casm said:
Something I'd like to add to this: measures to make legislators both legally- and financially-responsible for introducing legislation that's unconstitutional or just plain illegal.
We see the same idiotic bills and measures introduced here year after year after year by the same people who just want an audience while they bang on their pots. Make them personally responsible for all the waste they generate, and I'll guarantee that we'll have a much more shipshape legal system as well as far fewer idiot politicians screwing the legislative process for their own ends.
That and a flat-rate tax scheme (adios IRS)... Oh, if only...
I think we'd have to achieve "zero growth" before we could get to the "negative growth" idea - it would be a stepping stone.
English may be imprecise, but it's the
lingua franca of the United States. Ho about all laws shall be written at, say, a ninth-grade reading level?
As far as the tax code goes (26CFR and, I think 17USC,) there's a movement afoot for a flat tax (
www.fairtax.org,) but it's designed to be "revenue neutral" - which only fixes part of the problem. However, it's somewhat like the National Retail Sales Tax (NRST) a number of us have been talking about for the last few years. However, I'm more in favour of an NRST of 6-10% vice the "revenue neutral" "23% with 'prebates.'"
Yes, this would reduce government funding. Answer? Stop paying congresscritters, stop paying their pensions (the fact that someone can sit in office for 20-30 years is disturbing. The fact that they can collect pensions after four to six years' service is thoroughly disheartening...) and reduce the size of the government functionaries who don't actually do anything productive. Also - reduce, eliminate, or reform welfare programmes so that we get something back for our funding -
a la Works Progress Administration. You want to collect? You go to school or go to work - and it doesn't take any particular skill to operate a shovel, rake, or broom. Also, once you get on the dole, the amount is capped - if you have any more kids, it's your problem. And, you're limited to two years (except in special circumstances) at a time.
If we have to pay congresscritters, then let's take away their ability to vote themselves pay rises. Better - have them propose their pay rise to the constituency at large. They have to explain how much more they need, why they need it, and what they've done to merit it. Then, we vote. Require, say, a 75% majority with a minimum of 67% voter turnout - fail either of those, and you don't get the raise. Fair enough?
I've got my ideas - and I should really write them down one of these days. I just ain't in charge...
