1. No elected official may hold consecutive terms. (in regards to congress)
This would certainly do a lot to eliminate the power of incumbency and would not limit the number of terms that an qualified individual could be elected to an office. They’d simply have to return to their respective districts and live under the laws that they have enacted. They could run for office again the next election cycle. The idea here is to eliminate the career politician and reduce the amount of corruption that our current system seems to have fostered. It would hopefully end the era of elected nobility
2. No elected official may accept a campaign contribution of any kind while in office. (in regards to congress)
This would help to end the selling of favors to special interest groups that our current system has fostered.
3. The number of representative shall be one for every 30,000 citizens.
This is actually the representation ratio as set forth in the Constitution Article 1, Section 2. In todays world of technology it is not necessary that our representatives gather in a single place in order to cast a vote or debate a bill. They could all have a subscription for gotomeeting.com. More importantly any qualified candidate could quite literally mount a viable campaign without spending a dime. A little shoe leather and some time and a candidate could literally shake the hand of every voter in his/her district. The current ratio is somewhere in the vicinity of 600,000 to one and facilitates the ability of special interests groups to unduly influence policy. This is campaign finance reform at its simplest
4. Congress shall receive NO PENSIONS
Representing the interests of a Representative’s district or a Senator’s State should be a civic duty and not a career. Our military does not receive a pension for a single tour of duty and they place their lives in jeopardy for our freedoms. Why should a congressman recieve a pension for a mere two or six years of non-hazardous duty.
5. Congressional pay shall be set and approved by the State from which each congressman is a native. The States NOT the federal government shall pay the salaries of their respective Representatives and Senators.
5. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment allows for direct election of Senators by the populace. The purpose of the Senate is to represent the rights of States not the general population. Selection of Senators should be left to the individual State’s State legislators or whatever means desired by the individual State. Again we’d see a reduction of the influence weilded by special interest groups in contradiction to the interest of the States and their rights.
6. Repeal the 16th Amendment and institute a value added tax.
The individual’s privacy is compromised by the current system and the individual tax payer is unduly burdened by the expense of of tax preparation. The current system is incomprehensible. With a value added tax all citizens would have a stake in keeping our government as small as possible because no one would be exempt from the taxation that funds the largess of government.
7. Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank.
8. No business is too big to fail and bailouts of private business entities shall be prohibited.
It is the responsibility of the stockholders through the selection/election of the board of directors of a corporation to exercise due diligence in ensuring that their interests are being protected. Failure to exercise such control shall warrant the loss of their investment through the bankruptcy process.
Concerning Publicly Traded Corporations – Since a Public Corporation is a construct of the State certain restrictions on the pay and compensation of corporate executives and employees should be enacted to preclude the looting of corporate assets to the detriment of stockholders, employees and customers.
A. Executive pay shall not exceed a multiple of 50 of the average compensation of all employees.
This would preclude executives from unduly benefiting by engaging in such policies that are detrimental to its employees such as moving factories to countries where wages are exploitively low. The logic here is that what executive whose salary is based on an average employees salary choose to move a plant/factory where wages are say $20 an hour to a country where wages are 20 cents an hour. Corporations have a duty not only to the stockholder but also to those whose life energy has been devoted to their place of employment. For an executive to increase his compensation he/she would be incentivized to raise all boats with the tide.
B. Executive bonuses/stock options etc. shall be be identical to the workers as a percentage of base compensation.
The rational here is that it takes all of the parts to create a whole. Executives are paid to make decisions, workers are paid to carry out those decisions. All are part of the whole and one cannot exist without the other therefore all should benefit from the rewards reaped from the symbiotic relationship.
Just food for thought… Please feel free to add laws you’d like to see in the reply or provide rebuttals to my rational.
Director of Operation – Global Poker Federation
Served seven years in the US Army with one tour in SE Asia and a three year tour in Karlsruhe Germany.
Graduated from Utah Technical College with a degree in Business Management
Previously worked with Boeing as a Computer Applications Analyst / Industrial Engineer – Provided top level management within the Military and Missile Systems Division with performance metrics and analysis.
I like your train of thought. . . Ideas of value!
Some additional thoughts:
—Ideas on laws defining how to draw up Congressional districts and reduce gerrymandering.
In NC some districts were drawn to insure the lifetime re-election of certain Congressman
and diminish conservative areas by breaking them up into pieces and then assigning
to blue areas — the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill region is a case study for these shenanigans.
—Compensation for Congressmen & Executive Office? Tie it into how well the country adheres
to it’s budget and stays out of red ink. Similar to compensation packages for CEOS, COOS,
CFOs/Financial types, ETC., in large companies.
