ClassIsInSession
Posts: 305
Joined: 7/26/2010
Status: offline
|
Wow....the idea in our government has always been to avoid having a majority. This is called checks and balances and what it does is slow the legislative process down. This is a good thing, because you quit having 2800 page documents passed that no one has read.
The last 2 Presidents have had the house and senate tilted one way or another, and in less than 12 years we've seen the country go straight to hell.
This is why the "Founders" envisioned the process of legislating as something that should be very slow and difficult.
Our problem now isn't one of not enough legislation but of far too much legislation. If we simply killed 90% of existing legislation and went back to essentially the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, we would see a lot of our current problems begin to solve themselves.
To counter Louve's comment about how our country would fall apart if the Tea Party gained control, I have to disagree with you. The point isn't to collect more of less taxes in the sense of keeping infrastructure viable, tax breaks don't cost the government anything, it just means they have to pare down the programs and run themselves more efficiently. Out nation already spends more money per student on education and we have fallen behind several countries that get better results on less. As to privatization, in a free market, the responsibility of the consumer is to dictate prices by where you spend your money. We've had a lot of artifical stimulation in our economics for quite a long time, the first being the Federal Reserve and the fiat money they produce which allows the government to squander it easily because they simply print more. Consumers have done the same thing by living far beyond their means with credit.
One thing I can tell you for certain. There isn't a single thing the government does that is cost effective. You always wind up paying premium price for lack luster results.
One of the greatest things I've seen in government in the last 20 years was introduced by Bill Clinton. That was line item veto and I wish it had been permanent. If you read Obama's health care bill...which of course no politicians really did before they voted on it, you'll find all sorts of add on legislation in it that has absolutely nothing to do with health care. The same thing happened under Bush, so I'm not taking a partisan stance on this. Any town idiot can sign a yay or nay on a document without reading it, but it doesn't serve the interest of the people they represent, and it is effectively taxation without representation which is why our "Founders" had a revolution to begin with.
I think really, as a society we are ready for what I think of as "a la carte' government. Imagine, if you will, if all government programs were set up to run for 1 year, and all legislation was posted for every American to read. You would then decide which programs you wish to support and which you don't, and allocate the percentage of your income appropriately. Some legislation and programs would die, some would thrive, some would run for a year, others for decades. But ultimately, the interests of the nation collectively would be served.
While some may scoff at this, consider that in the last decade, we've seen a much higher level of sophistication from a growing body of people in this country as the internet has provided a much closer look at what is actually going on with our government. There is more public awareness than ever before...at least in our collective memory.
|
RE: Question about the elections... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread