[evilgenius]

I have a suggestion for reforming the US Government. I think the Constitution should be amended to change the way the Senate is organized. I believe there ought to be two kinds of Senators. Both types ought to have longer terms than the House of Representatives does. However, in response to the impact that money plays in the system, there should be some changes to the way the Senate is constituted. The two types of Senators should be organized so that they have different length terms. The first, and more publicly answerable type, should have a four year term. The second, and less publicly answerable type, should have an eight year term. The first type should be unlimited in the number of terms that a person can serve. The second type should serve with a caveat that they cannot run for Federal Government office until four years passes from the end of their term. They can hold office if they have been nominated for a cabinet post or some such position and approved, but they cannot run for office. Also, only the second type should be able to vote on or arrange for the voting on the nomination of judges, cabinet members or any other positions which require Senate approval. Otherwise the two types of Senators should have equal voting power. Each state should still only have two Senators, one of each type. Whether the Senator's terms end mid-term for the president or not ought to be up to each state, initially without the need for any other approval. There should be a way to change the timing, but not an easy way. Perhaps any proposed changes by the states should only be allowed with a 2/3 vote of the entire Senate?

Anyway, that's my idea. What are yours? Feel free to share.

[vtsnowedin]

At first glance I think your proposal is too complicated for the voters to understand.
I'd keep it simpler and limit Senators to two six year terms and house members to four two year terms. I would also limit their pay raises to years when the budget is balanced and then be limited to some multiple of the median income. Also their retirement plan would be equal to rank and file Federal workers and their healthcare plan the same as Veteran's.
I would also ban any sixty vote rules as being un Democratic.

[KaiserJeep]

I'd hang all the Congress Critters and Senabores from the trees and lamp posts around Capital Hill.

[Tanada]

You really want to fix things? Make a Constitutional Amendment that anyone with a degree in Law ineligible for Congress in both houses. In two years we would get 33 new Senators and 400 new Representatives who would not be experts at twisting words to shape laws and violate the Constitution.

[evilgenius]

At first glance I think your proposal is too complicated for the voters to understand.
I'd keep it simpler and limit Senators to two six year terms and house members to four two year terms. I would also limit their pay raises to years when the budget is balanced and then be limited to some multiple of the median income. Also their retirement plan would be equal to rank and file Federal workers and their healthcare plan the same as Veteran's.
I would also ban any sixty vote rules as being un Democratic.

I don't think you should ever underestimate the voters. I like how you are looking to tie the pay raises to performance, but I think you're penalizing people who try harder than you give them credit for. Maybe we'd get more traction with limiting pay raises if the budget hasn't been balanced in a number of years. That way you'd be able to overlook those years when stimulus was absolutely necessary. You wouldn't be penalizing those members who voted for it, but you would penalize those who kept it going well beyond when it was necessary. I really like your idea about linking retirement to other Federal workers and healthcare to what Vets get.

[evilgenius]

You really want to fix things? Make a Constitutional Amendment that anyone with a degree in Law ineligible for Congress in both houses. In two years we would get 33 new Senators and 400 new Representatives who would not be experts at twisting words to shape laws and violate the Constitution.

You're just telling a joke.

[Tanada]

You really want to fix things? Make a Constitutional Amendment that anyone with a degree in Law ineligible for Congress in both houses. In two years we would get 33 new Senators and 400 new Representatives who would not be experts at twisting words to shape laws and violate the Constitution.

You're just telling a joke.

No actually. For the first century Congress was made up of more or less regular folks from a broad variety of educational and career paths. Starting around 1910 the Lawyers took over and the country has been losing freedoms ever since.

[vtsnowedin]

but I think you're penalizing people who try harder than you give them credit for. .

The only thing they try harder to do is get themselves and their party reelected.
I'll go one further on the merit pay. In any year where the budget is unbalanced I would cut Congressional pay including staffers by the percentage the budget was out of balance. This would insure balanced budgets in any year without a full out war going on.

[Tanada]

but I think you're penalizing people who try harder than you give them credit for. .

The only thing they try harder to do is get themselves and their party reelected.
I'll go one further on the merit pay. In any year where the budget is unbalanced I would cut Congressional pay including staffers by the percentage the budget was out of balance. This would insure balanced budgets in any year without a full out war going on.