–No person who has engaged in the practice of law in the past ten years shall be eligible to serve in any legislative office or on any board or office in the executive branch to which the legislature has delegated authority to frame rules to implement legislation. No person who has served in such a capacity shall be permitted to engage in the practice of law for ten years after leaving such office.
(This should apply both to Congress and the Federal executive and to the several states.)
The reason? So legislators and regulators don’t serve the guild interests of the legal profession in preference to the public interest.
My opinions:
First, a clarification: Just for Congress? If so, change the wording.
I disagree here. as long as there are elections, corruption can be dealt with. The real problem with terms are length. I think yearly would be better.
Not even for a re-election campaign? Now, I see if you are saying here that re-elections don’t exist with your previous law, then what about for running for the next office the official would then run for? I think perhaps maybe no contributions from companies is a good idea, but none at all probably is not good.
100% agree. The more representatives they are, the less one black sheep can misrepresent the people.
Also agree here.
Do you really want this? This is taking more power from the people, and giving it to politicians! How could you be sure to even affect who would be your Senator? Each time you pass on an election or political pick to another official, you decrease your own power to change and uphold the law.
An excellent plan in some respects, but it still has problems with taxation of imports and exports. To much tax, and highly imported products will be extremely taxed and cause unrest (oil), and other countries will not pay for our exports. Too low, and companies will outsource and ship in like they do now.
Define your meaning of nationalize
8. No business is too big to fail and bailouts of private business entities shall be prohibited.
Agreed- Enough of the picking and choosing and waste.
Not a good idea. This is anti-Capitalistic. This kind of a law would encourage basing whole companies in different countries. Companies that would likely be in violation of this would be such companies as NewsCorp (Murdoch) and Microsoft, and thousands of others. How about addressing the real issue you mention instead of trying to cover it in a blanket of more law?
Overall a good idea, but make sure that it doesn’t become “everyone gets an equal bonus in a company no matter how well they perform.” Everyone should only get bonuses they deserve.
______________________________________________________________________________
Interesting food for thought. Thank you for your post.
Considering the length of campaigns, marble, when do you think they’d actually *work*?? LOL
My vote for a law I’d like to see on the books…
For every law enacted, five must come off the books…..
Speaking about gotomeeting.com and other electronic forms of communications, I make this suggestion:
Given that on many occasions Congress believes that they are, in going against the will of the people as demonstrated in various polls, doing what’s good for the public, how about (now that we have the Internet and verifiable, secure communication links) letting the public vote ONLINE AND DIRECTLY more often on MOST of ALL of the issues (legislation) that come up?
Just think. Year 2011. Elections are routinely held in such a manner that Senators and Representatives in Congress merely write and formulate proposed legislation. Then at regularly and at certain times during the year, possibly less often (we have too many laws already), all registered voters vote electronically online. Connections over the Internet, in private or at public places, are as secure as connections to your bank accounts. Voting takes place over SEVERAL days not just one day from 7am to 7pm. This greater amount of time would ensure that, weather good or not, people will have a better opportunity to vote. In fact, if you were on business traveling in Hong Kong you could verify and vote from there or anywhere online.
And, yes there would be voting security officials who are trained computer programming professionals that can spot cheats and discrepancies, thereby guaranteeing connection and processing security much as your bank does with your bank balance. Not perfect, but mostly 99.999%. Penalties for voter fraud would be extremely severe.
Thus, we will eliminate Congressional hijacking of the issues. It is often they say that the laws are updated to reflect the changing times. This is one idea that is coming soon. And, it means truly POWER TO THE PEOPLE.
Very idealistic Donald but perhaps not so practical and let’s not ignore the unintended consequences of these types of reforms.
I won’t go point by point through the whole list, though I do agree with some and certainly the motivation behind it. But I disagree on term limits.
I understand that there are some clowns, like Robert Byrd, which should have left office long ago. But there are also plenty of good men and women who I would hate to see leave the scene because of term limits. A short list would be folks like Michelle Bachman, John Boehner and my state’s junior senator Jim DeMint.
Sure, you might clear out a lot of dead wood with term limits but who is to say you would get anything better in return? You’d just end up with a lot of legislators who have about as much experience as the average Southside Chicago Community Organizer and we all know how dangerous that can be.
Folks may say that our system of government sucks. Except when you compare it to any alternative. I am loathe to tamper with a system that for all it’s faults still works better than any other.
Yes, repeal the 17th. It would give the states a voice at the federal level which would provide a counter-balance to the unfunded mandates and it would end the confirmation grandstanding that currently goes on in the Senate to appeal to voter special interests. The Senate was designed to represent the interests of the states, not the people directly. Also, the benefit of one representative per 30,000 is that it makes it a lot harder to gerrymander “safe districts”. “Safe districts” are one of the main ways that our republic has gone wrong.
To your list, I would add some sort of provision prohibiting the delegation of powers. What that means is that Congress shouldn’t be able to tell the EPA, “You decide what’s dangerous and how to regulate it. Here is a blank check to write whatever laws you want.” Laws and regulations should come from the Congress and be voted on, not delegated to unaccountable bureaucrats.
Those are all well and good, and can be debated. The more immediate problem though is that the beaurocrats are taking over. We need repeal the act that created the EPA and start over and repeal the acts that it has enacted. We need to repeal the NEA (education) the fed’s have no business there and that would also weaken that union. The FDA needs to be realed in severely and the department of health needs to be done.
In short, all these out of control, leftist beaurocrats need to be handed their hat. Then we need to work on SS and Medicar and Medicade. These could be privatized so that the burden would not be on the taxpayer, but the individual.
Then we can work on the things you mention. If the GSE’s could be brought under control, then our economy could again thrive. Then we can cement that by making sure politicians can’t change it!
Just my $0.02.
No vote for any public office may be cast except in person with proper identification including proof of citizenship. Currently, phony registrations and registrations of aliens are converted to votes through the absentee ballot process as are votes of the dead.
An exception should be made for active duty military assigned away from their states of residence.
All voters should be required to register anew and all prior registration records should be purged.
A few would be disenfranchised but the process would regain much integrity.
@MarbleBlaster
Item 1 and 2 go hand in hand and both are “in regards to congress” as stated. The idea here is to eliminate the “career” politician. Serving should be out of civic duty and not be a career. The power of incumbency is immense and so long as it exists there is NEVER a truly level playing field, 90% + of incumbents are re-elected. Eliminating the acceptance of campaign contributions is a means to combat the wholesale peddling of influence. Campaign contributions have, in many instances, morphed into nothing more than legalized bribes. So… since you won’t be running for re-election there is no need to have campaign contributions of any kind. In addition if item (3) were to be adopted then there is definitely no need for accepting money from anyone while in office.
Repeal of the 17th Amendment, you wrote:
Absolutely… you have forgotten that Senators are not there to represent the people ? They are there to represent the States. Our founding fathers were very clear on this. We are a nation of 50 sovereign states and they have rights. Depending on how a State decides to select/elect their Senators will determine how much influence that the populace has in their selection but if it is done through the vote of the State’s legislature then the citizens do have an indirect voice in whom will be their Senator.
Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank – Remember that the Federal Reserve System is made up of 12 PRIVATE banks. These private entities should not have the power to create currency, it should be in the hands of the Federal Government.
Limiting the pay of Publicly Traded Corporations to a multiple of the average of all workers salaries is not anti-capitalistic since these institutions are artificial constructs created by fiat through the power of government. Such limitations would not apply to privately held companies not traded on a public exchange.
Executives are only able to achieve results through the efforts of their subordinates based on the decisions made by the executives. If an executive is to recieve a bonus based on some performance criteria then all subordinates that contributed to the achieving of that objective should also be rewarded with bonuses. Decision making and the implementaton of those decisions is a symbiotic process and should reward likewise.
I agree with the others, great start! I like the idea of returning the Senate to the states, no pensions and make the states pay. I like any sort of taxation based on consumption or a flat rate. I do not support any sort of limits on private business to pay whatever they want, but in the same vein, I would abolish their right to donate to campaigns OR I would mandate that all contributions be made public.
We should work towards limiting Federal regulatory powers over the states. The use of the commerce clause should be a target of reform. The powers of the Federal government regulatory agencies over the states should be limited and controlled.
There should be no exemptions for federal politicians from laws inacted by them on their populace. There should also be instutued a mandatory sunset or review of all federal orders/regulations requiring congressional votes of continuance and not to be lopped in with other bills.
Term limits should be worked to 3 terms say for a Senator and 5 for a congressman. There should be a ban on lobbying of government by a former congressman/senator of 10 years after office. And too, for the federal government regulatory agencies… a ban of 15 years after employment or total ban to stop the revolving door.
Ever effort should be focused on reducing the influence of the Federal Government on our lives. The Federal Reserve/ Central Bank should be reviewed and have to face audit. The Congress should have to face an audit and all programs/agencies should have to face a review of budget and/or rationale for being.
@ Yippie21
I’m not for limiting the number of terms that a congressman can hold. I’m only for eliminating the holding of said terms consecutively. The power of incumbency is immense as is the power of campaign contributions to corrupt. Items 1,2 and 3 should be viewed as a total package.
@ Mike’s America
Experience can be gained by a congressman doing a good job and then returning to office 2 years later if first term warrants it… This IS NOT a term limit law.
Of course having inexperienced people in there might be a good thing – we aren’t talking the presidency
Man this is a great discution. Our repub “leaders” should be reading this.
