Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Creating a new America

NOTICE!
The purpose of this article will be to provide a place where those interested can discuss ideas about what can be done to reform our system of governance.
It is NOT an attempt to subvert the Constitution! Any posts that call for violence or overthrow of the Government will be deleted by the moderator.
My sole purpose is to put forth some ideas about what can be done to reform our current system of electing officials and the conditions that they should observe as they SERVE the public interests.

One last comment/request: Please be civil to each other and try to use language that wouldn't cause your Mother to blush.

I'll start off... it's my blog after all! ;-)

Term Limits:
The current system makes it almost impossible to defeat an incumbent public servant. We have all seen too many that have been in their positions far too long to be any good to anyone but themselves. I would submit a suggestion that two terms in office should be enough for anyone. This would bring in fresh blood and get some of those unfit for leadership roles out of their positions.
I would also suggest that the length of each office be modified for many reasons. Why not make Congressional seats last for 4 years, in the Senate perhaps 8 years. I think Supreme Court Justices should have a 10 year limit and the President one six year term.

Here are some other things that I think are worth discussing:

(I'll be posting MY opinion on each of these topics shortly. Meanwhile, have at em!)

Public Financing of Elections.
If every candidate was given the same amount of money to run their bid for office, it would take away the current practice of "Buying" office. When someone like Hillary Clinton raises 50 million dollars and Dennis Kucinich raises 5 million does that mean she's a "better" candidate? Or does it mean that she's better at raising cash?
We already have campaign finacing laws that grant money to certain candidates that meet specific conditions. Why not just say to the top 10 candidates "OK, here's 10 million dollars. Go out and run your show. But you can't take ANY goods and services from anyone else!" Sure it's a "rough" idea, but my goal here is to stimulate conversation.

Lobbyist not allow to hire former member of Congress for 10 years after they leave office.
Actually, I think if I could get my fondest wish it would be to do away with Lobbyist all together! But, that's probably not going to happen, so one way to limit their effect would be to stop this revolving door of people leaving Congress and then selling their knowledge of how to work the system to the highest bidder.

Lobbyist limited to $1,000/Senator or Congressman per year.
I really think this would be a good idea. If lobbyist and PAC had to limit their spending to only 1,000 dollars per yearper congress member we would see a lot less corruption in Congress. But the rules would have to be set up so as to be enforceable and airtight otherwise these groups would find loopholes big enough to drive a tank thru. My first thought on this idea was One Hundred dollars, but I don't think that's reasonable. What do you think?

Signing Statements by every congress member and senator that they have fully read and understood every piece of law that they vote on.
There should never be a time when some member of Congress could claim that they voted for a law that they hadn't read or didn't understand. If they didn't read the law, why did they vote for it? And, if they didn't understand the law, then how can they expect the average citizen to understand it?

Breaking up of Media "Gangs."
There are, in my opinion, too many "Media Conglomerates." Yes, I'm talking about Rupert Murdoch, but he's not the only one. I don't think it's healthy for a Democacy to have so much power in one person (or groups) hands. Murdoch has already admitted that he actively tried to shape opinion in this country. He's just one man. Sure he's rich but so is Bill Gates and you don't see him pushing his political views on people.

Flat percentage of income tax for everyone.
I'm not sure about this one. It just seems to me that if everone had to pay a flat percentage of their income, it would be a lot more fair than it is now. People with a lot of money SHOULD pay a LOT of taxes. 10 per cent of my income would be a hit that I could live with if everybody kicked in the same. What is RIGHT about stock brokers making 50 million dollars a year and not paying taxes on it because he gets a break from the likes of Bush. Sorry, in my book that does not compute.



Here is an interesting article that might help get you thinking about this subject:
http://homefires.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/same-old-song-and-dance/?8ty&emc=ty

No comments: