Your ideal solution?

[Jamisjockey]

Federal spending should be directly capped to a percentage of GDP.  Taxation should only  come from the states, who should pay tributes to the federal government.  Allow states to decide what kind of taxation works for them, and if the people are over taxed they can vote with their feet and leave a state to rot.

Very true, but I think some foreign aid does help win hearts and minds and perhaps influence delivery of resources we need.

So does cash.  And by going bankrupt, we are decreasing the purchasing power of our cash.  There is a constitutional mandate to regulate money.  Absolutely no authority in the constitution for the .gov to sling money overseas without any sort of tangible return.

[MicroBalrog]

So does cash.  And by going bankrupt, we are decreasing the purchasing power of our cash.  There is a constitutional mandate to regulate money.  Absolutely no authority in the constitution for the .gov to sling money overseas without any sort of tangible return.

Who defines 'tangible'?

[Tallpine]

Why not merge all of these law enforcement agencies into a single Federal Law Enforcement agency?

Why not just eliminate them all completely, and leave "law enforcement" to the states?

[Jamisjockey]

Who defines 'tangible'?

Tangible is either purchasing (say, military equipment or ships), or investments that return profit.  Anything else is not tangible. 

[Jamisjockey]

Why not just eliminate them all completely, and leave "law enforcement" to the states?

There are some things that require federal law enforcement.  FBI makes sense, in that it investigates and prosecutes interstate crimes.  However, there is absolutely no reason for the HHS, IRS, et al to have its own LEO branch.  Also, so many things have been made federally illegal that should never have been.  There is absolutely no reason for federal drug laws, weapons laws, etc.  Those are not things that congress has any congressional authority to control.  Most of that would force the reduction in size of the FBI, and elimination of the DEA and ATF.

[Waitone]

--Day one, initiate process to repeal 17th amendment
--Abolish all federal withholding.  Everyone writes a check each payday.
--Do away with congressional benefits and put everyone on per diem.
--Enroll all members of congress in social security
--5% across the board cuts deliverable in 4 months.  When the first 5% is delivered the next 5% is deliverable in 2 months,  Next up is 5% in one month.  Do it just like a business would do it.
--Negative index congressional pay to the budget imbalance.
--Bulldoze the UN.  Push the rubble into the river.  Plow the ground and salt it.
--Withdraw from all trade "agreements" not made with specific countries and ratified by the senate.
--Require a constitutional justification and impact statement on all legislation
--Begin an anal examination of the FED.
--Publicize the FED's asset portfolio
--Throw a blanket over the EPA curtailing is power in any number of ways.

For starters.  Then once the social unrest died down after doing away with federal withholding we can move on to serious foundational repair.

[charby]

--Throw a blanket over the EPA curtailing is power in any number of ways.

So bring back rivers on fire, toxins in the air and toxic waste dumps wherever people feel like putting them?

[Jamisjockey]

No.  Environmental regulations can fall on the states, they are not in the pervue of the federal government.

[charby]

No.  Environmental regulations can fall on the states, they are not in the pervue of the federal government.

So if Nebraska wants to turn itself in to a radioactive/toxic/biomedical dump, the surrounding states have no say?

[TommyGunn]

Why would Nebraska want to do that in the first place?

[charby]

Why would Nebraska want to do that in the first place?

Maybe the governor gets a *expletive deleted*it pot of money to look the other way.

[TommyGunn]

And wants to survive to spend it?  The least of his problems will be glowing in the dark.  

[longeyes]

Want to change things?  Populate Congress randomly (after certain basic credentials).  Enforce strict term limits.  Nothing responsible is going to happen under the current system.

[White Horseradish]

Very true, but I think some foreign aid does help win hearts and minds and perhaps influence delivery of resources we need.

With that in mind I want some feedback on this. Do we need hearts and minds in Africa? Do we really care what Afghan shepherds think? What benefit do we derive from their goodwill? No benefit? No aid. International relations are a business, charity has no place there. Anyone thinks these guys need cash is free to write a personal check.

[Scout26]

Day one - send budget to congress with $0 dollars budgeted for Education, Energy, HHS, DHS, Agriculture, HUD, Transporation, Commerce, VA goes under the DOD. Obamacare done in on this day.
Day Two - Sunset law -10 years to renew or it goes away, oh and Congress et al. subject to whatever laws they pass.
Day three - Repeal withholding, you write a check for the full amount on 15 April.  Sit back with popcorn and watch the fun !!!
Day Four -

Bulldoze the UN.  Push the rubble into the river.  Plow the ground and salt it.

and end foreign aid the implemenation of the Scout26 Doctrine when it comes to dealing with countries that won't play nice: 

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you... and to hear the lamentation of their women!

aka

Take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[RoadKingLarry]

First,

We kill all the lawyres.

[BridgeRunner]

I don't think my plan would go over so well with the rest of APS.  

First, I don't believe in sudden, sweeping change.  Too much collateral damage.

Second, I think that within the existing framework, public health care should be a readily available option, and if I wasn't assassinated by my APS colleagues in Congress, I'd work towards implementing that.  

Third, yeah, like others have said, the War on Drugs is over.  The DEA is gone. Other agencies heavily scaled back.  In keeping with item one though, this is a slow process.  

Fourth, absolutely implement an automatic sunset on all legislation.  Times change; laws shouldn't stay the same just for the fun of eating up more money.

See, it's axiomatic that moderates are boring and unimaginative.  No.  Moderates can envision sweeping change, even when getting to the turning point requires embracing the opposite of the ultimate goal, at least procedurally.  

I'll get as enthused as anyone else at the prospect of a different reality, but I don't really want my friends and neighbors thrown out of their jobs overnight.  I don't really want to be competing with thousands of ex-fedgov employees for scarcer jobs all at once.  For that matter, I kind of want my food stamps next month.  All those federal regulatory authorities and entitlements would need to be augmented or replaced by state agencies and private organizations as they are cut or eliminated, but states are going to need some time to work that out.  It should take a couple of gubernatorial terms to do so, let people figure it out and vote according.  

Lightning kills.  A slow fire sustains.  I'll take a slow fire any day.  You all can keep your sweeping reforms.

And yeah, on healthcare, ultimately, the idea would be that once states develop their own stronger governments and rely less heavily on federal funding and standards and agencies, states would begin to develop their own systems for addressing the difficulties in health care delivery that end up costing so much on so many levels.  Once a program is on a state level, there are so many more options for ensuring that private charity bears some of the burden, for keeping costs low, for rationing care in ways that make sense, for locating and distributing local low-cost resources, etc.  

I may be the quiet liberal of APS, but only for today, tomorrow, and next week.  My ideal US in fifty years is probably pretty similar to many others' here.  I just believe in cautious, careful, and bloodless change.

What can I say, I grew up a stone's throw from Canada.  Life is exciting enough without bloody revolutions.    

[Boomhauer]

I don't really want to be competing with thousand of ex-fedgov employees

I think that problem could be solved easily. Round most of 'em up (i.e, the shitty ones, or manager level and up) and dump them in Europe or Africa and make them somebody else's problem...

[BridgeRunner]

I think that problem could be solved easily. Round most of 'em up (i.e, the shitty ones, or manager level and up) and dump them in Europe or Africa and make them somebody else's problem...

Yeah...no.  Sure you're not a Maoist?

[charby]

To a degree I like a strong regulatory government, mostly it keeps one entity from controlling the entire market. Could you imagine if there wasn't any anti-trust, anti monopoly laws? Wal-Mart and Microsoft would control everything, be like everyone working for the coal mine and being gouged at the company store.

Income tax? Probably still have to keep that, all the holy rollers and temperance movements in the late 18th hundreds killed the booze consumption per person, so can't rely on vice taxes to sustain.

Yes, there is a lot of bloat in the Fed Gov but there is a lot of good also.

[kgbsquirrel]

Trying not to duplicate any other suggestions here, really like the one about disbanding any agencies that are not explicitly allowed via the Constitution. Here are a few of my ideas.


Constitutional amendment specifying the way new legislation is handled in so much that must:
- Fit on a maximum 10 pieces of standard 8.5x11" paper, front and back, single spaced, 12 point font.
- Be passed as introduced disallowing any amendments or alterations to be added in the process.
- Written to an 8th grade literacy level for widest comprehension (or whatever the national average competency is).
- State explicitly what they are changing and how, disallowing law code references in place of plain speak.


Disband the Federal Reserve with a constitutional amendment more explicitly prohibiting any national central banks. Return the issuance of currency to the Treasury rather than having the Treasury borrow money from a private bank (Federal Reserve) which it must then borrow more money to pay the interest on (debt loop anyone).

As to the 12 year limit proposed for elected office I would also include a prohibition on any Federal appointees, functionaries or other non-elected staff from being able to hold elected office if they have done such for more than 6 years, and a total prohibition on lobbyists from holding elected office.

