PROPOSAL to Fix a Broken United States Government

[AlbqOwl]

A proposed resolution to fix what ails us:

WHEREAS the United States was conceived as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and

WHEREAS self-serving politicians and bureaucrats have appropriated the people's government and resources to manipulate, control, and bribe the people while they increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth; and

WHEREAS unlimited power and resources is a liberty destroying and corrupting force for those in government and also for many beneficiaries of government benevolence, policy, and practice; and

WHEREAS the system has become too broken to remedy through the electoral process, term limits, or piecemeal policy reforms,

RESOLVED:

That the broken U.S. government be repaired by returning it to its Constitutional roots with an iron clad law or preferably a Constitutional Amendment containing the following:

1. The U.S. President, Congress, or any other person in the federal government is prohibited from using the public treasury to benefit any person, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit all regardless of political affiliations or socioeconomic standing.

2. As quickly as it can be done without breaking faith with those made dependent on the programs, all existing federal entitlement programs will be transferred to the states who will administer them or disband them as the people of those states see fit.

3. The federal government will not obligate future Congresses with any new entitlement program.

4. The U.S. President and Congress will pass no law, policy, or requirement that should not apply equally to the President, Congress, members of the Court, all cabinet and staff members, and every other person in government.

5. The U.S. President and Congress and every other person in the federal government will fund their own healthcare and any retirement account from their wages or other personal resources and the government will not continue to fund these when a person leaves office or government employment.

6. The U.S. government will replace its current baseline budgeting system with a zero based budgeting system and all funded programs will be subject to routine independent audit to verify that all government funds are expended competently and appropriately.

7. Except in extreme national emergency, all federal government contracts will be let as equitably as possible among the various states, all government installations will be distributed as equitably as possible among the various states, and all government contracts will be put out for bid and will go to the qualified bidder offering the lowest bid. Bidders will not be required to be union shops or conform to union wages.

8. The courts will be restricted to interpreting existing law and will be prohibited from adding to or writing or ordering any law that has not been properly passed by an appropriate legislative body.

CONCLUSION: By this means we will remove means for corruption from the government process, will eliminate the profit to professional politicians and bureaucrats so that public servants interested in providing good government will again seek those offices, will restore the liberty to government ourselves, will remove incentive for excessive campaign contributions as those contributions would no longer buy anybody benefits or special favors, and the people will again govern themselves within the various states as the Founders intended they do.

 

[Slyfox696]

A proposed resolution to fix what ails us:

WHEREAS the United States was conceived as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and

Nostalgia is fun. Brainwashing is fun.

The United States was conceived as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"...as long as the people were white, land-owning Christian men. Everyone else...not so much.

For all the fear mongering and remembrances of things which never were in this country, we are so much better than before.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Nostalgia is fun. Brainwashing is fun.

The United States was conceived as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"...as long as the people were white, land-owning Christian men. Everyone else...not so much.

For all the fear mongering and remembrances of things which never were in this country, we are so much better than before.

I don't believe I referred to history other than the intent of the original Constitution and I am pretty sure I didn't engage in any fear mongering. My intent with the OP was to provide a proposed resolution for the purpose of discussion of how best to repair a federal government in serious need of repair here and now.

So what do you think about that?

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't believe I referred to history other than the intent of the original Constitution

And you interpreted incorrectly and used it as a platform to complain about other things. When your platform is built on something which is not true, there's really no point in continuing.

and I am pretty sure I didn't engage in any fear mongering.

I wasn't talking about just you, although your insinuation that what we have now is broken and the way to fix it is by returning to the days where racism and sexism was encouraged could theoretically count as fear mongering.

My intent with the OP was to provide a proposed resolution for the purpose of discussion of how best to repair a federal government in serious need of repair here and now.

So what do you think about that?

I think I've made it clear what I think.

For all the fear mongering and remembrances of things which never were in this country, we are so much better than before.

Are there things which still need tweaking? Absolutely. But to insinuate what we have now is worse than *insert time period here* is simply false. All things considered, what we have today is no worse, and in many ways much better, than what we've ever had. The biggest difference between now and then is the amount of media exposure.

 

[AlbqOwl]

And you interpreted incorrectly and used it as a platform to complain about other things. When your platform is built on something which is not true, there's really no point in continuing.

I wasn't talking about just you, although your insinuation that what we have now is broken and the way to fix it is by returning to the days where racism and sexism was encouraged could theoretically count as fear mongering.

I think I've made it clear what I think.



Are there things which still need tweaking? Absolutely. But to insinuate what we have now is worse than *insert time period here* is simply false. All things considered, what we have today is no worse, and in many ways much better, than what we've ever had. The biggest difference between now and then is the amount of media exposure.

Okay, I can accept that you think the government that we have is pretty much fine and that you don't agree with any point made in the resolution. But you weaken your argument when you intepret any part of the OP as encouraging a return to racism or sexism which, by the way, still exist and are quie alive and well, but suited for a different thread.

 

[Verax]

I feel your spirit in what you're proposing but... its a gigantic argument and you're only focusing on one side of the coin. What you're asking for is to dissolve the government of almost all power which would be handed off to powerful corporations as they're the only ones with any control and it would be game over. It would be like the game monopoly where at the end somebody is so powerful that no matter what they cannot be challenged. Except here is where the game would begin for "the people".

 

[AlbqOwl]

I feel your spirit in what you're proposing but... its a gigantic argument and you're only focusing on one side of the coin. What you're asking for is to dissolve the government of almost all power which would be handed off to powerful corporations as they're the only ones with any control and it would be game over. It would be like the game monopoly where at the end somebody is so powerful that no matter what they cannot be challenged. Except here is where the game would begin for "the people".

How so? Those powerful corporations would find no advantage to use government for its own purposes anymore. Any concessions or policies or contracts the federal government granted to General Electric would have to also be extended to the Mom & Pop store on Mainstreet America. Corporations would no longer be able to buy favors from anybody in the federal government.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

How so? Those powerful corporations would find no advantage to use government for its own purposes anymore. Any concessions or policies or contracts the federal government granted to General Electric would have to also be extended to the Mom & Pop store on Mainstreet America. Corporations would no longer be able to buy favors from anybody in the federal government.

They would just buy favors at the state level

 

[Slyfox696]

Okay, I can accept that you think the government that we have is pretty much fine

I didn't say that. I said it's just as good, if not better, than ever before.

But you weaken your argument when you intepret any part of the OP as encouraging a return to racism or sexism

I didn't interpret it, you explicitly said it:

That the broken U.S. government be repaired by returning it to its Constitutional roots

 

[AlbqOwl]

They would just buy favors at the state level

But that should be the problem of the people in the various states. At least a big corporation based in New York wouldn't be able to coerce money from the people of New Mexico or Florida or Alaska who will never benefit from it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I didn't say that. I said it's just as good, if not better, than ever before.
I didn't interpret it, you explicitly said it:

Well you're entitled to your interpretation of my intent. I'm entitled to my interpretation of my intent. And if you want to argue that component of it, that has no place in the OP, I suggest you start a thread on it and invite me over.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

But that should be the problem of the people in the various states. At least a big corporation based in New York wouldn't be able to coerce money from the people of New Mexico or Florida or Alaska who will never benefit from it.

A corperations power can transcend state lines.

 

[AlbqOwl]

A corperations power can transcend state lines.

I am not concerned with corporate power in this resolution. I am concerned with corporations not being able to buy favors from elected officials or bureaucrats and thereby access our resources without us having any power to stop that. There is nothing in the OP that suggests Congress and the President will not have the same RICO and anti-trust laws to prevent illegal and unethical corporate practices, and with no ability to receive favors from those corporations, they would have a lot more incentive to enforce those laws.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Well you're entitled to your interpretation of my intent. I'm entitled to my interpretation of my intent. And if you want to argue that component of it, that has no place in the OP, I suggest you start a thread on it and invite me over.

When you argue a return to the original constitution, which allowed slavery; and which only gave the vote to white, property owning men, what exactly did you THINK you were arguing? Did you not know the original constitution included those?

It's so important to pick which version of the constitution you want. The one without the 14th amendment? how about the one WITH prohibition?

 

[Verax]

How so? Those powerful corporations would find no advantage to use government for its own purposes anymore. Any concessions or policies or contracts the federal government granted to General Electric would have to also be extended to the Mom & Pop store on Mainstreet America. Corporations would no longer be able to buy favors from anybody in the federal government.

The corporations don't need the government, they have money and thus power without it. The only reason they bought the government was to try and restore the complete control they had prior to the government stepping in and raining on their parade. Look back at the mid to late 1800's and you'll see a perfect example of this. The government used to operate exactly how you desire. The large entities were all powerful and they abused the **** out of it. This was the birth of government intervention in business because it was obvious it was necessary.

We don't need to kill government we need better government. If you want to fix these problems we have to unwind the bad stuff and keep the good stuff. Its a terribly complicated problem and the public doesn't understand it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

When you argue a return to the original constitution, which allowed slavery; and which only gave the vote to white, property owning men, what exactly did you THINK you were arguing? Did you not know the original constitution included those?

It's so important to pick which version of the constitution you want. The one without the 14th amendment? how about the one WITH prohibition?

