What simple changes in gov. would you make?

[SteveA]

If you had to make a few simple changes to the operation of government, what would they be?

(Preferably something enduring, not just a few laws but something to the underlying fabric that would hopefully have wide and beneficial effects)

My list would be:

1) Supermajority voting requirements to add laws and the ability of a minority to repeal them. (For example 75%-80%+ to pass a law and 25-30% to repeal a law). The more unanimously agreed upon the laws are, the fewer conflicts over, and resources used by government. (Our courts use this principle already to protect minorities by requiring a unanimous verdict of 12 people).

2) A fixed % flat tax rate for everyone, with unspent resources returned to everyone without means testing or other discrimination. (For example, a 15% flat tax, that's unincreasable. Everyone, including Bill Gates, gets a welfare check that is just what money is left over after government spends its share out of this, so everyone has an incentive to monitor government spending and keep costs low).

3) Votes by representatives are based upon the number of people who support them. You can place your vote behind any representative you desire and be allowed to change who you support during their term. (Instead of having a winner takes all system, where a 2 party system tends to rule, if you allowed people for example to pick their favorite Congressional representative and put their vote behind them, then each Senator could have a differing number of votes. This would not only give individuals a greater ability to reflect their desires, even if their candidate lost an election, but also give much more incentives to representatives to not renege on campaign promises, because their support could literally vanish - I'd put my vote behind Ron Paul).

Any other possibilities?

[SteveA]

Sidenote: For those people who feel the suggestions above would be overly restrictive of government, consider that this doesn't deny people adding things to it in a private voluntary manner. If for example Social Security was an important issue for people but unable to get 75% support, there are still private alternatives that could effectively do the same (with likely better returns on the savings anyway). Or if a specific community wanted to pass laws in their area prohibiting alcohol or a curfew, people can still determine what rules apply on their property and could agree to create effectively a private government and vote on issues between themselves, without needing to sway a democratic vote to do so and this could easily apply to many types of political views as well. So the only mandatory laws would be those that most everyone agrees upon, the rest could locally differ depending on customs and desires.

[PatrickHenry]

Ending the current seventy-two year long Declared State of Emergency is the top priority. Dictatorship is an unworthy measure for a Republic to continue. There are currently FIVE states of emergency in the USA. The Congress needs to be the prime agency for declaring future states of emergency.

There also needs to be a full commitment to the Tenth Amendment, something I feel you would agree to, SteveA.

[monty of ll]

Just a question about you flat tax proposal Steve. Would you be proposing a flat tax of 15% for everyone after exemptions or before exemptions. And if you are proposing eliminating exemptions then which exemptions would you eliminate specifically. I ask about eliminating exemptions because this is usually where those who propose a flat tax are heading. For example, would this mean a flat tax of 15% on the very poorest who are existing near the poverty level? And would it mean a flat tax of 15% on the very wealthy, regardless of actual net profit? Or have you considered any of these questions?

[tman_ndsu08]

1 - End all taxes except a flat national sales tax.

2 - End all national government programs except the military. Sell all assets owned by former programs and return money to the people.

[rcne]

1. Term limits, plus once in elected office never a lobbyist be. I would also apply that to the military inside the beltline.

2. A flat tax for everyone.

3. End corporate welfare

4. Drastically reduce foreign aid, (end foreign welfare)

[Osborn F Enready]

Re-Alignment with all Constitutional rules in all forms of law, and re-establish the Bill of Rights.

[belverron]

I think you have some interesting suggestions, SteveA. Personally, I would prefer a sales-tax-only system like we have in Texas to a flat 15% on everyone.

[SteveA]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ah, yes, the states rights amendment. That's definitely one that would keep states from becoming abusive. People assuming granting power to the states instead of the federal government makes little tyrranies possible but it does the EXACT opposite - when states can have different laws, there's a competition between them with people moving from more oppressive states losing people over time and the power they wield (even in federal representation, as it's partly based upon population). So there are natural forces that restrict the ability of any particular state to cause large problems because of alternative "Free States" people can go to (this was exactly the case with slavery, and the term Free State was actually used).

Whereas, if instead we place power into a central unescapable governmental body (a.k.a. the federal government), there are no choices available for people and no competition - we all life in the same boat, until inevitably it sinks.

Thank you, Mr. Henry.

Ending the current seventy-two year long Declared State of Emergency is the top priority. Dictatorship is an unworthy measure for a Republic to continue. There are currently FIVE states of emergency in the USA. The Congress needs to be the prime agency for declaring future states of emergency.