Here is the thing though. I agree with the initial premises layed out in this post. The problem is that we have out of control people in these anscilary orginizations. We have got to get them under control. They will choke out the electorate via requlation.
First, we must assume a sweep for the elections in 2010. A big assumption! Then when we get that power we need to act on it, like I said earlier, and defund these regulatory agencies. These agencies are building a brick wall to force us to the matt. They will implement regulations that kill the economy, until we “bow” under their will.
1) Get conservatives into the house and senate.
2) Defund, repeal offending agencies
3) Change election rules, procedures, etc… to ensure that this can’t happen again.
1 may take more than one election cycle, but could take root next year. If we take over the house in 2010, that could at least stop the bleading. Then in 2012 finish taking over the senate and white house, then 2 and 3 could be acheived.
But only if we have the backbone and perseverance to make it happen.
@John Hull
One thing is certain, those that are in office will never want to create laws that put them out of office in 2 or 6 years. Maybe this is one of those cases where we explore the idea of grandfathering in those already in office. I’m not in favor of such things but I also have to be a pragmatist.
One could pursue this sort of change through the states the same way that the 17th ammendment was instituted.
No matter how long it takes… SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE
Hope and Change… Hope and Change
@DaNang 67
I really like your idea of purging all voter registrations and starting over AND having to show appropriate id when voting.
This past November, I walked into an early NC poling location and cast a ballot — no id required. . .was so easy to see how fraud occurs. . .especially when one can also register on the same day with little to no forms of id. . .how about Park Bench 10?
I walked across the hall to go into the office of the NC State Board of Elections — to register a complaint about no proof of id to vote — and was told I could not go into the office without showing my driver’s license!!!!!
@ DaNang 67
I too like your idea of regularly purging the voter rolls and starting from scratch.
@ AmericanVoter
If your experience at the Elections Board wasn’t so sad, it would be down right funny.
Welcome to the world of the surreal…. do not adjust your dial
Why is common sense so uncommon?
having read all of the opinion and all of the comments….
Unfortunately what I believe what all of you forgotten is that your opinions your wishes and desire are all for naught.
You can masturbate to your favorite actor or actress but you are no closer to having sex with them than we are to ridding ourselves or politicians that only serve themselves..
We are well and truly screwed… Today the EPA has the power to f”us with CO2 BS…
The worthless POTUS, is trying to push BS in Denmark….
We are f’d, well and truly f’d…
After the Tea Parties, all of the opposition they still screw us…
And they continue to get away with it…
All of your agruments are worthless…
@Bigpapa
All this discussion is a healthy airing of ideas.
There is a feature box at this site —
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/
. . .on the lower right of the home page entitled, “Give em the Boot.” Currently featuring Larry Sabato’s swipe at citizen voices — I nominated your comment as an alternate selection for the box.
You can give up. . .it is your perogative. . .but I will not nor the millions of other Americans who will shake up the country next year in the voting booths. . .
@BigPapa
Your attitude is the very reason some of us have to start thinking outside of the box. Too many Americans have been demoralized and disenfranchised.
We need to remember that our government is “We the people” and we can make a difference.
These ideas are more than just mental masturbation, they are seeds. I may not have the power to implement them, they might not even be the best answer. But, until we put the idea on the table nothing will happen and I for one don’t want nothing to be the order of the day.
This moron Ron Creamer who basically wrote the blueprint for this Obama Care nightmare started with an idea. Warped as it was, and then developed a process for implementation. Are we any less capable?
Seed planted will eventually germinate and flower. Seeds unplanted will do nothing but rot.
Yes American Voter please tell me you inspiration????
Is it the EPA declaring CO2 a pollutant this week????
Is it the POTUS flying to Denmark????
Is it the Senate trying to pass the health care debacle???
Is it the myriad of liberal judges passing illegal “legislation” on us..?????
Is it the whole of congress and the senate ignoring our constitution????
How many websites have you been to???
How “good’ does it make you “feel” to voice your opinion???
And how much difference does it actually make???
That is the REAL question. I come to this site and many others every damn day and it makes no difference what i think, type, say, wish or desire..
PROVE ME WRONG!
Whining, bitching, crying, wishing is nothing.. big freaking nothing…
I never said I was giving up, you assumed so judging by my frustration…
I think everyone who wants and wishes and like puppy dog kisses has given up…
Forgive for me for having a “healthy airing of ideas” other than you wish to hear…
Count me emphatically out on any government mandates as to salary limits, stocks and/or bonuses in private enterprise. Nothing you can say will make that suggestion politically palatable, Donald Bly. Zip… nada… nyet.
Not entirely sure about nationalizing the Fed Reserve either. Have to spend time pondering the twists and turns of repercussions for that. And frankly it’s hard to see my thoughts thru the steam coming from my ears at their very existence….
Donald,
I’m not sure what you mean by “thinking outside the box”..
I recently was blessed with my second daughter… 22 years after my first..
I love my girls and I hate they direction of this country for them..
Yes,, we are less capable, yes we do not have the media, we do not have politicians who care for no one but themselves…
Yes, bitching and moaning and wishing here will serve no other purpose than to make us feel we “did our part”..
Even though it makes no difference….
You have a better idea??
I’m all ears…
big papa, I hear ya on your beefs. Not sure if Donald Bly ever said, but I’ve taken him for a libertarian since first reading his comments. Lots of dreamers in that party and they live for good (and usually l…oooooo…n……g….) debate. Been there, done that. Gotta hand it to ’em, tho. They never give up and always hold a glimmer of “hope” that this will be the year the party breaks out.
’tis an ugly truth that in order to seize power from the corrupt, you must corrupt yourself and roll in the mud with the nefarious to get there. Personally I believe the amount of honest and dedicated pols in Congress may be hard pressed to count on one hand. Opportunists all, and all beholding. If they’ve not shown their colors, it’s because they aren’t high enough in the food chain yet for them to be evident.
Thus why I’m not a big fan of unlimited terms. I’m not sure I see the value of non-consecutive terms either. Just gives them a lot of fund raising time inbetween, and then there will be no need for contributions while in office. They will just be paid in advance for their favors.
Personally I still like the idea of two terms max, then mandated into minimum wage servitude for two years before being able to utilize their power contacts or return to their usual and likely lawyer gigs.
yeah yeah… that’s a joke. No, make that my own dream. But think how delicious a dream it is. Visions of Pelosi and Reid behind Mickey D and Starbucks counters dancing in my head. LOL No WAIT! Pelosi as a Walmart door greeter! YES!
The purpose of this is, of course, to return them to the real world quickly, and nurture self humility they destroyed while wielding power.
@ MataHarley
I really like that 2 years of minimum wage servitude…. ’bout fell off my chair.
Pretty much voted Republican all my life… but they’ve been leaning too far left for me for quite some time now.
@ BigPapa
I’d rather think positively rather than negatively. Too much negativity will put you in an early grave.
Perhaps Jefferson was right and it will come down to armed rebellion. We can all hope that does not become the case.
Nancy Pelosi is proof that Botox kills brain cells.
OUTLAW SEIU (and ACORN, of course)
I just went to sign a petition, and on the second page I noticed a box checked to “support SEIU,” which of course was an immediate red flag, so I aborted and did not finish submitting my signature (hopefully they didn’t get any info., though I don’t trust them at all).
So, I then went to check, and sure enough they (and some animal rights people, maybe PETA for all I know) are using the “Care2” petition website to lure people into signing petitions, then using their information to pretend those people also support their causes.
Here’s what I found by someone else who got had by them.
http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/unbelievable-obama-friends-have-stolen-my-email-say-i-support-them/
Hopefully this can get spread in order to expose what those damned parasites are doing!
How about a law that makes it mandatory for broadcast and cable networks to show a 5 minute clip of 9/11 before every top 20 rated show to impress upon mush -brained Americans that we’re at war.
I would be for a form of a National Trade Langauge law that strictly enforces all forms of print, media, commerical, and entertainment services in the market place to be in English only. Goods to be exempted would have to recieve State by State permission to publish their works within State borders by aquiring a Cultural license. Ironicly this idea is not mine, it hails from a friend visiting here in the States from Thailand of all places.
Very well intended article.
Obama is going to be re-elected with all his radical croonies via Masive electoral fraud financed with our Stimulus money. Now, how are we going to stop that!
Are we going to need Russian hackers to unveil the hoax of the American elections just like GW?
We forget sometimes that we are dealing with Chicago Mobster style of government and they don’t go out quietly.
G-d help us.
You forget a very important law:
All laws shall be instituted with a sunset date not to exceed 10 years.
Think of it, if the government is busy reviewing existing laws, they will be too busy to implement new ones unless absolutely necessary.
Thomas
@Uri
I am glad that others are thinking what I have been thinking. These massive appropriations of taxpayer money have been engineered to provide the Obama Gangsters with a slush fund of epic proportions for use in perpetuating and expanding their hold on power.
WAKE UP AMERICA
I would add one more:
The President, as commander and chief of the military will be held accountable to all rules, regulations and laws of the uniform code of military justice just as any other officer is. This would be in addition to being subject to all civilian laws, just as any other officer is.
Donald,
About 3 million people should be in Washington D.C. right now and show these good for nothing politicians that we are against socialized healthcare.
When you have a Third world country President with his croonies, what can you expect?
Corruption and fraud in their veins.
This makes me dust off a couple posts I made in 2004 & 2005 re: Amendment ideas.
http://arbiterofcommonsense.blogspot.com/search/label/Constitutional%20Amendment%20Ideas
@URI:
INDEED!
The rule on limiting CEO pay is not anti-capitalistic in my opinion. Too often, these people are viewed as the owners of companies risking their own investments. In truth, they are employees and should be treated as such. If executive pay decisions were put to the stockholders, i.e. owners, the pay would come back into line with reality. These guys are replacable with plenty of well educated experienced people waiting in the wings.
This issue has been the result of anonymous stock ownership. I don’t know the ratio, but a lot of stock owned today lies in the hands of 401Ks, IRAs, pensions, mutual funds, and other grouped investments. I have no idea what I actually own. I can see some information, but not enough to impact corporate decisions. Unnamed managers of our accounts make those decisions with no ownership.
When these decisions are left up to the Boards of these corporations, it becomes a mutual payoff. Many of these people serve on the same multiple boards. “You vote me a raise and I will vote one for you.”
The States need to step up and enforce their 10th Amendment! Also, All states should institute a recall procedure to be able to get rid of Senators like ARlen Specter instead of having to wait until his term is up (happily, that is next year!).
Enact a law that any law passed by Congress (such as the ubiquitous Hell Scare) should be mandatory for ALL federal, State and Union employees!
I like #5m however I think that Congress salaries should be on the ballot every two years. I am sick and tired of them giving themselves raises and COLAs while taking more money away from the people who need it.
No more franking privileges – they get an allowance, make them spend it on the post office – I hear there’s a 3 billion shortfall.
No more private jets – they can fly coach like the rest of us.
No more voting to give OUR money to other countries until we have helped the people at home first!
Any advisor to the prez – like the Czars – should be vetted or they do not get any gubmint funding. I don’t want my money going to the likes of Cass Sunstein, Holdren, Van Jones and the rest of the marxist cast of characters.
But, most of all, we need to VOTE THESE MORONS OUT OF OFFICE!
@William Edwards
Thank you for making the case so much more eloquently than I was able to communicate. You have hit the nail precisely on the head.
I would not want to put such limitations on the privately held company because that would be anti-capitalistic.
There was a time in our history when corporate charters were of very limited nature. Not the way it is now where a corporation basically exists in perpetuity.
IE:
Average salary = $42,000 Max executive pay = 42,000 x 50 = $2,100,000
Average salary = $60,000 Max executive pay = 60,000 x 60 = $3,000,000
Move a factory to Mexico and reduce the average salary and see the following
Average salary = $10,000 Max executive pay = $10,000 x 50 = $500,000:
A standard statistic available when doing due dilligence is the Revenue per Employee number.
Talk about some happy employees… knowing that management will be much more likely to reward their efforts for adding to the bottom line if executive pay were tied to their salaries, the odds that per employee productivity would be increased would rise. This is of benefit for all the stakeholders.
Of course there would still be the board of directors to oversee that employee salaries were not being increased arbitrarily in order to simply increase executive pay. We’d have a better system of checks and balances.
Phil Condit of the Boeing company recieved a $1,000,000 bonus for overseeing Boeings first loss in 50 years.
Despite all your good intentions, Donald, it is not the government’s job, nor Constitutional power, to enforce how a private corporation structures their salary, bonuses or dividends. Nor is it appealing for you to pronounce judgment on what is too much for salary. Indeed, your own comment differs little from the Pelosi/Obama/Reid attitude that they should be the determining factor on what is “too much” compensation.
You are so completely wrong on solution, tho I understand your well meaning intent.
I suggest you simply start your own corporation, and run it that way. However you, nor anyone outside of the specific corporation’s board and stockholders, should be dictating to other corporations how to run their business.
When this thread has been active for a while I will take all the suggestions and the posted rationale behind each and categorize the ideas for further discussion.
All federal legislation must pass judicial review by the court sytem before said legislation becomes effective.
We’ve put the burden on the individual to fight unconstitutional laws passed by our congress. Constitutionality should be determined before any citizens rights are deprived through the enforcement of an unjust law.
Doesn’t work that way, Donald. You can, however, get an AG opinion on such proposed legislation.
Courts, however, address specific events as it relates to the language of the law. And most of these piss poor bills leave holes large enough to drive a truck thru when they delegate implementation, rules and regs to existing or newly created federal agencies.
@ MataHarley
I realize that “it doesn’t work that way”. That’s the point of this thread. What if it did? These “ideas” might not be applicable under the way our system currently works, it might take constitutional ammendments rather than just legislative action.
The title of the thread is “Laws I’d like to see” not “Legislation I’d like to see”
Then count me adamantly against such an amendment, Donald (INRE comment #45). We can’t have courts making up various scenarios, guessing as to what agencies will determine as regulations prior to such events. Talk about an unruly court docket….
