Change.gov

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:41 am

Obama has set up a web site where you can submit your own ideas to change the government:

http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision

Somehow, I don't think he'll agree with my ideas, but I'm going to submit some anyway.

For starters, I'm going to propose my single-subject rule Constitutional amendment idea.

What about you? What changes would you like to see?

Tipmoose · Post by **Tipmoose** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:55 am

Obama has set up a web site where you can submit your own ideas to change the government:

http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision

Somehow, I don't think he'll agree with my ideas, but I'm going to submit some anyway.

For starters, I'm going to propose my single-subject rule Constitutional amendment idea.

What about you? What changes would you like to see?

This is rather amusing. Its just like the "Report this error to Microsoft" button when an app crashes. Sure, it sends in a report to some computer somewhere...but nobody every looks at it.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:10 am

i'd like to see politicians from top to bottom produce lists of mandates they intend to accomplish on a year-to-year basis.

then, i'd like to see salaries of politicians directly tied to the success of their mandates...accomplish 8 points of 10, receive 8/10ths of your salary....accomplish 37 of 48, receive 77% of your salary.

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:19 am

^^Wasn't there a Saturday Night Live skit where Ross Perot proposed just that?

Okay, here is what I wrote. I'm sure no one higher than some 18-year-old punk volunteer will read it, but you never know.

Dear President-Elect Obama:

Let me preface my remarks by telling you that I am a lifelong Republican and that I did not vote for you.

Nonetheless, you will be my President and you have promised to bring both hope and change to my country and my government.

I humbly submit that government spending is out of control. Even before the $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, the federal government spends an enormous and inexcusable amount of money on all kinds of things: defense, social programs, farm subsidies, state infrastructure projects and countless other ill-conceived or -executed expenditures.

One small piece of government waste that I believe we could easily do without is the practice of earmarking. Senator McCain, as you are aware, has made his opposition to earmarking well-known. Unfortunately, Senator McCain notably fell victim to the insidious evil of earmarking when he voted for the recent bailout bill (as did you).

So how do we end this practice of sneaking Congressional pork into otherwise-unobjectionable bills?

I propose a "single-subject rule" Constitutional Amendment, similar to that enacted in certain states. Minnesota's state constitution, for example, has the following provision:

"No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Minn. Const. Article IV, Section 17.

Simple and plain. No earmarks, no last-second riders. As an added benefit, no Senator or Congressman will be able to claim that he voted for or against a bill because of an unrelated amendment, providing the public with a much clearer picture of what their elected leaders stand for.

Enforcement would be, of course, up to the federal judiciary. Any taxpaying citizen could have standing to challenge such bills as unconstitutional. I realize this may place an additional burden on the courts, but I think such a burden would be short-term, as Congress would soon learn which kinds of amendment practices are acceptable and which are not.

Mr. President-Elect, if you truly embrace change, then I urge you to consider my proposal. I realize that you alone do not have the power to change the Constitution (and I fully expect that such a radical departure from Congressional practice will require a Constitutional Amendment).

You, however, now have extraordinary power to influence others. You are the leader of the free world. You are the leader of your party, which has a sizable majority in both houses of Congress. Most importantly, you have the ear of the people and occupy what Theodore Roosevelt called the "bully pulpit." If anyone can spearhead such an effort, you can.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:21 am

did you sign it as doczaius or did you sign it with your other name?

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:26 am

I signed it with my real name and used my real email address. I did not, however, give them my address and phone number. The last thing I want is to receive their campaign literature or get on some pinko-hippy mailing list. With email at least I can mark them as spam.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:29 am

Dood, looking at that webpage, it looks like Obama is proposing a vision of government where the VP is under the executive branch and the executive branch itself is answerable to the Constitution. These guys truly are dangerous radicals!!!

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:41 am

Hmmm.. Under "America Serves:"

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Obama Youth, anyone?

Seriously, mandatory 100 hours/year of community service in college? That's more than you get if you're convicted of DUI. Unless "service" is defined as sitting on your butt playing video games, if I were a college student, I'd be pretty pissed off about this.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:48 am

Isn't that his thing where if you do the community service, you'll get a grant for tuition? I forgot how much I had to do, but there was a requirement to earn a Bright Futures scholarship. I don't see how it can be mandatory if you don't want/need the grant, but think it's good to have to earn the grant if you do.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:50 am

i quasi-support that though my wife and i (recently "I" because i've had the time

nicker), and a lot of our community are doing it already via PTAs, PTOs, school fundraisings, teacher assistant programs, volunteer field trip chaperones, volunteer baseball coach, book donors, etc

we all voluntarily do it and are happy to do so...if we're mandated to do it, i don't think the volunteers would be too happy about that.

having said that, not all communities are as active as ours...i acknowledge that and understand that a mandate like this is needed in lagging, less prideful communities.

good luck enforcing it btw.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:52 am

Isn't that his thing where if you do the community service, you'll get a grant for tuition? I forgot how much I had to do, but there was a requirement to earn a Bright Futures scholarship. I don't see how it can be mandatory if you don't want/need the grant, but think it's good to have to earn the grant if you do.

i can only speak for my own child but in order for her to maintain her 'high honor roll' status, and there's other benefits to having that distinction besides the obvious, she's got to do at least 50 hours of community service among other things.

it's a good thing for the children regardless of the motivation.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:55 am

of course! I didn't mean to imply otherwise, especially as former president of my HS service club

DocZaius · Post by **DocZaius** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:57 am

Mandatory means mandatory as far as I'm concerned. If it means that you're eligible for some scholarship or something, fine, I don't have a problem with it.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:24 am

^^Wasn't there a Saturday Night Live skit where Ross Perot proposed just that?

i actually stole it from canadian politics...i've hob-knobbed with finance ministers for 8 years and understand the intricacies of their jobs....this thought of linking compensation to success was stolen from wall street...the proposals of such a promise worked wonders in terms of getting the constituencies' confidence, vote, and praise.

btw - no one that i know of has failed their constituents when they've instituted such a policy.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:40 am

it's a shame CEOs don't work the same way... sure it's good if their stocks are worth something, but they always have a nice cushion to fall back on when and if they reduce their companies to rubble.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:06 am

running companies and running govt's can't be compared...too many differences....that's why i don't believe govt should be involved in the running of companies.

AdGator02 · Post by **AdGator02** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:13 am

nah, there are some similarities on a basic level, especially for public companies: ethics issues, organizational psychology, results expectations, etc. in my mind, there's no excuse for golden parachutes. local example, bob nardelli screwed up home depot and left with $200m+ as his punishment. by all estimates, he's got the pedigree (GE raised) to succeed, and now he's heading up chrylser. should shareholders be punished by the board's poor choices?

sorry for the thread hijack...

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:51 am

for as many similarities, there are double the differences...one of the biggest ones for me that negates about a milliion similarities imho are that companies (boards) hire their leaders...'non-contributors to society' voters vote in their leaders of gov't.

G8Rpmc · Post by **G8Rpmc** » Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:18 am

^^Wasn't there a Saturday Night Live skit where Ross Perot proposed just that?

Okay, here is what I wrote. I'm sure no one higher than some 18-year-old punk volunteer will read it, but you never know.

Dear President-Elect Obama:

Let me preface my remarks by telling you that I am a lifelong Republican and that I did not vote for you.

Nonetheless, you will be my President and you have promised to bring both hope and change to my country and my government.

I humbly submit that government spending is out of control. Even before the $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, the federal government spends an enormous and inexcusable amount of money on all kinds of things: defense, social programs, farm subsidies, state infrastructure projects and countless other ill-conceived or -executed expenditures.

One small piece of government waste that I believe we could easily do without is the practice of earmarking. Senator McCain, as you are aware, has made his opposition to earmarking well-known. Unfortunately, Senator McCain notably fell victim to the insidious evil of earmarking when he voted for the recent bailout bill (as did you).

So how do we end this practice of sneaking Congressional pork into otherwise-unobjectionable bills?

I propose a "single-subject rule" Constitutional Amendment, similar to that enacted in certain states. Minnesota's state constitution, for example, has the following provision:

"No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Minn. Const. Article IV, Section 17.

Simple and plain. No earmarks, no last-second riders. As an added benefit, no Senator or Congressman will be able to claim that he voted for or against a bill because of an unrelated amendment, providing the public with a much clearer picture of what their elected leaders stand for.

Enforcement would be, of course, up to the federal judiciary. Any taxpaying citizen could have standing to challenge such bills as unconstitutional. I realize this may place an additional burden on the courts, but I think such a burden would be short-term, as Congress would soon learn which kinds of amendment practices are acceptable and which are not.

Mr. President-Elect, if you truly embrace change, then I urge you to consider my proposal. I realize that you alone do not have the power to change the Constitution (and I fully expect that such a radical departure from Congressional practice will require a Constitutional Amendment).

You, however, now have extraordinary power to influence others. You are the leader of the free world. You are the leader of your party, which has a sizable majority in both houses of Congress. Most importantly, you have the ear of the people and occupy what Theodore Roosevelt called the "bully pulpit." If anyone can spearhead such an effort, you can.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I like it Doc.... very much. Let us know if you get a response.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:51 pm

Doc...you should write more ideas than just that...I'm sure you have many more.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:10 pm

Dood, looking at that webpage, it looks like Obama is proposing a vision of government where the VP is under the executive branch and the executive branch itself is answerable to the Constitution. These guys truly are dangerous radicals!!!

I hope Obama will ask if the COG shadow government is still operating outside the purview of the Constitution.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:38 am

Dood, looking at that webpage, it looks like Obama is proposing a vision of government where the VP is under the executive branch and the executive branch itself is answerable to the Constitution. These guys truly are dangerous radicals!!!

Yeah, that is pretty radical. No more Dick the Shooter in his tomb at the Undisclosed Location running a shadow government. And Biden knows that the VP is in the Executive Branch of Government.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:42 pm

Yeah, that is pretty radical. No more Dick the Shooter in his tomb at the Undisclosed Location running a shadow government. And Biden knows that the VP is in the Executive Branch of Government.

A true conspiracy theorist, you are.