Government Reform

[Derek]

This may take up alot of space but I wanted to get my government reform policy off my chest. What are your thoughts and ideas?

1. Ban soft money from federal campaigns.
2. $2,500 limit on individual contributions.
3. $5,000 limit on couples’ contributions.
4. $200,000,000 limit on money spent in federal elections. 
5. Candidates must disclose all donors.
6. Candidates may not opt out of public financing.
7. Proof of citizenship and voter registration at the ballot box.
8. Limit absentee ballots to military and hospital patients only.
9. No national language because Indians were here before the earliest European settlers.
10. Maine must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
11. Nebraska must vote as a state in Presidential Elections.
12. U.S. House members limited to six two-year terms.
13. U.S. Senate members limited to two six-year terms.
14. Congress only meets twice a week.
15. 25% pay cut for congressmen.
16. President’s salary cut from $400,000 to $250,000.
17. Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget at the end of each year.
18. Cut 20% of federal programs to pay off national debt.
19. End corporate welfare by enforcing ideals of true capitalism. 
20. Voting age remains 18, even though it only encourages informed voters to vote.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

1. Abolish the government
2. If government returns, repeat step 1

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Anarchy is bad.

[Derek]

1. Abolish the government
2. If government returns, repeat step 1

HAHAHAHAHA you said it!

[Derek]

Anarchy is bad.

We do need some type of order you're right.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Anarchy is bad good.

Fixed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like points 7, 9, & 14-20. Can't say that I am a fan of public funding of campaigns or of term limits.

[Derek]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Anarchy is bad good.

Fixed.

Sure, if you like maniacs running loose and doing all sorts of wrong things. Wouldn't you want mass murderers executed?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Anarchy is bad good.

Fixed.

Sure, if you like maniacs running loose and doing all sorts of wrong things. Wouldn't you want mass murderers executed?

No, I don't like "maniacs running loose and doing all sorts of wrong things" and I don't like "mass murderers". That's exactly why I am opposed to government.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I was refering to individual people. If someone DIRECTY, WITH NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AT ALL killed someone dear to you, wouldn't you want them executed?

[Derek]

Those puppies are worth points. Nixon used his family's puppy to shrug off a scandal involving a slush fund he was using to pay for his family in New York back in 1952. He told the public that they could have everything back except for his children's puppy who his family loves. It made the other side look like they were taking away a puppy from young children.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

[Derek]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

I mean there is another side to the term limit debate. One could argue that setting term limits is an infringement on my freedom of speech to vote for Robert Byrd for the 10th time. I see political careers as counter productive is all. If someone wants to move to a different office then leave it up to the people to decide. FL has term limits and it's government is running well from what I've seen. I respect both views to this argument.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

I mean there is another side to the term limit debate. One could argue that setting term limits is an infringement on my freedom of speech to vote for Robert Byrd for the 10th time. I see political careers as counter productive is all. If someone wants to move to a different office then leave it up to the people to decide. FL has term limits and it's government is running well from what I've seen. I respect both views to this argument.

     I wouldn't say that term limits have particularly damaged California's government either. I was merely making the case that they don't work as advertised.

     To the credit of the pro-term limits crowd, there was a proposition that failed here recently that would have changed the term limits for State Assembly & House from 14 years to 12 years. It was supported by the Democratic leaders of the two chambers, who were both about to be termed out. Changing the law would have nullified the old limits, allowing them to serve another 12 years. Evidently they were afraid of the consequences of losing their cushy seats in the state legislature.

[Derek]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

I mean there is another side to the term limit debate. One could argue that setting term limits is an infringement on my freedom of speech to vote for Robert Byrd for the 10th time. I see political careers as counter productive is all. If someone wants to move to a different office then leave it up to the people to decide. FL has term limits and it's government is running well from what I've seen. I respect both views to this argument.

     I wouldn't say that term limits have particularly damaged California's government either. I was merely making the case that they don't work as advertised.

     To the credit of the pro-term limits crowd, there was a proposition that failed here recently that would have changed the term limits for State Assembly & House from 14 years to 12 years. It was supported by the Democratic leaders of the two chambers, who were both about to be termed out. Changing the law would have nullified the old limits, allowing them to serve another 12 years. Evidently they were afraid of the consequences of losing their cushy seats in the state legislature.

That's what I mean they try to protect their seats. Like Specter here in PA he fought years for one job and that was his.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like term limits because it prevents people from making careers out of our free elections. Plus it prevents pork.

     We have term limits here in California & it basically just means that many of the big career politicians just shuffle into some new office when they are term-limited out. Senatorial term limits would just mean that they'd go into some sort of state office after leaving the Senate to continue their career off of free elections.

     Pork sucks, but let's not pretend that it is actually a meaningful drain on the taxpayer's pocketbook. Something like the Bridge to Nowhere is an easy target for everyone to beat up on, but even that carries an utterly miniscule price tag compared to something like Medicare.

I mean there is another side to the term limit debate. One could argue that setting term limits is an infringement on my freedom of speech to vote for Robert Byrd for the 10th time. I see political careers as counter productive is all. If someone wants to move to a different office then leave it up to the people to decide. FL has term limits and it's government is running well from what I've seen. I respect both views to this argument.