I like it, it has a nice negative feedback correlation which all well designed systems posses.

[evilgenius]

but I think you're penalizing people who try harder than you give them credit for. .

The only thing they try harder to do is get themselves and their party reelected.
I'll go one further on the merit pay. In any year where the budget is unbalanced I would cut Congressional pay including staffers by the percentage the budget was out of balance. This would insure balanced budgets in any year without a full out war going on.

I like it, it has a nice negative feedback correlation which all well designed systems posses.

And it's just like punishing a really good teacher because the school they teach in is failing.

[Tanada]

but I think you're penalizing people who try harder than you give them credit for. .

The only thing they try harder to do is get themselves and their party reelected.
I'll go one further on the merit pay. In any year where the budget is unbalanced I would cut Congressional pay including staffers by the percentage the budget was out of balance. This would insure balanced budgets in any year without a full out war going on.

I like it, it has a nice negative feedback correlation which all well designed systems posses.

And it's just like punishing a really good teacher because the school they teach in is failing.

You have a bizarre view of reality. A teacher has no control over the curriculum they have to teach or the methods of discipline acceptable to the school system. A congressional Representative or a Senator MAKE THE RULES. To be fair you would need to be comparing punishing a Congressional Clerk who is just doing their job with punishing their boss, who made the rules and then broke them without caring.

[vtsnowedin]

You have a bizarre view of reality. A teacher has no control over the curriculum they have to teach or the methods of discipline acceptable to the school system. A congressional Representative or a Senator MAKE THE RULES. To be fair you would need to be comparing punishing a Congressional Clerk who is just doing their job with punishing their boss, who made the rules and then broke them without caring.

I included the staff as they do all the writing and a lot of the thinking. They are also the pool or the bench where many future Congressmen come from. Let their salaries and bonuses be contingent on a balanced budget and it will have their undivided attention. My plan would most likely never result in even one pay cut, human nature being what it is.

[evilgenius]

They make the rules in concert with each other. No single representative makes them on their own. If a state has a very good representative who looks out for their interests they shouldn't be docked for that, when the pay is attached to how the over all group performs. Sure you can dock everybody's incentive pay, the individual did fail to influence the group so as to bring about a different solution. Docking their regular pay is simply outrageous.

And another thing, why should a balanced budget be the determiner of a job well done? There are emergencies aside from war that the country has to face. The interstate highway system was built in order to ensure that the military could get from one place to another quickly if the Cold War got hot. Those people represented back then would only go for a war footing as reason enough to come up with the money. Today, we probably wouldn't have such a problem. We can see what kind of public good it brings. But, you know what, maybe we couldn't.

[vtsnowedin]

They make the rules in concert with each other. No single representative makes them on their own. If a state has a very good representative who looks out for their interests they shouldn't be docked for that, when the pay is attached to how the over all group performs. Sure you can dock everybody's incentive pay, the individual did fail to influence the group so as to bring about a different solution. Docking their regular pay is simply outrageous.

And another thing, why should a balanced budget be the determiner of a job well done? There are emergencies aside from war that the country has to face. The interstate highway system was built in order to ensure that the military could get from one place to another quickly if the Cold War got hot. Those people represented back then would only go for a war footing as reason enough to come up with the money. Today, we probably wouldn't have such a problem. We can see what kind of public good it brings. But, you know what, maybe we couldn't.

Deficit spending is a job poorly done and all involved should bear their share of the responsibility. The interstate highway system was built as a defense measure because highways are not mentioned in the Constitution and there is a clause that states that all powers not reserved to the Federal government devolve to the states or the people.

[Newfie]

Since we are floating rule changes I've got another.

Prorate votes by the amount of money spent on each candidate.

So if A spent $1000 to get 1,000 votes and B spent $500 for 1,000 votes then the final tally would be A get 500 votes and B gets 1,000.

It doesn't have to be purely linear maybe a 50% bias. It would help to take money out of the election.

Yeah, I know there would be a whole rule beater industry. Just keep legislating the heater out.

[evilgenius]

Since we are floating rule changes I've got another.

Prorate votes by the amount of money spent on each candidate.

So if A spent $1000 to get 1,000 votes and B spent $500 for 1,000 votes then the final tally would be A get 500 votes and B gets 1,000.

It doesn't have to be purely linear maybe a 50% bias. It would help to take money out of the election.

Yeah, I know there would be a whole rule beater industry. Just keep legislating the heater out.

The only problem is that would open the door for the rich opposition to spend in favor of their opponents.

What about eliminating campaign advertising altogether? Making candidates have to do news worthy things to get covered by the media. Give every qualifying candidate four or five debate length programs that aren't debates, time split with all of the other qualifying candidates but with time slots known beforehand and segments prepared accordingly, to make their points. The problem I see with that is that traditional media is fading. People are getting very interested in alternative news feeds and networked, echo chamber comfort zones. It's harder to sort out who has paid for what in those places. You might not know until after the election.

[Plantagenet]

The Trump people are floating the idea of cutting government jobs by 10% or so to reduce waste and abuse.

This is a good idea if they get rid of the right people.

Obama is reportedly shuffling all his white house staffers into full-time government jobs. Thats clearly unnecessary----those people should be immediately fired.

The EPA people who released the polluted mine waters and polluted entire rivers should be fired. So should the EPA people in charge of clean water for the Flint area be fired. Those people are a disgrace.

A side benefit of reducing staff is that it frees up money for operations. Some of the government agencies I work with are so overstaffed with Ph.D. scientists and professional that they have no money left over to do any work. The scientific staff just sit in their offices and moan about lack of money.

Cheers!


Trump should fire the morons at the EPA who polluted the Animas River.....and so should their supervisors who shielded them and failed tø fire them after they caused a huge spill of toxic mine waste. Then they should all be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for polluting the river.

[Cog]

Obama's political appointees are being made civil service employees. But here is the trick on that. If they require Senate approval, that isn't happening. Also GS employees have a one year probationary period and can be fired for cause. As a manager, I would either come up with a cause or transfer them to Adak, Alaska or some out of my office assignment where they could do no harm. Put them in a basement producing memo's or counting the hairs on the back of a caterpillar.

[Plantagenet]

Obama's political appointees are being made civil service employees. But here is the trick on that. If they require Senate approval, that isn't happening. Also GS employees have a one year probationary period and can be fired for cause. As a manager, I would either come up with a cause or transfer them to Adak, Alaska or some out of my office assignment where they could do no harm.

Whoa there.


ex-Obama administration officials are not needed in Adak

Adak Alaska is an incredibly beautiful spot, once you get away from the old military infrastructure. We don't want need an influx of Obama appointees winding up there---they'd just release mine waste or do something else stupid to screw things up.

Here's a thought----send them to Chicago and have them work on the gang and drug and murder problem there.


Chicago needs all the ex-Obama officials they can get to help with the gang, drug and murder problem there

[evilgenius]

The Trump people are floating the idea of cutting government jobs by 10% or so to reduce waste and abuse.

This is a good idea if they get rid of the right people.

It was some person's study of the Royal Navy way back when that realized bureaucracy grew in proportion to the amount of money feeding it, not to the amount of things the bureaucracy was intended to manage. The Royal Navy's bureaucracy grew when its budget did, not when the number of ships increased. This is the same argument we are having with healthcare, that it goes up so much because of the amount of money available to it, and the cost of higher education. Incidentally, I've also noticed this problem in almost every church I've ever gone to. When they want a bigger or more fancy building if you are for what the church does then you should oppose it. You can call it a general problem, one that government is not doing a very good job of realizing or managing. I like how you recognize it. Yes, it has been a problem under Obama. It's also been a problem under every other administration going as far back as anyone can remember.

I was hoping you'd step into this discussion. I have a hunch you've got some good insight that will come out, if you can let Obama go. I know you haven't yet, but you still made a good point.

I wonder if you can just cut the inflow of money and see good results? Maybe something like government is more like the riddle of consciousness, we think we have one intelligence but may have many. It makes us neurotic, but those neuroses can cause us to step back from the brink as well as send us over it. How can we reform government so that it better watches out over itself? Should it be a pure appointment process, or should more people be elected? What happens if bodies within the government do point out excess now? How could it work so that excess is curbed, but not function? What about agencies that do the equivalent of research, where it can appear there is no real goal or purpose until experiment causes it to materialize, like DARPA? When do you say when under all the various circumstances? Can you stop wallowers beforehand, or do you have to let them engorge themselves for a bit, so that they stick out like ticks and can be plucked off?