Government Reform

[Tidewater_Wave]

Campaign Finance Reform:

1. Ban all soft money donated by corporations and unions from federal campaigns.
2. $2,500 limit on individual contributions.
3. $5,000 limit on couples’ contributions.
4. $85,000,000 limit on money spent in federal elections to be funded with public financing.
5. Candidates must disclose all donors!!!
6. Candidates who opt out of public financing may not spend more than $85,000,000.
7. Candidates may ask for a recount if margin of difference is within 0.25% in federal campaigns.

Term Limits and Voting Reform:

1. Proof of citizenship and voter registration at the ballot box.
2. Limit absentee ballots to military and hospital patients only.
3. Allow states to decide whether or not ballots are in foreign languages.
4. Maine must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
5. Nebraska must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
6. U.S. House members limited to six two-year terms but can run again twelve years later.
7. U.S. Senate members limited to two six-year terms but can run again twelve years later.
8. Voting age remains 18, but only encourage informed voters to vote.

Spending and Deficit Reform:

1. Congress only meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. with a lunch hour.
2. 25% pay cut for congressmen.
3. President’s salary cut from $400,000 to $250,000.
4. Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget at the end of each year.
5. Cut federal programs by 20% to pay off national debt except for military.
6. End corporate welfare by enforcing ideals of true capitalism.
7. Eliminate 20% of government employees if the government is underfunded.


Some will agree and others disagree on different points I presume. I predict that both parties will find some common ground in my policy to downsize government.

[True Federalist]

About the only one of those points I agree with is that candidates must disclose all donors and that's already the law.  It's the 527's that don't have to disclose and they are even less tied to candidates than the SuperPACs are.

As for your point of "End corporate welfare by enforcing ideals of true capitalism." it sounds good, but unless you flesh it out, it is just empty rhetoric.

[Tidewater_Wave]

About the only one of those points I agree with is that candidates must disclose all donors and that's already the law.  It's the 527's that don't have to disclose and they are even less tied to candidates than the SuperPACs are.

As for your point of "End corporate welfare by enforcing ideals of true capitalism." it sounds good, but unless you flesh it out, it is just empty rhetoric.

You don't agree with cutting bay of congressmen or the president?

[True Federalist]

You don't agree with cutting pay of congressmen or the president?

It's empty rhetoric. Even if we cut their pay to 0 wouldn't even save $1 billion over the now customary 10-year budget framework.   All low pay does is make office holding the province of those too dumb to make money in private business, those who hope to turn a few years in office into lucrative remuneration later because the influence they wield, or those who get their kicks from being able to make people beg for their support on various laws.

We get what we pay for.  If you want crappy people in government then pay them crap.  It would be reasonable to argue we have too many Congressmen and/or they have too many people on their staffs, but cutting their individual pay is just a silly political stunt and our budget problem is too big to be solved by stunts.

[Χahar]

I disagree with almost all of this, but absentee voting certainly ought to be restricted to those cases where it is absolutely necessary.

[realisticidealist]

No. Just no.

[Redalgo]

There are quite a few reforms I fancy, but none of those I support are listed in the OP.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     I disagree with pretty much everything nontrivial in the first two groups. The third group is much better, but it still has some problems.

[Big Wiggly Style]

wut

[Tidewater_Wave]

Who here opposes a balanced budget?

[© Tweed the Younger]

Who here opposes a balanced budget?

*raises hand* me!

[True Federalist]

Who here opposes a balanced budget?

Opposing a balanced budget amendment is not the same thing as opposing balanced budgets.  It certainly is not the same as the idiotic Hack, Slash, and Burn proposal that try to enshrine other policy goals into the Constitution under the guise of "balancing the budget".

[Tidewater_Wave]

Who here opposes a balanced budget?

Opposing a balanced budget amendment is not the same thing as opposing balanced budgets.  It certainly is not the same as the idiotic Hack, Slash, and Burn proposal that try to enshrine other policy goals into the Constitution under the guise of "balancing the budget".

Ok I agree actually. In an emergency such as 9/11, borrowing money for whatever purposes maybe a necessity. I can see what you mean. I'm still a big fan of Bush 41 proposing the most restrictive spending limits in history which allowed us to balance the budget later in the 90's. Bush and Obama have done very poorly on spending and congress never stood up to anything until the GOP came in last year. I hope we can get it straightened out because for the next 20 years we can tax at 100% and still be in debt. I'd cut everything other than defense by 20% so that it things are even and across the board.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I don't see how anyone could oppose your campaign finance proposal... some of the rest is dubious...

And why the  would you want to force Nebraska and Maine to vote as states rather then districts?

[a Person]

I don't see how anyone could oppose your campaign finance proposal... some of the rest is dubious...

You'd be surprised...

And why the  would you want to force Nebraska and Maine to vote as states rather then districts?

I assume because Congressional districts are susceptible to gerrymandering.

[Comrade Shmoo]

I'd cut everything other than defense by 20% so that it things are even and across the board.

It is my belief that 'even and across the board' includes everything. I think that whenever a politician says 'across the board but not defense' they mean 'welfare, Social Security, and Medicare', but are too chicken to come out and say it.

If you want to cut Medicare and SS, I'm fine with that, but just come out and say it without trying to pretend to be fair, because that isn't working.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I'd cut everything other than defense by 20% so that it things are even and across the board.

It is my belief that 'even and across the board' includes everything. I think that whenever a politician says 'across the board but not defense' they mean 'welfare, Social Security, and Medicare', but are too chicken to come out and say it.

If you want to cut Medicare and SS, I'm fine with that, but just come out and say it without trying to pretend to be fair, because that isn't working.

Medicare and social security are based on what people pay into it too though. It wouldn't actually be included in spending cuts. We need to have a lock box on those.

[Comrade Shmoo]

Ah, OK.