« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

My contributions to a New CWA

By: Attack Mode (Diary)  |  January 30th, 2009 at 11:08 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In a 22 months the midterm elections will be upon us.  The way I see it this gives us 18 months to walk the walk before 6 months of intense campaigning begins.  I think we should start floating ideas via our leaders in Congress.  Each idea will invariably fail becuase we simply don’t have the numbers to get them past…but that doesn’t matter right now, as it would have other benefits regardless.   The ideas will get exposure from friendly media, the ideas will show us as more than obstructionists, the ideas will be setting the agenda for 2010 if we are able to capture the majority.  

 

Now these are just a couple rough ideas that I have, I am sure they can be improved upon.

* I would like to limit the amount of legislation that can come forward in any given year.  This would be a hard limit that could only be bypassed in emergency situations, which would be voted on and would require a 75% majority to justify exceptions to the rule.

* Tax Reform, We must get away from the progressive tax system.  10% across the board, including Corp/Capital Gains/Sales/Payroll (I am not an economist, I will defer to others on the actual rate and whether is should be across the entire spectrum)

* Open all available assets up for energy.  Oil, check..Natural Gas, check…Nuclear, check….Wind, check…Hydro-Electric, check…..all of it.  In coordination with this I would want to see the Dept. of Energy to take a step back and act as a simple mediator for the individual States.  The States should choose which Energy product will best meet their States need and infrastructure.  The Federal Gov’t dictating/mandating what product to use and where will not work.

 

Anyhow those are my three quick ideas.  Let me see yours.

One last note, no matter what ideas we present it won’t matter unless our leaders on the hill act on them.  If they simple win the majority and then cave….well Obama will be a two term President.  Your choice guys.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mbecker908

    I would prefer to limit the number of days the congress can be in session and bar committees and staffs from working when they are not in session.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine
      • mbecker908

        It really focused the legislature and cut the BS.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          under this “stimulus” plan, the responsible states will bailout Arnold and the rest

          • mbecker908

            But your point is absolutely right. Even here in AZ, the legislature is chopping about $2B out of the state budget including major cuts and “revenue enhancements” to the state university system! Thankfully, Janet is gone.

    • Aaron Gardner

      Vermont has a part time legislator also.

      I am for any type of limit, whether it is a time limit or a numerical limit on what can be brought during the session.

    • Achance

      be the single biggest reform in terms of limiting government. Single subject bills would stop most of the bundling. The “omnibus” bills are the way Members hide their deals and their votes for things their constituents wouldn’t support. They can just say they had to go along with the bad thing to get some good thing for the district and say “it was unfortunate but necessary.”

      Downside is clever bill writers can come up with page long titles so some pet project can come under the title, but long, complex titles are a dead giveaway. Add to that a rule that budget bills cannot fund new programs but rather may only fund operations of programs authorized by other legislation.

      Trouble is, real reforms like this are dull stuff that doesn’t soundbite real well for the moron, excuse me, moderate, voters.

      • mbecker908

        And you’re right, this stuff is boring. And very effective.

        I like your “budget bill” comment and I would a provision for every program/department… a sunset provision. And I would require metrics (although they can be bastardized, I’m well aware) for review of the effectiveness of the program. Make the damn “lawmakers” put in writing specifics of what the program/department will accomplish in a fixed time frame (five years would be the max) and then measure them against those metrics. It might not kill off everything, but it would certainly point out what a bunch of idiot we’ve got running things in the political centers.

        • Achance

          What I don’t like about sunsetting is that it cuts good, meaning I agree with them, programs the same as bad. I used to have a sign above my desk that said, “Remember, when the enemy is in range, so are you!” People never think of the downside of lots of these “good” ideas. The first question should be, “What could the other guys do with this law?”

          Trouble with metrics is the gaming; let me write the performance standards and I will exceed all expectations every year. That said, metrics are good, but very hard to come up with and legislative bodies generally don’t know enough about programs to come up with useful metrics. As an example, I was always given arbitration win/loss record as a metric. Well, silly legislator, I have total control over that; if I dont’ think I will win, I just settle it and don’t go. In my business metrics like union demand cost versus contract cost or settlement cost mean something, though even that can be gamed. Likewise, settlement cost versus arbitration or litigation loss cost is somewhat meaningful, but there are good reasons to take on a case that you might lose or even expect to lose just so you can chose the grounds for the loss or set something up for another case.

          • mbecker908

            Sometimes I get overwhelmed with nativity.

  • woodsman

    Before any new legislation is voted on there should be a period of time where the CongressCritters have to go back to their constituents and explain what it is in a public forum.

    The public is invited to bring tar & feathers.