New Continental Congress

[chicago51]

How dare you disagree with me young man!

Sorry sir it won't happen again.

On second though I agreed with 66% of what you wanted! How dare that not be good enough for you!

 

[chicago51]

Our laws need to be reviewed and revisited periodically. Our politicians are able to sit on their hands and not address serious issues because they don't have to. They can just let things ride and keep business as usual going. So citizens of today are stuck with the consequences of grand bargains struck decades ago. Also, the sausage making of legislation needs to be more streamlined and open. We shouldn't have 1000 page bills cobbled together by lobbyists and aides that are full of tertiary riders and pork barrel giveaways. And something needs to be done about the maze of red tape that exists at all levels of government that makes it hard for average citizens and businesses to get things done without hiring a team of lawyers, accountants, and consultants. Politicians should make sure that the labyrinth they create can be navigated by the members of the population. I now yield the floor.

It is not really a constitutional issue but in terms of today's times I actually support an idea that no one bill can be more than 100 pages (in terms 8.5 x 11 paper, must visible/readable font for someone with normal 20/20 vision). The one exception being the federal budget because since it is so ecompassing it may require more pages say 250.

I know we are just listing grievences but I would like to say that if a bill can't be kept under 100 pages then it should be broke up into multiple bills. This immigration bill for example is going to be a monster so it would to be broken up by issue probably and the whole package of bills would have to be voted on.

 

[Cackalacky]

Our laws need to be reviewed and revisited periodically. Our politicians are able to sit on their hands and not address serious issues because they don't have to. They can just let things ride and keep business as usual going. So citizens of today are stuck with the consequences of grand bargains struck decades ago.

I concur. Legislation, supreme court decisions, and executive orders from different periods of time should be reviewed and excised or changed as necessary. Kind of like a legal "liquid-plumr." For example, having sex with animals is legal in 23 states. That is far too low IMO.

 

[chicago51]

A big thing for me is citizens having both the right and ability in some way be able to repeal and pass laws (or amend laws) through some type of petition/ballet inniative type process.

When it comes time for specific solutions I'll draw up my specific proposal on how we could do this.

 

[Cackalacky]

This is what I am talking about... 2 obvious sides of the spectrum and a general agreement on a few topics of failures that need to be addressed.

Term limits, Supreme Court overstepping boundaries, tax structure,.....

 

[Cackalacky]

A big thing for me is citizens having both the right and ability in some way be able to repeal and pass laws (or amend laws) through some type of petition/ballet inniative type process.

When it comes time for specific solutions I'll draw up my specific proposal on how we could do this.

I see what you are getting at and I think that with your proposed voting system it could work at the federal level, though I worry about all ballot initiatives as they tend to favor those who show up to vote,....currently. They are only subject to popular vote and don't always represent the right thing to do (particularly civil liberties). When put to popular votes, civil liberties tend to lose out. For example Women's Suffrage was initially started by referendum in Kansas in 1867. It was not guaranteed by federal law until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

Recently, they also "tend to appear" only when one side are predicted to have heavy turnouts leading to a sure victory. They also tend to be a launch pad for appeals and rulings by the Supreme court anyway. I like the idea of citizens ability to repeal laws but isn't that what our representatives in Congress are supposed to do anyway ( although they don't). If congress actually did this, I don't think we would need that. Maybe as a last line of defense? I know we will get into the minutiae later but we would have to expurgate Congress first and fix campaign finance.

I do think we should go back to the HOR representing people and the Senate representing the states.

 

[chicago51]

I see what you are getting at and I think that with your proposed voting system it could work at the federal level, though I worry about all ballot initiatives as they tend to favor those who show up to vote,....currently. They are only subject to popular vote and don't always represent the right thing to do (particularly civil liberties). When put to popular votes, civil liberties tend to lose out. For example Women's Suffrage was initially started by referendum in Kansas in 1867. It was not guaranteed by federal law until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

Recently, they also "tend to appear" only when one side are predicted to have heavy turnouts leading to a sure victory. They also tend to be a launch pad for appeals and rulings by the Supreme court anyway. I like the idea of citizens ability to repeal laws but isn't that what our representatives in Congress are supposed to do anyway ( although they don't). If congress actually did this, I don't think we would need that. Maybe as a last line of defense? I know we will get into the minutiae later but we would have to expurgate Congress first and fix campaign finance.

I do think we should go back to the HOR representing people and the Senate representing the states.

