"Unbreaking America" - proposed concept on fixing our political system!

[markw]

Two words: Term limits.

 

[sholling]

Two words: Term limits.

In theory I like term limits and if it were something like 8 years for the house and 18 for the Senate I'd consider it. Unfortunately California's experiment with term limits went horribly wrong. The problem is that it makes politicians officially and totally unaccountable. With a limit of two terms no one is in office long enough to get a good understanding of state issues and have no reason to care how badly they screw up the state or how soon their spending brings about bankruptcy because they'll have moved on before it all blows up - no political accountability. What we've wound up with is an endless revolving door of economically ignorant neophytes looking to expand the reach and power of the government through their pet legislative projects and who foist an average of 1,000 new laws on an over-regulated people and business community. Expect such too-short term limits to have the same effect on the federal level. Four terms in the House and three in the Senate I'd consider. I wish California had taken the Texas part-time legislature approach instead. Their legislature meets for just a few months every two years to pass a budget and hammer out legislation. That precludes wasting time on frivolous feel-good legislation. Passing frivolous feel-good legislation is pretty much all the CA legislature does anymore.

At the federal level a far better solution is Professor Glenn Reynolds' Revolving Door Tax which makes political and bureaucratic corruption much-much less profitable and therefore much less likely. Of course it won't stop politicians like VP Biden from allegedly using his position to make his son rich, but it will make it less profitable to leave elected office to become a lobbyist or leave an elected or regulatory position and go to work for a company that you've been regulating. I'd also like to see every non-elected federal agency except defense moved to separate states.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/28/revolving-door-government-ethics/1868597/

Professor Reynolds: "In short, I propose putting a 50% surtax -- or maybe it should be 75%, I'm open to discussion -- on the post-government earnings of government officials. So if you work at a cabinet level job and make $196,700 a year, and you leave for a job that pays a million a year, you'll pay 50% of the difference -- just over $400,000 -- to the Treasury right off the top. So as not to be greedy, we'll limit it to your first five years of post-government earnings; after that, you'll just pay whatever standard income tax applies."​

I'd set the rate to at least 75%.

 

[markw]

Dunno about that. Quite a few congresspeople Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, and more) have been in office around thirty years and have accomplished nothing to make this a better country. They did, however enrich themselves. In fact, they blame all the country's problems on Trump who has been office only a little over two years.

I'd say Trump has done pretty good in a little over two years while fighting off all the chihuhuas nipping at his ass. Think of how much more he could have accomplished and how much better off we would be if they were working with him instead of against him.

 

[JerryLove]

Dunno about that. Trump's done pretty good in a little over two years while fighting off all the chihuhuas nipping at his ass.

GDP Growth Was Higher on Average under Obama in 2014 and 2015 Than Compared to Trump in 2017 and 2018
Monthly Job Growth Was Higher under Obama Than in Trump’s First Two Years
The Unemployment Rate Was Falling Faster under Obama in 2014 and 2015 than in Trump’s First Two Years
Growth in the Employment-to-Population Rate Has Slowed under Trump
Wage Growth Grew Sharply in 2016 and 2017—Until 2018, When It Slowed
The Racial Pay Gap Declined in Obama’s Final Years—It Has Widened Under Trump
Adult and Child Poverty Rates Have Fallen—But Much Faster under Obama
The Federal Deficit Is Growing Rapidly under Trump
Despite Trump’s Massive Corporate Tax Cuts, Business Investment Isn’t Growing “Like Never Before”
It’s True Stocks Are at Their Highest Levels—But Stock Prices Grew Faster after the Reelections of Both Clinton and Obama

Then there's the "crimes against humanity" sorts of behaviors we are doing; the expansion of N.Korean missile and nuclear testing, our withdrawal from the Paris Climate accords, the massive impacts on, well, an awful lot of different groups of Americans under the ill-conceived trade wars, our terrible response (or lack there of) to the crisis in Puerto Rico, the undermining of American institutions, the laughing-stock status we are getting abroad, the ceding of our foreign interests to the Russians and Chinese, etc, etc.

Not to mention the deleterious actions against basic healthcare for Americans... and the impact of the tax changes to the poor and middle-class... not to mention the currently suggested budget.

 

[JerryLove]

Two words: Term limits.

Yes. Because then there would be no reason to worry about whether you did things that the voters actually supported. Since you have no future in politics anyway: the only motivation left would be to please the large corporations in order to get cushy position from them after your last term ends.

Also: Things are always better when done by amatures. Need brain surgery: don't get the experienced surgeon; get the one that's only just started. Need a law passed or foreign policy decision made? Know what will kill the ability to do that well? Decades of experience. Better to get the people who can only guess at the results.

 

[JerryLove]

Look. If you want to really fix the political system.

1) remove corporate money.
2) make real rules to prevent conflicts of interest and make them a capital crime (if it's bribery to pay the police officer, judge, or jury... it should be bribery to pay the legislator).
3) make it illegal to campaign while in office.
4) remove consecutive terms. You can have an unlimited number of terms, but not two in a row (see: illegal to campaign in office).
5) get rid of the electoral college and senate.
6) instead of having elected people actually *do* the things like write budgets and pass laws; have them hire the people who do the things. Stop having the stock-holders elect the CIO. Instead: elect the board of directors and have them hire the CIO. As a bonus: there will no longer be "add pork barrel to get two more votes"; which is a huge issue, because there aren't votes.
7) Create true independence in the judiciary. I suggest that SCotUS nominees should come *from* the judiciary rather than from the executive branch.
8) Create a special justice unit whose sole jurisdiction is over the top level of the three branches of government. Their immunity is not helpful.
9) Lying to influence an election or law should be a form of fraud and prosecuted as such.
10) Voting districts should largely be removed; but where they exist: they should be partitioned by an independent group... preferably from another state.
11) Laws should have scope statements. Nothing within the law should be valid if it falls outside that scope (which will kill a lot of addendum)

That's off the top of my head.

 

[sholling]

Dunno about that. Quite a few congresspeople Pelosi, Schumer, Waters, and more) have been in office around thirty years and have accomplished nothing to make this a better country. They did, however enrich themselves. In fact, they blame all the country's problems on Trump who has been office only a little over two years.

Agreed, but are they better or worse than AOC, Tlaib, and Omar?

I'd say Trump has done pretty good in a little over two years while fighting off all the chihuhuas nipping at his ass. Think of how much more he could have accomplished and how much better off we would be if they were working with him instead of against him.

I agree 100%. He's accomplished a lot considering the RINO Establishment, the Democrats and the Mainstream Media (but I repeat myself) opposing his reforms and the collusion hoax acting like an anchor to slow him down.

 

[R.Elder]

One of my controversial positions is that I don’t believe we should have such low salaries for politicians. It’s the craziest thing that somehow we think “we aren’t satisfied with our politicians so let’s pay them less”.

Then we bitch and scream about corruption all the while wishing to cut salaries. It’s illogical and we are getting what we are paying for. We get rich power hungry people. We don’t get innovators or serious thinkers ... they’re off making real money.

 

[Trell]

The Trump Presidency is a litmus test of peoples moral character.

 

[R.Elder]

The Trump Presidency is a litmus test of peoples moral character.

Wouldn’t that be true for the every president. I felt similar about Obama’s re-election. I’d have to say though it’s not reflective of our character as much as it is our tolerance. Liberals tolerated many a poop show because they was getting what they wanted in the broadest sense. Who cares if Clinton and Kennedy are womanizers as long as they keep to their political agenda. Who cares if Obama’s lies helped pass Obamacare it’s what we want ...

 

[highfigh]

That’s partly due to the negative association of the term. Technically they are programs that benefit the *general welfare. It’s like the term entitlement... unnecessary negative connotations.

I think it's because most of the programs have become bloated and are badly managed. Decades-old instances of people defrauding it, living like kings and politicians who use their 'contributions to the cause' to further their careers make it a football to be kicked back & forth. Then, there were the people who were on welfare for several generations and pounded out kids in order to grow their benefits. Yeah, people resent that, for good reason- it was never supposed to be a permanent financial plan for people who don't have money.

 

[highfigh]

The Trump Presidency is a litmus test of peoples moral character.

I'm not a hard-right anything. I stand at the right side of the middle, but pick & choose who I want in office, what I want to see improved or repaired. I'm not a cheerleader for any politician and, in fact, can't think of any that I actually like. If the politician is a Democrat or Republican, so be it. That said, the following comes from me standing back and watching the BS that happens on a daily basis-

Why? How does it legitimize bad behavior? How does it make insults and name-calling OK from those on the "other side of the political fence"? How does it become tolerable for people to go on (anti)social media and post memes that are anything but factual, make claims without anything to back them up and continue to be nothing but noisemakers about nonsensical statements about a President's physical characteristics?

Then, there's the media. When did it become OK for them to present fiction, as news?

Every day life is a litmus test for peoples' moral character, not who's in the Oval Office. People have lost control over their minds- it's a good thing nobody tried to assassinate Obama but I doubt it would make many ripples if someone kills Trump. I honestly think some people would be partying in the streets and that would say a lot about them.

 

[markw]

I thought y'all might get a kick out of this.

"He also said his office will no longer prosecute theft cases involving personal items worth less than $750, unless evidence shows it was for economic gain."

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/04/11/dallas-county-district-attorney-john-creuzot-low-level-crimes/

Texas may be fooked

 

[sholling]

Texas may be fooked

Just Dallas.

I actually don't have a problem with dropping charges on low level drug cases or other victimless crimes. I would have a problem (if I lived in Dallas) with him dropping charges in the case of violent crimes and property crimes including theft, vandalism, and criminal trespass, and I'd have a problem with him going easy on probation violations for any of those crimes. Doing so just invites more of the same criminal acts. I also don't have a problem with expunging criminal records (except for forcible rape or child molestation) for first offenders once they've paid their debt to society and kept their nose clean for two or three years.

Of course, Texas law allows residents to deal with criminals they catch breaking into their homes or stealing their property. It's not a healthy place to be a burglar or car thief.

 

[Irvrobinson]

My previous posts have made it clear I am not a fan of President Trump, and I'm a registered Democrat, but if the Democratic Party sticks to the current socialist, wealth redistribution, reparations agenda, I'm going to be voting the straight Republican ticket. While I don't agree with many things in the Republican platform, at least they're not overtly threatening my way of life.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Look. If you want to really fix the political system.

1) remove corporate money.
2) make real rules to prevent conflicts of interest and make them a capital crime (if it's bribery to pay the police officer, judge, or jury... it should be bribery to pay the legislator).
3) make it illegal to campaign while in office.
4) remove consecutive terms. You can have an unlimited number of terms, but not two in a row (see: illegal to campaign in office).
5) get rid of the electoral college and senate.
6) instead of having elected people actually *do* the things like write budgets and pass laws; have them hire the people who do the things. Stop having the stock-holders elect the CIO. Instead: elect the board of directors and have them hire the CIO. As a bonus: there will no longer be "add pork barrel to get two more votes"; which is a huge issue, because there aren't votes.
7) Create true independence in the judiciary. I suggest that SCotUS nominees should come *from* the judiciary rather than from the executive branch.
8) Create a special justice unit whose sole jurisdiction is over the top level of the three branches of government. Their immunity is not helpful.
9) Lying to influence an election or law should be a form of fraud and prosecuted as such.
10) Voting districts should largely be removed; but where they exist: they should be partitioned by an independent group... preferably from another state.
11) Laws should have scope statements. Nothing within the law should be valid if it falls outside that scope (which will kill a lot of addendum)

That's off the top of my head.

Unfortunately, Jerry, several of these proposals look like they would require Constitutional amendments. That makes them unlikely.

 

[sholling]

Unfortunately, Jerry, several of these proposals look like they would require Constitutional amendments. That makes them unlikely.

Exactly. 40+ states are going to fight having their influence in how the country is run stripped from them and transferred to a handful of heavily populated mega-cities in distant states and allowing those cities to lord over an entire country (the Hunger Games scenario). It's the same with creating a black robed royalty, the people and the states won't allow it.

We're already seeing a movement to break up states because people in those states are getting tired of being lorded over by two or three distant mega cities. That's fallout from the wrongly decided Reynolds vs Sims case which said that state Senators could not be apportioned by county the way that they are apportioned by state for the US Senate.

 

[JerryLove]

Unfortunately, Jerry, several of these proposals look like they would require Constitutional amendments. That makes them unlikely.

They are unlikely because there's no motivation for people to reduce their own power.

 

[JerryLove]

Exactly. 40+ states are going to fight having their influence in how the country is run stripped from them and transferred to a handful of heavily populated mega-cities in distant states and allowing those cities to lord over an entire country (the Hunger Games scenario). It's the same with creating a black robed royalty, the people and the states won't allow it.

Yea. It's really terrible when a million people exercise more political power than a thousand people.

What's magic about states? Surely this is a problem within the state where populated counties get more votes for governor than unpopulated ones.

And it's a problem within the counties where populated cities get more votes for Sheriff than unpopulated ones.

And it's a problem within cities where populated neighborhoods get more votes for mayor than unpopulated ones.

Did you know that houses with more voting-age adults get more votes than houses with fewer voting age adults?

Someone please tell me why "minority rule" is superior to "majority rule"?

Let's take it to an extreme to see the issue.
The population of the US moves entirely to Alaska except for 49 people. Those remaining 49 people each live in one of the remaining 49 states.

Those 49 people control 98% of the US senate (the other 300,000,000 people control 2% of the senate); which means that those 49 people get approval over every appointment, every law, every budget.

We're already seeing a movement to break up states because people in those states are getting tired of being lorded over by two or three distant mega cities. That's fallout from the wrongly decided Reynolds vs Sims case which said that state Senators could not be apportioned by county the way that they are apportioned by state for the US Senate.

Go for it. If you actually break on urban/rural lines you'll quickly find the rural states turn to garbage because there's nowhere near enough revenue in them. Urban areas pay the bulk of the taxes while rural areas receive far more per-capita in government spending.

My income is higher, so I pay more income tax. My property value is higher, so I pay more property tax. But I'm more densley packed; so there's less asphault per-person, and my percentage of the phone line is shorter, and my percentage of the costs of shipping goods to me are lower, and there's less power-line to maintain for me.

Are you a mile from your neighbor? That's a mile of power line, phone line, and road that has to be maintained just for you. For me? 75-feet.

Not to mention that the hospitals near you only remain afloat because of money pulled from urban areas to subsidize them (turns out they don't have enough business, and too much of that business is unpaying, to stay afloat). Hell: even the mail you get is functionally subsidized by the more efficient mail within the cities.

Remember PBS and how the right hated it? Do you know why it was created? To give local weather information in areas too rural to support their own radio. that's right. Urban funds being spent to help rural farmers.

That's true in the Macro-scale (California pays more into the fed than it takes out while Alaska is a welfare state),and it's true in the Micro scale (FL panhandle infrastructure is funded by S.Florida metro areas).

I, for one, am tired or self proclaimed "rural America" taking my money, seizing more control of my government than their population would warrant, and then vilifying me for it.

You know what happens if you dissolved the union? California becomes the 4th largest economy in the world and places like Nevada, Arizona, and Louisana become third-world countries.

 

[JerryLove]

My previous posts have made it clear I am not a fan of President Trump, and I'm a registered Democrat, but if the Democratic Party sticks to the current socialist, wealth redistribution, reparations agenda, I'm going to be voting the straight Republican ticket. While I don't agree with many things in the Republican platform, at least they're not overtly threatening my way of life.

What's wrong with what you are referring to as "socialitst".

Wealth distribution is happening. The question is whether you'd like that to continue to take your wealth and move it to the already wealthy; or whether you'd like to take it based on the ability to afford the loss and see it feed starving kids.

It's also more than a little insane that you are going to, for example, vote for a GOP sheriff that opposes every position you stand for in favor of a DNC one that completely aligns with you because some other members of the party have a platform that includes something you don't like.

Me: I don't like the GOP cozying up to Nazis. What has the DNC done again?