This is a function of the AG’s office now. It should remain so, IMHO.
Now, back to your “fair compensation” arguments. The only way for what you’d “like to see” is to create a formula for “fair compensation” via law. Slippery slope indeed. And why should elected officials be granted unConstitutional powers to determine what is “fair” and how a business should structure it’s payroll compensation?
Again, we have civil courts for such disagreements that can be brought by the affected parties. At that time, a judge would decide if something is unreasonable for a particular circumstance. That, however, generally results in enriching class action trial lawyers only.
However you cannot legislate/law “fairness” without unConstitutional intrusion any more than you can legislate/law hate out of the heart of man.
@ MataHarley
My arguement concerning Corporations centers on the fact that Corporations are an artifcial construct; an entity created by law, that is currently regulated by government. Corporations have no constitutional rights not even the right to exist.
Unlike the Pelosi, Reid, Obama method of directly dictating compensation I am advocating that executive pay still be determined by the corporation itself within certain MAXIMUMS. 50 is an arbitrary number…. perhaps the MAX should be 100x but the board of directors of said corporation might set for their executives a number like 25x.
INRE comment #46: Actually, Donald, you are in error. Corporations exist because of the various state Business Corporation Acts, and federal corporate law. They are, indeed, Constitutional in their creation acts either by Congress or state legislatures. Historically they used to be called charters, and have SCOTUS history back to the early 1800s. However here is an interesting walk thru history on SCOTUS and federal court corporate decisions. One will note that not one opinion deemed a corporate entity as an unConstitutional creation.
Even more interesting is the somewhat bizarre definitions of a corporation when contrasting the 1968 opinion that corporations were not “citizens”, but in the 1882 San Mateo Railroad case, the robed ones in the 9th Circuit did find that corporations were “persons”.
Corporations – while somewhat fictional in ownership nature – are legally granted charters which do indeed have owners called stockholders, whose interests are determined by their stock shares. Since corporations require at least one owner/stockholder, and have no upper limit, it is not a faceless entity. Thus it is a business owned by the entirety of stockholders with varying amounts of voice via their stock holdings. Rather like getting real estate vested in the names of unrelated persons with percentages stipulated.
In fact, as it relates to US debt, the nation is actually legally defined as a “federal corporation”. And, in fact, Congress only has the Constitutional power of corporation creation as it relates to banking, which is why the federal banks are a charter, or a “corporation” as such.
Thus it tromps mightily on state’s rights and their corporate laws when you suggest they have no right to exist… as that is essentially a state’s decision. And last I knew, state’s rights were very Constitutional.
You are still missing your own point. How is this good intent enforced but by a law on the books somewhere? i.e. this can only be accomplished via a law that says the stockholders may determine their own CEO financial benefits (which they probably already have the right to do in some form, even by selling their holdings and walking out financially…), but there must be a “maximum” cap.
No matter how you look at it, it’s a law that affects what stockholders may do with their own financial entity. Otherwise it’s a nice little suggestion without teeth…. as it should remain.
I liked this well enough that I expect to link to it in my blog posting tomorrow.
The only immediate idea of mine is to require that left over campaign funds would be used to pay down the national debt.
@URI
About 3 million people should be in Washington D.C. right now and show these good for nothing politicians that we are against socialized healthcare.
—–
Another rally is scheduled for next week — Dec 15. We are making another “House Call” NC Tea Party is only one component scheduling the trip — join us!
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 12/10/2009, at The Unreligious Right</a
I think that the main omission in our Constitution was that our founding fathers had, indeed, not mandated term limits for our legislature. Of course, how would they know that people would some day live to be a hundred and want to stay in Washington until the day they died? The lack of term limits, I think, is the root problem of almost every last ill that has befallen our country.
My best case scenario would be two terms, lifetime, and that an ex-legislator would be denied by law the right to be an industry lobbyist for the same period of time that he/she was in office.
Any pay raises to members of congress must be voted on at the next general election. Three options will always be present on the ballot when congress asks for a raise:
1) Approve – Raise congressional pay by the percentage they asked for.
2) Deny – Give congress no pay raise.
3) Punish – Cut congressional pay by the percentage they asked for.
Senators will be limited to 2 consecutive terms (12 years), after which they may not be elected or appointed to the senate for a period of 1 full senate term (6 years)
Representatives will be limited to 4 consecutive terms (8 years), after which they may not be elected or appointed to the house for a period of 2 terms (4 years)
Any time accrued as a result of a special election or appointment to fill a vacated office shall be considered a full term if the office was vacated within the first half of the term (3 years for senate, 1 year for house)
Any member of congress running for a different federal office (house->senate, house/senate->president) must vacate their existing seat upon announcement of their candidacy.
