Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

To fix the Federal Government, check all that apply:

  • Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Be sure that the President and Congress are of different parties.

    Votes: 4 7.1%
  • The Pres, staff, Congress, fed employees live under same laws as all.

    Votes: 30 53.6%
  • Do away with Federal Government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

    Votes: 21 37.5%
  • Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

    Votes: 19 33.9%
  • Term limits

    Votes: 23 41.1%
  • A zero tolerance malfeasance policy.

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • None of the above.

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Total voters
    56
I suggest a constitutional ammendment that: "Corporations are not citizens and money is not speech." And then a simple law that any donation over say $10,000.00 be made a matter of public record, with the donation max being $50,000.00. Political power and financial power need to be seperate for real democracy to prosper
 
Fix the federal government FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL? It ain't broken. God help us if we think we can fix government for once and for all. The Founding Fathers understood that there would be nut cases who wanted to "fix the federal government" and they created checks and balances in the greatest system of government ever to appear on the globe. The problem is that the teachers union stopped teaching American history to kids so they grew up thinking they could fix politics for once and for all. All you have to do is recognize that the people hire and fire the politicians, pay attention to the issues and vote your conscience.

It's all the teachers' fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ignorant kids are the teachers fault but bad teachers are are own damned fault. We don't need to "fix the federal government for once and for all". We need to take charge from the grassroots. Somehow libs have gotten the idea that they work for the federal government instead of vice versa. That's why libs hate the Tea Party people.
 
I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.
With respect, in your opinion.

This does not, however, comport to current Constitutional case law:

United States v. Butler (1936):

By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the “general welfare.” The Court accords great deference to Congress’s decision that a spending program advances the general welfare, and has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable. Dispute, such as it is, turns on the conditioning of funds.

As with its other powers, Congress may enact legislation “necessary and proper” to effectuate its purposes in taxing and spending. In upholding a law making it a crime to bribe state and local officials who administer programs that receive federal funds, the Court declared that Congress has authority “to see to it that taxpayer dollars . . . are in fact spent for the general welfare, and not frittered away in graft or on projects undermined when funds are siphoned off or corrupt public officers are derelict about demanding value for dollars.” Congress’ failure to require proof of a direct connection between the bribery and the federal funds was permissible, the Court concluded, because “corruption does not have to be that limited to affect the federal interest. Money is fungible, bribed officials are untrustworthy stewards of federal funds, and corrupt contractors do not deliver dollar-for-dollar value.”

Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980):

The general principle is firmly established. “Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives. This Court has repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge the use of this technique to induce governments and private parties to cooperate voluntarily with federal policy.”

See also South Dakota v. Dole (1987), where the Court upheld Congress’ authority to withhold highway development funds for states that refused to increase the legal drinking age to 21. It was ‘necessary and proper’ for Congress to ‘promote the general welfare’ by advancing safe interstate travel.

It is exceedingly unlikely that these or a score of similar cases will be overturned anytime soon – or ever, for that matter – as this is considered settled law.

And any amendment to the Constitution, in an attempt to nullify this body of case law, would need to be tens of thousands of pages long to address the manifold possibilities that encompass Congressional taxing and spending authority, such an amendment would soon itself be subject to judicial review, experiencing much the same outcome.
 
Huh.. I'm kind of surprised I was the only "None of the Above" answer. I didn't see anything on that list that would fix the federal government. Or even have much of an impact.
 
No problem from me with exploting and utilizing our own resources. But the benevolence angle is the reforming policy that applies to this thread. While I think strengthening our own borders, economy, defenses, etc. will enhance our overall prosperity, and being prosperous makes us a desirable trading partner even with those who are probably our spiritual enemy, I see that as procedural and policy issues we can tackle once we have reformed government.

The point I was making that withdrawing foreign aid - benevolence if you will - and spending would be effectively withdrawing from direct international influence.

You can be sure that other countries will be prepared to fill the vacuum.

Fine. Let somebody else spend their money instead of ours. The American people will continue to open their hearts and wallets to people hurting, hungry, in trouble all over the world as they have always done. And funneling such benevolence through private organizations is far more likely to get it to people who need it than will the US government writing a check.

More than 150 nations receive US foreign aid. Among the 30 largest recipients of US aid in the U.N., 29 vote against us most of the time. Those nations who vote with us are far more likely to be nations that promote personal freedoms and receive no U.S. aid.

