REBUTTAL - Barkley

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Previous message: G Scott Aikens: "REBUTTAL - Wynia"

QUESTION #2 REBUTTAL - Dean Barkley:

Ms. Himelgrin's characterization of Congress as "...an institution devoted
to facilitating the exploitation and oppression of the working people in
the interests of enriching a handful of wealthy families" is close to the
mark.  Change "wealthy families" to "special interests" and you hit the
bull's eye.  However, I do not share her class warfare view of the world
and respectfully decline her invitation to her demonstration.

Ann Wynia and Rod Grams make several good points with which I agree.
Ms. Wynia correctly says, "...Congress is not responsive..." and correctly
cites special interests, obstructionists and petty partisan bickering
as contributing factors.  Mr. Grams correctly states, "Congress has
become a bloated institution which is more interested in serving itself
than the very people they are elected to serve.  Congressional reform
is long overdue."

Mr. Grams cites several reform measures which I also advocate including 
term limits, rotating congressional committee chairs, elimination of
unnecessary subcommittees and excessive congressional staff and 
requiring Congress to live under the same laws it places on others.  I
would add a lobbyist gift ban, which Mr. Grams opposes, and the 
elimination of pensions for members of Congress.  Our elected
representatives have looted the Treasury to provide obscene pensions for
themselves.  If elected, I will not accept a Congressional pension.

When it comes to government reform, it isn't enough to simply identify
the problem or author legislation.  In fact, such action by our elected
representatives is deceptive more often than not.  Sadly, most incumbents
have no intention of reforming Congress.  If the will to do so was 
there, reform would have happened by now.  The public isn't holding them
back.  Who else but Congress is hindering reform?

For real reform to occur (beyond the superficial tinkering Mr. Grams
credits himself with) legislation must be passed not just introduced.
For many in Congress, introducing reform bills is a marketing sham
designed to dupe the voters with statements like, "My support for reform
is proven by the fact I authored..."  Those statements are as meaningless
as most bills introduced in Congress.  What counts is what passes.

I ask both Mr. Grams and Ms. Wynia, how can you possibly expect voters
to believe you will reform anything when you are both up to your necks
in special interest campaign contributions?  What do you expect to give
in return for these massive amounts of money?  And how do you expect 
voters to take you seriously when you use this money to trash each other
in your TV ads?

Using this money this way speaks volumes about what voters can expect
if you are elected.  Not only do you obligate yourself to special
interests, you treat voters like children, insulting us with your
cartoon ads, misrepresentation and mindless bickering.  And you would
have us believe you are the ones to reform Congress?

I ask the E-DEBATE audience, who do you think will be the better 
reformer, one of those two or Dean Barkley who is not beholden to 
either major party and refuses special interest money?


Dean Barkley
Independence Party Candidate for Senate

• Previous message: G Scott Aikens: "REBUTTAL - Wynia"