Neither the 14th or 18th amendments were in the original constitution. Nor have I at any time suggested that we re-establish the original constitution without any of the amendments.

I want to re-establish the original INTENT of the Founders for what sort of nation they wanted us to have.

The Founders original INTENT with the constitution was a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. A government that would recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and then leave them alone to establish whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. They knew some would get that right, some would get that wrong, all would make mistakes and learn through trial and error, but the people within the various states would govern themselves. The federal government would not have the power to tell them how they had to do that.

So now I would personally appreciate it if those participating in this thread would focus on the resolution and discuss that, pro or con. I don't ask anybody agree with me and that is not my expectation here. I do expect us not to derail this discussion into a separate topic that is probably being discussed quite competently elsewhere on the board.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Neither the 14th or 18th amendments were in the original constitution. Nor have I at any time suggested that we re-establish the original constitution without any of the amendments.

I want to re-establish the original INTENT of the Founders for what sort of nation they wanted us to have.

The Founders original INTENT with the constitution was a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. A government that would recognize and secure the unalienable rights of the people and then leave them alone to establish whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. They knew some would get that right, some would get that wrong, all would make mistakes and learn through trial and error, but the people within the various states would govern themselves. The federal government would not have the power to tell them how they had to do that.

So now I would personally appreciate it if those participating in this thread would focus on the resolution and discuss that, pro or con. I don't ask anybody agree with me and that is not my expectation here. I do expect us not to derail this discussion into a separate topic that is probably being discussed quite competently elsewhere on the board.

Are we free to debate what The founders intent was?

 

[AlbqOwl]

The corporations don't need the government, they have money and thus power without it. The only reason they bought the government was to try and restore the complete control they had prior to the government stepping in and raining on their parade. Look back at the mid to late 1800's and you'll see a perfect example of this. The government used to operate exactly how you desire. The large entities were all powerful and they abused the **** out of it. This was the birth of government intervention in business because it was obvious it was necessary.

We don't need to kill government we need better government. If you want to fix these problems we have to unwind the bad stuff and keep the good stuff. Its a terribly complicated problem and the public doesn't understand it.

So what bad stuff would you unwind that isn't included in the suggestions in the resolution in the OP? And do you think it is a good thing that the problem has become so complicated that the public doesn't understand it?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Are we free to debate what The founders intent was?

Sure. As long as it relates to their intent as reflected in the OP. They intended a lot of stuff and there was a lot more in the Founding documents than is addressed in the very narrowly focused OP.

 

[Verax]

So what bad stuff would you unwind that isn't included in the suggestions in the resolution in the OP? And do you think it is a good thing that the problem has become so complicated that the public doesn't understand it?

Well this is why I said I'm with you in spirit, it just isn't really practical. If we could fix our problems of corruption it probably wouldn't matter which way we went anyway as we would make it work in either direction. Its a massive argument and I'm not really ready to undertake it so I'll be on my way.

 

[Henrin]

Well you're entitled to your interpretation of my intent. I'm entitled to my interpretation of my intent. And if you want to argue that component of it, that has no place in the OP, I suggest you start a thread on it and invite me over.

Let it be understood that sexism nor slavery was ever endorsed, enforced, or otherwise supported by the Constitution. There would be no consequences towards those ends by returning to it's original form.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Sure. As long as it relates to their intent as reflected in the OP. They intended a lot of stuff and there was a lot more in the Founding documents than is addressed in the very narrowly focused OP.

and they REALLY INTENDED white male property owners to run the country.... they did not like the popular vote.

But as Verax said

If we could fix our problems of corruption it probably wouldn't matter which way we went anyway as we would make it work in either direction. Its a massive argument and I'm not really ready to undertake it so I'll be on my way.

 

[polgara]

But that should be the problem of the people in the various states. At least a big corporation based in New York wouldn't be able to coerce money from the people of New Mexico or Florida or Alaska who will never benefit from it.

:agree: How long do you think it will take, though, when the legislators in DC can't even agree on whether a law is really a law that applies to everyone but them? :thumbdown:

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well this is why I said I'm with you in spirit, it just isn't really practical. If we could fix our problems of corruption it probably wouldn't matter which way we went anyway as we would make it work in either direction. Its a massive argument and I'm not really ready to undertake it so I'll be on my way.

It really boils down to a pretty simple concept: if we remove the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth at our expense, most of the rest of it pretty well falls into a proper place. But I can appreciate not having the time or interest to deal with a subject like this. Have a good one.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Let it be understood that sexism nor slavery was ever endorsed, enforced, or otherwise supported by the Constitution.

Seriously? then how do YOU define the right to vote being limited to white, property owning men? and slaves being counted as 3/5s of whites for representation allocation?