Also, there is a certain challenge issuer who will be receiving one in the mail...
(Click to enlarge)
Showing posts with label procedural reforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label procedural reforms. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Reform Wrap-up
Here is the printed version (front and back) of my ten government procedural reforms per challenge no. 4. I've been handing these out to coworkers, strangers, food truck workers, airport agents, dog walkers, fellow bikers, that one guy at FedEx who printed them for me, and kindergarteners (their tiny minds are easily influenced).
Also, there is a certain challenge issuer who will be receiving one in the mail...
(Click to enlarge)
Also, there is a certain challenge issuer who will be receiving one in the mail...
(Click to enlarge)
Friday, August 31, 2012
Government Procedural Reforms: Part 5
This is the final installment of challenge no. 4. Part 1 can be found here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, and Part 4 here.
Here they are. My final two procedural reforms that will "help move Congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people." The next and final step in this challenge is to print and distribute these ten reforms, which I am TOTALLY looking forward to since New Yorkers are always kind and receptive to people handing them things on the street.
Ready? Let's do this.
9. BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING.
Advertising is evil, amiright? Ok, so the advertising I do isn't evil (although I do feel slightly guilty for touting Velveeta as food), but political advertising is on another level. I recently read this article, and henceforth everything in italics is a direct lift from it. These ads are supposed to sway public opinion. But these aren’t actually opinions being targeted — they’re emotions. Most Americans have less of an opinion when it comes to politics and more of a visceral reaction to issues.
But doesn't banning political advertising violate the right of free speech?
First off, television is not an unregulated utopia of free speech. Television, like it or not, doesn’t allow everything to be broadcast. There are standards on television. Our mores may have changed over time, but generally we’re still okay with decency standards for television. Speaking is speech. Broadcast is regulated. We don’t allow tobacco companies, for example, to advertise on television. Why? Because their products are poisonous and harmful to our citizenry.
It would be one thing if these political ads were 100% fact-checked and transparent. But they're not. And it’s worth noting that 99% of Americans have televisions in their homes. It’s still the broadest, most viewed medium we have. Which is why candidates and advocates for candidates invest billions into blanketing it. Yes, BILLIONS. Around $10 billion to be exact. I can think of a billion better uses for that money.
And there’s no better example of where to start hysteria than in 30-second fear and loathing campaign spots. Does this elevate political discourse? Civic engagement? Sound policy? Hardly. These ads are doing what tobacco does: producing a carcinogenic cloud.
10. INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF CAREER BACKGROUNDS IN CONGRESS.
The majority of our representatives (you know, those who are supposed to be representing the American people) are lawyers and businessmen. What they actually "represent" is a very small percentage of our population, in terms of their day-to-day life experience and salary bucket. They've become insulated and out of touch with the American people. Some argue that the current era of political careerism and unlimited congressional incumbency are largely to blame for government ineffectiveness and people's dissatisfaction with Washington.
I think that if our representatives are to more accurately represent the population, we need to stop electing the same type of person over and over and over. Stop choosing politicians to be our politicians.
This idea is the definition of the phrase "easier said than done," but if we may allow ourselves to think big for a second and imagine a congress filled with teachers, doctors, small business owners, writers, chefs, and scientists. Yeah, it would probably be a shit-show. But a fairer shit-show.
Congratulations! You made it through all ten government procedural reforms.
Here they are. My final two procedural reforms that will "help move Congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people." The next and final step in this challenge is to print and distribute these ten reforms, which I am TOTALLY looking forward to since New Yorkers are always kind and receptive to people handing them things on the street.
Ready? Let's do this.
9. BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING.
Advertising is evil, amiright? Ok, so the advertising I do isn't evil (although I do feel slightly guilty for touting Velveeta as food), but political advertising is on another level. I recently read this article, and henceforth everything in italics is a direct lift from it. These ads are supposed to sway public opinion. But these aren’t actually opinions being targeted — they’re emotions. Most Americans have less of an opinion when it comes to politics and more of a visceral reaction to issues.
