Will anyone join me in offering a heartfelt Good Riddance to one of Amtrak's greatest tormentors, Congressman John Mica, upon his defeat for yet another term in office?
https://ballotpedia.org/Florida%27s_7th_Congressional_District_election,_2016
After 23 years Florida's 7th district had enough.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
FloridaPolitics .com says
Outgoing Winter Park Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica is being talked about as a possible secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation in President-elect Donald Trump‘s administration.
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/227107-john-mica-talked-donald-trumps-u-s-secretary-transportation
However the NY Times says
Advisers with ties to other industries include Martin Whitmer who is overseeing “transportation and infrastructure” for the Trump transition. He is the chairman of a Washington law firm whose lobbying clients include the Association of American Railroads and the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
wanswheel FloridaPolitics .com says Outgoing Winter Park Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica is being talked about as a possible secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation in President-elect Donald Trump‘s administration. http://floridapolitics.com/archives/227107-john-mica-talked-donald-trumps-u-s-secretary-transportation However the NY Times says Advisers with ties to other industries include Martin Whitmer who is overseeing “transportation and infrastructure” for the Trump transition. He is the chairman of a Washington law firm whose lobbying clients include the Association of American Railroads and the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
God Help Amtrak if John Mica is picked. Amtrak would be done for good if that person gets the Job.
wanswheel FloridaPolitics .com says Outgoing Winter Park Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica is being talked about as a possible secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation in President-elect Donald Trump‘s administration. http://floridapolitics.com/archives/227107-john-mica-talked-donald-trumps-u-s-secretary-transportation
I read the article and concluded that Mica has a better background for the position than many who have held it.
Be careful what you wish for. Mica may go from ATK's foremost critic to ATK's executioner.
Mac
Please do not ofrget that under Busch Jr., Minetta wanted to be Amtrak's executioner but could not do it.
Anyway, please correct the title of this thread to "Ex-Congressman."
daveklepper Please do not ofrget that under Busch Jr., Minetta wanted to be Amtrak's executioner but could not do it. Anyway, please correct the title of this thread to "Ex-Congressman."
he's still a Congressman till next year.
daveklepperAnyway, please correct the title of this thread to "Ex-Congressman."
No worries, Dave. He's still a Congressman (or is that Congressperson? or Congressone?) until this current worthless crew leaves DC in a few weeks, to be succeeded by another dubious lot in January. Even then, by custom, he will continue to be addressed as Congressman. Newt Gingrich is still called Speaker, Henry Kissinger is still called Secretary, Ted Strickland is still called Governor, etc.
Personally I prefer to follow the traditional American custom of referring to former office holders, including former Presidents, as Mister (or Mrs., Miss, or Ms., as they prefer), which is always correct and befitting a republic.
After his Presidency, Theodore Roosevelt was addressed by his friends and associates as Colonel.
Harry Truman said upon leaving office in 1953 that although he would no longer be President or want to be called that, he was nevertheless being promoted, as the American people were the folks the President works for as their public servant. It would be plain old "Mr. Truman" for him, one of the people.
I'm always a little hesistant to take stories like this one at face value. For all we know, the original "unnamed sources" might be the Congressman and his staff. After all having spent a quarter century in Washington, Mica is unsuited for a job away from the government!
I suppose retirement is out of the question. (He's only what, 73?) Only death can separate some of these guys from the trough.
dakotafred I suppose retirement is out of the question. (He's only what, 73?) Only death can separate some of these guys from the trough.
They always advocate for smaller government. Until it comes time for their job and paycheck.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
BaltACD https://ballotpedia.org/Florida%27s_7th_Congressional_District_election,_2016 After 23 years Florida's 7th district had enough.
EIGHT years is enough for any congressman, twelve years for a senator. Congressmen and senators, or any elected officials for that matter, are supposed to serve for a time, not a lifetime!
The trouble is, too many of them just fall in love with that DC "vibe" and never want to leave it.
Term limits now, baby!
NKP guy Will anyone join me in offering a heartfelt Good Riddance to one of Amtrak's greatest tormentors, Congressman John Mica, upon his defeat for yet another term in office?
