Interesting. I will respond briefly then we can take this to a separate thread later if you want. I think Maureen wants to talk about what else there is to talk about ;)
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> wrote: > > LOL, your statement hit a nerve! > > Here is a rough sketch of what I have been thinking about. Devolution of > power from the center to the edges. Direct democracy via the Internet. An > end to the over-arching power of the federal government, but also an end to > the over-arching power of corporations. How do we get there? I'm not sure, > but I have some incremental thoughts: I might be in favor depending on how you plan to get there > > 1. Revert back to the original 30,000:1 ratio for the House of Reps. That > would mean roughly 9,000 members, giving smaller communities, rural > communities, minority communities a voice they currently lack in the > process. It would open up the process to third party candidates by > dramatically lowering the cost to run for a seat. And it would make it > harder for powerful interests to buy a vote in Congress. True but this would make it hard to get anything done... but I am sure that's part of the appeal for you. This is worth a look. > > 2. Change the rule for the number of Senators each state has to some > percentage of the average population of all the states. How about 20 > Senators instead of 2? Or 50 Senators each? The problem here is the same woen with changing the electoral college. If you go ONLY by numbers then we will all do what California, New York and Florida want. I think there is value in preserving a voice for the empty spaces in between. What does Nancy Pelosi know about sheep herding or language preservation for example? Uranium mining or water rights? > I don't think the Founders ever > envisioned a country of 300 million people being run by a handful of folks. > That's why they created the Amendment process. Unfortunately, that process > is controlled by the very people whose power would be dramatically > diminished. I have come to regard this situation as a fundamental flaw in > the Constitution. > you have a point. I don't like your proposal for the senate tho > > 3. Increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court. How many? I don't > know. How would the initial seats be filled? I don't know. It would seem > unfair to allow the President (whether a Democrat or a Republican) to > create > a new Court that could sit for 50 years. > the snark in me wants to say that this seemed to be ok when bush was in power. But let's just say, see my point now? I don't knwo what the answer is either. 4. Force rule changes so that bills, including spending items in Congress have names attached. No more anonymously slipping in billions in pork projects without a name. That would probably be amusing also 5. End the insane civil service rules that govern the federal bureaucracy. Make people accountable for their jobs. um... if you say so. Not on my list but depends what you have in mind. 6. Purge the rolls of government the way GM purged their rolls, if necessary - by early retirement buyouts. I am not sure that overstaffing is the problem. If it is, yeah maybe. Just a few thoughts. > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Maureen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You just highjacked my thread into a political debate. : } > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Dana<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > probably not. So how would you solve that? > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Robert Munn <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Maureen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > No amount of > > >> > outrage on the part of the public is going to change the corruption > in > > >> > government and business. The rich will get richer, the poor will > get > > >> > poorer and the middle class will get squeezed from both sides. It > > >> > doesn't matter which health care plan they choose, neither will > work. > > >> > It doesn't matter who is in office - they are all greedy fools who > > >> > care only for power and not for the people they are supposed to > > >> > govern. And it's not just in America, it's universal. > > >> > > >> > > >> Sort of how I feel these days as well. Here is my thinking, in a > > nutshell: > > >> > > >> 274* > > >> > > >> * The number of people that can dictate the rules of government to 300 > > >> million Americans. > > >> > > >> 218 House Reps > > >> 50 Senators > > >> 1 President > > >> 5 Supreme Court Justices > > >> > > >> > > >> Is this really what the Founders intend > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:302809 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
