all parties involved in passing a law are also subject to that law and its enforcement as if they were mere commoners. no more rules for thee and not for me.
I'd add that every time they spend money, budget or otherwise, they have to say out loud (and must be referred to in any document) how much it is, including all the zeros vs. shorthand for the amount.
So instead of $1.7 trillion it would be $1,700,000,000,000.
That might be enough of a burden for these lazy congress critters to reign in spending. Any time they don't say all the zeros they are fined.
It might get the attention of the public as well; $1,700,000,000,000 sounds a lot different than $1.7 trillion.
Yes! And perhaps how much each individual currently "owes" to pay off our National debt and how each new dollar (and interest) adds to that sum...and how that looks over their lifetime.
In other words; like one of those retirement calculators inverted to a debt calculator.
You have failed to consider the plight of the purveyors of propaganda who must read these numbers to the sheeple. A number like $1,700,000,000,000 far exceeds the two syllable rule. And worse, the number is way above sixth grade limit for arithmetic!
That’s what I was thinking...enforcing a “practice what you preach” rule. For example, vote for defunding police, no private security for you...etc. Also, all members of Congress (including everyone in government but the President and Vice President, by law, should have to travel commercially. Also, with the exception of the aforementioned, no tax dollars toward personal/private security. We have cops. If they’re good for me and my family, they’re good enough for you.
They (& their staffs & most if not all fed employees) exempt themselves from every horrible thing they impose on us, w/ NObummer care & mandated jab as 2 recent examples.
And the minute they leave or get thrown out of office they should not keep their royal titles like “congressman X” or “senator Y” or “governor Z” or even “president”. They shouldn’t have security for life either. Virtually all those a-holes make plenty in office or once they leave to pay their own
If you played a part in mandating these shots, you are required to fly with pilots who have had them.
Anyone who worked against them to resist is given the fair benefit of flying with pilots who did not have them .... and receiving blood transfusions / organ donations from those who did not have them....
This and other such laws are already the law. The problem is, those laws are simply being ignored. Which is the problem: once everyone in power realizes they can simply ignore the law, that the public, fat and lazy, won't lift a finger, the law no longer matters.
The ultimate in applied democracy! Throughout history, private facilities have ALWAYS been an exclusive prerogative of the ruling elite of the day. Take that away, and what have they left?
I understand the foundational thinking of this, but I don't like it.
This incentivizes people who are rich enough to not need to work for a living to become politicians and no one else.
By this measure, someone like me would be incapable of ever holding office. I need to earn money for my family and prepare for retirement. And I would be a damn sight more ethical than 90+% of anyone currently doing the job.
How about "the median salary" instead, with benefits comparable to a job paying such? If holding a political office is a full-time job (admittedly it isn't always), I don't have a problem with it being compensated like one.
How about we treat it like the reserves or national guard? You keep your day job but they are requires to allow you time off to travel to d.c. and conduct your congressional duties for which you get paid by the gov’t. Make being a congressman a part time not full time job. Limits the amount of meddling they can do just to stay in office.
I like this idea, but I think when we're saying "public office" we're mostly thinking about "Congress" because those are the people we are angriest at for their self-enrichment.
Most political offices are not part-time, especially executive ones. They can be a lot of work.
Again, to be clear, I understand the sentiment here, but a perverse incentive is being created whereby we end up selecting for the very people we resent- and to be honest, the majority of self-enrichment committed by these people isn't from their salary, it's from the abuse of their office and activities that should be (or are) illegal like insider trading and market manipulation.
Agree I’m talking about congress not the executive. Being Pres or Gov is a full time job. I don’t Congress needs to be. In fact we could be better off of it weren’t.
Reality is there is no one law that would fix it all so the whole conversation is kind of moot.
Totally agree. The people we really need wouldn't be able to afford to represent us. You can't just pay their wage for a few years either, cos like pregnancy or "finding yourself" for a few years, you're worth less when you return to work after a long break.
I like the thought, but... These people aren't getting rich off the $174,000 salary that comes with being a US Representative. They are getting rich off of inside information which they use to play the stock market. Think of Paul Pelosi and his nVidia windfall, which he miraculously knew to opt into days before his wife shepherded the CHIPS Act into law.
Considering that the longer one attends college, the more brainwashed they up being, I say we reverse that. Find me a latter day Davy Crockett who thinks for himself, and I will gladly pay that man ten times what I pay some cookie cutter Yale-graduated lawyer who has xir pronouns in xis bio, supports endless dollars for "Keev," and can't wait to tell me about "stochastic terrorism.".
I don't think my sentence was parsed the way it was intended.
The "flaw" I'm referring to is that a system (in this case, non-payment or token poverty of elected officials) that would attract and retain non-representative people is as flawed as the current one for similar reasons that the current one is flawed.