Donald you have an ability to bring out great ideas from brilliant people, congratulations!
@Russ
Your three options in regards to congressional pay are great but the third option is brilliant.
I also really like your idea on vacating seats
@MataHarley
Of all the posters on this site… you are one of the most articulate of the bunch and your arguements are persuasive.
Do not read into my “suggestions” things that I did not write.
“All federal legislation must pass judicial review by the court sytem before said legislation becomes effective.”
Concerning the above you responded:
I was not speaking of regulations but legislation. Perhaps I was remiss in not adding the words “for constitutionality” after “judicial review”.
The whole abrigation of responsibility of congress by delegating “the lawmaking” process to unelected regulatory agencies is another can of worms as evidenced by the recent theat of using EPA regulation in order to blackmail congress into passing cap and trade.
I don’t believe I read anything into your suggestions, Donald. I understand you want the legislative concept reviewed prior to becoming enacted law, and I understand your intent is mired in good intent. Sounds so simple on the surface, yes? Most potential laws do, but unfortunately the repercussions are the devils in the details.
It’s as convoluted as witnessing one who wishes to feed the poor, donating food… only to find that some had allergic reactions, other got ill, and the donor of good intent finds himself being sued by those individuals as well as under prosecution for providing food not up to FDA standards. Know what I mean? Start from a place from the heart, and watch the intent explode into misuse and ill targeted prosecutions.
As I said, you cannot legislate hate from the heart of man, nor sanctify intent with laws created by flawed men. Nor can you substantially affect mankind’s behavior with laws. It only gives you recourse when they “misbehave” per a law’s standards. The Founders Constitutional intents were to prevent federal government from possessing the power to pass legislation designed to control an individual behavior.
Most legislation is merely a template – a bare bones concept that Congress then delegates to some agency to implement with the specifics. And it is generally within that implementation that the Constitutional boundaries are severely breached. Therefore it becomes somewhat of an impossibility for the Supremes to determine that the template, itself, is unConstitutional.
i.e. is intelligence interrogation unconstitutional? Holding an enemy combatant prior to charges? Or does that battle commence when someone questions the methods of interrogation used, or how long that combatant is held? Can the SCOTUS look at these issues and determine, in advance of actual implementation, each and every method to create a shopping list of dos and don’ts?
Yet this is, in essence, the burden you wish to place upon them. I, personally, think that would put us in a world of hurt… allowing them to create precedents without actual specific events. Precedents are a nasty piece of business that is nigh on impossible to rid ourselves of.
Tho I will say, in your somewhat utopian revisionist founding, if there were any single legislation that I would like to see your suggestion come to fruition, it would be universal health care. But even my own wishful thinking is tempered there, knowing full well that if they determined it to be “constitutional” using your method, any ensuing lawsuit that could break thru hasn’t a chance. You’ve thwarted it before it was ever introduced into the lower courts by that simple pre-enactment SCOTUS decision. Ugly… *very* ugly.
Thus, another glimpse into the unsurpassed wisdom of the founders and framers.
The EPA… yes, been planning a post on that one for days. Latest events on this attempted blackmail may just have backfired on the Oval Office occupant while the progressive Dems heave a deep sigh of relief. It’s an interesting twist and just may be a stellar illustration of my debate points with you here on this pre-enactment opinion making.
@MataHarley
Yes.. I misspoke, I wish I was more capable in articulating my point of view or prehaps I just need to slow down I understand that Corporations are formed under the laws of various States, which regulate corporations in differing ways. IE: Some States require five founding members, other States require only one. Since the State can regulate such things as the number of individuals required to start a corporation and many other facets of their operation, it isn’t a giant leap to think that they shouldn’t be capable of setting some formula for executive pay also. My point about “constitutionality” rests in the Supreme Court rulling that you point out, defines them as a “person”, which I think is wrong, but then gives them all the rights of a person. They are artifical constructs and as such have no “inalienable rights”.
I think William Edwards in his post best describes why I think some sort of range for executive compensation would best serve the shareholders and the public in general
Perhaps the idea of mandating such practices is naive. Maybe the better option is to practice the art of nudging by providing corporations that did have a maximum mulitplier designator for executive pay in their charters to receive an incentive.
How about a 75x multiplier = 50% reduction in captial gains tax and a 50x multiplier = 0 capital gains tax.
My opinions are not set in stone and I am fully aware that many people don’t think that the government should be involved in any way with regulating business. Unfortunately as William Edward pointed out, many of these same executives sit on multiple boards and compensation becomes an “old boy” network of quid pro quo to the detriment of stockholders, employees and consumers. I don’t think it would be a stretch to believe you might think that some of these executive compensation packages are obscene compared to what they actually contribute.