Christopher M Tucker
Guest
|
Post by Christopher M Tucker on Jun 11, 2012 15:09:04 GMT -5
Could someon attempt a top 10 G's guessing at low-hanging fruit, to frame discussion, so people have a picture of what they'd like in or out, when they have picture of possible holistic package. This may help get idea of whether a consensus exists on top priorities.
I haven't been reading latest o G's. When I heard of possible voting procedures, I saw possibility of some counter-intuintive, unexpected outcomes, influenced by procedures/choice ordering (there's a body of POLI SCI called prospect theory on how U can manipulate outcome by altering framing of choices).
I also said before, I'd suggest trying to combine G's into one if possible (e.g. Whereas corporations are not people...overturn Citizens United).
I'm going to submit one G before 15, if I don't see anything addressing one of my top priorities.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 11, 2012 15:37:11 GMT -5
1. End gerrymandering. 2. End the legal bribery and extortion of elected officials, and graft to all government employees. 3. Ban corporate political expenditures to and for (or against) candidates, elected officials, and political parties. [partner with Shareholder's Rights groups] 4. No political party shall be privileged, institute Top-Two Open Primaries nationwide. This would also effectively replace the Electoral College in a bipartisan way. [partner with independentvoting.org and NPVIC] 5. Reverse NDAA sections 1031/1032 indefinite detention of US citizens. [partner with ACLU] 6. A Green Energy Bank for demand based proven payback projects to create jobs with funds administered by the States. [partner with green energy industry and Chambers of Commerce] 7. Move Election Day to the Veteran's Day Holiday. [Partner with Veteran's groups] 8. Immediate total complete instantaneous transparency of PAC money (the Super PAC Act as written by the Sunlight Foundation). 9. End too big to fail, by either breaking up the big banks or reinstating Glass Steagall. 10. Term limits for the Supreme Court (18 year terms, one justice every two years in non-election years) 11. End Oil Company Subsidies for Non-Renewable Sources 12. One Law One Bill 13. Limit the Executive Branches' War Making Powers
I believe all of these have the necessary support to pass as a constitutional amendment today if it were possible and need be. #10 might be a nail or hammer, but to let SCOTUS know we're not kidding around. I think these are the "nails" for the Redress of Grievances 2012. Obviously they need to be written in the appropriate format of Title (for the CC2 and the press), the actual one or two sentence grievance for the complaint, and a summary of the solution for the press.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 11, 2012 16:53:38 GMT -5
Here's a link to a 2009 NBC/Wall Street Journal study that 74% of Americans want an end to Big Oil Subsidies. thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/03/174932/americans-oil-subsidies/?mobile=nc That's pretty close to "nail" status. I thought I read somewhere it was up to 80%, but I can't find the reference. For #6, it would be a way of helping fund the Green Bank, and or lower the deficit. Conservatives are not usually thrilled with government picking winners and losers, but 74% to 80% is a very strong showing.
|
|
Christopher M Tucker
Guest
|
Post by Christopher M Tucker on Jun 12, 2012 3:27:57 GMT -5
Jon Denn, some juicy, brilliant morsels in that top 10. Number 7 is genius, and a surprise. #5 is a personal favorite, but feel it doesn't go far enough, since few in Congress even understand it or know much worse is going on & implied in this & other so-called legal documents.
Again, it reinforces my belief that seeing top 10 holistically, if preferable, since some reforms only matter if done in combo (e.g. if billionaires own entire system & election process, switching election to holiday isn't much help, though can't hurt).
Another issue w/ some polls, and referendums (I lived in CA w/ endless, twisted process), is that people support things much more when no tradeoffs or reality-check is provided, so that a lower % would support something if they saw holistic context of tradeoffs, costs/benefits.
Anyway, as I'm less convinced this 99D will exist much longer, my motivation declines, but U list a great top 10.
What about top 3? Perhaps focusing thinking this way would really get to low-hanging fruit.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 12, 2012 5:15:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 12, 2012 10:35:11 GMT -5
*GERRYMANDERING **"LEGAL GRAFT" ***CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ****ECONOMIC JUSTICE: INCOME TAX OVERHAUL
*End political gerrymandering. It creates "safe seats" for entrenched incumbents.
After each census, a board of neutral experts (demographers, statisticians, political geographers) should be engaged to draw lines that create compact, contiguous districts that respect the integrity of traditional communities.
The National Academy of Sciences or the National Science Foundation would be my nominee to convene the redistricting boards.
**Eliminating legal graft and addressing the "revolving door".
(1) Elected officials of the U.S. Government, Officers and Ambassadors of the U.S. who must be confirmed by the Senate, all members of the federal judiciary, and everyone employed by the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the U.S. government shall be forbidden from accepting anything of value from any person or entity in exchange for any action taken in furtherance of the donor's interest(s). Violation of this principle shall be punishable as a criminal offense.
(2) After leaving government service, no person forbidden to receive anything of value in Paragraph A shall be permitted, for a period of five years, to work in any capacity to influence the actions of the federal government, with the sole exception of exercising their own personal First Amendment right to speak and publish.
***Campaign Finance Reform
The government must be in the business of leveling the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. So long as government is in that business, those with wealth will work and spend to influence the system. The solution is not regulation of political contributions or political campaign spending. If you want to spend your time and energy nailing this Jello to that wall, be my guest.
The better solution is a simple, three-rule system, first proposed, so far as I'm aware, by George F. Will (proving that even a blind nut finds a squirrel, once in a while.)
No foreign money. No cash. Immediate, full, transparent disclosure of all campaign contributions and spending, in as close to real-time as modern technology allows.
Then let the voters decide who's being bought and sold, who's doing the buying and selling, and who should be voted in or out.
****Economic justice: Overhaul Federal Income Taxation
(A) No household with an income at or below the federal poverty line (responsibility for making this calculation having been shifted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) shall be subject to federal income taxation.
(B) All others shall be subject to a progressive tax on gross income, from a minimum tax rate of X% to a maximum tax rate of 3X%.
(C) All gross income, regardless of whether earned or unearned, whether generated by royalty, patent, capital gain or any other distinction without difference, shall be taxed at the same rate.
(D) There shall be only three, limited, deductions from taxable gross income:
Interest paid on mortgages for one's primary residence, up to a total of $YY,000.00;
Contributions to charitable institutions, up to a total of one-tenth of gross income;
Interest earned on bonds issued by the govenments of any state, municipality or other sub-division of U.S. domestic government.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 12, 2012 12:06:05 GMT -5
Hi David, so in "graft" #1, does this mean no individual strictly limited campaign contributions at all (like $100)? So this is really, government funded campaigns? If so, my problem with it is government funding elections "enough" that we can suss out the candidates. I for one want to see enough of the candidates to see them stick their foot in it multiple times, and see their real stripes, not just the manufactured image. As we just saw with the CC2 election, whoever controls (underfunds) the election has too much power. So, I prefer the people have more say, with either strictly limited, small contributions, or vouchers, then with overly generous matching funds. Also, the media will hate this if government has the ability of limiting political advertising (speech), as will the employees that won't get hired if government gets too cheap. Also, which branch of government oversees elections? Stephen Erickson suggests an independent commission whose members are somehow selected by say 7/9ths or even 8/9th (88%) of the Supreme Court. And they have the right to stop paying congress if they toy with the charter of the independent commission.
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 12, 2012 16:05:06 GMT -5
My graft proposal is about giving things of value (cash or in-kind) to elected or appointed officials and employees of any of the three federal branches.
And to keeping former officials out of the lobbying business for five years after they leave government.
My graft proposal should be considered "low-hanging fruit" _____ My campaign finance reform proposal is entirely separate. It's about giving money or in-kind contributions to campaigns for or against candidates.
My campaign finance reform proposal is probably way too permissive for most folks in the room. I simply don't believe you CAN get money out of politics, and you just drive it underground if you try.
So I believe in: No Cash No Foreign Money Immediate, real-time, Internet disclosure of all campaign contributions, whether to candidate campaigns, party campaigns, interest group campains, and campaigns AGAINST any candidate, even in the absence of a pitch for a different candidate. with no anonymity permitted.
Then let the voters read the disclosures, decide who's being bought by whom, and vote accordingly.
Like I said, nowhere near as likely to garner as much support in this crowd as my anti-graft proposal.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 13, 2012 5:11:32 GMT -5
David, just to clarify, "things of value, etc", do you mean to their reelection campaigns or personally?
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 13, 2012 6:28:02 GMT -5
To anyone employed by the federal government, whether they run campaigns or not. The graft problem extends to the permanent government, full of pooh-bahs grand and petty, who never run for office or run campaigns.
All of that's meant to be covered by the two prongs of the "graft" proposal.
The Campaign Finance proposal is separate. And, as I've warned, no where near as restrictive as the majority may want to adopt.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 13, 2012 7:47:26 GMT -5
Ok, got it, so it is different from #2. I'm going add/edit to my #2 above as currently written... End the outrageous legal bribery and extortion of elected officials (to their reelection campaigns) to End the legal bribery and extortion of elected officials, and graft to all government employees.
That work? Is the graft you are talking about currently legal, or is there an aspect that current laws are not being enforced, too?
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 13, 2012 10:01:00 GMT -5
I think the Campaign Finance Reform grievance is a shoe-in for top 10. The Income Tax Overhaul will most likely gain a large majority of consensus. After all, the inequality is why we're here in the first place
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 13, 2012 17:00:47 GMT -5
Jon you're looking for a middle ground between us on Campaign finance reform. It's good of you, but unnecessary. Read my Campaign Finance Reform Proposal again. It's not in the same universe with you, nor, I imagine with the majority of delegates. I don't believe in campaign contribution limits, except for NO CASH and NO FOREIGN MONEY. Beyond that, I believe in immediate, transparent disclosure of all campaign contributions, and then trusting voters to read the reports and vote out anyone they think's being bought. Please go with your original campaign finance proposals and don't modify them to get one outlier's support. The outlier won't block consensus. He knows he has no corner on the wisdom market.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 13, 2012 17:06:04 GMT -5
Wow, can you imagine there are reasonable people of good intent in the room. Cheers, Jon
|
|
|
Post by mohavehiker on Jun 13, 2012 22:37:29 GMT -5
Money out of politics. This is a minor variation of some of the campaign reform ideas out there. Candidates for Congress could run for office without raising large campaign contributions. Instead they would collect a large number of small contributions from their home district and state in order to qualify for a limited amount of public funding for their campaign. They would be prohibited from taking any contributions over $2500 dollars from individuals, no more than $100 from businesses or corporations and zero dollars or any in kind contributions from lobbyists. In state or home state contributions of up to $2500 dollars or less would be matched with public funds on a one to one basis, up to a strict limit. Out of state contributions would not be matched and no foreign contributions would be allowed. Any foreign monies would have to be returned or given to the public fund to help with the contribution match.
|
|