Since 2000 about 95 percent of U.N. member states that receive U.S. assistance have voted against the United States most of the time in the U.N. General Assembly on non-consensus votes

You can't buy friends.
Foreign aid represents less than 1% of the federal budget. Three countries, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel receive a 1/3 of the foreign aid, most of which is used to buy weapons from the US. Only about 20% of the foreign aid dollars goes to humanitarian relief. Billions of dollars go to Pakistan in humanitarian relief and financial assistance to the government. For that we get a supply route through the country and cooperation in conducting the war. US foreign aid doesn't buy friends, it buys assistance with specific problems. We’ve given Syria millions of dollars since 911 in order to get the cooperation of their intelligence people?

Make no mistake foreign aid is not a gift. It is a vital part of US foreign policy.
 
In my opinion, implementing No. 5 and 6 would take care of most of it as we would again have public servants in government instead of career politicians.

i picked 4, 6, 7, and 8.

I wouldn't object to 5 happening either I just wasn't really sure if you meant take away all govt workers or just elected officials crazy lifetime healthplans.

Well, once we have reformed and restored integrity and principle to our federal government, I will want to get it totally out of the business of healthcare. So if federal employees are going to live under the same rules as everybody else, the taxpayer won't be furnishing healthcare to federal employees. In my 'perfect world' however, the employees would be able to form and fund their own group if they wanted to. I would like to see insurance policies, just like auto insurance or other forms of insurance, become the private property of the person and therefore portable.

But first we have to reform government and remove incentive for federal employees to be a lobby and voting bloc before we can reform healthcare.
I doubt that government will ever be out of the healthcare business. Half of our healthcare cost is being paid for by government and that percentage is going up along with the cost of healthcare. Government involvement in healthcare has been increasing in the US and throughout the world. Also, Americans along with the rest of the world are coming to believe that healthcare is a right, not a service available only to those that can afford it. I really don't see how these trends will change.
 
The subject of the thread is pretty damn huge, and difficult to respond: I'll not even try to cover the entire scope.

But, I will address the "Problem" IMHO: The Executive Branch has WAY too much power.

This branch was never meant to be the gross bohemoth it grew into during the Civil War, and particularly WW II. From what I can see, before WWII, the Chief Executive was little more than a unfunded branch, whose President was conveniently dispised almost universally, and on very rare occasions, deeply loved, but almost never held accountable for anything except military adventures, most of which were done on very small scale.

As a result, the Legislative Branch doesn't take much responsibility for anything, and most Americans don't even know who their congressman and senator are. Most HoR and Senators have become low profile idiots (Boehner, Pelosi) who welcome the spotlight during an election, the dodge responsibility during their terms (e.g. Senators Obama, McCain). They make gawdawful Presidents.

Solution?

Not really sure that the sybiotic relationship between host (The Executive) and paracite (The Legislative branch) is possible to weaken. It would start with the American People recognising the problem: They don't, because, frankly, they LIKE the Semi-Monarcy of the President. For partisan morons who are used to being spoon fed by a media that makes their lives simple with only two colors (Red and Blue), a Dem president to blindly attack or defend is as attractive as a Repub president to blindly attack or defend.

But, let's suspend reality.

If voters would elect a President that would close down most of the Executive Branch's various Depts, Bureaus, Agencies, etc...to pre WWII levels....just say fuck it, I'm only going to do the job strictly spelled out as it has been written, which is very Fuzzily Written.

The lack of specific, detailed language in the Constitution describing the power and responsibilities of the executive branch has given presidents a great deal of flexibility to increase its size and scope over the years, in terms of both the range of its authority and the number of people, offices, and agencies employed to carry out its responsibilities. Today, the executive branch consists of well over 3 million people who work in one of three general areas: the Executive Office of the President (EOP); the cabinet and 15 executive departments; and an extensive collection of federal agencies and corporations responsible for specific areas of the government.

In Summary:

Executive Branch legal definition of Executive Branch. Executive Branch synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

We need to elect a President that uses "The lack of specific, detailed language in the Constitution describing the power and responsibilities of the executive branch" to WEAKEN the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
 
In my opinion, implementing No. 5 and 6 would take care of most of it as we would again have public servants in government instead of career politicians.

i picked 4, 6, 7, and 8.

I wouldn't object to 5 happening either I just wasn't really sure if you meant take away all govt workers or just elected officials crazy lifetime healthplans.

