IF I COULD I WOULD! WOULD YOU?
Make the following changes in our government processes.
Immediately, if not sooner!
(No particular order, just some of today's base abbreviated list.)
1.) Stop all healthcare insurance benefits for House and Senate until they
pass positive public healthcare reform legislation.
2.) Mandate term limits of 16 years for Supreme Court (every two years - one
leaves and new one is seated) and 12 years for every member of Congress.
3.) Cease 'Don't ask Don't Tell' policy in Military.
4.) Issue federal law affirming the rights of ALL couples (without regard
of gender) to obtain a marriage license.
5.) Amend the IRS code to be more equitable and 'user friendly'.
6.) Improve regulatory mandates of audit requirements (only general
review of financial records now required) for government entities
(municipalities, counties, cities, etc.). Mandate full audits to
ensure auditing for fraud and other malfeasance of public funds.
7.) Enact legislation for annual reviews on quality of military medical
facilities and assistance programs for military families.
Include Military family members on board of oversight to ensure better
resources for support of military personnel returning from combat zones.
8.) Establish (greatly) reduced postal rates for packages sent to our
military personnel overseas.
9.) Create Truth Commission on Torture with power to subpoena and depose
under oath, with first report due in six months and all findings
in 12 months. (Adequate budget with, of course, oversight of same.
Members should be non-political such as academia, law enforcement,
retired military/medicalpersonnel, etc. All findings made public
within sixty days of issue of all submmitted reports.)
10.) Deliver tax credit to those who donate (no compensation) 40 hours
annually to authorized public service entities (i.e. Shelters,
Food Banks, Habitat for Humanity - too many to list. This would
serve as incentive for new public service program.)
This is a start (have many more). But, go ahead - add on and/or pile on.
I like most of them, so I'm with you
1 - no (coercion, in the way you phrased it)
2 - no (unconstitutional?)
3 - YES
4 - YES
5 - yes
6 - yes
7 - yes
8 - yes
9 - yes (except - all oversight should be non-political)
10 - yes
August 2, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks LaLo! But, explain stance on 1 to me please. As for as 2, still think it would be better - let's do an amendment if needed!
August 2, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: 1 - I'm just not sure it's the right way to go about it. They should vote their conscience and the will of their consituents, not because of a threat of witheld health care.
Re: 2 - I think it's important to have them for life, for judicial independence, blah blah blah. But there is no constitutional limit on the number of judges. Obama can have more than 9 if he wants, it's simply a tradition.
August 2, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never thought I'd see the day!?! Some ideology and attribution of the concept of 'just should be doin' what they should' from you?!? Gotta say, it looks good on ya.
But, we've tried assigning that stance and it sure hasn't worked - no reason to believe it will. I still say, 'Cut 'em off!'
August 2, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam, I really think that the when all is said and done we have a lot in common in what we want to achieve. Our differences are on how to get there.
August 2, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Semantics sure lead to some antics at TPM.
August 2, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can have more than 9 if he wants, it's simply a tradition.
What some call a 'tradition', others call the Judiciary Act of 1869. :-)
Besides, I recall that this was not a popular idea when it was introduced early in the 20th century and I can't imagine the trouble such a proposal would bring now. It would make the health care reform effort look like a day at the beach.
August 3, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunate that issues you think are no brainers have to take up residence on a wish list. (They are homeless otherwise, so good for you, Aunt Sam.)
Regarding health care:
I am 100% behind a single payer system, but if I have to forego that, I will settle for a viable very competitive and un-weakened public option. Enough to be a major contender. No watered down public option co-ops, sorry.
Single payer or a powerful public option. Anything less, and I wish certain reps and Senators good luck, it's been real, don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
August 2, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey there
Good to 'see' ya! Yes, I agree, it's just (to me at least) the way it oughta be! Common sense!
Um, maybe it's not kind, but I want the door to smack them and hard! At least most of 'em.
August 2, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if you want my first choice it would be to scrap our revered bicameral system in favor of a traditional proportional representation parliament with both a prime minister and a separate excutive branch with a president. But that ain't going to happen.
