English have a better system

The English parliamentary form of government is currently a better form of government than we now have in our country. Why?

• The House of Commons has a strict term limits policy. We have none.

• England has a 90-day period in which a candidate runs for office and it is strictly enforced. There are cases where candidates here run for office for 18 months because we have no limiting period in this country.

• In Britain there is a strict cap on candidate spending prior to an election and the government pays for this. The McCain-Feingold bill was a brave try at controlling sources of candidate money but there are too many ways or loopholes whereby McCain-Feingold can be circumvented. It apparently had to be too watered down to be.

It's true the three above rules are not found in one set of congressional rules, house or Senate. These are simple rules and they are imminently sensible. They would make a good addition to or replacement of what we already have. We simply have to have structure, discipline and ethics in the U.S. Congress before there will be the kind of leadership that is badly needed, no matter who the president is. To do this the Congress must have parameters.

Congressmen should serve 12 years as senators and eight years as representatives. It is not good for the U.S. for people to adopt Congressional membership as a career. They also should not serve past the age of 70.

The huge lobbying industry should be eliminated because it forces too much legislative control out of the hands of the legislators and into the hands of special interests. There are thousands of able people who would like very much to be legislators on the national level. We would benefit from using this deep source of legislative material. If you would like to see this write your senators or congressmen.

Chuck Barr

St. Charles