If we could re-write our laws / regs from scratch, what would it look (1 Viewer)

I have been wanting to start a thread along these lines for a while now, but never could quite figure out the best way to get a productive and informative conversation going. Well, I haven't quite figured that out, but may never so here goes...

With all the ideological driven party politics, exacerbated by being tied to various interests, there so often seems to be "no real hope" for responsible GOVERNANCE from our elected officials in D.C.

In addition, we are focused too much on making our current system of law and government work to address new issues, with the 250+ years of legal webbing built upon itself, creating a convoluted maze that does not really address the underlying issues at hand.

So, two thoughts:

1. The 25% rule. Speaking with a local congressional rep, he mentioned how 25% of the issues we face can be solved with true bi-partisan agreement. However, we focus not on those points, but the divisive issues.

2. Starting anew, rather than fixing an inherently flawed set of legal precedence. I read somewhere that one of the reasons tech companies slow down in their growth is that eventually they have a solid product / platform, and then go ahead and change, tweak and evolve overtime. However, it usually takes magnitudes greater time, effort and resources to change something that exists to revolutionize what that product can do as opposed to just starting over. Hence, a new, young company starting from scratch often holds advantage over an established leader looking to "evolve" their existing product / platform.

So, WTF does this mean?

1. What is the 25% that we, here, can generally agree upon (I contend, especially in light of point #2, it will be far greater). Be it that there should be SOME taxation for gov't services (and then you get to the deviled details of what those should be and how to execute on those laws) or that freedom of speech is an essential right.

2. Now, let's take those issues with some broad agreement and not discuss how to make our current entanglement of laws, but rather how we would solve this problem with a clear slate.

I'd suggest that we look at our nation as a business, for this exercise. We have so much GDP each year... a business needs to determine how to then reinvest some portion of those "earnings" to ensure the machine keeps running (i.e. people are not hungry and dying in the streets, that we are secure from other nation's etc) while investing to "grow" the business into the future.

So, if we have "X" GDP every year, what MUST we pay for? What SHOULD we pay for? What is both "morally compelling" and/or a smart business move for our nation to invest in? Instead of being tied into existing obligations, if we really started fresh, how might things pan out?

To begin, what is the general GDP of our country and what are the big buckets that a gov't should invest in?

- National Security

- Local Policing / Security

- Infrastructure to allow for commerce

We can then get to more difficult issues, i.e. education. Should gov't pay for it, either out of some moral reason or because in the aggregate, providing some gov't sponsored education will result in more GDP than ignoring it and dealing with whatever happens as a result.

Sorry for the length, but hard to get these thoughts on the screen otherwise. Curious what areas of agreement we can find, and, if we had no set rules, how we may divvy up the GDP pie to determine where the gov't should spend, to begin with.

All drugs legal, age of consent 14, you eggheads figure out the rest.

As another good jump off point, I'd suggest that the Bill of Rights and our nation's founding documents may be a great place to start, especially to determine what areas of vast agreement we hold and what areas of general agreement, but dissent re: what it may mean to achieve that goal.

1. Eye for an eye.

McGarnicle said:

All drugs legal, age of consent 14, you eggheads figure out the rest.

Click to expand...

We can keep some ongoing list... but I'd suggest this is getting into the weeds (no pun intended, really) a bit early.

For one, do we agree that gov't should play some role in legislating what is or is not legal to begin with. if we feel that is the place of the gov't, then for what aim and how so, and how many resources should be put toward it.

You think the Bill of Rights needs to be redone?

Officer Pete Malloy said:

You think the Bill of Rights needs to be redone?

Click to expand...

Personally. No. Which is why I suggested that might be a great start off point.

As I see it, we have two primary hurdles to get to agreement: 1. Ideology (small vs. large govt, should the gov't push one religion or be neutral etc) and then 2. how does the gov't implement laws of governance to achieve the ideological goals?

So, take the old life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Do we agree? Let's assume we do, we then get to the Bill of Rights to ascribe some specifics to what might enable those goals to be accomplished. i.e. the gov't shall not limit speech, the people shall have a right to be armed, etc.

Then, we need to make actual laws and regulations to ensure that the above comes to fruition. In terms of rights to bear arms, that's clear - except you don't have the right to endanger others and preclude their life and liberty in doing so. Does that mean gov't must have registration? Can the gov't burst down your door to make sure your firearms are in whatever compliance we deem acceptable?

Finally, when we have some idea of what the "govt" should do, how do we take the resources we have (GDP) and pay for it (what type of taxation, if any and how then is the revenue pie divied up)

Hopefully that example sheds a bit of light on this crazy exercise.

Here's a 96-page thread from like over ten years ago where we tried to create a new constitution.

We couldn't agree on much, it was ultimately too difficult to complete.

no guns

Any athlete that costs me a bet needs to reimburse me.

Outlaw deficit spending except during periods of Declaration of War.

fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Here's a 96-page thread from like over ten years ago where we tried to create a new constitution.

We couldn't agree on much, it was ultimately too difficult to complete.

Click to expand...

####, forgot about that.

Wonder if we simply tried this from an economic angle how far we might get. Take our revenues, let's set some bar as total revenues without getting in the weeds about how much comes from poor, rich, individuals, businesses... and see how we might better utilize those funds.

i.e., what is our economic gain from having such a huge military and could those $$'s be better used for say, infrastructure at home? Or, perhaps we realize we need to have a large military, but in times of general peace (which is most of the time except we choose to engage in war) those resources can be used for domestic efforts?

Cliff Clavin said:

1. Eye for an eye.

Click to expand...

2. License required for breeding.

dickey moe said:

Outlaw deficit spending except during periods of Declaration of War.

Click to expand...

Ok, a bit specific but on this issue:

1. What is bad, by definition, of a deficit? There may be reason for deficits as a general way to run a business (cash is not always king, and debt can be a valuable tool)

2. Debt or no, with the resources we do have, how do we decide what get's paid for. i.e. another foreign war with a very loose ROI case, or say stopping hunger in children while creating a training program for skills so they in turn end up in some domestic serve that offers some ROI. Again, just spit-balling here.

Must be a landowner to vote.

Yoga pants are mandatory for all wimmen until they are found to have exceeded a maximum capacity at which point they are no longer allowed to wear them;

No welfare - get a job. If you don't have a job, we will help you find one. if you still can't find one, the government will employ you and you will work - even if you are digging a ditch;

Age of Consent 16;

Drinking age 18;

No drivers license until you pass a common sense test;

License needed to breed;

Whats the punishment for breeding without a license?

Binky The Doormat said:

Must be a landowner to vote.

Click to expand...

Must have completed military service to vote /starship troopers

We're not in enough pain right now to do the right thing. Better stick with what we have already. Those guys were in pain.

Bucky86 said:

Whats the punishment for breeding without a license?

Click to expand...

Sterilization and kids given to licensed parents.

Rule 1: Love each other

Rule 2: See Rule 1

Well, so much for that.

Was worth a try.

Cliff Clavin said:

Bucky86 said:

Whats the punishment for breeding without a license?

Click to expand...

Sterilization and kids given to licensed parents.

Click to expand...

Sweet. Free vasectomy and then I don't have to pay for my kids? SIGN ME UP

So, if we have "X" GDP every year, what MUST we pay for? What SHOULD we pay for?

Click to expand...

I'm going to throw this out there: we should have a rule that any spending measure must include a provision for a source of funding.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

So, if we have "X" GDP every year, what MUST we pay for? What SHOULD we pay for?

Click to expand...

I'm going to throw this out there: we should have a rule that any spending measure must include a provision for a source of funding.

Click to expand...

Again, that's a piecemeal approach that, without context, makes all the sense in the world. However, when being added to a system of governess with 250 years of rules layers upon more rules and a convoluted budget process as it is, nothing's so simple.

For one, what if you are talking about projected funding revenues? i.e. Infrastructure that may cost $1 Billion today, but over the lifespan of 30 or 50 years, can see a significant ROI that would allow for dedicated funding streams in the future?

To begin, what is the general GDP of our country and what are the big buckets that a gov't should invest in?

- National Security

- Local Policing / Security

- Infrastructure to allow for commerce

Click to expand...

This is basically a conservative view of what the federal government should be doing, this and just this.

I don't have a problem with our government doing more, I am happy when they do do more, but I do think we have an incredibly valuable advantage in flexibility over other nations and that is our unique system of federalism based on 50 states.

Whether people realize it or not I think a lot of our disputes start with people having problems with the feds doing things when they think the states should be doing things and vice-versa.

Koya said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

So, if we have "X" GDP every year, what MUST we pay for? What SHOULD we pay for?

Click to expand...

I'm going to throw this out there: we should have a rule that any spending measure must include a provision for a source of funding.

Click to expand...

Again, that's a piecemeal approach that, without context, makes all the sense in the world. However, when being added to a system of governess with 250 years of rules layers upon more rules and a convoluted budget process as it is, nothing's so simple.

For one, what if you are talking about projected funding revenues? i.e. Infrastructure that may cost $1 Billion today, but over the lifespan of 30 or 50 years, can see a significant ROI that would allow for dedicated funding streams in the future?

Click to expand...

Well this is just me but I think viewing government as ROI is a mistake. There is a value to infrastructure and government services over and beyond ROI. I think that kind of thinking also leads public officials to the wrongheaded idea that they are some kind of CEO's, which they are not.

I do think there should be honesty in the process. Right now I think the funds taken out of our paychecks for social security and medicare etc. are deceptive because it's not like those are funds dedicated to ourselves, as a practical matter they have become like general fund spending.

I think I see where you are going, I take it you mean something like hey let's see what we want to spend and then see what we would need to gather in terms of revenue, to make things more orderly and efficient. - But but one major problem with that is that we have reps and Senators trading spending bills for favors. The USA is not helped a country if we build a random bridge in MN, but spending on that bridge allows for another Rep to vote on an agriculture bill that will help Senator get elected in Nebraska, while his vote is needed for a Medicare spending bill. The way things are now it's like trying to predict the path of an electron.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

To begin, what is the general GDP of our country and what are the big buckets that a gov't should invest in?

- National Security

- Local Policing / Security

- Infrastructure to allow for commerce

Click to expand...

This is basically a conservative view of what the federal government should be doing, this and just this.

I don't have a problem with our government doing more, I am happy when they do do more, but I do think we have an incredibly valuable advantage in flexibility over other nations and that is our unique system of federalism based on 50 states.

Whether people realize it or not I think a lot of our disputes start with people having problems with the feds doing things when they think the states should be doing things and vice-versa.

Click to expand...

Fair points.

As to the Conservative view (well, the legit one, not the one that wants limited gov't but wants gov't to dictate morality according to their code), that's an ideology.

That said, if I asked a Conservative this hypothetical, what would the answer be:

If we could have a country with a lower tax rate at all stages than we have and spend less overall on gov't, but have say more gov't programs (say, free healthcare for all, free subsistence level food for all, free base housing for all) and the result would be far less / no poverty, child hunger, lower crime and higher economic output, what would the answer be?

Would the ideologue say in response "that's still big gov't" (even if it somehow ran effeciently and well) or would they say "well, I believe in small gov't not as an end, but because it is better at increasing the general quality of life, and since that is achieved here it would be ok" ?

FWIW, same could be said on the private side.

As a guess, I'd contend there would be some who truly would prefer a better ends, regardless of the means in this instance, while others would stick true to ideology. I'd also think some would say they'd prefer the means, but are so entrenched in ideology and the interests it serves (i.e. Libs and Unions for example) that they would rather our nation suffer if their interests are served.

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Koya said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

So, if we have "X" GDP every year, what MUST we pay for? What SHOULD we pay for?

Click to expand...

I'm going to throw this out there: we should have a rule that any spending measure must include a provision for a source of funding.

Click to expand...

Again, that's a piecemeal approach that, without context, makes all the sense in the world. However, when being added to a system of governess with 250 years of rules layers upon more rules and a convoluted budget process as it is, nothing's so simple.

For one, what if you are talking about projected funding revenues? i.e. Infrastructure that may cost $1 Billion today, but over the lifespan of 30 or 50 years, can see a significant ROI that would allow for dedicated funding streams in the future?

Click to expand...

Well this is just me but I think viewing government as ROI is a mistake. There is a value to infrastructure and government services over and beyond ROI. I think that kind of thinking also leads public officials to the wrongheaded idea that they are some kind of CEO's, which they are not.

I do think there should be honesty in the process. Right now I think the funds taken out of our paychecks for social security and medicare etc. are deceptive because it's not like those are funds dedicated to ourselves, as a practical matter they have become like general fund spending.

I think I see where you are going, I take it you mean something like hey let's see what we want to spend and then see what we would need to gather in terms of revenue, to make things more orderly and efficient. - But but one major problem with that is that we have reps and Senators trading spending bills for favors. The USA is not helped a country if we build a random bridge in MN, but spending on that bridge allows for another Rep to vote on an agriculture bill that will help Senator get elected in Nebraska, while his vote is needed for a Medicare spending bill. The way things are now it's like trying to predict the path of an electron.

Click to expand...

I totally agree... politics has poisoned governance, polluted by archaic sets of law from 250 years of just that.

Which is why I bring about the ROI question. It's not the only way to govern, but the idea is that whatever expenditures the gov't may put forth need to be done for some reason with some return (ROI is not just economic fwiw. Social, wellness, health, environment, each of which relates back to dollars but has additional non financial benefits as well)

The 25% rule. Speaking with a local congressional rep, he mentioned how 25% of the issues we face can be solved with true bi-partisan agreement. However, we focus not on those points, but the divisive issues.

Click to expand...

Pure 'pie in the sky will never happen' dreaming but what I would like to see is:

• End of the committee system.
• Required quorum of at least 50% in attendance for debate every day the Congress is in session. There's your committee.
• The VP must attend Senate sessions as part of his duties as President of the Senate.
• The end of the ability of Speakers and Senate Majority Leaders to block and hold bills. If a Congressman has a bill, he may propose it and it must be voted upon within 60 days.
• End the per capita restrictions put in place around 1911 or so re: the HOR, we should have something much closer to the 1 US Rep per 30K constituents originally contemplated or as close as feasible (given as I realize that could lead to a lot of Reps running around).