I need a paying job to live, as do the vast majority of us. I don't want to be represented by someone who doesn't, because I don't expect their values or policy goals to align well with mine. Creating a job that is only attractive to people who don't need money, while everyone else continues to need money, will incentivize non-representative people to do that job.
Same as 'term limits'. People seem to love the idea but it just incentivized a 'smash and grab' mentality when you know you're gonna get fired in a few years anyway. In contrast, if you know you can 'leave a legacy' (preferably not one like Fauci) it's at least some incentive to maintain a good reputation and avoid scandal.
Yeah, I've never been especially bothered by unlimited terms. The core issue is more about being able to remove incumbents that are no longer doing their job well, and the obstacles that are erected against doing that- which mostly has to do with political parties and campaign financing.
If someone is doing an excellent job representing me, I'm happy for them to stay where they are until they can't or won't, and then I need to be able to vote them out.
I disagree, in that decades of then having no term limits has nearly destroyed our political system. Time to change things up. Ten limits need to be tried out
I don’t think the wealthy would work for minimum wage. I think it would put into office people who would be happy with minimum wage. Might work out better. It would also, more than likely, eliminate a whole lot of participants. Wouldn’t that be interesting? I would extend the original comment to include not just politicians, but any government worker. Wouldn’t that be even more interesting? How quickly would the massive beast of government we all currently support be decreased with these parameters?
Well, think about school boards or neighborhood HOAs. I've known very nice people who are involved in those, but there tends to be a drift toward bossy, near-sighted types who like to throw their power around (despite lack of salary) and cronyism.
So while money certainly is a corrupting factor in our "leaders" today, basically power itself corrupts.
What maybe needs to happen is to totally de-glamorize politics. Make it boring, so it attracts boring, topic-focused people.
Well, I bet minimum wage would be increased the first day.
How were the original founding fathers qualified? Lawyers, doctors, farmers. Sort of like some of the members in Congress now. Living here in a farming community, I have always thought turning the entire government over to farmers would get most things solved. Farmers are some of the most practical people I’ve ever met. But in getting back to the original comment, imposing circumstances as a requirement for office, that make them think about what they’re inflicting is a darn good idea IMHO.
I wouldn't want minimum wage increased the first day. Instantly raising minimum wage to the level commensurate with a highly demanding, skilled job would almost as instantly annihilate the economy.
I'm a farmer. I lack knowledge of most of the unseen procedures of legislation and government that aren't taught in a high school civics class or shown on TV. I might have values and principles that are more palatable than many in our current crop of politicians, but I lack most of the technical skills necessary to execute them in our existing political system, if I were to find myself thrust into them.
Many of the unpalatable things that people in "The Squad" do are rooted not only in their toxic ideology but in their utter ignorance of how representative democracy, the legislative process, or our economy WORK. Those are skills.
As much respect as I have for our founding fathers, they were not "farmers" in the way we use the term today. They were all highly educated landowners representing the economic and intellectual elite. They were not my neighbor down the road with 100 Holsteins that he personally ranches.
I think the logic and values farmers would bring would be invaluable. Not having the “technical skills necessary” might be a good thing. How many do have the technical skills and yet most of us still feel under-represent or not represented at all?
Your neighbor who has 100 Holsteins manages to keep the ranch running without hitting a debt ceiling or threatening to shutdown if he doesn’t get his way on a ridiculous spending bill doesn’t he? Farmers “get” how to keep things working. They are loaded with common sense, and I think that quality transcends time. Farmers are loyal people who if were representing neighbors and peers, I feel they would accurately represent them.
Of the 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence:
What, do you imagine, are the "qualifications for office" of most of the incumbents currently swilling from the public trough? Been there, done that. Was most emphatically NOT impressed with the "qualifications" of many of the rocket surgeons and brain scientists with whom it was my misfortune to serve. ESPECIALLY some of the "credentialed" ones!
A person who does not need to support themselves financially- who will take a full-time job that they cannot live on- does not represent my life, or most Americans' lives, at all.
I see largely two types of people who such a description would describe- someone who is so wealthy that a salary is no longer necessary, and people who are fully dependent on the incomes of others. Neither of those represent me or most people, and I don't think I'd want them to.
To say that there are no meaningful qualifications for doing a good job in public office is as extreme as position as its opposite. Needing certain demonstrable skills to do a job well is not synonymous with the cult of expert credentialism.
Trump, for example, gained substantial social cache because he cast himself as an "outsider," which, as far as politics were concerned, he was. But people who supported him didn't do so because they were endorsing some "anti-skilled" position- many imagined that his experience as a negotiator and entrepreneur in other domains would be valuable. Regardless of one's position on Trump, he did learn the hard way that not having direct knowledge or experience of certain political processes greatly impeded his ability to accomplish goals, beyond the obstructive behavior of others.
