Figure EarlPearl would like this thread. Slate has a series of articles on specific blunders/issues, and possible ways to fix them. I found this section because I am a big Bruce Fein fan, and he penned a piece in here. Many of the other "issues" and writers are pretty left-wing for me, but nonetheless, I am sure a lot of people will see value in them. http://www.slate.com/id/2187229/landing/1/ Fiscal Policy Fully account for the budget, stick to the budget, and work with the other party. Jason Furman April 4, 2008 Health Care Policy Do it first, don't write a bill, and let someone else take the credit. Ezra Klein April 3, 2008 The Environment Refocusing on the environmental crisis. Emily Bazelon April 3, 2008 The Presidency End the war on terror as a legal paradigm; abolish military commissions, and restore FISA. Bruce Fein April 2, 2008 The Laws in Wartime Boost trust, Close Guantanamo and establish a national security court. Jack Goldsmith April 2, 2008 Education Fixing education policy. Jim Ryan April 1, 2008 Tech Policy Jump-starting our tech policy. Tim Wu April 1, 2008 Foreign Policy What it will take to heal U.S. diplomacy. Fred Kaplan March 31, 2008 The Military How to fix the U.S. military. Phillip Carter March 31, 2008
yeah....I skimmed the first 2 articles and I like stuff like that. I think I'd add.......take all the money out of politics. I think they should do that first. move politicians away from raising money for campaigns and access from heavy money lobbying groups. I got this idea. members of congress should be like judges. If they have a connection with a legislation, say they took money from campaigns....they can't vote on the legislation. Hahah. Imagine how that would work. Give some pol f*cker money....and he can't vote on topics having to do with your special interest. Don't give em money....Ha ha...then you can't buy interest from the pol. I like it. that would tie the hands of all those f*ckers--both the pols and the interest groups that dominate their votes.
No, because then you'd get a bunch of rich idealogues. The Democrats manipulate the political money rules to their favor by maxing out campaign contributions at a certain, very low amount. The rules were designed to prevent people from buying out candidates, but they've become too restrictive.
While republican thinkers and pols like to blame the dems for manipulating the campaign contributions I don't believe that it is a dem concept....but more a "good government proposal" that tends to get more dem support than republican support. Mainstream dems like all the big money they can get from whatever sources from where they can get them. While this presidential campaign is seeing lots more dem financial support than repub financial support I think the longer term analysis would show that repubs have been better at raising more money. Regardless, the gross value of money into politics is enormous and indirectly translates into buying votes. I'd support radically changing the system to impact the gross size of campaigns, I like the idea of recusing administration personnel or legislative personnel from any decisions wherein they have a "vested interest" (sort of like what judges are required to do). Further for any kind of affiliate soft campaigning by interest groups no matter which side I'd want them to reveal who they are and where their money comes from. I know this is sort of pie in the sky stuff. People have been screaming for this for years. Ex pols who lean away from their former parties or more specifically the party line on campaign stuff all acknowledge that the money of politics distorts how legislation is enacted. As to all the articles above, I need to read and digest them. I don't know whether I'll agree with the stuff or not....but I look forward to reading the suggestions.
Interesting reading. I have yet to read all of it....but have read some of the articles. They aren't long. They are worth reviewing. Now I got a laugh out of the following. It should be one of the least controversial areas....the section on technology. The line...... I like the idea of govt transparency on the web. Clearly there is much that could be transparent and much that should absolutely not be. They should have developed a govt progress transparancy report for the response to Hurricane Katrina. hm....on 2nd thought....seeing how the govt has progressed in that area....I can understand why they didn't want to do so. On a larger and bigger budget area and one that drives far more attention today were suggestions about the military. I was fascinated by the article that was linked to concerning possible conscription. The specifics of US military staffing and the impact of having 130-170,000 troops over the long term in Iraq was very interesting and described in clear language how the long term war in Iraq has created an incredible staffing issue that puts enormous pressure on the army in particular and the marines additionally.
I believe SC now has, or will have shortly, online expense reporting. So citizens can be the watchdogs. Credit that excellent Governor Mark Sanford.