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/259539.aspx
We are not supposed to be discussing politics on this forum, and if we do bring up politics as relevant to trains, it is probably a good idea not to gloat, because (soon to be former) Representative Mica might end up doing this at our expense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIXOOwthtaE
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I feel like I'm walking on a tightrope here because political speech is obviously a problem here. So I'll try to keep it nonpartisan. It's not a question of how long they stay in office, but whether they are able to keep the People's interests at the top of their priority list during that time. Nobody wants our legislators to be paupers, but cries for term limits seem to arise from the perception (real or imagined) that the legislator's piggy bank has become more important than the people's. One person who has represented me for many, many years is voluntarily stepping down this year. The opposition has considered this person to be a thorn in their side for many years; but friend and foe alike agree that this person has served honorably, honestly, and with distinction. Term limits would have deprived us of this person's service.
Thus I have concluded that the term limits imposed by the need to run in periodic, scheduled elections are the only term limits we really need. That being said, it is pretty obvious that some legislators manage to keep their seats far longer than they should, and I believe the solution has much more to do with the need for campaign finance reform, a responsible Press, and an informed Electorate.
How to work out the details? I'll have to leave that to smarter people.
Tom
Firelock76 EIGHT years is enough for any congressman, twelve years for a senator. Congressmen and senators, or any elected officials for that matter, are supposed to serve for a time, not a lifetime! Term limits now, baby!
I was in favor of term limits for a time, but have reconsidered, since term limits will increase the power of the unelected bureaucracy and the lobyists, because the institutional memory of congress would necessarily be weakened.
A better solution would be to limit chairmanship of committees to say six years for a senator and four for a congressman. That would limit the value of seniority, and thus reduce the tendency of the more astute portion of the electorate to re-elect the old guys because they hold the keys to the kingdom (Committee Chairmanships).
Either result is unlikely since the Chairmen will not willingly give up their power and its associated money raising ability.
PNWRMNM A better solution would be to limit chairmanship of committees to say six years for a senator and four for a congressman. That would limit the value of seniority, and thus reduce the tendency of the more astute portion of the electorate to re-elect the old guys because they hold the keys to the kingdom (Committee Chairmanships).
My understanding is that committee chairmanships terms in the House are term limited, not so sure about the Senate.
ACY I feel like I'm walking on a tightrope here because political speech is obviously a problem here. So I'll try to keep it nonpartisan. It's not a question of how long they stay in office, but whether they are able to keep the People's interests at the top of their priority list during that time. Nobody wants our legislators to be paupers, but cries for term limits seem to arise from the perception (real or imagined) that the legislator's piggy bank has become more important than the people's. One person who has represented me for many, many years is voluntarily stepping down this year. The opposition has considered this person to be a thorn in their side for many years; but friend and foe alike agree that this person has served honorably, honestly, and with distinction. Term limits would have deprived us of this person's service. Thus I have concluded that the term limits imposed by the need to run in periodic, scheduled elections are the only term limits we really need. That being said, it is pretty obvious that some legislators manage to keep their seats far longer than they should, and I believe the solution has much more to do with the need for campaign finance reform, a responsible Press, and an informed Electorate. How to work out the details? I'll have to leave that to smarter people. Tom
True. Another factor not yet mentioned is that only about one third of representatives' districts are in play in general elections, mostly because of ludicrous gerrymandering, coupled with seniority.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
In our state all elective state offices are term limited, and I think it works well for us.
However, I would be very concerned about extending that system to the federal level. My concern is that it alters the balance of knowledge and experience in favor of the federal bureaucracy. That further empowers an already overreaching institution.
To take one current example -- after writing and publishing a proposed rule on 2 person crews, the STB hires Duke University to gin up some data to support the rule. Isn't there some logical problem with proceeding in that manner? Moreover, the STB is to have the power to grant exceptions thus expanding its empire.
As an aside, our popular governor is term limited in 2018. His probable replacement is an effective Congresswoman. That will be a loss to all of you; Congress will be losing its most photogenic Representative!