If I remember correctly the Constitution only allowed a standing military to be formed by Congressional approval for a period of up to two years, the rest was left to smaller state defense. We've had a standing military for as long as I can remember. If that's what you're referring to, yes, it seems as though someone hasn't followed the rules and changed the Constitution to support this. (Hmmm... is an implicit contract valid if one person breaches the good faith granted to uphold it? I tend to this it doesn't apply to the extent that such is lost)

Just a question about you flat tax proposal Steve. Would you be proposing a flat tax of 15% for everyone after exemptions or before exemptions. And if you are proposing eliminating exemptions then which exemptions would you eliminate specifically. I ask about eliminating exemptions because this is usually where those who propose a flat tax are heading. For example, would this mean a flat tax of 15% on the very poorest who are existing near the poverty level? And would it mean a flat tax of 15% on the very wealthy, regardless of actual net profit? Or have you considered any of these questions?

Ideally, I'd prefer to see government run on a voluntary support basis. There are obviously people who benefit from it and they should be willing to foot the bill, in my opinion. If we already allow them the priveledge of legitimized use of force, that should be enough a compensation in itself, but realistically we aren't likely to see such a scenarion for a long time, so assuming we have some mandatory form of taxation, then yes, I believe it should be applied equally to everyone as a fixed percent.

The poor would already pay less under this scenario - if you earned 10 times as much, you'd pay 10 times as much and this also provides an incentive for everyone to reduce the burden. It's unjust to have special interest groups, whether they be rich or poor benefitting at the expense of others - such a system isn't stable. Also, I mentioned taking whatever unspent monies were left over and equally redistributing them back to everyone, as effectively a "welfare" system, but it's rewarded by using less government rather than having everyone try to get their representative to "bring home the bacon".

So overall, under the system I proposed above, poor individuals would actually receive a net gain in money from the government, without needing to qualify or have the threat of it being taken if someone wanted to suppliment it by earning money on the side (means testing discourages people from getting out of poverty).

So if one person earned $100,000, while another earned $10,000, the one earning $100,000 would paying $15,000, while the one earning $10,000 would pay $1,500. After the money is pooled, that leaves $16,500 together. If government spent $10,500 of this, there'd be $6,000 remaining, which would be equally redistributed back to the two people - for $3,000 each. So the person earning $100,000 would effectively pay $12,000 taxes while person earning $10,000 would be receiving effectively $1,500 additional income.

I don't know whether a sales tax or an income tax is better, but we already have an income tax and before adding a national sales tax, I'd prefer to see them prove they their intentions and ability to reform by repairing the income tax before adding a new tax.

(I don't really care if they placed the taxes on potato chips, as long as they were low enough. I might even buy an extra bag as a "thank you" present. Ideally though, for the wellbeing of the country, taxes should truly fall on actions that cause harm. Taxing something that is a beneficial action is self defeating - why should we effectively punish someone for doing something beneficial for everyone? If someone builds a house, it helps everyone by releaving housing pressures and over crowding, which lower prices and free up a space for someone else, or if someone starts a new company, it creates jobs for others and new products in society for people to buy, which lowers costs and helps everyone also. When someone is harmed, we tend to not expect the criminal to provide restitution for this but instead have come to instinctively look around for the person with the larger pocketbook and have them "take care" of things. There is no magic genie government that solves things, we need to look closer at where the costs are going and trying to justify why they are going that way, and is there something better.)

1. Term limits, plus once in elected office never a lobbyist be. I would also apply that to the military inside the beltline. 2. A flat tax for everyone. 3. End corporate welfare 4. Drastically reduce foreign aid, (end foreign welfare)

I agree with all those except term limits. The reason why many politicians renege on their promises after being office for a while could likely be because they know they can't be relected anyway, so don't bother trying to keep their customers happy in their last term.

I used to disbelieve that corporate welfare was a big problem, but I've seen it in action and have come to agree that there are a few too many government strings people are pulling and actually much of the complaints about wide disparities in income likely comes from abusing capitalistic ideals into something no longer representative of free markets and just ownership.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: SteveA We've had a standing military for as long as I can remember. If that's what you're referring to

No. Maybe you aren't up to speed on the issue, Steve. Check this thread: Declared State of Emergency in USA since 1933?

A standing land force wasn't envisioned by the founders, true. But in a threatening world with nations as well armed and hostile as some of our planetary co-residents, I think a standing army may be prudent. The Navy, of course, was a part of the original plan. But there is no doubt that the standing land forces since WWII have led to Imperial abuse. American Empire

But my topic above was misunderstood: I was referring to the Declared State of Emergency that grants unwarranted powers to the Executive branch and effectively subverts the Republic. GW Bush declared an additional SoE on September 14th, 2001. All powers to manage the nation single-handedly are in the hands of the Chief Executive at present. This needs to change, for it has continued too long and I fear the Republic as it once existed has been irretrievably lost. The best we can do now is fight to get back some of the original balance through a fierce information campaign.

[italiangm]

Quote by: belverron Personally, I would prefer a sales-tax-only system like we have in Texas to a flat 15% on everyone.