We almost have it sort of upside down right now. Essentially urban areas and thus urban voters are so packed in right now that even with fair congressional less populated areas tend to be represented more in the House. Meanwhile in the the Senate the folks in big cities tend vote one way in big margins (right not it is Democrat but it can has changed over time) so essentially a small area in terms of land mass is overriding the rest of the state when it comes to the Senate.

Although with there are also being alot of rural states that get just as many Senators as California and rightfully so based the Great Compromise. The fact is the votes of people in less populated states and less populated areas tend to count a bit more.

Again both Democrat and Republican states draw districts unfairly but even if they all drew the districts 100% fair and tried represent the voting interest proportionally things would still be skewed towards the voting interest of those in lower population density areas just based on population patterns right now.

 

[Cackalacky]

We almost have it sort of upside down right now. Essentially urban areas and thus urban voters are so packed in right now that even with fair congressional less populated areas tend to be represented more in the House. Meanwhile in the the Senate the folks in big cities tend vote one way in big margins (right not it is Democrat but it can has changed over time) so essentially a small area in terms of land mass is overriding the rest of the state when it comes to the Senate.

Although with there are also being alot of rural states that get just as many Senators as California and rightfully so based the Great Compromise. The fact is the votes of people in less populated states and less populated areas tend to count a bit more.

Again both Democrat and Republican states draw districts unfairly but even if they all drew the districts 100% fair and tried represent the voting interest proportionally things would still be skewed towards the voting interest of those in lower population density areas just based on population patterns right now.

I guess my major issue is the level of representation and who should represent them. I understand there are issues that are specific to the locality, but there are larger issues that affect counties, the state, interstate and up to the federal level. The 10th Amendment has essentially been nullified by the Commerce Clause and the states have no "true" representatives. The state used to pick its representatives for the Senate. That does not exist anymore, but it is irrelevant right now because IMO none of Congress represents the public, only their campaign donors.

I am all for re-establishing a state's right to its decisions, though there are lots of circumstances that the federal level should be involved. I understand that all of the states would be nowhere without the connections to other states and I do not want to undermine that. The people should have a voice (HOR) the state's should have a voice (Senate) and the federal government should have a voice (President). What we have now is a Congress and White House, both of which are beholden to their donors, not their respective offices.

 

[Mr. Larson]

Wait, where's the punch and pie??

My grievances:

-Gerrymandering. How is that one political party's votes can outnumber another's by roughly 10M votes and still lose the House? Gerrymandering. Aka getting really creative with geography to make sure you keep your job. Drawing of district lines is probably best left to arbitrators not politicians.

-Soft money in elections. This was already mentioned (along with getting corporations out of Washington), and I think we need to debate the topic.

-Tax Code Revision

-Immigration Reform (although probably for completely different reasons than irishpat)

-Too Big to Fail/Glass Steagall Repeal/Power of the Fed/Banking system in America

That's just a few...I'll add more later.

 

[chicago51]

Wait, where's the punch and pie??

My grievances:

-Gerrymandering. How is that one political party's votes can outnumber another's by roughly 10M votes and still lose the House? Gerrymandering. Aka getting really creative with geography to make sure you keep your job. Drawing of district lines is probably best left to arbitrators not politicians.

Agree there needs to be some sort judicial oversight I can tell you Illinois is gerymandered up for the Democrats pretty good. Right things are going to favor the Republicans because population patterns. Democrats win the urban districts by huge margins then Republicans tend to eak out other districts by much smaller margin so thus they win more districts with less votes.

-Soft money in elections. This was already mentioned (along with getting corporations out of Washington), and I think we need to debate the topic.

Agree

-Tax Code Revision

I got a ton on this. So I won't get into it on this post.

-Immigration Reform (although probably for completely different reasons than irishpat)

Agree. BTW the same the Senate is coming along on that.

-Too Big to Fail/Glass Steagall Repeal/Power of the Fed/Banking system in America

If we can reincarnate Teddy Roosevelt and elect him has President we would be in good shpae. We have the Sherman Anti-Trust back from 1890 we just need to 2 things:
1- A president willing file antitrust law suit 2- Justices in the courts that won't laugh in your face when you come to them with an anti-trust law suite.

That's just a few...I'll add more later.

Many of our biggest issues are ulitmately legistlative issues not Constitutional ones. I think the Supreme Court having oversight the drawing of federal districts could be something to look at. Although the Supreme Courts is partisan as well

 

[irishpat183]

I agree, like many of you....We need to fix the IRS and tax code.

 

[GoIrish41]

I call for public financing of elections. We as the new government (same as the old government) will own the airwaves and should provide equal time to all candidates, provide each candidate with a stipend to take care of other election expenses, ban corporate contributions to political campaigns, and extensively limit corporate access to elected officials.