One of the reasons for a bureaucracy (I leave it for others to discuss whether it's out of control or not) is it's an easy out for legislators. They pass the laws, then let themselves off the hook by letting faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable others make the rules.
Don't say it doesn't happen.
The first time I heard term limits discussed was with a group of mature men I worked with thirty-plus years ago. They were all in their mid-fifties while I was the "kid" in my mid-twenties. "Look," I said, "If the guy's doing a good job, don't you want him kept in office?"
"No!" they said. "It doesn't matter how good a job they do, the longer they stay in office the bigger their egos get and the more they think their (ahem) doesn't stink! There's plenty of other good people out there to replace them, no-one's indispensable!"
I had a lot of respect for those men.
Anyway, good discussion everyone!
Firelock76One of the reasons for a bureaucracy (I leave it for others to discuss whether it's out of control or not) is it's an easy out for legislators. They pass the laws, then let themselves off the hook by letting faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable others make the rules.
The difficulty with it starts far earlier: where did you think the legislators got the data and analyses they used to put together the bills they vote into law?
'Rulemaking' is quite properly a function of the executive branch, when it comes to operational considerations rather than 'the intent of the legislation'. It is when rulemaking verges over from one to the other -- often, as you imply, because of more-or-less intentional defects in the wording of statutes -- that the executive tyranny becomes a temptation for the twentysomethings.
I found it very useful when studying public policy to look at Max Weber's "Politics as a Calling" (one of the early works advocating a technical bureaucracy for 'correct' administration of policy) -- with a very careful understanding of who it was that set the tone and policy of what the bureaucracy did. I think we see this again later, in that part of the world, with the footnote extending the reach of the Kommissarbefehl and the action after the Wannsee conference.
I'm not sure the root of the problem isn't long before the 'where you stand is where you sit' concerns come in. As soon as we move from a government of principles to a government of legalism, the power shifts to those who know how to manipulate the legal system and get away with it. Periodically there is a revulsion against the established practitioners of the 'art' (midterm 1994 elections, the Gubernator's victory over Gray Davis et al., the current Presidential business) but without meaningful principle the outcome just slides back into SOS within a few years. (Reminds me a bit of a unit that needs a name: the metric for how quickly the public forgets good intentions and reform and goes back to bleating in the fold. The unit is defined as the time between Diana Spencer's death and the time the tabloids returned to the fronts of the stores; it would be bad taste to reference her or her family in the 'usual' metric-system naming convention for the unit, so your ideas are welcome.
Term limits are a great idea except they can suck so badly. There are few things as worthless as a freshman Congressman, especially one who does not understand the spirit of, er, compromise that has to be used in order to get much of anywhere in sausage-making. Meanwhile you've eliminated someone who has scrabbled up the ladder of access and power, has built up a network of contacts, hot buttons, and buried bodies, and is probably a major influence on one or more important committees. It's fine in principle to say that the fellows are changed up for new blood. But the relative worth to the states those fellows represent, and by extension the 'commonweal' of voters in those states, may and probably will take an immediate hit with no guarantee whatsoever that the new guy may eventually make good.
Now, I hear you say, what about the idea that some impartial 'watchdog' group make a list of all the priorities, promises, voting history, etc. of incumbents, and make it available with partisan-neutral glosses on an open Web site or whatever. Then loosen up the technical requirements for recall motions, and establish a better mechanism for deciding who would replace a recalled or impeached incumbent. (Note that something like this is close to one of the relatively few advantages of British parliamentary democracy over American republicanism). If the bum starts establishing himself at the public trough and breaking his promises, or starts enriching himself (or herself) at the public trough -- well, throw the bum out.
I trust everyone here sees the problems, and chaos, and pandemonium, and perhaps incentives to demagoguery, that such a thing would eventuate. (The temptation for established manipulative forces to collaborate in 'railroading' legislators they didn't like is one obvious one, and provides the tenuous link to a Forum-applicable topic...)
Supreme Court ruled no term limits on Congress without amending the Constitution.