Koya said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

To begin, what is the general GDP of our country and what are the big buckets that a gov't should invest in?

- National Security

- Local Policing / Security

- Infrastructure to allow for commerce

Click to expand...

This is basically a conservative view of what the federal government should be doing, this and just this.

I don't have a problem with our government doing more, I am happy when they do do more, but I do think we have an incredibly valuable advantage in flexibility over other nations and that is our unique system of federalism based on 50 states.

Whether people realize it or not I think a lot of our disputes start with people having problems with the feds doing things when they think the states should be doing things and vice-versa.

Click to expand...

Fair points.

As to the Conservative view (well, the legit one, not the one that wants limited gov't but wants gov't to dictate morality according to their code), that's an ideology.

That said, if I asked a Conservative this hypothetical, what would the answer be:

If we could have a country with a lower tax rate at all stages than we have and spend less overall on gov't, but have say more gov't programs (say, free healthcare for all, free subsistence level food for all, free base housing for all) and the result would be far less / no poverty, child hunger, lower crime and higher economic output, what would the answer be?

Would the ideologue say in response "that's still big gov't" (even if it somehow ran effeciently and well) or would they say "well, I believe in small gov't not as an end, but because it is better at increasing the general quality of life, and since that is achieved here it would be ok" ?

FWIW, same could be said on the private side.

As a guess, I'd contend there would be some who truly would prefer a better ends, regardless of the means in this instance, while others would stick true to ideology. I'd also think some would say they'd prefer the means, but are so entrenched in ideology and the interests it serves (i.e. Libs and Unions for example) that they would rather our nation suffer if their interests are served.

Click to expand...

I think you may have had a Big Government/Small Government thread before, which was great.

Here in Louisiana we have conservatives who rail against the feds regulating x, y or z, and then they will in the same breath use our GOP governor to control all sorts of industries within the state for their own gain, preventing competition in everything from landfills to brewing to gas drilling to coffin making. They scream about the feds getting involved in the health or auto or finance industry and then demand that the parish or city get involved in building theaters and paying movie companies and steel factories to move here. The Democrats are just as bad as typically they are the ones most often found bilking the public of funds that are meant to help the disadvantaged.

As to the 25%, I mean something along the lines of the concept that we should repatriate Trillions that US companies have abroad to shield themselves from excessive 37% tax rates and furthermore, that such revenue should be dedicated to something with a clear ROI that will help move our nation forward from an economic competitiveness standpoint.

An idea that has had support from both sides, but you can't get #### done right now even when they agree:

Company "X" has 1 Billion offshore. If brought back, would be subject to 37% tax rate. Instead, hit them with a 15, 12, 10 - whatever % is agreed upon. Use a dedicated portion of those "new" revenues to fund investment in national infrastructure. Could seed an infrastructure bank and/or be used to then put out bonds for infrastructure.

Heck, you could do a split whereby they repatriate at 15%, BUT those companies can, instead, invest IN the infrastructure bonds and actually see some return on their money.

This is something that hits the buttons for both parties and while not perfect, could certainly happen. If not for the selfish disaster we have in DC.

I'm sure the discourse will improve once Tim joins in

Flat tax

Bucky86 said:

Whats the punishment for breeding without a license?

Click to expand...

Have to wear a random genital shocker. Could go off at any time.

Two ideas to add, interrelated.

1) Abolish political parties. A candidate can choose to label themselves "conservative", "progressive", or whatever but doesn't initially court a subset of the voting block before being allowed to run for all the marbles.

2) Revamp primary elections. Have all states run their primaries on the same day. In each primary, in each race, from President to County Commissioner, if the top candidate receives 50% +1 of the votes, that candidate is named the winner of the whole election. If no candidate reaches that plateau in a given race, then the top two vote getters proceed to the general election.

1. Be good.

2. Don't be bad.

However, we focus not on those points, but the divisive issues.

Click to expand...

I am going throw out one more thing, and I don't think anything can be done about it: Political Consultants.

These are the Roves and Axelrods of the world.

Here's an example: the president reversed a long-held Democratic argument against the deal given to Pharma by Louisiana's own Billy Tauzin. Obama got Pharma on board the ACA / Obamacare train and he gave them major breaks worth hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of time. The kicker? David Axelrod's own advertising firm got big advertising contracts as part of the ACA. Supposedly he "divested" himself but I seriously doubt that he and his profit didn't receive every penny they had coming to them. This is not just Axelrod of course, this goes on.

I just think that the political consulting and tv advertising industry is so huge now and it is all driven by wedge politics. This is on the left and right. Divisiveness = $$$. And the consultants drive a good deal of the politics that go on in this country today.