Well, once we have reformed and restored integrity and principle to our federal government, I will want to get it totally out of the business of healthcare. So if federal employees are going to live under the same rules as everybody else, the taxpayer won't be furnishing healthcare to federal employees. In my 'perfect world' however, the employees would be able to form and fund their own group if they wanted to. I would like to see insurance policies, just like auto insurance or other forms of insurance, become the private property of the person and therefore portable.

But first we have to reform government and remove incentive for federal employees to be a lobby and voting bloc before we can reform healthcare.

Thanks for clarifying.

My opinion is that govt workers and elected officials should have to pay for a portion of their health insurance themselves. Most people in the private sector pay between 50% and 100% of their total health insurance....i pay 50% and my employer pays 50%.


The elected officials should have to pay 100%, the fed/state workers should have to up their contribution to 50% and take benefits cuts to that insurance to help keep the cost down like the private sector.
 
i picked 4, 6, 7, and 8.

I wouldn't object to 5 happening either I just wasn't really sure if you meant take away all govt workers or just elected officials crazy lifetime healthplans.

Well, once we have reformed and restored integrity and principle to our federal government, I will want to get it totally out of the business of healthcare. So if federal employees are going to live under the same rules as everybody else, the taxpayer won't be furnishing healthcare to federal employees. In my 'perfect world' however, the employees would be able to form and fund their own group if they wanted to. I would like to see insurance policies, just like auto insurance or other forms of insurance, become the private property of the person and therefore portable.

But first we have to reform government and remove incentive for federal employees to be a lobby and voting bloc before we can reform healthcare.

Thanks for clarifying.

My opinion is that govt workers and elected officials should have to pay for a portion of their health insurance themselves. Most people in the private sector pay between 50% and 100% of their total health insurance....i pay 50% and my employer pays 50%.


The elected officials should have to pay 100%, the fed/state workers should have to up their contribution to 50% and take benefits cuts to that insurance to help keep the cost down like the private sector.
Federal government workers, civil service employees do pay part of their health insurance costs. The amount employees pay varies with plan and location but generally is in the range of $100 to $400 a month. I have worked for both a state and a local government and paid about half the cost.

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/rates/nonpostalhmo2011.pdf

I have no idea what appointed and elected officials pay.
 
you want to "fix" government? get rid of the need for corporate donors. set a given amount for each candidate who obtains a minimum number of signatures and gets on the ballot. no candidate could use their own money or money from donations to supplement the federal funds.

of course, citizens united pretty well screwed any chance of that happening.

Why not take that extra quarter step, and simply have the party appoint our rulers - that's what your leaning toward with your proposals anyway. No one can campaign, just the Unions and the leftist media deciding.
 
. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

Number five includes VA benefits too. Better re-think that one. Number six would hit the poor the hardest. I can't understand why some folks think they can balance the federal budget on their backs. I suppose those folks would then complain about the homeless and dispossessed clogging the streets. Poor students of history would support number 6.

We have term limits! Two four year terms for the president and an election every six years for senators, every two years for congressmen. Use the voting booth, not a mandatory hook.

The one suggestion I'd make is bulldozing every building on K Street and making professional lobbyists run for the hills. Special interests, particularly the banking, investment houses and multi-national corporations have greater access to elected officials than average citizens do.

It is a Constitutional Function of the Federal Government to provide the Common Defense and I have no problem with taking care of those who put their lives on the line for their country. I do not see the military as the same thing as government administration.

I think careful students of history, once they fully appreciated good intentions producing unintended negative consequences, would strongly support No. 6 at the Federal level. The Founders were quite clear and wise re the risks and dangers of charity dispensed at the federal level. And implementation of No. 6 takes care of any lobbyists who have bad motives in their lobbying processes.

And. . . .implementation of No. 6 also gives the people incentive to exercise term limits at the voting booth. If they can't vote themselves money and benefits by keeping the same scoundrels in office, they will be more likely inspired to elect people who will have the best interests of the whole country at heart.

If you don't see the military as government administration, what do you consider it? Of course it's the government! It damn well better be! Otherwise, it's a purely political function and that should mark it as ready for immediate abolition.

And if America wants to think of itself as the greatest nation on earth, what constitutes that greatness? The way we care for the least able in our society, or our ability to end all life on earth with the push of a button? To ignore the poor, the disabled, the ignorant only fertilizes the soil for more poor, disabled and ignorant. It's time we stopped kow towing to the rich, the advantaged and the powerful and paid attention to the least of us. For what we do to the least of us, we do to ourselves.
 
