Should I even bother to answer? I think my views are well known...
5.) They would have to do it within the budget they could collect via non-coercive means.
6.) I would not allow them to go over budget. If they wanted to issue bonds, they would have to be non-binding on the government. So the government could pay them back if it could, or not pay them back if it didn't have the money at maturity. Eventually people would learn not to lend the government money if it demonstrated an inability to pay back its debts.
7.) Require overages to be paid from the private funds of the members of the Congress who voted for the inflated budget. Bring back the debtor's prison for people with such style "government debts".
8.) Congress is in charge of making laws. Congress would be much much much larger (one representative per 30,000 people, both houses). Senate goes back to being chosen by the state legislators. Passing a law requires a 90% concordence. Removing a law requires a 30% concordence. All laws must follow the Constitution. Any law passed, which was later found unconstitutional, would carry the penalty of immediate dismissal from service in Congress of the legislators which voted for it, as well as repayment of all monies paid to the legislators for the service they failed to provide.
9.) I think this is covered by the previous entry. Perhaps make passing severely conflict of interest laws a crime itself, with the death penalty mandatory.
10.) I'm not sure. Possibly a unanimous vote in the Congress to change any of it.
It should be noted I'm in a particularly bad mood today regarding Congressional bullshit.
Two small quibbles.buddhafiddleDecember 24 2004, 07:45:54 UTC
I submit two comprimises to your list.
Going over budget : in the event of a national emergency (the United States invaded, massive ecological catastrophe), going over budget should be allowed, I think, even in your opinion. Nevertheless, the emergency should be universally recognized and explicit, and the future source of revenue should be identified. If the legislature was lying about either the emergency or the reliability of the revenue stream, some means by which the public could bitch slap the offending legislators (perhaps according to the guidelines you give, perhaps not) should be available.
Any law passed, which was later found unconstitutional, would carry the penalty of immediate dismissal from service in Congress of the legislators which voted for it, as well as repayment of all monies paid to the legislators for the service they failed to provide.
This is probably not intentional, but the primary effect of your provision here would be to dramatically promote the judicial branch over the legislative. When congress disagrees with the judiciary about what is constitutional, it is possible (though admittedly very rare) that congress is right. Nevertheless, there should be some balance-of-power-safe way to make legislators dramatically more accountable to pass constitutional legislation than they are now.
The problem with trying to legislate legislative responsibility is that legislators control the legislation over the legislation of legislators (repetition intentional)... note that unjudicious use of the ethics committee by such as Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich, and others. Far better is to tie spending directly with taxes and fees, make more members of congress (so that fewer voters are necessary to dope-slap a bad congressperson), and make publication of the actual doings of congress-and its beneficiaries--public by absolute mandate.
5.) They would have to do it within the budget they could collect via non-coercive means.
6.) I would not allow them to go over budget. If they wanted to issue bonds, they would have to be non-binding on the government. So the government could pay them back if it could, or not pay them back if it didn't have the money at maturity. Eventually people would learn not to lend the government money if it demonstrated an inability to pay back its debts.
7.) Require overages to be paid from the private funds of the members of the Congress who voted for the inflated budget. Bring back the debtor's prison for people with such style "government debts".
8.) Congress is in charge of making laws. Congress would be much much much larger (one representative per 30,000 people, both houses). Senate goes back to being chosen by the state legislators. Passing a law requires a 90% concordence. Removing a law requires a 30% concordence. All laws must follow the Constitution. Any law passed, which was later found unconstitutional, would carry the penalty of immediate dismissal from service in Congress of the legislators which voted for it, as well as repayment of all monies paid to the legislators for the service they failed to provide.
9.) I think this is covered by the previous entry. Perhaps make passing severely conflict of interest laws a crime itself, with the death penalty mandatory.
10.) I'm not sure. Possibly a unanimous vote in the Congress to change any of it.
It should be noted I'm in a particularly bad mood today regarding Congressional bullshit.
-Ogre
Reply
Going over budget : in the event of a national emergency (the United States invaded, massive ecological catastrophe), going over budget should be allowed, I think, even in your opinion. Nevertheless, the emergency should be universally recognized and explicit, and the future source of revenue should be identified. If the legislature was lying about either the emergency or the reliability of the revenue stream, some means by which the public could bitch slap the offending legislators (perhaps according to the guidelines you give, perhaps not) should be available.
Any law passed, which was later found unconstitutional, would carry the penalty of immediate dismissal from service in Congress of the legislators which voted for it, as well as repayment of all monies paid to the legislators for the service they failed to provide.
This is probably not intentional, but the primary effect of your provision here would be to dramatically promote the judicial branch over the legislative. When congress disagrees with the judiciary about what is constitutional, it is possible (though admittedly very rare) that congress is right. Nevertheless, there should be some balance-of-power-safe way to make legislators dramatically more accountable to pass constitutional legislation than they are now.
The problem with trying to legislate legislative responsibility is that legislators control the legislation over the legislation of legislators (repetition intentional)... note that unjudicious use of the ethics committee by such as Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich, and others. Far better is to tie spending directly with taxes and fees, make more members of congress (so that fewer voters are necessary to dope-slap a bad congressperson), and
make publication of the actual doings of congress-and its beneficiaries--public by absolute mandate.
Your bad mood is quite justified.
Reply
Leave a comment