Government Reform

[Derek]

This may take up alot of space but I wanted to get my government reform policy off my chest. What are your thoughts and ideas?

1. Ban soft money from federal campaigns.
2. $2,500 limit on individual contributions.
3. $5,000 limit on couples’ contributions.
4. $200,000,000 limit on money spent in federal elections. 
5. Candidates must disclose all donors.
6. Candidates may not opt out of public financing.
7. Proof of citizenship and voter registration at the ballot box.
8. Limit absentee ballots to military and hospital patients only.
9. No national language because Indians were here before the earliest European settlers.
10. Maine must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
11. Nebraska must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
12. U.S. House members limited to six two-year terms.
13. U.S. Senate members limited to two six-year terms.
14. Congress only meets twice a week.
15. 25% pay cut for congressmen.
16. President’s salary cut from $400,000 to $250,000.
17. Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget at the end of each year.
18. Cut 20% of federal programs to pay off national debt.
19. End corporate welfare by enforcing ideals of true capitalism. 
20. Voting age remains 18, even though it only encourages informed voters to vote.

[Derek]

1. Abolish the government
2. If government returns, repeat step 1

HAHAHAHAHA you said it!

[Derek]

Anarchy is bad.

We do need some type of order you're right.

[Derek]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

[Derek]

Those puppies are worth points. Nixon used his family's puppy to shrug off a scandal involving a slush fund he was using to pay for his family in New York back in 1952. He told the public that they could have everything back except for his children's puppy who his family loves. It made the other side look like they were taking away a puppy from young children.

[Derek]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

I mean there is another side to the term limit debate. One could argue that setting term limits is an infringement on my freedom of speech to vote for Robert Byrd for the 10th time. I see political careers as counter productive is all. If someone wants to move to a different office then leave it up to the people to decide. FL has term limits and it's government is running well from what I've seen. I respect both views to this argument.

[Derek]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

I mean there is another side to the term limit debate. One could argue that setting term limits is an infringement on my freedom of speech to vote for Robert Byrd for the 10th time. I see political careers as counter productive is all. If someone wants to move to a different office then leave it up to the people to decide. FL has term limits and it's government is running well from what I've seen. I respect both views to this argument.

     I wouldn't say that term limits have particularly damaged California's government either. I was merely making the case that they don't work as advertised.

     To the credit of the pro-term limits crowd, there was a proposition that failed here recently that would have changed the term limits for State Assembly & House from 14 years to 12 years. It was supported by the Democratic leaders of the two chambers, who were both about to be termed out. Changing the law would have nullified the old limits, allowing them to serve another 12 years. Evidently they were afraid of the consequences of losing their cushy seats in the state legislature.

That's what I mean they try to protect their seats. Like Specter here in PA he fought years for one job and that was his.

[Derek]

What 20% of programs do we cut?  You seem to have details for everything expect the part that has an actual impact.

And you do realize that cutting 20% of spending off our budget would still give us a $700 billion dollar annual deficit? (2.1 trillion tax revenue in FY2009, 3.5 trillion spending)

My bad I was thinking a 20% across the board cut. Let's face it though there are programs that don't work or don't have to be there. I haven't looked at a list of all government run programs in a while and I'm sure there's too many. For argument's sake let's say a 20% across the board cut in spending on government programs other than military and defense for now.

[Derek]

What 20% of programs do we cut?  You seem to have details for everything expect the part that has an actual impact.

And you do realize that cutting 20% of spending off our budget would still give us a $700 billion dollar annual deficit? (2.1 trillion tax revenue in FY2009, 3.5 trillion spending)

My bad I was thinking a 20% across the board cut. Let's face it though there are programs that don't work or don't have to be there. I haven't looked at a list of all government run programs in a while and I'm sure there's too many. For argument's sake let's say a 20% across the board cut in spending on government programs other than military and defense for now.

Well, maybe you should actually look at where your non-defense money is going instead of just assuming its being wasted.

And maybe you should actually look at where your defense money is going instead of just assuming it isn't being wasted.

20% blind across the board cut of non-defense spending would cut our 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficit to 1 trillion.  We would have to blindly cut all non-defense programs by 60% to keep the same military budget and have a surplus.   That means cutting 60% of Medicare, cutting Social Security checks by 60%, cutting it all.

And then probably spending a couple of billion to scrape all the dead old people off the streets.

I see what you're saying. We'd still be going into further debt but at a slower rate. Let's say we did do a 60% cut in programs which I'm not supporting but in theory it seems as if the costs of these programs would fall too. An example would be if we cut medicare by that much then the prices of medicine would fall due to supply and demand. There are other ways to make up for the deficits we run in addition to a 20% across the board cut. I have that outlined in my economic policy. Eliminating taxes and raising user fees would help. A VAT as well. Don't read too much into this though because I'm posting that tomorrow. For now I just wanted to see what people think needs to be done to reform our government so that it works more efficiently. What do you think of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget at the end of each year?

[Derek]

Supply and demand?  Demand for healthcare would not change without medicare.  Supply of care without billions of guaranteed medicare dollars flowing through the industry would decline into an epically catastrophic shortage.

Replacing income taxes with a VAT wouldn't increase revenues.  It would just replace them. 

When you end taxes more money flows into the private sector and wealth is created. More Americans would be able to afford the increased user fees and VAT because instead of the money going to the government, it's going towards creating jobs. As more jobs are created, more people have money. The more money that is spent and taxed with the VAT, the higher our government's incoming revenue will be.

[Derek]

Supply and demand?  Demand for healthcare would not change without medicare.  Supply of care without billions of guaranteed medicare dollars flowing through the industry would decline into an epically catastrophic shortage.

Replacing income taxes with a VAT wouldn't increase revenues.  It would just replace them. 

Let's face it an extremely high amount of profits for the medical field come from seniors who have prescription drugs. If medicare was cut, then surely prices of these medicines will go down or the medical field would take a massive hit. Seniors are the medical field's best friends and it's because people who have health problems tend to be older in age. Demand wouldn't change, but the supply would have to remain the same in order to keep staying in business. Their profits may not be as high but that's a whole different can of worms.

[Derek]

10. Maine must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
11. Nebraska must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.

All 50 states should vote the way Maine and Nebraska do.

See I completely disagree. We're meant to be a nation where the winner is elected by a majority of people from the majority of states and it's done through an Electoral College. Popular votes are very dangerous and bring a mob mentality where all you have to do is appeal to the masses. We're supposed to vote as states, not districts. Districts decide on who their representative will be in Washington.

[Derek]

Supply and demand?  Demand for healthcare would not change without medicare.  Supply of care without billions of guaranteed medicare dollars flowing through the industry would decline into an epically catastrophic shortage.

Replacing income taxes with a VAT wouldn't increase revenues.  It would just replace them. 

When you end taxes more money flows into the private sector and wealth is created. More Americans would be able to afford the increased user fees and VAT because instead of the money going to the government, it's going towards creating jobs. As more jobs are created, more people have money. The more money that is spent and taxed with the VAT, the higher our government's incoming revenue will be.

Uh no.  Do you even know what a VAT is?

If anything a VAT would encourage LESS spending.  Sure, people would have more cash in their pockets, but everything would become so enormously expensive that people likely would save more than anything.  The administration of taxation would change, but the deficit and the job market wouldn't.

I'm going to put that on here later. This forum was for discussing how our government could work better and how we can make it smaller.

[Derek]

This forum was for discussing how our government could work better and how we can make it smaller.

I understand what this is about.  I want to know how you plan to make it smaller without really changing anything. 

Term limits and cutting the President's salary by a few thousand and all that is hooey that doesn't lead to any real change.

The biggest changes were:

balanced budget amendment in the constitution
term limits
ban soft money to federal campaigns to limit power of corporations and unions
require voter ID to prevent voter fraud

[Derek]

Oh and those absentee ballots are nothing more than a political tool. You realize how many people asked me if I'd voted yet 2 weeks before the 2008 election? I replied that I thought it was only once every 4 years. If voting isn't important enough to you and you're not overseas serving or hospitalized, then better luck in the next election. No more "we're going on vacation so can we fill out an absentee?"

[Derek]

balanced budget amendment in the constitution
term limits
ban soft money to federal campaigns to limit power of corporations and unions
require voter ID to prevent voter fraud

1) Taxes raised, economy slowed.  I like the idea, but it will mean we will have to have a tax rate that automatically adjusts to pay.
2) Gridlock due to lack of veteran majority leadership or tyranny do to lack of veteran minority leadership, whichever you prefer
3) Good idea.  Would likely increased to increased regulations on business.
4) No effect on our government

Grid locks aren't necessarily bad. Look just because a politician says we should panic about something doesn't mean we have to. If there is a grid lock, then maybe the issue is best left alone and it's really not a huge problem. We don't need politicians who have been there for years thinking they know everything and getting their way all the time JUST TO BREAK A GRIDLOCK. What's a good idea? What has no effect on the government? I never said raise taxes.

[Derek]

Yes, but how do we balance a budget by constitutional requirement? Cancel Medicare?

We'd have to raise taxes to cover shortfalls then find ways to cut spending later.  Balanced budget amendment only works in the late 90s when we already have a surplus and we want to keep it.  We have to fix the budget before we require it always stay fixed.

I'll describe that in my economic policy. Simply cutting spending isn't all that you do I know. I've had enough for the night and I'm going to bed. Good night everybody. (I'm serious though it's 4am here.

[Derek]

Yes, but how do we balance a budget by constitutional requirement? Cancel Medicare?

Well I've heard some of the more mainstream libertarians propose replacing medicare and medicaid with vouchers + the usual market reforms. Doesn't sound that bad considering the alternatives.

interesting

[Derek]

And another thing, do you realize how many of the wealthiest companies only remain in business because of bailouts that are awarded based on how much money is donated to political campaigns. The ma and pa store that doesn't donate a dime doesn't stand the chance that it used to. That's why I advocate a BAN ON SOFT MONEY towards political campaigns.

[Derek]

Yes, but how do we balance a budget by constitutional requirement? Cancel Medicare?

Well I've heard some of the more mainstream libertarians propose replacing medicare and medicaid with vouchers + the usual market reforms. Doesn't sound that bad considering the alternatives.

interesting

Mike Gravel and Ronald Bailey both proposed it.

What did they propose?

[Derek]

idk seems all technical stuff. Why cant it just be about doing drugs and making love?

Thank you for proving my point. ^^

[Derek]

What do you think of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget at the end of each year?

Terrible idea.  Combined with your other ideas (tax changes, defense spending increases, education spending increases), would result in fiscal chaos for this country.

I don't necessarily call for an "increase" on education spending. It's how the money is spent that I have a problem with.