Foxfyre, I'm not disagreeing with you or Oddball on the two posts just above - but neither of them claim that everyone benefits equally (which is what you first argued and probably didn't really mean).

All I'm saying is that it's often impossible for the government to spend ANY money without some group yelling that they're getting the shaft while another group benefits more.
Roads are equally available to all, whether you personally partake of their use or not.

Equal availability to everyone <> Equal benefit for everyone.
Funny, equality of availability as equality of benefit is pretty much the gist of the argument from the socialized medical care crowd....But, somehow or another, this doesn't apply to freedom to travel across the continent?

Besides that, equal outcomes are an impossibility....What you make or don't make of something that is freely available to you is your concern.
 
And if America wants to think of itself as the greatest nation on earth, what constitutes that greatness? The way we care for the least able in our society, or our ability to end all life on earth with the push of a button?

Neither one.

The opportunity of any person to achieve anything they can imagine and are willing to put the effort forth to achieve. The liberty to choose our own station in life, the freedom to risk, to succeed and to fail.

You see greatness as a soup kitchen line and a welfare check, I see it as a boy from the blue collar family creating Microsoft, without the need for permission for lords, or dictators.
 
i picked 4, 6, 7, and 8.

I wouldn't object to 5 happening either I just wasn't really sure if you meant take away all govt workers or just elected officials crazy lifetime healthplans.

Well, once we have reformed and restored integrity and principle to our federal government, I will want to get it totally out of the business of healthcare. So if federal employees are going to live under the same rules as everybody else, the taxpayer won't be furnishing healthcare to federal employees. In my 'perfect world' however, the employees would be able to form and fund their own group if they wanted to. I would like to see insurance policies, just like auto insurance or other forms of insurance, become the private property of the person and therefore portable.

But first we have to reform government and remove incentive for federal employees to be a lobby and voting bloc before we can reform healthcare.

Thanks for clarifying.

My opinion is that govt workers and elected officials should have to pay for a portion of their health insurance themselves. Most people in the private sector pay between 50% and 100% of their total health insurance....i pay 50% and my employer pays 50%.


The elected officials should have to pay 100%, the fed/state workers should have to up their contribution to 50% and take benefits cuts to that insurance to help keep the cost down like the private sector.

That would be a start toward real reform I think, but there should be no unalienable right to health insurance and I don't want the federal government to be able to manipulate the system by choosing who gets to insure federal employees. That is why I think federal employees should fund all of their own health plan. I have no problem with the employees forming their own group and choosing their own plan if they want to do that. I wouldn't have any problem with government personnel administrating the plan so long as government involvement was no more than just that.
 
Number five includes VA benefits too. Better re-think that one. Number six would hit the poor the hardest. I can't understand why some folks think they can balance the federal budget on their backs. I suppose those folks would then complain about the homeless and dispossessed clogging the streets. Poor students of history would support number 6.

We have term limits! Two four year terms for the president and an election every six years for senators, every two years for congressmen. Use the voting booth, not a mandatory hook.

The one suggestion I'd make is bulldozing every building on K Street and making professional lobbyists run for the hills. Special interests, particularly the banking, investment houses and multi-national corporations have greater access to elected officials than average citizens do.

It is a Constitutional Function of the Federal Government to provide the Common Defense and I have no problem with taking care of those who put their lives on the line for their country. I do not see the military as the same thing as government administration.

I think careful students of history, once they fully appreciated good intentions producing unintended negative consequences, would strongly support No. 6 at the Federal level. The Founders were quite clear and wise re the risks and dangers of charity dispensed at the federal level. And implementation of No. 6 takes care of any lobbyists who have bad motives in their lobbying processes.

And. . . .implementation of No. 6 also gives the people incentive to exercise term limits at the voting booth. If they can't vote themselves money and benefits by keeping the same scoundrels in office, they will be more likely inspired to elect people who will have the best interests of the whole country at heart.

If you don't see the military as government administration, what do you consider it? Of course it's the government! It damn well better be! Otherwise, it's a purely political function and that should mark it as ready for immediate abolition.

And if America wants to think of itself as the greatest nation on earth, what constitutes that greatness? The way we care for the least able in our society, or our ability to end all life on earth with the push of a button? To ignore the poor, the disabled, the ignorant only fertilizes the soil for more poor, disabled and ignorant. It's time we stopped kow towing to the rich, the advantaged and the powerful and paid attention to the least of us. For what we do to the least of us, we do to ourselves.

