Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:36 pm
by TPRJones
I would like to propose the following Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
In order to promote a balanced budget:
1) All salaries and benefits of those holding federally elected positions - specifically including all Representatives, Senators, and the President and Vice-President - as well as the salaries and benefits of those receiving retirement compensation from such positions shall only be paid out of any budget surplus. If the budget surplus is not sufficient to cover all these salaries, it shall be apportioned among them based on a proportion of their total salary and benefits to the whole. If there is no budget surplus these officials will not receive a salary or benefits for the year.
2) If there is a budget deficit, the total of that deficit will be apportioned among all those currently in office as outlined in #1 in proportion to their salary and benefits as a portion of the whole. Any effected official must pay their portion of the deficit from their own personal assets. Any effected official that is unable or unwilling to accept this responsibility will immediately vacate their office, will be ineligible to receive retirement compensation for said office, and may not hold any public office for a number of years equal to twice the full term of the office they have so forfeited. Special elections will be held to fill any vacancies so created - including those of President and Vice-President - with the 25th Amendment determining the acting President and Vice-President that will serve until the special elections are completed.
Of course the details could use a little polish, but I think that would do the trick. Either we'd get balanced budgets ever time (and probably a surplus at least equal to their total salaries) or we'll churn through our politicians so quickly that we'll get some badly needed fresh blood in there.
Edited By TPRJones on 1355272695
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:46 pm
by GORDON
Well, there's the obvious problem with getting legislatures to pass a law that will fuck their money if they don't do a good job.
No one in government is going to enact accountability. We can't even get teachers unions to do that.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:50 pm
by TPRJones
That's the thing, you don't need Congress to pass an Amendment. You just need two-thirds of the state legislatures to convene a Constitutional Convention.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:55 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote:That's the thing, you don't need Congress to pass an Amendment. You just need two-thirds of the state legislatures to convene a Constitutional Convention.
Such innocent naivete.
State legislatures: "We'd like to convene to discuss this amendment that may make federal officials lose salary and benefits."
Federal officials: "You shouldn't do that if you want us to keep sending you money."
You wouldn't find one state with the balls to turn down all federal cash, let alone two-thirds.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:00 pm
by TPRJones
Enough grass-roots support could overcome that. But you'd have to get the majority of voters fired up about it to pull it off, which is likely impossible.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:01 pm
by GORDON
I know it is a huge free speech issue, but I wish there was a solution to the obvious and systemic bribery that is embedded in our electoral system. No one gets donated and then pays a billion dollars to get a job without strings attached.
Can you imagine what would have happened if the $200billion that went to the banks as bailout were actually given instead to 100 million citizens who actually pay taxes? $1500ish each, $3k for the typical household with a couple. A few house payments get made, peeps catch up on bills, peeps who aren't in trouble are pumping money into the economy. Yowza. But nope... Freddie and Fannie donated lots of money directly to candidates and even more to SuperPACs, so they get the money and it doesn't even help anyone, they are just forced to use that cash to refinance people out of the retarded deals they made. F&F make out like bandits for doing basically nothing. Nobody gives money for nothing.
My wife works collections at a bank... business is booming, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the 2 big government loan banks (or whatever they are after the bailout), have thousands of new pages of policy on how to give/collect/foreclose on loans. Massive penalties on the banks for the smallest of paperwork mistakes. What the hell has that accomplished?
Edited By GORDON on 1355274198
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:09 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:I know it is a huge free speech issue, but I wish there was a solution to the obvious and systemic bribery that is embedded in our electoral system. No one gets donated and then pays a billion dollars to get a job without strings attached.
Any elected official's legal name will be automatically changed to append the name of their single largest corporate donar if it is over $1,000. This is changed after every election, and will be reverted after they vacate office.
Not a total solution, but a start. Imagine every news story referencing Senator McCain-Exxon or Representative Upton-Koche. Even better, imagine seeing that on the ballot, so you know exactly who owns the politicians you are voting for.
Needs work to make it harder to game, of course. Maybe add a requirement for NASCAR style patches on their suits for all corporate contributors over the threshold, so none get left out.
Edited By TPRJones on 1355274801
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:21 pm
by Malcolm
Bribery isn't just a problem with our electoral system. It's been a problem for every gov't since the dawn of time. We've just got more laws than most to hide it.
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:28 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote:Enough grass-roots support could overcome that. But you'd have to get the majority of voters fired up about it to pull it off, which is likely impossible.
If there's any motivation that gets that many people moving, one of the two major parties will hijack and subvert it. The terrorists might want to kill me but at least they aren't subjugating me for the rest of my life, which is more than I can say for any level of government I've encountered in this country.
It will take either...
1) a HUGE war (possible)
2) insane levels of negative economic growth and unemployment between 5-10 times worse than they are now
... to affect any significant change from the governmental status quo of "spend until it isn't there, then spend that."
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:36 pm
by TPRJones
"The year they hanged the lawyers."
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:58 am
by Leisher
Let's be honest, don't they make the majority of their money from payoffs? So withholding their salary isn't going to mean much to them. Even if they weren't taking money or their salary was their primary source of income, wouldn't this just make them more vulnerable to bribery?
I do support making their benefits exactly the same as the military's though. Same vacation time, health care, etc.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:22 am
by TPRJones
Yes, you've successfully spotted the purpose of section 2. No matter how corrupt they are, they can't do any more harm if they are no longer in office. And if they weren't already super-rich and suddenly came up with a few billion dollars to pay their share of the deficit so they can keep office then there will be plenty of attention on their finances.
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:49 am
by Leisher
Gotcha, I hate to admit I didn't read #2 
Still, while this makes logical sense, it will be argued that it's ridiculous, and now nobody with a brain would want to be a politician. (who's taking that easy bait?)
But seriously, now we're taking Swiss bank accounts and whatnot.