We pay two pipers, belverron. In addition to sales tax is property tax. While the state doesn't collect property tax, local entities do.

During 2003, sales tax collections accounted for $14.2 billion, while property tax collections accounted for $28.9 billion.

[northtexan]

Quote by: SteveA If you had to make a few simple changes to the operation of government, what would they be? (Preferably something enduring, not just a few laws but something to the underlying fabric that would hopefully have wide and beneficial effects) My list would be: 1) Supermajority voting requirements to add laws and the ability of a minority to repeal them. (For example 75%-80%+ to pass a law and 25-30% to repeal a law). The more unanimously agreed upon the laws are, the fewer conflicts over, and resources used by government. (Our courts use this principle already to protect minorities by requiring a unanimous verdict of 12 people). 2) A fixed % flat tax rate for everyone, with unspent resources returned to everyone without means testing or other discrimination. (For example, a 15% flat tax, that's unincreasable. Everyone, including Bill Gates, gets a welfare check that is just what money is left over after government spends its share out of this, so everyone has an incentive to monitor government spending and keep costs low). 3) Votes by representatives are based upon the number of people who support them. You can place your vote behind any representative you desire and be allowed to change who you support during their term. (Instead of having a winner takes all system, where a 2 party system tends to rule, if you allowed people for example to pick their favorite Congressional representative and put their vote behind them, then each Senator could have a differing number of votes. This would not only give individuals a greater ability to reflect their desires, even if their candidate lost an election, but also give much more incentives to representatives to not renege on campaign promises, because their support could literally vanish - I'd put my vote behind Ron Paul). Any other possibilities?

At little different:
(1) impeach Bush and Cheney;
(2) get rid of the Electoral College, use popular vote to elect the president;
(3) explore alternate voting schemes;
(4) revive Congress, which has surrendered too much power to the presidency.

[SteveA]

(1) impeach Bush and Cheney; (2) get rid of the Electoral College, use popular vote to elect the president; (3) explore alternate voting schemes; (4) revive Congress, which has surrendered too much power to the presidency.

Sounds like a good list, though the Electoral College isn't entirely bad, I agree that having your vote effectively tossed out in most states is a real problem but it's rarely actually swung the verdict from the popular tally anway and then only when things were very close (withing a percent or so).

The one thing I do like about the Electoral College is that it isolates corrupt voting in one state from affecting other states:

Consider typical voting results, and we see that generally presidential votes are with maybe 5% of being a tie. With the Electoral College, all a single state can do is swing their own total full one way or the other, but without the Electoral College a single corrupt state could easily determine the winner. Normally most states only vary by maybe 10% in their preference of one candidate or the other but without the Electoral College, one state could potentially shift votes by a much larger amount and effectively overrun the votes in other states.

I agree we should work on assuring we have a stable and uncorrupt voting system. I don't trust people making black boxes for me to use to vote. I'm even an electronic engineer and still don't trust the idea. There are just way too many games that can be played when votes become intangible bits in a computer. I think the old fashion paper and pencil and counting done publicly is the best really. Sure, some people can cheat, and we'd occasionally see pregnant or aborted chads but at least for any wide scale abuse to occur, people would have to pull some real physical stunts to do it, instead of etherial counts noone can physically verify or even have evidence whether the numbers actually reflect the votes or not. (At least with the paper you've got the chance to catch the guy in the corner with a stack of ballots trying to slip it into the box).

Voting methods should remain under state control as much as possible, if we allow the federal government to tell us how to vote on federal issues, I see a problem waiting to happen.

[Caduceus]

Well, I'd change a lot of things and none of them are simple. Sorry.

What I'd change, not in any order:

1. Renegotiation of certain trade agreements -- these are simply lopsided against American interests
2. Reform of immigration law -- self-explanatory; why bother having laws if we allow them to be broken?
3. Reform of environmental law -- repeal some useless things like the SPA, strengthen others
4. Total overhaul of business regulations -- ensure that they provide only for the well-being and safety of their workers and don't excessively cripple businesses; or excessively help them for that matter, so bye bye, corporate welfare

[ghost_stalker]

Some changes that i would like to make are:
-Get rid of the electoral college
-Get rid of partnering between vp and pres, (Vote for the Vise President, and The President seperatelly)
-Get rid of age restrictions for elected govt offices
-Make all laws accessible free to the public (we deserve to know the laws that we pay to enforce, and have the right to review them freely)
-Also make all info about congressional votes and such availble for free to people (again we deserve to know what laws are being voted for and etc)
-Flat tax for all income brackets and only charge flat tax (no sales tax, property tax, etc just a flat income tax)

[Milton Bradley]

Instant Runoff Voting would be tops on my list.


http://www.instantrunoff.com/


Perhaps then a third party candidate could have a real chance of toppling the two party lock.