 

[irishpat183]

I call for public financing of elections. We as the new government (same as the old government) will own the airwaves and should provide equal time to all candidates, provide each candidate with a stipend to take care of other election expenses, ban corporate contributions to political campaigns, and extensively limit corporate access to elected officials.

Don't forget to add Unions and special interest in there as well.

 

[chicago51]

Carbon Tax

$20 per ton will raise 1.2-1.4 trillion over the next decade

Yes, yes, I know it is going raise prices of energy but hear me out.

We for the most part do a revenue neutral carbon tax.
1- Bring down the sky high corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. Helping create more jobs here.

2- Bring back an enhanced version of the 2009/2010 "making work pay" tax credit which gives working individuals and families a tax rebate. A good rebate can help offset the increase in energy prices.

3- Shore up the federal transportation/highway fund which is now operating at a deficit because improving fuel economy in automobiles has caused a drop in gasoline tax revenue which funds the anual transportation/highway funds to the states. Also dedicate funding for greener mass transit systems in metropolitan areas.

4- Won't be much left after first 3 areas but use $50-$100 billion or so they that may be left for deficit reduction.

Areas 1 and 2 would take about $500 billion each over 10 years and area 3 would take about $200 billion of the carbon fund over 10 years.

Then we can eliminate all the energy loopholes including Obama's green energy subsidies. As the carbon tax rate grows the private sector will begin making the switch to green energy. It addresses climate change without inefficent government spending.

 

[Cackalacky]

I also have a severe grievance with the Patriot Act. That needs to be destroyed, burned, shat on, burned again, and never ever be discussed again. The abuse of power and violations of the Constitution contained inside that document are vomitous.
-Violates the 4th Amendment (illegal search and seizure)
-Violates 5th Amendment (Due process)
-Violates 6th Amendment (trial by jury) and therefore by default 7, 8, and 9.
-There are arguments to be made that it violates the 1st as well though the above are enough for me.


I would also like to see the end of double tap drone strikes. According to Eric Holder, these can even be used on American's on American soil but we are supposed to trust them they won't do that. That's messed up.

 

[chicago51]

Good article on a partially revenue neutral carbon tax.

Breaking the logjam - The Washington Post

 

[chicago51]

I also have a severe grievance with the Patriot Act. That needs to be destroyed, burned, shat on, burned again, and never ever be discussed again. The abuse of power and violations of the Constitution contained inside that document are vomitous.
-Violates the 4th Amendment (illegal search and seizure)
-Violates 5th Amendment (Due process)
-Violates 6th Amendment (trial by jury) and therefore by default 7, 8, and 9.
-There are arguments to be made that it violates the 1st as well though the above are enough for me.


I would also like to see the end of double tap drone strikes. According to Eric Holder, these can even be used on American's on American soil but we are supposed to trust them they won't do that. That's messed up.

I think there should have been to do reduce to police action power of the President away from American soil. It is one thing for the POTUS to defend the Homeland but it is another have a blank check to intervene without of formal declaration of War on recognized nation.

Yes end the Patriot Act.

I say end this "authorization of force" which is a blank check for any President go blowing people in foreign countries.

I say lets improve security from within our border. I don't want to be in a never ending war that is going on all over the globe.

 

[Cackalacky]

I call for public financing of elections. We as the new government (same as the old government) will own the airwaves and should provide equal time to all candidates, provide each candidate with a stipend to take care of other election expenses, ban corporate contributions to political campaigns, and extensively limit corporate access to elected officials.

The revolving door of government officials to private companies, lobbying firms and vice-versa needs to stop. Kill the incentive. This probably falls under term limits on a broader scale.

I posted recently that as of last year 47 of 51 Goldman Sachs lobbyists once held government positions, for example.

 

[chicago51]

I do agree with the Constitution in that is specifies funding for a navy but was against a standing army. I so we cut down military spending. We can spend more than China and Russia but we don't have to spend more than the next 13 coutries combined. I wish we would cut the Defense budget down from $700 billion annually to $550 billion. I would emphasis maintaining the best navy and airforce with a quota of having at least 3x as many carriers as the next closest nation (I think we have 10 or 12 and I don't think anyone else has more than 3 carriers). However I say cut down on our overseas bases and troop levels. Plus we should focus more attention on cyber threats.

 

[irishpat183]

Carbon Tax

$20 per ton will raise 1.2-1.4 trillion over the next decade

Yes, yes, I know it is going raise prices of energy but hear me out.

We for the most part do a revenue neutral carbon tax.
1- Bring down the sky high corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. Helping create more jobs here.

2- Bring back an enhanced version of the 2009/2010 "making work pay" tax credit which gives working individuals and families a tax rebate. A good rebate can help offset the increase in energy prices.

3- Shore up the federal transportation/highway fund which is now operating at a deficit because improving fuel economy in automobiles has caused a drop in gasoline tax revenue which funds the anual transportation/highway funds to the states. Also dedicate funding for greener mass transit systems in metropolitan areas.

4- Won't be much left after first 3 areas but use $50-$100 billion or so they that may be left for deficit reduction.

Areas 1 and 2 would take about $500 billion each over 10 years and area 3 would take about $200 billion of the carbon fund over 10 years.

Then we can eliminate all the energy loopholes including Obama's green energy subsidies. As the carbon tax rate grows the private sector will begin making the switch to green energy. It addresses climate change without inefficent government spending.

I cannot agree. Although you are on fire today with some good ideas.

Suppose we raise prices on fossil carbon enough to start limiting demand(which I suppose would be the goal), with the intention of phasing out fossil carbon. Who are we going to target?

Are you including residential? And you don't think that the tax will just be passed on to the consumer anyway? And there are people that are already struggling to pay their bills.

I'm not for ANY new taxes. We don't need too. We need to focus on cleaning up the current tax code and loopholes.

One of the issues is, we give our govenrment a bottomless pit of money to spend and bottomless pit of excuses as to why they keep needing more and more.

 

[chicago51]

I cannot agree. Although you are on fire today with some good ideas.

First off thank you, yes this a hard sell I don't expect majority approval.

Suppose we raise prices on fossil carbon enough to start limiting demand(which I suppose would be the goal), with the intention of phasing out fossil carbon. Who are we going to target?

Are you including residential? And you don't think that the tax will just be passed on to the consumer anyway? And there are people that are already struggling to pay their bills

Yes would be passed on to the consumer which is why I suggested offsetting some of it through tax rebate.

If we wanted could do the whole carbon tax revenue neutral use all the funds to reduce payroll and income taxes. We can essentially offset cost by giving it all back through lower taxes. Overtime Exxon, BP, and other will switch to other sources because it is cheeper them.

I'm not for ANY new taxes. We don't need too. We need to focus on cleaning up the current tax code and loopholes.

What if we used new taxes (doesn't have to be carbon tax but any new taxes) to cut other taxes.

One of the issues is, we give our govenrment a bottomless pit of money to spend and bottomless pit of excuses as to why they keep needing more and more.

More on this later. I don't totally disagree. I would say I am just as much of a Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt/ Eisenhower style Republican as I am a Democrat so yes do want fiscal responsibility which is something both modern day parties have failed at.

See bolded responses.

 

[GowerND11]

Stop No Child Left Behind. Ever since the Federal Government has gotten involved with education we have been on a downward trend (I believe this started with Carter?) NCLB has furthered that trend. Get back to the states and school districts making major decisions.

IRS and tax code reform as mentioned previously.

Term Limits also as mentioned.

 

[pkt77242]

How we do primaries. It leads to far left and far right candidates that don't represent the people.

 

[chicago51]

How we do primaries. It leads to far left and far right candidates that don't represent the people.

Go a page or two back and see my post on instant runoff voting.

Instant runoff will essentially throw away the need for primaries. Basically you can have multiple candidates across the political spectrum. Voters vote for candidate they want but the voters can then vote a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... candidate in order of preference if there higher ranked candidate gets throw out. After the polls close the votes are counted if there is no majority (50 percent) the last place candidate is thrown out, and votes are recounted with voters who chose the last place candidate next best choice being counted. The process of the throwing out the last place candidate continues until a candidate receives a majority.

It allows for potentially more parties but most importantly it tends to lead more centrist middle of the road candidates that tend not to take absolute stances which create the gridlock we see today.

 

[chicago51]

Copying my post from the general political thread to here on bumping hourly wages and shortening the work week to reduce unemployment.

This relates to a lot of issues that have been discussed.

This idea has got some drawbacks but I think there may be long term benefits on unemployment and perhaps our culture and society. I think the idea of a shorter work week deserves debate. We could start my shortening the work week to 35 hours (7 hour work day), with a benchmark of getting down 32.5 (6 ½ work day) in 15 years and a 30 hour work week in 25 years.

I’ll start with the economic issues:

I've been trying to think of outside the box ideas for reducing unemployment besides the usual big stimulus, or big tax cut approach which there seems to no will for so maybe reducing hours would work.

1- There is an obvious draw back of full time wage earners getting hit with a 12.5% pay cut. So a federal mandate to boost all wage earners pay by a certain percentage maybe 6%-7% with extra with a full 12.5% bump to really low income workers making less than a certain amount (it would bring min wage from $7.25 to $8.12 far less than $9.00 Obama asked for). Plus we can do another payroll tax holiday to help offset some the wage earner pain from cut hours and some of them employer pain from mandated wage increases.

2- Instead of doing another stimulus we can create a need for hiring by creating the need for more production which will occurr as result of the workforce working less hours. Companies will need hire fill in the void of loss production. As automation and technology continue allow companies to do more with less I think the reduction of hours might be something that has to happen to maintain enough work available for the work force.

There are other benefits as well:

1 – More time for leisure, and possibly more time for parents to support their children’s education.

2- There is also more time for individuals to give to their respective communities. There is no way to force people away from TV set during their leisure time but for some though I think reduce hours will lead to more time put into their communities.

3- I think reducing hours would have a good impact on the environment and traffic congestion in big cities. I am no city planner, but I think would reduce hours would lead to more staggered start times, instead of masses coming and leaving in big blocks. So less traffic congestion leads to less wasted energy and pollution.

 

[BobD]

Sorry sir it won't happen again.

On second though I agreed with 66% of what you wanted! How dare that not be good enough for you!

I was just kidding.....forgot the sarcasm font.

 

[chicago51]

I was just kidding.....forgot the sarcasm font.

Bob D I had no idea that you would be type of poster to kid around and make sarcastic post.

This is truly shocking of you and I am at a loss for words.

 

[BobD]

As far as Government programs go I don't think there should be anything more important than education. A well educated country fixes so many problems. The whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish thing".

We need a community/public service for education program like they have in South Korea. It might have changed since I was there, but at the time, they had it set up where a kid went to college for free, for two years, then did military or government service for two years, then received two more free year's to finish their education.

I also feel anyone on government assistance of any kind should be required to be actively enrolled in either a community service program or attending educational classes at least twenty hours per week. I sincerely want to help people who need it, but just giving people things helps nobody.

Example: In Oklahoma right now there are probably a few thousand folks on welfare sitting at home today when they could be assisting in the tornado recovery.

I think the state's should administer their own program's with federal requirements to receive funding assistance.

 

[irishpat183]

As far as Government programs go I don't think there should be anything more important than education. A well educated country fixes so many problems. The whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish thing".

We need a community/public service for education program like they have in South Korea. It might have changed since I was there, but at the time, they had it set up where a kid went to college for free, for two years, then did military or government service for two years, then received two more free year's to finish their education.

I also feel anyone on government assistance of any kind should be required to be actively enrolled in either a community service program or attending educational classes at least twenty hours per week. I sincerely want to help people who need it, but just giving people things helps nobody.

Example: In Oklahoma right now there are probably a few thousand folks on welfare sitting at home today when they could be assisting in the tornado recovery.
I think the state's should administer their own program's with federal requirements to receive funding assistance.

HOLY SH*T. I agree with you.


You're right. Let's put those on assistance to work bettering communiities.

 

[chicago51]

As far as Government programs go I don't think there should be anything more important than education. A well educated country fixes so many problems. The whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish thing".

We need a community/public service for education program like they have in South Korea. It might have changed since I was there, but at the time, they had it set up where a kid went to college for free, for two years, then did military or government service for two years, then received two more free year's to finish their education.

I also feel anyone on government assistance of any kind should be required to be actively enrolled in either a community service program or attending educational classes at least twenty hours per week. I sincerely want to help people who need it, but just giving people things helps nobody.

Example: In Oklahoma right now there are probably a few thousand folks on welfare sitting at home today when they could be assisting in the tornado recovery.

I think the state's should administer their own program's with federal requirements to receive funding assistance.

This is a great post Bob!

I know conservatives would point out that just throwing money won't fix the problem, and that is true; not without reform.

There is a legitimate question of weather or not the federal government has overstepped to much into state educational affairs.

Those are both fair points conservatives make but I would conservatives that the federal government can play a role in giving the states the tools/resources to improve our coutries education. I would remind those that turn up their nose at education that two of the great standard bearer Republican presidents Lincoln and Eisenhower pushed and got major education legistlation passed during their presidential terms.

Great point about community lets get young people that want help for college education joining the say the national guard by expanding the GI bill, assisting in communties, or working in our national/state parks.