So I think we need to overhaul the structure of the government

[A.Nonymous]

So I've actually given this some thought recently with the petty bickering over the debt ceiling going on in Washington. I really think we need to overhaul the way our government is organized completely.

Let's be honest here. Our government was sketched out and organized over 200 years ago when we had just 13 states and it could literally take days to get news and information from New York to Carolina. The needs and concerns of the local farmers were different than the needs and concerns of the State they lived in. You had rural areas that had different concerns than more populated areas. At the end of the day you had no more than 40 or so people getting together in DC to make decisions.

But now things have changed significantly. We've got 50 states and 535 Senators and Representatives. Senators no longer represent the states, they represent the electorate. Can someone name any business anywhere where over 500 people get together to make the big decisions? There are entirely too many people involved in the process. I'll bet you money that when Microsoft, IBM, Apple, GM, Sony, etc...all get together to strategize in the biggest sense there is no more than 20-30 people in the room. Yet the US makes the most important decisions based on the consensus of over 500 people.

So I think we really, really need to slim things down. I would propose one body of representatives. Let's get rid of the Senate altogether or cut it in half one. Do States really have different interests than their citizens? I'm not convinced they do. Let's have just the house that clearly represents the needs of the populace. I am convinced that we don't need 100 Senators. Let's cut it down to 50.

As for the House, 435 is way too many people to even get together in one place. Is it a wonder they can't get anything done? Does rural Texas really have needs that are different than rural Tennessee? The world is much, much flatter than it was in 1776. My state (KS) has 4 representatives. Half the state is rural farming and a small portion is heavily populated. Do we really need three representatives to represent the needs of the farming community? I think not. I say give each major city (however we decide to define that) a representative and one for each capital city. Scatter 2-3 other representatives through out the state to represent the smaller towns and rural areas.

For example, California has 60 some odd representatives. Why not break that down and give a rep to say San Francisco, San Diego, LA and Sacramento. Those are the major cities in the state. Add 2-3 more representatives in the rural, farming centers (as their concerns would be different than those in the urban area) and suddenly you have 6-7 representatives instead of 60. You actually have a group of people who is small enough that they can get things done.

Am I the only one who thinks we really need to overhaul the basic way we do government?

 

[nlsme]

So, you want to have people living in a city of 6 million, receive the same amount of representation as the rest of the state, wich would only have a million people? I wonder who would get shafted then.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So, you want to have people living in a city of 6 million, receive the same amount of representation as the rest of the state, wich would only have a million people? I wonder who would get shafted then.

Yes. I'm looking at the concerns of the area, not the population basis. I want to represent the concerns of a city like San Francisco. I don't live there so I don't know the answer, but can you argue that one side of the city has different concerns as far as national policy goes than those who live on the other side of the city?

 

[nlsme]

I can say, that the millions of people living in San Francisco should receive more representatives, than thousands of people that live in the small towns.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I can say, that the millions of people living in San Francisco should receive more representatives, than thousands of people that live in the small towns.

I confess my system is not completely fleshed out. You make this argument on what basis? Why should a more populous area get more representatives? Are their needs more important?

 

[nlsme]

Because there are more people with needs there. My basis is, it shouldn't matter where you live, or how much area is between you and your neighbor. Every PERSON should be represented equally.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Because there are more people with needs there. My basis is, it shouldn't matter where you live, or how much area is between you and your neighbor. Every PERSON should be represented equally.

Even if that means a system where there are so many people involved in decision making that nothing can get done?

 

[nlsme]

Even if that means a system where there are so many people involved in decision making that nothing can get done?

It wouldn't matter if there were only two people. Opposing views, and stubbornness are why nothing gets done.

 

[noah way]

We've got 50 states and 535 Senators and Representatives. Senators no longer represent the states, they represent the electorate

Hahahahaha.

US Senators represent US Senators. They also represent the interests (corporations and individuals) that funded their election and and keeps them in office with campaign contributions.

Meet Senator Millionaire, he could care less about you.

The only difference between Senators and Congressmen is that Congressmen aren't as rich.The reason for this is simple. It's more expensive to pay off 500 people than it is to pay off 100, so they all get less.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Because there are more people with needs there. My basis is, it shouldn't matter where you live, or how much area is between you and your neighbor. Every PERSON should be represented equally.

I'm saying the idea of representing every person is not practical in this day and age. We need to look at the idea of representing the population in a different way.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Even if that means a system where there are so many people involved in decision making that nothing can get done?

The point of the system is to make sure nothing is done. Nothing at all. When the constitution was drafted, the federal government was not made to do anything. But with your system, corruption would run rampant. The 3.5 billion dollars in bribs taken every year would only have to go to a very few people.

 

[Stevewitz]

I think there should be a draft for public office. You get drafted and serve one term and your out. How cool would that be?

 

[noah way]

I think there should be a draft for public office. You get drafted and serve one term and your out. How cool would that be?

My town was founded in the 1650's. Government service was mandatory, as was attendance at monthly town meetings. Fines were levied for failure to attend meetings or perform appointed service.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The point of the system is to make sure nothing is done. Nothing at all. When the constitution was drafted, the federal government was not made to do anything. But with your system, corruption would run rampant. The 3.5 billion dollars in bribs taken every year would only have to go to a very few people.

On the other hand you would have a whole lot fewer people to keep track of. You would know that your representative was on the take. Nowadays if a state has 20-30 representatives, you have no clue.

 

[Frisco]

I think there should be a draft for public office. You get drafted and serve one term and your out. How cool would that be?

It could be quite cool, in my opinion. As noah way points out, that is how it used to be in some places.

The only caveat I see is the possibility of an artificial, planned coalition of creepy types taking over, under the guise of "serving," for land grabbing or other purposes.

Oh, wait, that's the way it is now.

 

[Mostly Harmless]

There has to be a better way to connect the people of this country to the government. Lately I feel that I am forced to vote out of a pool of idiots. There is no doubt that all of the politicians are out for money and think nothing of there people. But when the common man can't give a good run for office because the investment is too overwhelming (campaigning etc...) then we all lose out.

Get rid of the two party system
Outlaw lobbiest.
Get rid of the electoral college, direct democracy, direct voting.

I agree A.Nonymous, something needs to be done, get these self interest people out of office. We need a big change, the big question is how do we go about getting it? It seems like Americans are lazier then ever. Look at 60's and 70's with the huge DC protest, that's what we need.

 

[alostpacket]

I like the mandatory service idea. It's like jury duty, but would be civic public policy/representative related

I find some of the voting systems that have been devised over the years fascinating also.

Voting system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JimmyRayBob]

I like the idea of abolishing the IRS and all Federal taxes and replacing them with a consumption tax. aka The FAIR TAX. Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

I like this because it is revenue neutral to what we have now, but there are NO FEDERAL TAXES other than this national sales tax.

It isn't perfect, but for starters it would completely overhaul the tax code and make lobbyists obsolete. The members of Congress would actually have to answer to you and me - not some corporation or lobbying group - because there wouldn't be a tax code that they could manipulate to favor one group over another. No federal tax return / no business federal tax returns = no loopholes, nothing that can be manipulated or exploited. You buy something - you pay tax.

I won't go into the details of how it works because that isn't what this thread is about, but imagine repealing the 16th Amendment (which is an absolute necessity for this to work).

 

[noah way]

I like the idea of abolishing the IRS and all Federal taxes and replacing them with a consumption tax. aka The FAIR TAX. Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

I like this because it is revenue neutral to what we have now, but there are NO FEDERAL TAXES other than this national sales tax.

It isn't perfect, but for starters it would completely overhaul the tax code and make lobbyists obsolete. The members of Congress would actually have to answer to you and me - not some corporation or lobbying group - because there wouldn't be a tax code that they could manipulate to favor one group over another. No federal tax return / no business federal tax returns = no loopholes, nothing that can be manipulated or exploited. You buy something - you pay tax.

I won't go into the details of how it works because that isn't what this thread is about, but imagine repealing the 16th Amendment (which is an absolute necessity for this to work).

The so-called "fair tax" is simply another tax break for the rich (about a 15% cut) at the expense of the working class. It is also a huge expansion of "welfare" as the poor would receive direct government subsidies (estimated at $5600) to compensate for the increase in taxes they must pay.

Aside from that, it would not make lobbyists obsolete or or remove corporate money from politics. To think that there won't be exceptions to the tax that benefit special interests is absurd - special interests own the political process. There are still subsidies, earmarks, and dozens of other strategies for benefiting private enterprise at public expense.

To fix the US government we need to take money out of politics. Lobbying reform, insider trading laws applied to congress (they are exempt), elimination of corporate money and influence, etc. The conundrum is that the very politicians that benefit from this system are the ones who would have to abolish it. Fat chance.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I would fully support the death penalty for lobbyists.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

The so-called "fair tax" is simply another tax break for the rich (about a 15% cut) at the expense of the working class. It is also a huge expansion of "welfare" as the poor would receive direct government subsidies (estimated at $5600) to compensate for the increase in taxes they must pay.

Aside from that, it would not make lobbyists obsolete or or remove corporate money from politics. To think that there won't be exceptions to the tax that benefit special interests is absurd - special interests own the political process. There are still subsidies, earmarks, and dozens of other strategies for benefiting private enterprise at public expense.

To fix the US government we need to take money out of politics. Lobbying reform, insider trading laws applied to congress (they are exempt), elimination of corporate money and influence, etc. The conundrum is that the very politicians that benefit from this system are the ones who would have to abolish it. Fat chance.

I disagree that this a tax break for the rich at the expense of the working class - but even if it is, so what if the rich get a break. It is revenue NEUTRAL to the govt. almost 50% of current people in the US don't pay ANY Federal Income Tax as it is now.

But that really isn't the point of my post or this thread. Like you said (more or less), the current system is broken - it just doesn't work. This is a step in the right direction. While not perfect, completely getting rid of the current tax code HAS to be a step in the right direction.

The key to making something like this work is to put steps in place (maybe even thru constitutional amendments) that make special interest groups / lobbyists / corporations unable to influence congress. The Fair Tax only addresses the revenue side of the equation - it obviously does nothing for the spending side of the equation which is just as broken.

There are a ton of deductions to taxes that companies take now that would be completely meaningless if they actually didn't file a tax return. No more questions about GE / Apple / GM etc. getting favorable deductions on their taxes. How fast can you depreciate an asset??? It doesnt' matter. Is there a deduction for investing in something. It doesnt' matter.

This takes the money out of PART of politics - not all of it. It does reform lobbying (partially), it does eliminate some corporate money and influence. Not all, but some.

Is it perfect? HELL NO. But is it a step in the right direction? I think so. Heck, I haven't heard any other plans that do this much to get the power back in the hands of the people and out of the hands of corporations / lobbyists / 501 (c)(3)'s.

(The most important point i can make about this: It stands absolutely 0% chance of ever passing ... it would take too much power away from politicians that crave power and write the rules at the same time). That doesn't mean i dont' like the plan however.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The problem is that no one will stand up and admit that the current system is broken. It's like a radiator on a car that is leaking. People keep pouring water into it despite the fact that it has a hole in it. But it's worse than that. Someone has taken a shotgun to the radiator. It's basically a sieve. We stand around talking about how we are going to patch this one particular hole or that particular hole when water is pooling around our feet. But no one wants to talk about replacing the radiator altogether because that would involve turning the car off and that's going to be painful. No one wants to do that.

 

[RiverOfIce]

The problem is that no one will stand up and admit that the current system is broken.

The current system was not created to be a nanny state, which conservatives have turned it into. The original system was created to make sure that there was only a 100% agreement by everyone to get anything done. But the conservatives in this country has created a massive army to "protect" their wealth.

But the bottom line comes down to this. There is 300,000,000 people in the united states. You want to take the average coverage of 600,000,000 people per representative to 10,000,000 people per representative. Which means you will either get huge divides in the representatives which will not get anything done. Or you get the fact that you can buy the whole house for little money. Not a good idea.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The current system was not created to be a nanny state, which conservatives have turned it into. The original system was created to make sure that there was only a 100% agreement by everyone to get anything done. But the conservatives in this country has created a massive army to "protect" their wealth.

But the bottom line comes down to this. There is 300,000,000 people in the united states. You want to take the average coverage of 600,000,000 people per representative to 10,000,000 people per representative. Which means you will either get huge divides in the representatives which will not get anything done. Or you get the fact that you can buy the whole house for little money. Not a good idea.

It's a huge oversimplification to say that conservatives have turned the system into a nanny state. It's the fault of both parties that it's come to this and liberals and conservatives a like are equally guilty. The Republicans are the idiots behind the the Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act though. It will pass easily I'm sure because if someone doesn't vote for it, then they're in favor of child pornography.

If you dislike my system, fine. I'll admit it's not perfect. The current system is so bloated it's useless. We need to seriously re-think how we represent people in Washington.

 

[noah way]

I disagree that this a tax break for the rich at the expense of the working class - but even if it is, so what if the rich get a break. It is revenue NEUTRAL to the govt. almost 50% of current people in the US don't pay ANY Federal Income Tax as it is now.

You can disagree with the chart all you want, the fact remains that analysis shows an aggregate tax reduction of about 15% on income over $200k. Higher incomes would see even higher tax reductions as they spend a far smaller percentage of their income. And you can bet that second homes, yachts, etc. would receive preferable treatment (just as they do now).

To make it revenue neutral it would have to be around 32-34% on every purchase. That would make houses, gasoline, food, clothing, insurance, etc. all 32-34% more expensive. Any exceptions to the tax would simply result in higher overall rates. This "consumption tax" would serve to lower consumption, causing revenue losses, which would require increasing the tax to maintain revenue neutrality. This in turn would further reduce consumption, etc., etc.

The claim that 50% pay no income tax is technically true but entirely bogus. The implication is that 50% are freeloaders. This blatantly and intentionally ignores the fact that 40% of all federal revenue comes from payroll taxes paid by every working citizen, and proportionally more by the lower income classes because of caps around 100k. A guy making $300k pays less than 2% while a guy making 40k pays 7.6% (or 15.6% if self-employed).

The other part of this that is bogus is that a large percentage of the population is so poor that they fall below the level at which income tax is collected. Try all you want, you simply can't tax people who don't have any money. Next, you'll probably blame them for being poor ...

Changing the tax system will not fix government. Removing money from politics might. It's not going to happen because the vast majority of 100 senators - Democrat and Republican - are securely on the corporate payroll and will be no matter what.