Your list is a good start (particularly 2, 5, and 9). To which I would add:
1. A well-funded college debt forgiveness national service program.
2. End big agriculture subsidies (more small agriculture susidies)
3. Tax Gasoline to cover the cost of the US military operations in the middle east (its the only reason we are over there so we mine as well tie the costs together).
4. mandate billions for a real high speed rail program.
5. Reinstitute real progressive taxation (I'm talking European levels). Too much social inequity is cancerous to culture (see The OC, or Hilton, Paris).
6. And for fuck's sake corporations are not people. period.
I have lots more, but these come to mind quickly.
August 2, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like your #2, it's great. Not the others though...
August 2, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not the others though
Wow- Big surprise there.
I figured 3 might pique your interest too. Afterall it would be cost neutral and lead to a lower overall tax burden. It also ties costs to use, thereby allowing your revered market forces to actually function.
August 2, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
I don't like #3 because I think we have no business in the Middle East or anywhere outside of the US and because I think gas tax is arbitrary (why not bread tax)?
To be frank, I'm conflicted about #1. I'd like to have this outrage stopped, but would it be better to redesign a bad system rather than forgive people for being part of it?
August 2, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we should be in the middle east either, but there is a fair amount of cognitive dissonance regarding our foreign military engagements. Short of closing 700 military bases worldwide, maybe there's a deficit neutral policy for all these "war on terror" opportunities that those in the defense industry notoriously create and sustain for the purposes of profit.
A small percentage of Americans, our troops and their families, pay with their lives, and their well-being.
A majority of Americans are not inconvenienced enough by military overreach to really have a powerful enough influence.
So a gas tax might help.
August 2, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well as my dream first choice would be to redesign our stupid constitution, I suppose I would rather start from scratch too. But inertia is a powerful thing, to be messed with carefully. At least with a national service forgiveness program we could get kids cleaning and helping poor people for a year or two. It would make for a much more civil country.
Re my #3, I suppose we could do a VAT but then the military funding wouldn't decrease as oil use declined. If we strictly taxed oil consumption we would also address global warming and our lazy strip mall and freeway sedimentary lifestyle- that's 3 or 4 birds with one stone. (using market forces too!)
Oh to dream of a rational system...
August 2, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"inertia is a powerful thing to be messed with carefully." That is very provocative, interesting thought.
August 2, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-) You remind me of me, some time ago.
I changed my views on constitution radically, perhaps as a result of living in other countries. But I certainly know where you're coming from, I was there myself.
August 2, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats funny. You remind me of me too.
But I appear to have gone the opposite route, both fiscally and constitutionally. Ironically also from living in other countries (couple European ones and then a year in China- that one was the real formative one).
Would you believe I was once an young fiscal republican? (never a social one though). Then I watched the Asian Currency crisis unfold and read some history books and started to get an inkling of how this game is really played.
But of course I still hate taxes too.
August 2, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You both remind me of me at various times and places. :O)
August 2, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-) Yes, it seems we started and ended at the opposite sides of the debate. Amazing how things work out some times. I blame TPM! :-)
August 2, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for participating in my 'fantasy'.
There are so many that we most likely couldn't begin to limit it to 100!
August 2, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, I love this place!
Now if we could just be the oversight committee for running the country, we'd be all set....Ah forget that. I doubt if we could agree on a name for the new entity!
But you've gotta love the process we go through! Thanks Sammy! Love the list, especially #1! If those bastards had to live by the rules/laws/regulations they impose, this would be a different country!
August 2, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Chris Dodd's diagnosis was published about his early stage cancer, it came to mind that because he is in a position to be able to have yearly physicals with the full lab - he will (hopefully) be fine.
Now, I know Dodd is a Dem and listed as supporter of public option, so this is not about him per se - but the very people who are able to obtain annual checkups, etc. at our expense are those who deny us the same ability. Irony is an understatement.
And the repubs in Congress say we don't need public option as proferred, just take better care of ourselves and limit the amounts of the financial exposure in lawsuits to the healthcare professionals.
I say strip them of their benefits until all Americans can acquire the same!
August 2, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto to what stillidealistic says - I think so many of congress have become what they campaigned against -not representing their constituents. If they had to live like the rest of the country, they would have their eyes opened to what is so wrong in so many instances. They have ideals and promises which get lost; in the world of lobbyists, what is good for their pocket books and somehow, a bit of their morality .
