My own philosophybuddhafiddleDecember 24 2004, 07:29:49 UTC
My answers have a common theme : I think government should have a wide variety of actions available to it (except where compulsory dangerous service is concerned), but government expenditures should be tied, item, by item, to revenue streams, and members of congress should be explicitly accountable for every identifiable part of such spending and taxing, which should sunset with an expedited, but explicit, renewal vote in a short period (<10 years).
Another damn thing: congress should be around three times as large as it is, but districts should be the same size. I'd like to see three representatives from every district, elected by multiple or ordinal votes. For example, you could give everyone the option to vote for three different candidates, where each party can provide any number of candidates to be presented for this congressional district, and the three top total vote getters go to congress.
The US is the only country I know of where individual members of the lower house of the legislative body negotiate effective changes in the law for the benefit of speicific constituents with no public response; shrinking constiuencies and making registration more proportional (under my system, almost every rural or suburban western district would send at least one libertarian to congress and almost every liberal arts college town would send at least one socialist) would make permanent congress seats far more rare and would allow stubborn 20% consituencies (gun-rights absolutists, pro-universal healthcare types, etc) a voice in congress.
Right now, congress approves spending separately from taxes, so that Heather Wilson can say she's against tax increases despite the fact that she's taxing the stuffing out of my poor 2-year-old who doesn't even like the Iraq war. If an emergency requires approving more spending than we can tax for this year, then fine--but I think the future taxes should have to be explicit, start within 8 years, and pay off within other 2 years. That means that if a president and congress wants to fight, say, a $300 billon dollar war while cutting taxes by $400 billon, then they have to approve a specific $700 billion tax increase with a fixed starting date, and face the voters with both the war and the tax increase. If the Iraq war resolution were attached to a 15 cent sales tax effective in 2008, I don't think the GOP (or the Democrats!) would have fared so well with the public in 2002.
Another damn thing: congress should be around three times as large as it is, but districts should be the same size. I'd like to see three representatives from every district, elected by multiple or ordinal votes. For example, you could give everyone the option to vote for three different candidates, where each party can provide any number of candidates to be presented for this congressional district, and the three top total vote getters go to congress.
The US is the only country I know of where individual members of the lower house of the legislative body negotiate effective changes in the law for the benefit of speicific constituents with no public response; shrinking constiuencies and making registration more proportional (under my system, almost every rural or suburban western district would send at least one libertarian to congress and almost every liberal arts college town would send at least one socialist) would make permanent congress seats far more rare and would allow stubborn 20% consituencies (gun-rights absolutists, pro-universal healthcare types, etc) a voice in congress.
Right now, congress approves spending separately from taxes, so that Heather Wilson can say she's against tax increases despite the fact that she's taxing the stuffing out of my poor 2-year-old who doesn't even like the Iraq war. If an emergency requires approving more spending than we can tax for this year, then fine--but I think the future taxes should have to be explicit, start within 8 years, and pay off within other 2 years. That means that if a president and congress wants to fight, say, a $300 billon dollar war while cutting taxes by $400 billon, then they have to approve a specific $700 billion tax increase with a fixed starting date, and face the voters with both the war and the tax increase. If the Iraq war resolution were attached to a 15 cent sales tax effective in 2008, I don't think the GOP (or the Democrats!) would have fared so well with the public in 2002.
Specific answers saved for another post.
Reply
Leave a comment