Or the most selfless folks who sincerely intend to change things. Probably be a split down the middle, and we still end up with gridlock. Cheaper maybe, but still gridlock...
Well....... welcome to Cambodia. Border control: "We're seizing your passport until you pay us the amount we name." When I called them out on that being unethical and going against their own rules posted on the wall, they explained to me, "We don't make enough money to cover our basic family expenses – the public salaries are too low compared to anywhere else. How else can we make enough money to survive?"
Their staff would be busy applying for food stamps, all other benefits, and writing letters asking for help from lobbyists and donors.. The Congress would unanimously pass a law that elected officials would get a tax free rescue package of $220K a year. Our taxes would go up. We should all be investing in wheel barrows to carry our money in the not too distant future.
Laws must undergo judicial review before their effective date. All legislators voting for laws found unconstitutional upon judicial review are subject to civil and criminal liability for attempted violation of civil liberties.
Yes, it's all well and good to say as they do now (though less and less often) that an unconstitutional law is void from day one. But without prior review, it does its damage for years and years until a challenge reaches the Supremes.
Absolutely love this one. It was my first choice, but lacks the pragmatism of bad cats laws. Why is it that I feel so helpless when these congressmen and congresswomen work for us?
I would also like to see a retirement age for elected ones. Preferably not "until death do us part". Too many great grandparents in congress who should be enjoying being a great grandparent.
lifetime appointments were specifically written into the constitution to preserve autonomy and complete independence of the justices. it would concern me how quickly the pendulum would swing should we walk back on lifetime appointments. not that the SC isn't already somewhat political, but this would make it much worse.
I think age is too arbitrary a barrier, especially as healthy lifespans change over time.
Focus on the practical aspects of why you want that- a cognitive and/or physical health test.
Some eightysomethings are as sharp and energetic as they were in their 60s. Not a lot, but some. I don't have a problem with them continuing to do their job if they're actually capable of it.
The only real problem with this aspect is, who gets to decide is competent anymore? It’s going to be the government policing itself, which is a no win situation.
I used to believe the ballot box was the best test to gauge cognitive ability, but then we continued to get Pelosi and Feinstein, Biden was elected as President, and somehow Penn elected Fetterman to Congress.
The Government can't do much worse a job policing itself than the voters have done...
12 years max across all elected federal offices, not to override existing term limits. If you already served two terms as Senator...you cannot run for President.
It wouldn't. I wasn't voting for term limits. I'm not sure what term limits would fix. I like someone else's idea of mandatory retirement ages. That wouldn't fix it either. I don't know what would, other than not have a government.
No state of emergency shall last more than 90 days for any reason, period. And no executive-declared state of emergency may last more than 30 days without legislative approval, period.
And all of the following would be explicitly prohibited under any and all circumstances:
1) Stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders lasting more than 24 consecutive hours.
2) Nighttime curfews lasting more than three consecutive nights.
3) Forced businesses closures that are not justly and directly compensated by the same level of government that ordered their closure, per the Takings Clause.
4) Forced school closures lasting more than five consecutive school days. And any voluntary school closures lasting more than that shall lose all funding until they fully reopen full-time and in-person, period.
5) Forced jab mandates or passports, either in theory or in practice.
the assumptions here are flawed. Laws are force. laws are compelled behaviour backed up with threats of violence. There is already way too much force, violence and coercion in the world. THe question should be "if you could eliiminate one law" what would it be.
Complex human problems cannot be solved with force and violence. only with freedom , maximum liberty can humanity have the latitude to make moral choices and solve the problems of existence. The reason the US grew from into the freeest most prosperous wealthiest place on the planet from 1800-1914 was not because the people were better but because the gov to the greatest extent in human history before or since left the people alone.
To get a broadcast license, every media outlet must make public all of their financials, including all bank accounts, and every transaction, both deposits and withdrawals, must have an explanation. Same rule applies to parent companies and all senior executives of such outlets.
I don’t remember the particulars, but during the 1980s and early 90s there was a huge, huge effort to get passed a ‘balanced budget’ law, since nearly everyone was concerned about the national debt. The bill passed, everyone thought the problem was solved - and then the politicians found ways to get around the law, ever since. Heavy sigh! Now the national debt is so gigantic that it feels like we’re doomed....
every dollar over budget means "X" amount of federal workers who must be let go.
We'll see how hard federal employees work after that. We might be able to balance the budget on that alone. We'll also see how committed the politicians are to the people vs. the government they grift off of.
Bureaucracy is perhaps as big of a threat as politicians.
This approach could kill two birds with one stone.
Then they shut down many of the State Parks because they cancelled the salaries for rangers and maintenance.
Then they informed residents of at least one city I know of that trash collection would be put on hold, and to please buy a gun because the police budget was no longer available to attend to calls for help.