August 2, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Maggie!
I believe it's much more than a bit of their morality - but then we would assume they had much to lose!
They all need to live a week in the poorest part of their state without access to any of their 'perks' paid for by their constituents who go without!
August 2, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add something to the effect that with every major new law passed there must be a full consideration of how the decision will effect the next 7 generations. It should be some kind of report that postulates the actual effects the law would have if it works as intended... and actual consideration of long term consequences.
August 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Synch,
I replied to this yesterday, don't know where it went?!?
I agree with your premise, but think 7 generations may be a bit unrealistic. Perhaps 2 or 3 for any hope of accuracy?
August 3, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold the turds accountable by modifying the laws relating to abuse of office and increase the penalties to 10X those applied to the rest of us.
August 2, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that's change I can believe in!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's Do It!!!
August 2, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/boogerman/2009/02/i-dream.php
August 3, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The principal of your post is interesting.
For discussion, I ask, does this stance further or lessen the equality issue cited in our ruling documents?
August 3, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are 'abuse under the color of authority' statutes on the books. Public office holders rightly have immunity from prosecution for official acts. The line between official acts and criminality has however blurred. For instance when the President launches an illegal war, as has happened at least twice in my lifetime, who prosecutes - the Congress has the responsibility. Under international law, those who fail to prosecute war crimes are themselves criminals. Is it reasonable to expect the criminals to hold themselves accountable? The only penalties inflicted on politicians for breach of public trust come from our votes. I'm not sure how to arrange the laws to facilitate prosecution of criminal acts in office, but I see that something needs to be done. There needs to be a new accountability, and a true respect for the law in our elected officials and certain penalties for those who abuse their positions. In light of the great powers granted them, there should also be grave penalties for violating the trust given them.
August 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such a great post and such great comments. Yes to all. I shall go up and visit Saladin in a sec.
I think it is constitutional to limit terms on the SC. For those who have not been appointed yet.
But this list is of import because we need aims--what is it that makes us progressive?
A good read Auntie with no blather.
August 2, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks dd.
I am getting more and more certain that we need term limits in Congress and the SC! Can we put this in a national ballot?
August 2, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't support term limits for congress. Gives lobbyists (the experts that become relied on for info) too much power. It would be much more effective to scrap gerrymandering.
I do support them for the SC. Those people are already experts when they get there. Life terms just let 'em get lazy.
August 2, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this could be an extremely interesting debate!
I need to ponder this stance - I so enjoy discussions when it expands and challenges.
'til later. Thanks.
August 2, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great list, Sam! All the greater for being basically non-ideological and bi-partisan. Just amazing, as Gary says, that they end up on a things-we-could-do-in-a-perfect-world list. And despite what Lalo says, just that last fact shows that the way the system works really needs changing. I don't know - senate rules, gerimandered districts, committee structures. All these things contribute to systematic sclerosis where common-sense reforms can get laughed off the hill.
August 2, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Obey! Do you support term limits?
August 2, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have any objection per se. But it seems the main motivation for them as regards congress comes down to the whole seniority rule for committee chairs and such. Get rid of that rule and a big part of the problem disappears. As for the SC, I don't really see Lalo's worry about judicial independence. As long as no justice can get reelected, they'll be just as independent as lifers...
August 2, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah Obey. Simply yes. Oh, you are 55. Well when you are 71 you can retire into your mansion on the public dole, full health care and free West Publishing. ha!!
You can make millions writing about the bastards you had to sit with for 16 years.
August 2, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good thought provoking post, Aunt Sam!
With the exception of number 2, I agree with your proposals.
For a government that is supposed to be of, by and for the people, it seems to me that "the people" have very little power. When it comes to term limits, my objections are that they are another way to reduce what little power we do have. Rather than reduce our power, I'd rather see the power of the incumbent (and lobbyists) reduced through campaign finance reform.
Also, what would really be nice is a change in our voting methods. Instead of winner takes all, go for proportional representation instead. Saladin's idea of a prime minister and a president in the separate executive branch is super!
Thanks for asking!