     I wouldn't say that term limits have particularly damaged California's government either. I was merely making the case that they don't work as advertised.

     To the credit of the pro-term limits crowd, there was a proposition that failed here recently that would have changed the term limits for State Assembly & House from 14 years to 12 years. It was supported by the Democratic leaders of the two chambers, who were both about to be termed out. Changing the law would have nullified the old limits, allowing them to serve another 12 years. Evidently they were afraid of the consequences of losing their cushy seats in the state legislature.

That's what I mean they try to protect their seats. Like Specter here in PA he fought years for one job and that was his.

     It would probably help screen out lower level career politicians in budding & people who are uninterested in returning to lower office, but people dedicated to holding office are not really bothered by term limits. Back in 2006, Cruz Bustamante, Phil Angelides, & Bill Lockyer were all term-limited out of various statewide offices & were immediately running for different ones.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I was refering to individual people. If someone DIRECTY, WITH NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AT ALL killed someone dear to you, wouldn't you want them executed?

My position on the death penalty is not relevant to this discussion.

[King]

What 20% of programs do we cut?  You seem to have details for everything expect the part that has an actual impact.

And you do realize that cutting 20% of spending off our budget would still give us a $700 billion dollar annual deficit? (2.1 trillion tax revenue in FY2009, 3.5 trillion spending)

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Well, dispite you stance on it, wouldn't you want there to be a way where he or she can never hurt anyone again?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Well, dispite you stance on it, wouldn't you want there to be a way where he or she can never hurt anyone again?

They can be locked up for life too...

[Derek]

What 20% of programs do we cut?  You seem to have details for everything expect the part that has an actual impact.

And you do realize that cutting 20% of spending off our budget would still give us a $700 billion dollar annual deficit? (2.1 trillion tax revenue in FY2009, 3.5 trillion spending)

My bad I was thinking a 20% across the board cut. Let's face it though there are programs that don't work or don't have to be there. I haven't looked at a list of all government run programs in a while and I'm sure there's too many. For argument's sake let's say a 20% across the board cut in spending on government programs other than military and defense for now.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Well, dispite you stance on it, wouldn't you want there to be a way where he or she can never hurt anyone again?

They can be locked up for life too...

Which is what I ment.

[King]

What 20% of programs do we cut?  You seem to have details for everything expect the part that has an actual impact.

And you do realize that cutting 20% of spending off our budget would still give us a $700 billion dollar annual deficit? (2.1 trillion tax revenue in FY2009, 3.5 trillion spending)

My bad I was thinking a 20% across the board cut. Let's face it though there are programs that don't work or don't have to be there. I haven't looked at a list of all government run programs in a while and I'm sure there's too many. For argument's sake let's say a 20% across the board cut in spending on government programs other than military and defense for now.

Well, maybe you should actually look at where your non-defense money is going instead of just assuming its being wasted.

And maybe you should actually look at where your defense money is going instead of just assuming it isn't being wasted.

20% blind across the board cut of non-defense spending would cut our 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficit to 1 trillion.  We would have to blindly cut all non-defense programs by 60% to keep the same military budget and have a surplus.   That means cutting 60% of Medicare, cutting Social Security checks by 60%, cutting it all.

And then probably spending a couple of billion to scrape all the dead old people off the streets.

[Derek]

What 20% of programs do we cut?  You seem to have details for everything expect the part that has an actual impact.

And you do realize that cutting 20% of spending off our budget would still give us a $700 billion dollar annual deficit? (2.1 trillion tax revenue in FY2009, 3.5 trillion spending)

My bad I was thinking a 20% across the board cut. Let's face it though there are programs that don't work or don't have to be there. I haven't looked at a list of all government run programs in a while and I'm sure there's too many. For argument's sake let's say a 20% across the board cut in spending on government programs other than military and defense for now.

Well, maybe you should actually look at where your non-defense money is going instead of just assuming its being wasted.

And maybe you should actually look at where your defense money is going instead of just assuming it isn't being wasted.

20% blind across the board cut of non-defense spending would cut our 1.5 trillion dollar annual deficit to 1 trillion.  We would have to blindly cut all non-defense programs by 60% to keep the same military budget and have a surplus.   That means cutting 60% of Medicare, cutting Social Security checks by 60%, cutting it all.

And then probably spending a couple of billion to scrape all the dead old people off the streets.

I see what you're saying. We'd still be going into further debt but at a slower rate. Let's say we did do a 60% cut in programs which I'm not supporting but in theory it seems as if the costs of these programs would fall too. An example would be if we cut medicare by that much then the prices of medicine would fall due to supply and demand. There are other ways to make up for the deficits we run in addition to a 20% across the board cut. I have that outlined in my economic policy. Eliminating taxes and raising user fees would help. A VAT as well. Don't read too much into this though because I'm posting that tomorrow. For now I just wanted to see what people think needs to be done to reform our government so that it works more efficiently. What do you think of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget at the end of each year?