But doesn't banning political advertising violate the right of free speech?
First off, television is not an unregulated utopia of free speech. Television, like it or not, doesn’t allow everything to be broadcast. There are standards on television. Our mores may have changed over time, but generally we’re still okay with decency standards for television. Speaking is speech. Broadcast is regulated. We don’t allow tobacco companies, for example, to advertise on television. Why? Because their products are poisonous and harmful to our citizenry.
It would be one thing if these political ads were 100% fact-checked and transparent. But they're not. And it’s worth noting that 99% of Americans have televisions in their homes. It’s still the broadest, most viewed medium we have. Which is why candidates and advocates for candidates invest billions into blanketing it. Yes, BILLIONS. Around $10 billion to be exact. I can think of a billion better uses for that money.
And there’s no better example of where to start hysteria than in 30-second fear and loathing campaign spots. Does this elevate political discourse? Civic engagement? Sound policy? Hardly. These ads are doing what tobacco does: producing a carcinogenic cloud.
10. INCREASE THE DIVERSITY OF CAREER BACKGROUNDS IN CONGRESS.
The majority of our representatives (you know, those who are supposed to be representing the American people) are lawyers and businessmen. What they actually "represent" is a very small percentage of our population, in terms of their day-to-day life experience and salary bucket. They've become insulated and out of touch with the American people. Some argue that the current era of political careerism and unlimited congressional incumbency are largely to blame for government ineffectiveness and people's dissatisfaction with Washington.
I think that if our representatives are to more accurately represent the population, we need to stop electing the same type of person over and over and over. Stop choosing politicians to be our politicians.
This idea is the definition of the phrase "easier said than done," but if we may allow ourselves to think big for a second and imagine a congress filled with teachers, doctors, small business owners, writers, chefs, and scientists. Yeah, it would probably be a shit-show. But a fairer shit-show.
Congratulations! You made it through all ten government procedural reforms.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Government Procedural Reforms: Part 4
This is a continuation of challenge no. 4. Part 1 can be found here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.
Continuing on, my next two procedural reforms that will "help move Congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people" are related to government spending. I don't know if you guys know this, but our nation is, like, sooo in debt. My calculator doesn't even go that high. It's pretty disturbing. So, here are reforms #7 and #8 out of ten, reforms that could potentially keep our country's representatives from acting like a bunch of teenage girls at the mall with their parents' credit card:
7. NO BUDGET, NO PAY.
The most basic responsibility Congress has is deciding how much money the government takes in and how much it spends (and no one can argue that our spending and debt is spiraling out of control). Congress has passed its spending bills on time only four times since 1952. In the last 14 years, annual spending bills have been submitted an average of four months late.
The upshot is more wasteful and inefficient government. When Congress fails to pass spending bills on time, it relies on temporary spending measures called continuing resolutions – which provide the money federal agencies need to operate based roughly on what they spent the previous year. What continuing resolutions don't provide is any chance for Congress to debate the most fundamental question of all: Why are we spending this money?
Congress spends first and asks question later when it should instead be spending only after figuring out what goals it's trying to achieve. Meanwhile, Congress' constant stop-and-go budgeting creates havoc for government agencies, and the citizens who depend on them.
What if you had to decide whether to buy a new car or go on vacation without having any idea what your salary was or even how much money you had? That would be almost impossible. But this is the situation facing federal agencies that often don't know how much money they're getting or when it's coming. This uncertainty has severe consequences. Congress' failure to pass a timely budget in early 2011 led to the Federal Aviation Administration delaying hiring of new air traffic controllers as well as the National Institutes of Health postponing grants for cutting-edge medical research.
The reform solution: If Congress can't make spending and budget decisions on time, they shouldn't get paid on time either. Every government fiscal year begins October 1. If the congressional appropriations (spending) process is not completed by that date, congressional pay ceases as of October 1, and isn't restored until appropriations are completed. This is the only No Labels solution that requires a new law, which could be passed in 2012, and would take effect when the new Congress is seated in 2013.
8. RETURN MOST NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO 2008 LEVELS.
Non-defense discretionary spending has expanded 21 percent faster than inflation over the past THREE years. Returning to 2008 levels still leaves typical programs nearly one-third larger than they were in 2000 (adjusted for inflation). Freezing this spending at 2008 levels through 2015 and then capping subsequent growth at the inflation rate would save more than $2 TRILLION in the first decade and even more thereafter.
Many of these savings are achieved by reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, overhauling the federal pay system, permanently eliminating many earmarked accounts, and consolidating duplicate functions. Yet not all programs are affected equally. For example, Coast Guard and other important security spending, such as subsidies to public broadcasting, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, is left to the private sector.
Today's reward for reading this far:
Continuing on, my next two procedural reforms that will "help move Congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people" are related to government spending. I don't know if you guys know this, but our nation is, like, sooo in debt. My calculator doesn't even go that high. It's pretty disturbing. So, here are reforms #7 and #8 out of ten, reforms that could potentially keep our country's representatives from acting like a bunch of teenage girls at the mall with their parents' credit card:
7. NO BUDGET, NO PAY.
The most basic responsibility Congress has is deciding how much money the government takes in and how much it spends (and no one can argue that our spending and debt is spiraling out of control). Congress has passed its spending bills on time only four times since 1952. In the last 14 years, annual spending bills have been submitted an average of four months late.
The upshot is more wasteful and inefficient government. When Congress fails to pass spending bills on time, it relies on temporary spending measures called continuing resolutions – which provide the money federal agencies need to operate based roughly on what they spent the previous year. What continuing resolutions don't provide is any chance for Congress to debate the most fundamental question of all: Why are we spending this money?
Congress spends first and asks question later when it should instead be spending only after figuring out what goals it's trying to achieve. Meanwhile, Congress' constant stop-and-go budgeting creates havoc for government agencies, and the citizens who depend on them.
What if you had to decide whether to buy a new car or go on vacation without having any idea what your salary was or even how much money you had? That would be almost impossible. But this is the situation facing federal agencies that often don't know how much money they're getting or when it's coming. This uncertainty has severe consequences. Congress' failure to pass a timely budget in early 2011 led to the Federal Aviation Administration delaying hiring of new air traffic controllers as well as the National Institutes of Health postponing grants for cutting-edge medical research.
The reform solution: If Congress can't make spending and budget decisions on time, they shouldn't get paid on time either. Every government fiscal year begins October 1. If the congressional appropriations (spending) process is not completed by that date, congressional pay ceases as of October 1, and isn't restored until appropriations are completed. This is the only No Labels solution that requires a new law, which could be passed in 2012, and would take effect when the new Congress is seated in 2013.
8. RETURN MOST NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO 2008 LEVELS.
Non-defense discretionary spending has expanded 21 percent faster than inflation over the past THREE years. Returning to 2008 levels still leaves typical programs nearly one-third larger than they were in 2000 (adjusted for inflation). Freezing this spending at 2008 levels through 2015 and then capping subsequent growth at the inflation rate would save more than $2 TRILLION in the first decade and even more thereafter.
Many of these savings are achieved by reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, overhauling the federal pay system, permanently eliminating many earmarked accounts, and consolidating duplicate functions. Yet not all programs are affected equally. For example, Coast Guard and other important security spending, such as subsidies to public broadcasting, AmeriCorps, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, is left to the private sector.
Today's reward for reading this far:
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Government Procedural Reforms: Part 3
This is a continuation of challenge no. 4. Part 1 can be found here and Part 2 here.