The military is a specific constitutional function/requirement for the Federal Government. That is what makes it different from almost all other administrative functions. For that reason, I have no problem seeing the military as something different from other government functions that are not specific constitutional requirements.

I agree that the way we TREAT (not care for) the least able in our society is a barameter of what sort of society we are. We are the only nation on Earth that is founded on a concept of freedom and unalienable rights of the people; a nation in which it was intended that the government secure our rights and then the people would govern themselves and form whatever society they wished to have.

The difference between you and me, I think, is you seem to be suggesting what I, for want of a better term, refer to as the 'king' mentality. As the people of the Bible did, you clamor for a king to rule and protect and provide for and look after the people. It didn't work out too well for them, and it hasn't worked out too well for us. I don't want functions such as charity handled at the Federal level because, as the Founders knew it would be, it is corrupting both to those in the Federal government and the recipients of the charity. And that is not my definition of compassion.
 
And if America wants to think of itself as the greatest nation on earth, what constitutes that greatness? The way we care for the least able in our society, or our ability to end all life on earth with the push of a button?

Neither one.

The opportunity of any person to achieve anything they can imagine and are willing to put the effort forth to achieve. The liberty to choose our own station in life, the freedom to risk, to succeed and to fail.

You see greatness as a soup kitchen line and a welfare check, I see it as a boy from the blue collar family creating Microsoft, without the need for permission for lords, or dictators.
I agree that the freedom to achieve is the basis for our greatness.

But our public policy since Eisenhower warned us against it, has been to fund the military-industrial complex without question while we are divided over whether to fund schools and the poorest Americans.

So, we call ourselves "great" and some are willing to be oblivious to our fundamental weaknesses: that of the "greatest" country to care for its poorest.
 
Fuedalism the ultimate in trickle down economics and selective liberties. Might want to think about that Libs.
 
The subject of the thread is pretty damn huge, and difficult to respond: I'll not even try to cover the entire scope.

But, I will address the "Problem" IMHO: The Executive Branch has WAY too much power.

This branch was never meant to be the gross bohemoth it grew into during the Civil War, and particularly WW II. From what I can see, before WWII, the Chief Executive was little more than a unfunded branch, whose President was conveniently dispised almost universally, and on very rare occasions, deeply loved, but almost never held accountable for anything except military adventures, most of which were done on very small scale.

As a result, the Legislative Branch doesn't take much responsibility for anything, and most Americans don't even know who their congressman and senator are. Most HoR and Senators have become low profile idiots (Boehner, Pelosi) who welcome the spotlight during an election, the dodge responsibility during their terms (e.g. Senators Obama, McCain). They make gawdawful Presidents.

Solution?

Not really sure that the sybiotic relationship between host (The Executive) and paracite (The Legislative branch) is possible to weaken. It would start with the American People recognising the problem: They don't, because, frankly, they LIKE the Semi-Monarcy of the President. For partisan morons who are used to being spoon fed by a media that makes their lives simple with only two colors (Red and Blue), a Dem president to blindly attack or defend is as attractive as a Repub president to blindly attack or defend.

But, let's suspend reality.

If voters would elect a President that would close down most of the Executive Branch's various Depts, Bureaus, Agencies, etc...to pre WWII levels....just say fuck it, I'm only going to do the job strictly spelled out as it has been written, which is very Fuzzily Written.

The lack of specific, detailed language in the Constitution describing the power and responsibilities of the executive branch has given presidents a great deal of flexibility to increase its size and scope over the years, in terms of both the range of its authority and the number of people, offices, and agencies employed to carry out its responsibilities. Today, the executive branch consists of well over 3 million people who work in one of three general areas: the Executive Office of the President (EOP); the cabinet and 15 executive departments; and an extensive collection of federal agencies and corporations responsible for specific areas of the government.

In Summary:

Executive Branch legal definition of Executive Branch. Executive Branch synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

We need to elect a President that uses "The lack of specific, detailed language in the Constitution describing the power and responsibilities of the executive branch" to WEAKEN the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

I think it isn't just the Executive branch though. For the past 100+ years, the people became complacent in protecting the Founders' and Constitutional intent and have allowed chip by chip, little law by little law, government to oh so slowly erode and take away our freedoms and transfer power to itself. That was the Founders' greatest fear. And now we are at the cusp I think. Do we start turning it around or do we continue to snowball down the slippery slope to the monarchy/distatorship/fuedal kingdoms of old from which the Founders sought to break free?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top