Disagree with both parts. The second idea in particular would be dreadful in practice, even if the theory looks nice.
I agree it's draconian, but I at this point discretionary spending, addendums, etc. have all gotten incredibly out of hand. Congress needs strong limits imposed on it's ability to spend and we need more transparency in all levels of government. Right now we are undermining the dollar and making ourselves more and more dependent on countries like China.
Also I'd allow for emergency exceptions such as natural disasters or severe recession if there was say, a 2/3rds majority approving it.
They're higher overall than any other western/industrialized nation. Even Germany has cut it's corporate income tax rates. We need to streamline the tax code and cut the overall rate, the current post-Reagan trend is very anti-competitive.
I'd do that through said tax cuts, loans for urban development, and other changes.
I don't know about the UK but in the US it's generally exceedingly hard to fire incompetent (or worse) teachers. Believe me, I've encountered it.
They're publicly funded/subsidized schools that normally have less regulations and more private school type elements.
I'm not seeing why it's so crazy, it's certainly more abundant and cleaner in the long term (waste disposal aside) than coal or gas.
I'm assuming that production is generally not going to outpace demand, especially since it would take years to develop refineries or drilling in those areas anyway. Also I'd have the government at least partially own any of the oil rights so that profits could be diverted to other long-term alt energy/public transportation works.
Probably. Doesn't mean we can't make some other sort of concerted push to reduce fossil fuel use or waste with our allies. It might be easier to get this pushed as a national security measure than an environmental one.
Something similar to the Healthy Americans Act. Basically you get a choice between private care or enrollment in a government pensions plan similar to your average government worker and/or elected official. I'd also allow implement a lot of actual free market reforms like allowing people to import drugs from Canada, people to buy health insurance out of state, etc.
Alright fine, we must only use force if attacked.
I'm not demanding anything, I'm just suggesting more of a federation so that each individual group (theoretically) has it's own area to govern and avoid harassment from the others. It seems like the least bad option for ending such a stupid and arrogant 'war' (technically not even that).
If there's no rational basis for a marriage ban (and IMO there clearly isn't) then they're well within their rights to rule it unconstitutional. I do agree however there's been a problem with judicial overreach in this country.
I'm still in college. How much of an ulterior motive could I have?
We don't need to do too much more. Just ban it nationwide for teaching and discourage it through labor laws restricting it. On the other hand I'd make it harder to fire people arbitrarily with no prior warning and I'd work to protect pensions and healthcare (I'd do that first). That sounds like a reasonable trade off.
Require share holders to approve CEO severance pay and/or salary increases. Also cut corporate tax benefits if the company is paying their CEO many times more than their 'average' (median) worker if need be.