August 2, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Seashell!
Yes, campaign reform definitely and I agree that would be best. But, we need to work on specifics and all I've seen are at best 'half-assed', not real solutions.
Any ideas? Please, let me know.
Thanks, so appreciate your input!
August 3, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that term limits per se are not necessarily the answer. We do need a few seasoned, senior people in Congress and the Senate.
What we don't need is de facto government by corporations and lobbyists. So campaign finance reform would be high on my list.
I do like the idea of term limits of sorts for Supreme Court Justices; the idea of 16 year terms, hypothetically covering (2) two-term administrations is really interesting. And just maybe the Supreme Court should mirror the population demographically. I'm tired of one or two "minorities" on the court, max, particularly when the "twofer" principle is applied, as if the fact that Sotomayor is female and Hispanic is justification for limiting the number of women. (I started to add that, similarly, Thomas is counted as both male and AA...but in his case, given his rulings to date, let's count him out of all demographics except uninformed and inflexible.)
Great topic, Aunt Sam. And one that requires a lot more thought.
August 3, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Wendy.
Yes, I concur about SC and especially about Thomas!
We do need a viable, positive campaign reform process in place. Any specifics you support?
Appreciate your input! Always important to me!
August 3, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following must absolutely be changed.
Make campaign finance reform a public operation. Make it so NO MONEY, no matter who is spending it or where it is from, must pass through and be part of the overall money spent on a given campaign. No private money in any way for any reason must be the law. The total expenditure must be regulated because since 2000 the presidential candidate who won was also the candidate who garnered the most campaign dollars and or had the most campaign advertising spent via PACs or the party.
If the criteria for winning the presidency continues to follow the above, then who gets to be president will always be a function of campaign expenditures and not a decision of voters.
Another very important thing must be changed.
Reverse the SC ruling that gave corporations citizen status. That ruling is completely bogus and is a central element to the corruption of our government.
August 3, 2009 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes!
August 3, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would this eliminate the political party (RNC-DNC) being able to contribute?
Good start! Let's keep goin' with this - would you post a blog with this summary? Please.
August 3, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of these ideas have been posted to death by myself and others. They are both very serious issues that few of our legislators want to wrangle with. They represent two of the biggest battles that could possibly be waged and easily eclipse health care if you can imagine that. Both go directly to the core of our constitution.
August 3, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Citizen status for corporations is a license to steal.
August 3, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm of mixed minds about term limits. On the one hand there are numbers of Washingtonians I'd love to see put out to pasture. On the other, is it worth losing a giant or two in order to flush out the pygmies? Maybe so, maybe not. Ted Kennedy did some of his most valuable work after his first 12 years. There is something inherently undemocratic about term limits, for that matter. If the jerks in state X want to re-elect Phineas T. Fogbound in perpetuity, I guess that's their right, though the exercising of it may make me shudder.
More important would be to discover a way to reduce the incumbency advantage--there may be some imaginative way to do that. How about raising the salary of Senators to the average salary of corporate CEOs, and require them to spend only their own money on reelection campaigns. Challengers could raise money from the sources they raise funds from normally. The rule would apply to primaries as well as the general election. So there's my silly idea for Monday--
August 3, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
amike,
First, none of your ideas are silly!
I agree with you about Teddy K. but there are many more serving multiple terms - in my opinion -where the opposite is true.
As Seashell opined, the nut of the issue is in our great need for campaign funding reform.
An issue with spending only their own money is that it delivers definite advantage to the richest (i.e. Romney, Kennedy and others.)
And if I may use your words, I believe there is 'something inherently undemocratic' about the way things are now.
August 3, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post and discussion, Aunt Sam.
August 3, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Interesting to me that only two of the issues garnered the most attention.
August 3, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aunt Sam, this really is an important post. Would you consider posting it, redux, so that more thought can be given to it by more people? I haven't quite figured out what day and time seems to be best for posts that do require thinking something over carefully before responding, but I'm pretty sure that Sunday/Monday isn't it.
August 3, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy,
I'm thinking about breaking it down and reposting as individual topics. What do u think?
August 3, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great idea, Aunt Sam. Discussion per point would surely ensue.
August 3, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink