If We Rewrote The Constitution...

If the federal government were restricted to the powers itemized by the constitution then the cost of government would not be sky high. This would give individuals the resources and freedom to be prosperous which is a benefit to everyone.
 
What would you change ?

What would you correct ?

What would you clear up ?

I would add an amendment that was related to the way Presidential and Congressional campaigns were financed. This would have to be well thought out (however) and would likely require some complex structures that don't create a lot of unintended side-effects.

Right now, rich & powerful individuals have special and exclusive access to our lawmakers due to the fact they can provide them with huge sums of change to get reelected. If you could somehow curb this so that everyone participating in the democracy had a somewhat equal "value", the politician would be forced to give an ear to ALL citizens. I can't see how this would be a bad thing.

And if campaign financing was uniform and set in stone (ie you are only allowed X), the politician wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about raising money (more time for doing their job!). Currently I believe 30% of a politician's time (on average) is devoted to this.

The trick is not to try to limit the speech of those who can afford it, the trick is to limit the favoritism that those donations can buy. If congress was stripped of their power to give tax breaks to individuals and organizations, and stripped of their power to spend beyond what they're willing to collect in the here and now, who in their right mind would want to donate millions to a campaign?

This. The purchasing of politicians will never end no matter what laws are enacted as long as there are billions to be made in purchasing them. If you only attack the symptom (campaign financing) but leave the actual rot then the problem will never be addressed. I can't fathom why that is so hard to understand.

Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2
 
Term Limits anyone ?

No! Voters have the power to limit their representative's terms already. I do not even like term limiting the president.

Not when the incumbent from either party has such a large advantage in visibility and fund raising. It's gotten way out of hand.

If there was a way to level the playing field....I'd be more interested.
 
Term Limits anyone ?

No! Voters have the power to limit their representative's terms already. I do not even like term limiting the president.

Not when the incumbent from either party has such a large advantage in visibility and fund raising. It's gotten way out of hand.

If there was a way to level the playing field....I'd be more interested.

The way to level the playing field is to remove sources of federal corruption, like the complicated tax code of special breaks for special interests, and the out of control deficit spending.


Like I said, if politicians were powerless to repay a donor with new or protected favoritism in the tax code, who in their right mind would donate millions to a political campaign?
 
I'd have to rethink the sanctity in which we hold the concept of private property.


We NEED the right to own private property, but there has to be some limits on it.

And YES I totally understand how difficult it would be to have that cake and eat it, too.


yes, it is a conundrum. But a solveable one, imo.

By Who's measure. Either Property Rights are established for Rich and Poor without partiality, or there is No True Freedom, only the consent of the powers that be. Private Property, Privacy, Government by the consent of the Governed, are not the Enemy of Just Society. Providence is a Blessing, Not a State controlled Mandate.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top