Any members who vote in favour of a war or wars (usually to kill brown people, or non whites, I guess) must ‘sacrifice’ at least one member of their immediate family who has go on the front line and fight the said war. Members are permitted to go on the front line themselves if they so wish.
Why don't we start with Congress having to approve wars first...you know like we're supposed to under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.
I betcha we wouldn't have as many "wars" if we actually followed the Constitution.
Well, up to 90% of the world is nonwhite, so I'm not sure that caveat makes sense. What, we can't defend ourselves or our allies against 90% of the world if they're aggressors?
And why should a child of an SOB politician pay the price of that SOB politician's warmongering? That's an innocent person.
Two old laws with amendments must be removed from statute to allow one new law. That new law should have a 10 year sunset clause. That should keep the buggers properly busy!
all parties involved in passing a law are also subject to that law and its enforcement as if they were mere commoners. no more rules for thee and not for me.
BOOM.
I'd add that every time they spend money, budget or otherwise, they have to say out loud (and must be referred to in any document) how much it is, including all the zeros vs. shorthand for the amount.
So instead of $1.7 trillion it would be $1,700,000,000,000.
That might be enough of a burden for these lazy congress critters to reign in spending. Any time they don't say all the zeros they are fined.
It might get the attention of the public as well; $1,700,000,000,000 sounds a lot different than $1.7 trillion.
Plus an explanation of what that means as a tax burden per tax paying citizen.
Yes! And perhaps how much each individual currently "owes" to pay off our National debt and how each new dollar (and interest) adds to that sum...and how that looks over their lifetime.
In other words; like one of those retirement calculators inverted to a debt calculator.
Ha! Can you imagine putting 1,700,000,000,000 on Joe Biden's teleprompter? That would make some great TV! Lmao 🤣
Beer bet...he would read it “ one,seven, zero, zero, etc”..
I'm not gonna bet, I'd lose that one for sure
God save us...yikes
Lol 😂
He would definitely have more marbles in his mouth than in his brain!
For sure!
You say trillion, I say billion... let’s not split hairs.....😂😂😂
You have failed to consider the plight of the purveyors of propaganda who must read these numbers to the sheeple. A number like $1,700,000,000,000 far exceeds the two syllable rule. And worse, the number is way above sixth grade limit for arithmetic!
A must. Equality under the law is necessary for a just society
I think you might have spelled Equity wrong. 😉😊😋
I was going to post the same but I knew it would already be here due its being perfectly logical and absolutely necessary.
To pass ANY new law, two old ones must be repealed.
I have long thought that one law should be repealed for each new one made, but repealing two is better!
And deleted from all parts of the Federal Register.
That’s what I was thinking...enforcing a “practice what you preach” rule. For example, vote for defunding police, no private security for you...etc. Also, all members of Congress (including everyone in government but the President and Vice President, by law, should have to travel commercially. Also, with the exception of the aforementioned, no tax dollars toward personal/private security. We have cops. If they’re good for me and my family, they’re good enough for you.
They (& their staffs & most if not all fed employees) exempt themselves from every horrible thing they impose on us, w/ NObummer care & mandated jab as 2 recent examples.
And the minute they leave or get thrown out of office they should not keep their royal titles like “congressman X” or “senator Y” or “governor Z” or even “president”. They shouldn’t have security for life either. Virtually all those a-holes make plenty in office or once they leave to pay their own
The "You've made your bed, now lie in it Law":
If you played a part in mandating these shots, you are required to fly with pilots who have had them.
Anyone who worked against them to resist is given the fair benefit of flying with pilots who did not have them .... and receiving blood transfusions / organ donations from those who did not have them....
But... but... then how could they have ever passed The Affordable Care Act ?!?!
Well, they'd still have to pass it to know what's in it. 🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮
This and other such laws are already the law. The problem is, those laws are simply being ignored. Which is the problem: once everyone in power realizes they can simply ignore the law, that the public, fat and lazy, won't lift a finger, the law no longer matters.
Bingo…
YES!!!
And since the budget needs to be balanced, they will remain in session until it's done.
Tracey, I think that would curtail a LOT
🙌 Amen!
exactly
Yer "strangers" - Exodus 12:49
All politicians while in office must work for minimum wage with no retirement package, live in public housing and take public transportation.
And pay for their own private insurance.
Good one!
No. VA system access only. Plus restricted to facilities in their home districts.
And have to use public restrooms at all times!...;}
😹😅😂🤣
The ultimate in applied democracy! Throughout history, private facilities have ALWAYS been an exclusive prerogative of the ruling elite of the day. Take that away, and what have they left?
Public restrooms that may be used by whatever gender is popular that day.
It's all "fluid"...pardon the pun...:)
Preferably at fast food restaurants, we’re by the way, should be their primary for form of calories and nutrients.
exactly. hopefully at places that have run out of TP!
Ooo,that's pretty cruel, but yes!
And have to buy their own groceries.
You mean eat bugs, right?
Only if they’re chocolate covered.
I understand the foundational thinking of this, but I don't like it.
This incentivizes people who are rich enough to not need to work for a living to become politicians and no one else.
By this measure, someone like me would be incapable of ever holding office. I need to earn money for my family and prepare for retirement. And I would be a damn sight more ethical than 90+% of anyone currently doing the job.
I think this is a flaw.
How about "the median salary" instead, with benefits comparable to a job paying such? If holding a political office is a full-time job (admittedly it isn't always), I don't have a problem with it being compensated like one.
How about we treat it like the reserves or national guard? You keep your day job but they are requires to allow you time off to travel to d.c. and conduct your congressional duties for which you get paid by the gov’t. Make being a congressman a part time not full time job. Limits the amount of meddling they can do just to stay in office.
I like this idea, but I think when we're saying "public office" we're mostly thinking about "Congress" because those are the people we are angriest at for their self-enrichment.
Most political offices are not part-time, especially executive ones. They can be a lot of work.
Again, to be clear, I understand the sentiment here, but a perverse incentive is being created whereby we end up selecting for the very people we resent- and to be honest, the majority of self-enrichment committed by these people isn't from their salary, it's from the abuse of their office and activities that should be (or are) illegal like insider trading and market manipulation.
Agree I’m talking about congress not the executive. Being Pres or Gov is a full time job. I don’t Congress needs to be. In fact we could be better off of it weren’t.
Reality is there is no one law that would fix it all so the whole conversation is kind of moot.
There is probably at least one realistic change we could implement that would improve the situation.
There doesn't need to be one law that would fix it all.
Totally agree. The people we really need wouldn't be able to afford to represent us. You can't just pay their wage for a few years either, cos like pregnancy or "finding yourself" for a few years, you're worth less when you return to work after a long break.
I like the thought, but... These people aren't getting rich off the $174,000 salary that comes with being a US Representative. They are getting rich off of inside information which they use to play the stock market. Think of Paul Pelosi and his nVidia windfall, which he miraculously knew to opt into days before his wife shepherded the CHIPS Act into law.
Exactly.
At the end of the day, they're getting rich off of us.
Well said, congressman Guttermouth!
LOL no way, never. Warlord or nothing.
Ok! Warlord it is then. I'm good with that!
So. Can you row?
Pay them according to GS scale, hired at whatever their qualifications justify, 11 maximum. Bachelors or less gets you 7, Masters 9, Doctorate 11.
Considering that the longer one attends college, the more brainwashed they up being, I say we reverse that. Find me a latter day Davy Crockett who thinks for himself, and I will gladly pay that man ten times what I pay some cookie cutter Yale-graduated lawyer who has xir pronouns in xis bio, supports endless dollars for "Keev," and can't wait to tell me about "stochastic terrorism.".
I'm fine with something like this. I always wondered why they were special and not on that scale in the first place.
Technically they are, but there's a ton of callouts.
The ability to perceive the world from an ethical perspective has always been a flaw.
I don't think my sentence was parsed the way it was intended.
The "flaw" I'm referring to is that a system (in this case, non-payment or token poverty of elected officials) that would attract and retain non-representative people is as flawed as the current one for similar reasons that the current one is flawed.
I need a paying job to live, as do the vast majority of us. I don't want to be represented by someone who doesn't, because I don't expect their values or policy goals to align well with mine. Creating a job that is only attractive to people who don't need money, while everyone else continues to need money, will incentivize non-representative people to do that job.
Same as 'term limits'. People seem to love the idea but it just incentivized a 'smash and grab' mentality when you know you're gonna get fired in a few years anyway. In contrast, if you know you can 'leave a legacy' (preferably not one like Fauci) it's at least some incentive to maintain a good reputation and avoid scandal.
Yeah, I've never been especially bothered by unlimited terms. The core issue is more about being able to remove incumbents that are no longer doing their job well, and the obstacles that are erected against doing that- which mostly has to do with political parties and campaign financing.
If someone is doing an excellent job representing me, I'm happy for them to stay where they are until they can't or won't, and then I need to be able to vote them out.
I disagree, in that decades of then having no term limits has nearly destroyed our political system. Time to change things up. Ten limits need to be tried out
We already HAVE term limits: voting. The citizenry hold that term in their hands... barring Machine Voting.
What we need is campaign finance changes so that incumbents don't have a tidalwave advantage.
I don’t think the wealthy would work for minimum wage. I think it would put into office people who would be happy with minimum wage. Might work out better. It would also, more than likely, eliminate a whole lot of participants. Wouldn’t that be interesting? I would extend the original comment to include not just politicians, but any government worker. Wouldn’t that be even more interesting? How quickly would the massive beast of government we all currently support be decreased with these parameters?
