open where citizens can freely observe any of the meetings.  Unlike C-SPAN that can only publish a few channels of information, this approach would permit cost-effective broadcasting of all meetings.  

By making the sessions multi-way video, there would be no loss in quality of oral debate.  In addition, since the Legislator would be broadcasting from their own office, it would be convenient to obtain staff input during the meeting.

So, I hope that you see it is not my intent to dissolve the Institution of Federal Government -- but only to change how it is practiced.

WHY?  Today it is far easier for lobbiests (including the Fedeal Employees) to access Legislators than it is for constituents to reach their representatives.  This is wrong.  The primary contact should be the constituent, and not everybody else.

Now as far as the prioritization of line items.  It is true that an uncaring legislator would not support causes that demand charity.  But I would expect that the voice of the needy would be heard, and that either State and Local governments would pick up the challange, or the legislator would be traded (by voters) for a legislator who is more caring.

Today's budget process is very similar to giving each legislator a credit card that never needs to be paid for by the legislator.  This is wrong.  There is no stimulus to be frugal.

I once read that in the olddays, each legislator had to come back to their State and raise the mondy needed to operate the Federal Government.  Can you imagine the positive impact of such a requirement today?