Excerpt from U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/514/779.html
The merits of term limits, or "rotation," have been the subject of debate since the formation of our Constitution, when the Framers unanimously rejected a proposal to add such limits to the Constitution. The cogent arguments on both sides of the question that were articulated during the process of ratification largely retain their force today. Over half the States have adopted measures that impose such limits on some offices either directly or indirectly, and the Nation as a whole, notably by constitutional amendment, has imposed a limit on the number of terms that the President may serve. Term limits, like any other qualification for office, unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom they wish. On the other hand, such limits may provide for the infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives, and may decrease the likelihood that representatives will lose touch with their constituents. It is not our province to resolve this longstanding debate.
We are, however, firmly convinced that allowing the several States to adopt term limits for congressional service would effect a fundamental change in the constitutional framework. Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual State, but rather – as have other important changes in the electoral process – through the Amendment procedures set forth in Article V. The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers' understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are integral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."
Well, that's the end of that!
Good discussion everyone!
RMEwith the footnote extending the reach of the Kommissarbefehl and the action after the Wannsee conference.
I don't believe the two are connected, except in leading to heinous crimes.
To even mention the Wannsee conference in connection with this subject is to clearly display an appalling lack of proportion. Most regrettable.
One can understand the constitutional issues regarding term limits, and I can tell you that in Ohio they have not brought forth the promised land on the state government level. Members of the Ohio House simply move on to the Ohio Senate or into the State bureaucracy as, say, the Commissioner of Insurance. Nothing much changes as new people and ideas are kept out or to a minimum.
On the federal level I advocate doing away with pensions for Members of Congress as an alternative way to achieve turnover. Sure, go ahead, serve as long as you and we like Congressman, but remember there is no pension, no after-office benefits, and you may even have to come home and live among us again, abiding by the laws you passed and the commonweal you helped create.
A lack of Congressional pensions would be constitutional and effective.
Mica’s last hurrah
https://www.c-span.org/video/?419433-1/wmata-management-officials-testify-dc-metrorail-safety
As long as you are willing to join me in offering a heartfelt Good Riddance to Harry Reid for killing what would have been the longest piece of new railroad construction since the 1920's.
erikem the longest piece of new railroad construction since the 1920's.
the longest piece of new railroad construction since the 1920's.
Refresh my memory, of what railroad do you speak?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2Dude erikem the longest piece of new railroad construction since the 1920's. Refresh my memory, of what railroad do you speak?
The one that would have served the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository. This was to connect to the UP northeast of Caliente, head towards Tonopah and then south to Yucca Mountain. Since the Yucca Mountain site was taken off the table due to Harry Reid, construction became a moot point.
Figure as long as we're saying "Good Riddance" to some congress critters, might as well make it bipartisan.
erikemAs long as you are willing to join me in offering a heartfelt Good Riddance to Harry Reid for killing what would have been the longest piece of new railroad construction since the 1920's.
Do you seriously contend that trying to kill or maim Amtrak, which I and millions of others use and depend upon, is at all similar to building some pork-barrel railroad in the god-forsaken Nevada desert for the purpose of moving spent nuclear stockpiles?
Have you no sense of proportion? Ever hear of false equivalance?
At least Harry Reid helped make health care available to millions of our citizens, and never voted to shut down the federal gov't or default on the full faith and credit of the United States. What positive contribution will Mica leave behind?
So no, I'm not willing to join you.
NKP guy Do you seriously contend that trying to kill or maim Amtrak, which I and millions of others use and depend upon, is at all similar to building some pork-barrel railroad in the god-forsaken Nevada desert for the purpose of moving spent nuclear stockpiles?
Moving spent fuel from nuclear power plants is eminently not a pork barrel project as the federal government has collected several billion dollars (IIRC, >$20B) from the various utilities operating nuclear power plants for the express purpose of permanently storing said fuel. Since the spent fuel casks weigh on the order of 100 tons, movement by rail is the most practical alternative. The major pork barrel aspect of the proposed line was taking the long way around the Nevada Test Site, versus following the Las Vegas and Tonopah ROW.
One reason for picking Yucca Mountain for the spent fuel repository was that it was adjacent to the Nevada Test Site.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.