Who do you imagine would be happy with minimum wage, and what do you imagine their qualifications for office would be?
Well, think about school boards or neighborhood HOAs. I've known very nice people who are involved in those, but there tends to be a drift toward bossy, near-sighted types who like to throw their power around (despite lack of salary) and cronyism.
So while money certainly is a corrupting factor in our "leaders" today, basically power itself corrupts.
What maybe needs to happen is to totally de-glamorize politics. Make it boring, so it attracts boring, topic-focused people.
Power is to sociopaths what catnip is to cats.
As such, power attracts precisely the sort of humans who should not have it.
True.
We have perfect traps laid, but the cockroaches keep escaping them to go back to their palaces at night.
Well, I bet minimum wage would be increased the first day.
How were the original founding fathers qualified? Lawyers, doctors, farmers. Sort of like some of the members in Congress now. Living here in a farming community, I have always thought turning the entire government over to farmers would get most things solved. Farmers are some of the most practical people I’ve ever met. But in getting back to the original comment, imposing circumstances as a requirement for office, that make them think about what they’re inflicting is a darn good idea IMHO.
I wouldn't want minimum wage increased the first day. Instantly raising minimum wage to the level commensurate with a highly demanding, skilled job would almost as instantly annihilate the economy.
I'm a farmer. I lack knowledge of most of the unseen procedures of legislation and government that aren't taught in a high school civics class or shown on TV. I might have values and principles that are more palatable than many in our current crop of politicians, but I lack most of the technical skills necessary to execute them in our existing political system, if I were to find myself thrust into them.
Many of the unpalatable things that people in "The Squad" do are rooted not only in their toxic ideology but in their utter ignorance of how representative democracy, the legislative process, or our economy WORK. Those are skills.
As much respect as I have for our founding fathers, they were not "farmers" in the way we use the term today. They were all highly educated landowners representing the economic and intellectual elite. They were not my neighbor down the road with 100 Holsteins that he personally ranches.
I’m also a farmer. How do we use the term today?
I think the logic and values farmers would bring would be invaluable. Not having the “technical skills necessary” might be a good thing. How many do have the technical skills and yet most of us still feel under-represent or not represented at all?
Your neighbor who has 100 Holsteins manages to keep the ranch running without hitting a debt ceiling or threatening to shutdown if he doesn’t get his way on a ridiculous spending bill doesn’t he? Farmers “get” how to keep things working. They are loaded with common sense, and I think that quality transcends time. Farmers are loyal people who if were representing neighbors and peers, I feel they would accurately represent them.
Of the 56 signatures on the Declaration of Independence:
20 lawyers
17 farmers/plantation owners
11 merchants
5 physicians
1 minister
What, do you imagine, are the "qualifications for office" of most of the incumbents currently swilling from the public trough? Been there, done that. Was most emphatically NOT impressed with the "qualifications" of many of the rocket surgeons and brain scientists with whom it was my misfortune to serve. ESPECIALLY some of the "credentialed" ones!
I'm talking about the incentives create.
A person who does not need to support themselves financially- who will take a full-time job that they cannot live on- does not represent my life, or most Americans' lives, at all.
I see largely two types of people who such a description would describe- someone who is so wealthy that a salary is no longer necessary, and people who are fully dependent on the incomes of others. Neither of those represent me or most people, and I don't think I'd want them to.
To say that there are no meaningful qualifications for doing a good job in public office is as extreme as position as its opposite. Needing certain demonstrable skills to do a job well is not synonymous with the cult of expert credentialism.
Trump, for example, gained substantial social cache because he cast himself as an "outsider," which, as far as politics were concerned, he was. But people who supported him didn't do so because they were endorsing some "anti-skilled" position- many imagined that his experience as a negotiator and entrepreneur in other domains would be valuable. Regardless of one's position on Trump, he did learn the hard way that not having direct knowledge or experience of certain political processes greatly impeded his ability to accomplish goals, beyond the obstructive behavior of others.
He was definitely a lousy judge of character… (Foochi, Birx, Christopher Wray, etc) 🔥
Wouldn't this just guarantee we get the worst, most desperate people with the fewest other options into office?
Or the most selfless folks who sincerely intend to change things. Probably be a split down the middle, and we still end up with gridlock. Cheaper maybe, but still gridlock...
In a true democracy, everyone is trained in civics and our representatives are drawn from a lottery for 4 year terms. Ha, like that would ever happen!
All for gridlock. But I don't think the recent problem has been a lack of sincerity from the people who want "change."
how much worse is there ?
That would solve a LOT of problems. Watch how quickly things will change!
and file an annual net worth statement , sworn.