Constitutional amendment providing a total ban on election contributions with the single exception of a donation up to $100 from individual citizens of the age of majority who reside in the area you are running in (congressional district/state).

Constitutional amendment prohibiting any sort of "mandatory" spending with "mandatory" annual increases.

[Scout26]

To a degree I like a strong regulatory government, mostly it keeps one entity from controlling the entire market. Could you imagine if there wasn't any anti-trust, anti monopoly laws? Wal-Mart and Microsoft would control everything, be like everyone working for the coal mine and being gouged at the company store.

Income tax? Probably still have to keep that, all the holy rollers and temperance movements in the late 18th hundreds killed the booze consumption per person, so can't rely on vice taxes to sustain.

Yes, there is a lot of bloat in the Fed Gov but there is a lot of good also.

Monopoly's can only exist through .gov protection.   In the marketplace, a competitor always comes along with a better/cheaper mouse trap.....

Constitutional amendment providing a total ban on election contributions with the single exception of a donation up to $100 from individual citizens of the age of majority who reside in the area you are running in (congressional district/state).

Nope, anyone can contribute any amount they want to any candidate they want.  No matter what restriction you put in place you are 1) Violating the 1A, and 2) People will find away around it.

I forget to mention that Election Day is 16 April.  Or if you still want to keep the election the first Tuesday in November, then Tax Day is the first Monday in November.   

[kgbsquirrel]

Nope, anyone can contribute any amount they want to any candidate they want.  No matter what restriction you put in place you are 1) Violating the 1A, and 2) People will find away around it.

Alright then, presuming no restrictions on campaign contributions, who would you say a congresscritter is more beholden to, the few hundred/thousand private citizens in his district he was "elected to represent" whose combined annual income is $10M of which a tiny fraction might be donated to him, or Acme Inc., owned by an out-of-state conglomerate who gave him $50M for his campaign outright? The basis for my idea was to remove the extraneous influence that money brings to this issue and return the congresscritters loyalty (if there is such a thing among politicians) to the specific people who elected him. Do you have an alternate suggestion?

[Scout26]

Alright then, presuming no restrictions on campaign contributions, who would you say a congresscritter is more beholden to, the few hundred/thousand private citizens in his district he was "elected to represent" whose combined annual income is $10M of which a tiny fraction might be donated to him, or Acme Inc., owned by an out-of-state conglomerate who gave him $50M for his campaign outright? The basis for my idea was to remove the extraneous influence that money brings to this issue and return the congresscritters loyalty (if there is such a thing among politicians) to the specific people who elected him. Do you have an alternate suggestion?

Like I said they'll find away around it.  What's the difference if Acme Inc. gives $105 or $110 to everyone that donates their candidate (as what is happening now with the spouse, kids, relatives, hired help, neighbors, etc. of every bigshot giving $2000, the legal individual limit, to their candidate).

I don't care who gives to whom, but when they do, it's posted on the candidates website, not buried in some FEC backwater.  Failure to post the donation within 48 hours, your pay 20x the donation amount as a fine.  IMMEDIATELY, not 12-48 months AFTER the election.  You can appeal after you pay.   

[Waitone]

I dislike the idea of limitations on campaign contribution.  I consider it to be a limitation on free speech which theoretically is a no-no.  My preference would be no restrictions; none, zero.  BUT anyone receiving campaign contributions would be required to maintain an online checkbook so everyone can see who is donating to who.  The money can be used just as soon as it is visible in the online accounts.  Total transparency is what will clean up politicans, not restrictions. 

First, I don't believe in sudden, sweeping change.  Too much collateral damage.

If we use the excuse of collateral damage as a reason for not doing what has to be done, then we are good and properly screwed.  We are in fight for the survival of our society.  It has been long in the works and finally at long last Joe and Martha Sixpack opened their eyes and rolled over.  We are not going to correct the distortions in our government and society without injuring "innocents".  We are in a knife fight.  Rule One in any knife fight is "Everyone gets hurt".  The only question to be answered is what do you have to show for your fight.  Did you win or did you lose?  To the extent we let fear of collateral damage keep us from doing what we know has to be done, the less likely we are to win.  Cruel?  Maybe.  Heartless?  Not so.  But where do you want your future to be.  In a totalitarian society ruled by the few and answerable to no one?  Or would you want to live in a society comparatively free.