I won't start this off with a bunch of jibber-jabber because trying to make politics interesting is like trying to make Dagmar look dangerous. So let's get on with my next two procedural reforms that will "help move Congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people" (challenge no. 4):
5. FISCAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: HEAR IT. READ IT. SIGN IT.
Perhaps the chief obstacle to fixing America's finances is that no one agrees what's really on our balance sheet. When leaders in Washington debate our budget, they routinely use different baselines, projections and assumptions, which often conveniently support whatever policy they are pushing at the moment. To quote an old Scottish writer, many Washington leaders "use statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination."
The American people deserve to know what's really happening with our nation's finances, and we believe Congress should at least be able to work off the same set of numbers. That's why every year, a nonpartisan leader, such as the comptroller general, should deliver a televised fiscal update in-person to a joint session of Congress. The president, vice president, all cabinet members, senators and congressmen must attend this fiscal update session and take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the comptroller general's report by signing the report, just as CEOs are required to affirm the accuracy of their company's financial reporting.
6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PRESIDENT
In January 2010, President Obama attended a House Republican retreat to publicly debate the merits of the president's proposed healthcare law. For a few hours at least, the American public got to see our leaders engage and truly debate with one another.
We haven't seen anything like it since. Today the president and members of Congress can more often be found talking past one another through the media. The issues facing our country are too important to be decided by a war of partisan talking points. Let's get the ideas on the table, debate them and let the American people decide.
We should take a cue from the British Parliament's regular questioning of the prime minister to create question time for the president and Congress. These meetings occasionally may be contentious, but at least they force leaders to actually debate one another and defend their ideas. Here's how it would work: on a rotating basis the House and Senate would issue monthly invitations to the president to appear in the respective chamber for questions and discussion. Each question period would last for 90 minutes and would be televised. The majority and minority would alternate questions. The president could, at his discretion, bring one or more cabinet members to the question period and refer specific questions to them.
Reforms #7 and #8 will make their debut next week. I know! You can't hardly stand to wait that long! My apologies. Here, have another puppy:
I won't start this off with a bunch of jibber-jabber because trying to make politics interesting is like trying to make Dagmar look dangerous. So let's get on with my next two procedural reforms that will "help move Congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people" (challenge no. 4):
5. FISCAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: HEAR IT. READ IT. SIGN IT.
Perhaps the chief obstacle to fixing America's finances is that no one agrees what's really on our balance sheet. When leaders in Washington debate our budget, they routinely use different baselines, projections and assumptions, which often conveniently support whatever policy they are pushing at the moment. To quote an old Scottish writer, many Washington leaders "use statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination."
The American people deserve to know what's really happening with our nation's finances, and we believe Congress should at least be able to work off the same set of numbers. That's why every year, a nonpartisan leader, such as the comptroller general, should deliver a televised fiscal update in-person to a joint session of Congress. The president, vice president, all cabinet members, senators and congressmen must attend this fiscal update session and take individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the comptroller general's report by signing the report, just as CEOs are required to affirm the accuracy of their company's financial reporting.
6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PRESIDENT
In January 2010, President Obama attended a House Republican retreat to publicly debate the merits of the president's proposed healthcare law. For a few hours at least, the American public got to see our leaders engage and truly debate with one another.
We haven't seen anything like it since. Today the president and members of Congress can more often be found talking past one another through the media. The issues facing our country are too important to be decided by a war of partisan talking points. Let's get the ideas on the table, debate them and let the American people decide.
We should take a cue from the British Parliament's regular questioning of the prime minister to create question time for the president and Congress. These meetings occasionally may be contentious, but at least they force leaders to actually debate one another and defend their ideas. Here's how it would work: on a rotating basis the House and Senate would issue monthly invitations to the president to appear in the respective chamber for questions and discussion. Each question period would last for 90 minutes and would be televised. The majority and minority would alternate questions. The president could, at his discretion, bring one or more cabinet members to the question period and refer specific questions to them.
Reforms #7 and #8 will make their debut next week. I know! You can't hardly stand to wait that long! My apologies. Here, have another puppy:
Monday, August 6, 2012
Government Procedural Reforms: Part 2
This is a continuation of challenge no. 4. Part 1 can be found here.
My next two procedural reforms are inspired by a recent exciting find, a year-and-a-half-old group who calls itself No Labels. It all started with a speech I read somewhere deep inside the Internet (read the whole speech here), given by one of the founders of that group, William Galston, at the hearing on "Raising the bar for Congress: Reform Proposals for the 21st Century" in the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In that speech, Will got my attention quickly, by saying poignant things such as, "Our mission can be stated in a single sentence: we want to help move our country from the old politics of point-scoring toward a new politics of problem-solving," AND, "In our view, our elected representatives are public-spirited individuals trapped in an increasingly obsolete and dysfunctional system of congressional rules and procedures designed for a very different era. The correct response, No Labels believes, is to fix the system."
Ambitious, yes. I may know nothing about this man or this group (and who knows, they very well might be evil and proposing preposterous things) but initially I am on board with what they believe the problem is. So I dig further. Following the path of political crumbs led me to a booklet called "Make Congress Work," which outlines a very easy to understand 12-point plan.
Out of this comes my next two procedural reforms:
3. MONTHLY BIPARTISAN GATHERINGS.
"Flip on cable news and it quickly becomes clear that Democrats and Republicans in Congress don't like each other. Even more troubling is that they barely even know one another. After the Super Committee failed last November, another Republican member said he couldn't have picked one of his Democratic colleagues 'out of a lineup' before the negotiation process started. Although partisanship has always been and always will be a part of Congress, there was a time when members actually made an effort to build relationships with people from the other party. Today, they're more likely to glare at each other from the comfort of their partisan bunkers. It's easy to demonize and hard to compromise with someone you barely know."
This reform is simple: bring members of each party together, socially.
"Like any workplace, Congress depends on good human relationships to function. When there are no relationships, there's dysfunction. To get members talking to one another, both the House and Senate should institute monthly bipartisan gatherings. The gatherings would be off the record and not be televised. If both sides agreed, outside experts could be invited in to brief members on topics of concern."
4. EMPOWER THE SENSIBLE MAJORITY.
"A not-so-hidden secret about Congress is that much of the legislation it considers is designed to embarrass the other party or score political points. Legislation can be considered by the full House or Senate only if it's first sent there by leadership or committee chairs, who often see political benefit in keeping Democrats and Republicans at one another's throats. One member says flatly, 'The leaders [of Congress] often don't want us to work together.' Meanwhile, legislation that is supported by a sensible bipartisan majority often dies in a leader's office or in committee.
We need to democratize decision-making in Congress to break the gridlock. If a bipartisan majority wants to get something done, they shouldn't be held back by party leaders who prefer to organize Congress into warring clans. That's why the House should allow members to anonymously sign discharge petitions, which allow a majority of members to override a leader or committee chair's refusal to bring a bill to the floor. Once a majority of members have signed, the names of the signers would be made public. Under current rules, discharge petitions are allowed, but signers are made public from the start. Members are reluctant to buck party leaders who may retaliate by pulling members off of important committees, bottling up legislation they support or withholding critical campaign help. Our reform would allow members to sign a discharge petition knowing at least half their colleagues are in the same boat with them. A similar reform could be undertaken in the Senate."
Reforms #5 and #6 will be posted next Monday. And since maybe 2% of you have actually read to this point, you get a reward:
My next two procedural reforms are inspired by a recent exciting find, a year-and-a-half-old group who calls itself No Labels. It all started with a speech I read somewhere deep inside the Internet (read the whole speech here), given by one of the founders of that group, William Galston, at the hearing on "Raising the bar for Congress: Reform Proposals for the 21st Century" in the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
In that speech, Will got my attention quickly, by saying poignant things such as, "Our mission can be stated in a single sentence: we want to help move our country from the old politics of point-scoring toward a new politics of problem-solving," AND, "In our view, our elected representatives are public-spirited individuals trapped in an increasingly obsolete and dysfunctional system of congressional rules and procedures designed for a very different era. The correct response, No Labels believes, is to fix the system."
Ambitious, yes. I may know nothing about this man or this group (and who knows, they very well might be evil and proposing preposterous things) but initially I am on board with what they believe the problem is. So I dig further. Following the path of political crumbs led me to a booklet called "Make Congress Work," which outlines a very easy to understand 12-point plan.
Out of this comes my next two procedural reforms:
3. MONTHLY BIPARTISAN GATHERINGS.
"Flip on cable news and it quickly becomes clear that Democrats and Republicans in Congress don't like each other. Even more troubling is that they barely even know one another. After the Super Committee failed last November, another Republican member said he couldn't have picked one of his Democratic colleagues 'out of a lineup' before the negotiation process started. Although partisanship has always been and always will be a part of Congress, there was a time when members actually made an effort to build relationships with people from the other party. Today, they're more likely to glare at each other from the comfort of their partisan bunkers. It's easy to demonize and hard to compromise with someone you barely know."
This reform is simple: bring members of each party together, socially.
"Like any workplace, Congress depends on good human relationships to function. When there are no relationships, there's dysfunction. To get members talking to one another, both the House and Senate should institute monthly bipartisan gatherings. The gatherings would be off the record and not be televised. If both sides agreed, outside experts could be invited in to brief members on topics of concern."
4. EMPOWER THE SENSIBLE MAJORITY.
"A not-so-hidden secret about Congress is that much of the legislation it considers is designed to embarrass the other party or score political points. Legislation can be considered by the full House or Senate only if it's first sent there by leadership or committee chairs, who often see political benefit in keeping Democrats and Republicans at one another's throats. One member says flatly, 'The leaders [of Congress] often don't want us to work together.' Meanwhile, legislation that is supported by a sensible bipartisan majority often dies in a leader's office or in committee.
We need to democratize decision-making in Congress to break the gridlock. If a bipartisan majority wants to get something done, they shouldn't be held back by party leaders who prefer to organize Congress into warring clans. That's why the House should allow members to anonymously sign discharge petitions, which allow a majority of members to override a leader or committee chair's refusal to bring a bill to the floor. Once a majority of members have signed, the names of the signers would be made public. Under current rules, discharge petitions are allowed, but signers are made public from the start. Members are reluctant to buck party leaders who may retaliate by pulling members off of important committees, bottling up legislation they support or withholding critical campaign help. Our reform would allow members to sign a discharge petition knowing at least half their colleagues are in the same boat with them. A similar reform could be undertaken in the Senate."
Reforms #5 and #6 will be posted next Monday. And since maybe 2% of you have actually read to this point, you get a reward:
Monday, July 30, 2012
Government Procedural Reforms: Part 1
Oooh, sexy title. I can sense your excitement. Get ready for some titillating political discussion.
Right here and right now I will outline the first two (out of an eventual ten) procedural reforms for challenge no. 4, which is to "research and identify 10 procedural reforms that would help move congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people."
So here they are:
1. ALL POLITICAL DONATIONS ARE TO BE 100% ANONYMOUS TO BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE PUBLIC.
There is widespread financial corruption in our government. This is no secret. Currently, our representatives know exactly who is giving them money, and in many cases, that money buys results. It's as simple as that. Well, what if the members had no idea who gave them what? To quote Lawrence Lessig from Republic, Lost:
"If the problem with money in politics is that money will bend politics, this requires that the politicians know something about who their money comes from. Add anonymity, and that essential condition gets removed. Remove that essential condition and it could just not be true that money buys results. If we could make it impossible (or really, really difficult) for a member to know who gave his campaign what, we would make it impossible for the member to give favors in exchange for the gifts that have been given."
This, in theory, is genius. There are obvious drawbacks (it could greatly reduce the overall amount of funding that is contributed), but if we could develop a working system of anonymity (for example, where a lump donation is scattered into different amounts), then our representatives will not be able to act out of promises made.
"Sure, I could tell you that I contributed $10,000 to your campaign, but if you couldn't be sure, there wouldn't be much reason for you to respond. My incentive to give would thus be weakened substantially, at least if the motive of my gift were to buy a particular result. That decline in incentives would thus weaken the market for buying policy."
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILL QUOTA.
Congress must address a predetermined number of bills that benefit the environment in some way. This one is pretty self explanatory.
Right here and right now I will outline the first two (out of an eventual ten) procedural reforms for challenge no. 4, which is to "research and identify 10 procedural reforms that would help move congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people."
So here they are:
1. ALL POLITICAL DONATIONS ARE TO BE 100% ANONYMOUS TO BOTH THE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE PUBLIC.
There is widespread financial corruption in our government. This is no secret. Currently, our representatives know exactly who is giving them money, and in many cases, that money buys results. It's as simple as that. Well, what if the members had no idea who gave them what? To quote Lawrence Lessig from Republic, Lost:
"If the problem with money in politics is that money will bend politics, this requires that the politicians know something about who their money comes from. Add anonymity, and that essential condition gets removed. Remove that essential condition and it could just not be true that money buys results. If we could make it impossible (or really, really difficult) for a member to know who gave his campaign what, we would make it impossible for the member to give favors in exchange for the gifts that have been given."
This, in theory, is genius. There are obvious drawbacks (it could greatly reduce the overall amount of funding that is contributed), but if we could develop a working system of anonymity (for example, where a lump donation is scattered into different amounts), then our representatives will not be able to act out of promises made.
"Sure, I could tell you that I contributed $10,000 to your campaign, but if you couldn't be sure, there wouldn't be much reason for you to respond. My incentive to give would thus be weakened substantially, at least if the motive of my gift were to buy a particular result. That decline in incentives would thus weaken the market for buying policy."
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILL QUOTA.
Congress must address a predetermined number of bills that benefit the environment in some way. This one is pretty self explanatory.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Republic, Lost
I'm setting aside the art and sewing and cooking and writing and photographing for a moment for a challenge that will make me use a different part of my brain.
Challenge no. 4 is to "research and identify 10 procedural reforms that would help move congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people. Print these 10 reforms on handout cards and distribute to anyone and everyone you know. Post them on your Facebook page and website."
I am a product of my generation in that I only watch the news when sitting in an airport terminal. My world revolves around art and design, not politics and policy. Which is why I love this challenge. Because it forces me to learn about something I haven't really thought about since Intro to Political Science at UGA. I don't even know if I took that class but let's just assume I did and that I made an A.
As Google and I set out on this political adventure, I decided to get creepy and email some poli-sci Ph.D. students at NYU for some direction.
Out of those emails came a recommendation, which I quickly purchased:
The table of contents alone stirred something in me, so I look forward to reading it. Apparently Lessig addresses some pertinent reforms in the text, and I'm hoping they inspire a few of the reforms that I will write about and distribute for this challenge.
I'm also hoping there are ninjas and wizards and perhaps a love story in there somewhere.
Challenge no. 4 is to "research and identify 10 procedural reforms that would help move congress and the executive office back to being a government of the people and for the people. Print these 10 reforms on handout cards and distribute to anyone and everyone you know. Post them on your Facebook page and website."
I am a product of my generation in that I only watch the news when sitting in an airport terminal. My world revolves around art and design, not politics and policy. Which is why I love this challenge. Because it forces me to learn about something I haven't really thought about since Intro to Political Science at UGA. I don't even know if I took that class but let's just assume I did and that I made an A.
As Google and I set out on this political adventure, I decided to get creepy and email some poli-sci Ph.D. students at NYU for some direction.
Out of those emails came a recommendation, which I quickly purchased:
The table of contents alone stirred something in me, so I look forward to reading it. Apparently Lessig addresses some pertinent reforms in the text, and I'm hoping they inspire a few of the reforms that I will write about and distribute for this challenge.
I'm also hoping there are ninjas and wizards and perhaps a love story in there somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)