Well....... welcome to Cambodia. Border control: "We're seizing your passport until you pay us the amount we name." When I called them out on that being unethical and going against their own rules posted on the wall, they explained to me, "We don't make enough money to cover our basic family expenses – the public salaries are too low compared to anywhere else. How else can we make enough money to survive?"
A fair if uncomfortable question.
Beware of unintended consequences. Do you want the minimum wage to skyrocket as it would in that situation?
Actually, I would be fine with that, lol. That's kind of a feature, not a bug.
No offense, but I don't trust your sense of economics.
If you do that you are just creating even more demand for bribery.
exactly what Gandhi did. but very few like him.
Their staff would be busy applying for food stamps, all other benefits, and writing letters asking for help from lobbyists and donors.. The Congress would unanimously pass a law that elected officials would get a tax free rescue package of $220K a year. Our taxes would go up. We should all be investing in wheel barrows to carry our money in the not too distant future.
I am for a law that abolishes the Federal Reserve, CIA, FBI, CDC, NIH, NSA, IRS, Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, Agriculture, etc.
Total reformation. Reformation now!
Definitely a step in the right direction.
Key term… abolishment!
Laws must undergo judicial review before their effective date. All legislators voting for laws found unconstitutional upon judicial review are subject to civil and criminal liability for attempted violation of civil liberties.
If they are found guilty they must be jailed with the insurrectionist
Yes, it's all well and good to say as they do now (though less and less often) that an unconstitutional law is void from day one. But without prior review, it does its damage for years and years until a challenge reaches the Supremes.
as those proposed laws would be against the constitution and are therefore consider treason punishable by death as stated in the constitution
What happens when the judges are just as crooked? 💩
Oooh, I like that
Absolutely love this one. It was my first choice, but lacks the pragmatism of bad cats laws. Why is it that I feel so helpless when these congressmen and congresswomen work for us?
Term Limits.
I would also like to see a retirement age for elected ones. Preferably not "until death do us part". Too many great grandparents in congress who should be enjoying being a great grandparent.
Ditto for Supreme Court justices as well.
lifetime appointments were specifically written into the constitution to preserve autonomy and complete independence of the justices. it would concern me how quickly the pendulum would swing should we walk back on lifetime appointments. not that the SC isn't already somewhat political, but this would make it much worse.
I think age is too arbitrary a barrier, especially as healthy lifespans change over time.
Focus on the practical aspects of why you want that- a cognitive and/or physical health test.
Some eightysomethings are as sharp and energetic as they were in their 60s. Not a lot, but some. I don't have a problem with them continuing to do their job if they're actually capable of it.
Exactly. My 95 year old Aunt could have run circles around some of our current politicians. Focus on ability and not age.
The only real problem with this aspect is, who gets to decide is competent anymore? It’s going to be the government policing itself, which is a no win situation.
I used to believe the ballot box was the best test to gauge cognitive ability, but then we continued to get Pelosi and Feinstein, Biden was elected as President, and somehow Penn elected Fetterman to Congress.
The Government can't do much worse a job policing itself than the voters have done...
It’s not who votes… it’s who counts the votes…
"Who COUNTS the votes!" - Brandon
It depends entirely on how representative of the people a government is.
That's always going to be the problem with any condition where you set criteria.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't ever be objective criteria or that we should try to establish them.
I'm not a fan of age limits for politicians, but a combination of term limits and a cognitive test should weed out the bad ones quickly enough...
Absolutely! Maximum of 12 years total for all elected officials, period.
methinks 12 years is six years too long !
Nope! You just upped the president being elected to 3 terms. They limited it to 8 years because of FDR.
12 years max across all elected federal offices, not to override existing term limits. If you already served two terms as Senator...you cannot run for President.
What will you do when they pass every leftist law they want the ladt session without repercussions?
Oh, you mean, like December? (2022)
Exactly like that. How do term limits fix that?
It wouldn't. I wasn't voting for term limits. I'm not sure what term limits would fix. I like someone else's idea of mandatory retirement ages. That wouldn't fix it either. I don't know what would, other than not have a government.
Now there is an idea… 👍🏽
Reagan said if government would just get out of the way, everyone would figure it out…
God also didn’t want Israel to have a king in the OT… I can now see why…
No. Lame ducks are the worst.
CA has term limits. 🤦🏼♀️
Evidentially, not short enough.
Amen to that. Two 4 year terms for House. Two six year terms for the Senate.
You want to up House terms to 4 years?
No state of emergency shall last more than 90 days for any reason, period. And no executive-declared state of emergency may last more than 30 days without legislative approval, period.
(At ALL levels of government)
And all of the following would be explicitly prohibited under any and all circumstances:
1) Stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders lasting more than 24 consecutive hours.
2) Nighttime curfews lasting more than three consecutive nights.
3) Forced businesses closures that are not justly and directly compensated by the same level of government that ordered their closure, per the Takings Clause.
4) Forced school closures lasting more than five consecutive school days. And any voluntary school closures lasting more than that shall lose all funding until they fully reopen full-time and in-person, period.
5) Forced jab mandates or passports, either in theory or in practice.
Effective yesterday!
Oh, and I forgot: NO ONE shall EVER be forced to cover their face again, in public OR private.
(Pre-2020 OSHA standards would still apply for certain jobs, of course. But that's it.)
All of these were already unconstitutional. Yet it made no difference, because everyone *complied*.
So true my friend… 🤦🏽♀️
CBDC prohibited also…
And Digital ID as well
Any politician found to have voted for restrictions on Constitutional rights will be barred from public service.
Any politician who PROPOSED such restrictions gets jail time.
This won't be popular, but the exception to such a rule would be constitutional amendments.
I would agree with this. It would force a measure of honesty and changing the Constitution is already a difficult process by design.
To paraphrase Confucius, "If you really seek justice on earth, start by calling things by their proper names."
Read George Orwell's "Politics And The English Language".
This is precisely what the Rectification Of Names was intended to address.
Eliminate sovereign immunity for ALL government employees. Make ALL public serpents personally responsible for the damage they cause.
Make penalties more severe.
the assumptions here are flawed. Laws are force. laws are compelled behaviour backed up with threats of violence. There is already way too much force, violence and coercion in the world. THe question should be "if you could eliiminate one law" what would it be.
Complex human problems cannot be solved with force and violence. only with freedom , maximum liberty can humanity have the latitude to make moral choices and solve the problems of existence. The reason the US grew from into the freeest most prosperous wealthiest place on the planet from 1800-1914 was not because the people were better but because the gov to the greatest extent in human history before or since left the people alone.
That would be a great next question from the inquiring kitty.
It would be,if any human had annnnny idea just how many lass there are...even locally!
The "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution
And the general welfare clause
To get a broadcast license, every media outlet must make public all of their financials, including all bank accounts, and every transaction, both deposits and withdrawals, must have an explanation. Same rule applies to parent companies and all senior executives of such outlets.
More credentialism.
They already do.
Did they try to hide the Gates of Hell paying them?
We all could see that… right out in the open…
-brought to you by Pfizer
Zero based budgeting. All spending must be reauthorized annually
I don’t remember the particulars, but during the 1980s and early 90s there was a huge, huge effort to get passed a ‘balanced budget’ law, since nearly everyone was concerned about the national debt. The bill passed, everyone thought the problem was solved - and then the politicians found ways to get around the law, ever since. Heavy sigh! Now the national debt is so gigantic that it feels like we’re doomed....
Easy fix:
every dollar over budget means "X" amount of federal workers who must be let go.
We'll see how hard federal employees work after that. We might be able to balance the budget on that alone. We'll also see how committed the politicians are to the people vs. the government they grift off of.
Bureaucracy is perhaps as big of a threat as politicians.
This approach could kill two birds with one stone.
Oh wow, what a really great idea! Please run for congress- there are about a zillion people who would vote for you!
We can test-run this in California.
First they fired the public school art teachers.
Then they shut down many of the State Parks because they cancelled the salaries for rangers and maintenance.
Then they informed residents of at least one city I know of that trash collection would be put on hold, and to please buy a gun because the police budget was no longer available to attend to calls for help.
Graham Rudman. You'd think Lindsey Graham might bring that up wouldn't you?
Not sure whether you're being funny...? I'm guessing you *are*, and that you know it's actually *Gramm* (as in *Phil*).
Duuurrrr. No, was just having a huge brain fart. 🤪 SORRY!
And Thank-you for the correction!
Any members who vote in favour of a war or wars (usually to kill brown people, or non whites, I guess) must ‘sacrifice’ at least one member of their immediate family who has go on the front line and fight the said war. Members are permitted to go on the front line themselves if they so wish.
Let’s see how many wars we have then. 🤔
Why don't we start with Congress having to approve wars first...you know like we're supposed to under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.
I betcha we wouldn't have as many "wars" if we actually followed the Constitution.
Well, up to 90% of the world is nonwhite, so I'm not sure that caveat makes sense. What, we can't defend ourselves or our allies against 90% of the world if they're aggressors?
And why should a child of an SOB politician pay the price of that SOB politician's warmongering? That's an innocent person.
My new law:
Two old laws with amendments must be removed from statute to allow one new law. That new law should have a 10 year sunset clause. That should keep the buggers properly busy!
But it should be for two pages for each new page.
Please apply that to the tax code.
Abolish the IRS.
I was waiting for someone to suggest that!
That’s a start… 👍🏽
No politician should see their personal net worth increase more than the mean of their district/state they represent.
We'll see who are public servants and who's not.
Who's not; those who elect not to run.