Posted on 03/01/2016 12:17:16 PM PST by aquila48
If there is one thing that this election cycle has exposed is the intense rage that voters feel about the political ruling class (the "establishment") and how deaf and unresponsive they are to the will of the people that they are supposed to represent. We keep thinking that the problem is the people we elect, and that if we elect better people they will pay more attention to us than the pressure groups that end up co-opting them. But how many times have we tried that in the past with no change in the results? (2012 and 2014 are the most recent examples). So it's not so much the people that we send there that's the problem, as much as our system, the relationship that the system sets up between us the people (the EMPLOYERS) and the politicians and bureaucrats (the EMPLOYEES). And it's not that the system has become broken, it was never set up right. Below is a more detailed presentation of the problem. Following that is a solution to the problem (changes in the system) and after that how to implement the solution. Any comments, criticism, suggested improvements, etc. are highly appreciated.
The Problem:
The biggest complaint you hear from people nowdays and everywhere is that the politicians don't listen to them, that once they get elected they pay more attention to special interest pressure groups than the people that sent them to represent them and that they break the promises they made while running to get elected.
We all know what happens with most politicians when they go to Washington or statehouses or city halls. Because they now wield power, pressure groups that are highly motivated and organized suddenly descend upon the politicians to push their agenda. And they use all the tactics in the world to do this, threats, bribes, wining and dining, persuasion, peer pressure, etc, etc. It is the rare politician that doesn't succumb to these attacks and/or temptations. Meanwhile the politicians bosses, i.e. we the voters, are left out in the cold, with our only lever a re-election 2,4,6 years away. During that time the amount of damage that can be done is huge.
We elect politicians to do a job for us. We send them to Washington, State Houses, City Halls from anywhere from 2 to 6 years. And once we "hire" them, they're there for the duration, and it is difficult to remove them if we don't like the job they are doing. (Impeachment and recalls are too difficult).
This is comparable to you having a business, hiring a manager for that business and being stuck for 2,4,6 years with that guy, with little or no recourse to replace him, even if he's doing a crappy job and undermining your company. No owner would put up with such a deal. In fact any competent owner will keep his manager on a short leash and watch him like a hawk, and if he doesn't do his job, he gets rid of him and replaces him with someone better. He doesn't have to wait 2,4, or 6 years. There's no question who is the boss and who is the employee. Meanwhile we let our employees, the politicians, run OUR business worth Billions and Trillions of dollars with a NO-FIRE CONTRACT and little or no oversight by us. ARE WE NUTS??
Well, in politics, because of the guaranteed employment "contract" of 2 to 6 years, the distinction between boss and employee gets seriously distorted. While they're running for office, the voters are the bosses, after they get in the office, the politician thinks he's the boss, ignoring the real boss's (voters) desires and giving preference to those of pressure groups. (There are myriads of such cases).
The Solution:
The solution is pretty much contained in the problem, and it is surprisingly simple. In order for the boss (voters) to regain control of his employee (the politician), he cannot give him a "no fire" contract of 2, 4 or 6 years. He has to keep him on a much tighter leash. Thus the following changes have to be made to his "employment contract" (election laws). Each politician (employee) will automatically undergo a performance review once a year (or more?) by the boss (the voters that put him there).
This "performance review" will consist of an up and down vote by the party that the politician belongs to - the party that gave him power because of the promises he made. Only the voters registered with that party will be allowed to vote in this review election. Republicans politicians will be reviewed by republicans, democrats by democrats.
At the same time people will also vote for a contingent replacement, in case the current "employee" gets a bad review (less than 50% of the votes) and has to immediately step down. (I'm still debating this one - might be better to do one thing at a time)
This will have many salutary effects, among which...
1. The proper relationship between boss and employee will be re-established
2. The politician will pay significantly more attention to the promises he made the voters, and less to special interest pressure groups
3. A more engaged, less cynical citizenship, since they will be reviewing their "employees" every year, and have more clout over them. They will no longer feel powerless over what politicians do
4. Lobbyists will have significantly less clout
5. The career politician who has become totally detached from his constituency will disappear.
6. The uniparty "establishment" will also disappear, the tighter leash by the voters will reduce the likelihood of politicians being coopted.
7. A decrease in political corruption
8. A much more responsive government
9. The damage done by a rogue "employee" (politician) can be reduced and corrected sooner
10. There wouldn't be as much reliance on "trusting" the politician to keep his word, he'll be constantly monitored and he will know that if he strays too far from his promises his tenure will be real short.
Implementation:
Obviously to implement this at the federal level, a constitutional amendment would be needed.
But at the state and local level, it would be much easier. Most states and localities have systems of propositions, where the voters themselves (without the involvement of politicians) can propose new laws and even changes to the state constitutions.
Thus I would start at the local level. It could serve as a "proof of concept". If several local jurisdictions try it out and there are good results as expected, then it would quickly spread to the state level and eventually to the federal level.
A state rep in California proposed that all state reps in Ca Legislature, must wear a ‘smock’ that has patches sown onto it, sort of like Nascar patches, that represent who funds them, when speaking on the floor.
Brilliant! Simple!
Cut their money.
Close up those tax exempt loop holes.
We don’t need them.
Not in religion, not in foundations, not in squat. Everybody is hiding money here, and it’s obvious from all of the millions being thrown out there, PACs should absolutely be taxed as income, because it is.
Dry up the dollars going to media and consultants.
1. Shrink the size and scope of government
2. All taxes are to paid in cash on April 15th. No deductions. No refunds. ALL CASH that you save through the year.
3. All elections to be held on April 16th
“1. Shrink the size and scope of government
2. All taxes are to paid in cash on April 15th. No deductions. No refunds. ALL CASH that you save through the year.
3. All elections to be held on April 16th”
How do you that?
link to article today, but you are correct. No interest on savings and if it goes negative, it’ll cost to bank.
The primary feature of this is the effectively short terms. A politician is worth mush less to a lobbyist if he can be gone in one year.
Yes, it will significantly reduce the power of the lobbyists and significantly increase the power of the voters that elected the politician, which is what we want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.