[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I know a lot of ideas have been thrown out, and discussed. Straightening out the tax code, along the lines of Slinging Sammy's comments. A moratorium for 3 years on new defense spending, a reduction in the Army recruiting by 3-5% per year, and a corresponding redefinition of Army goals, including reducing overseas commitments. A freeze, on social security/health care benefits, again for the next 3 years. All these simply take political will - therefore they won't happen. Further(and more pie in the sky), 12 year term limits for all of congress, - if a president can be up to snuff on all the intricacies and serve only 8 years, I believe new congressmen can manage as well. Re-affirm Article 10 of the bill of rights, by removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club to force States to implement "the good of all" type legislation.
Finally, some serious Constitutional changes - take Senators out of the public vote, and back to being appointed by the individual States. If a state chooses to hold elections fine, but the Senate was designed to be a check on pure democracy tendencies.

Other than the Senatorial appointment, term limits and "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club ", I agree with all of these. Further, if the economc policy can be sold simply as a "freeze", rather than a "cut", it might be easier to generate the political will.

I am on the fence about the term limits & return to appointments, I just see these as increasing cronyism & corruption and not necessarily an improvement to the current system.

What do you mean "removing, or restricting the use of federal funds as a club"?

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

A brief, but good read on the Roman Republic from Wikipedia:
Roman Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could easily change a few terms and make this fit for the US governmental structure. This form existed for 482 years, we are at almost half that. But, as you correctly pointed out, this form of government wasn't even managing 1/10 of the population, and I tend to believe the increased scale could possibly increase the speed of the decline to an imperial form of government. I bolded the one line because that strikes me as the phase we are entering, where the structure of society (healthcare, social engineering, and social security) are beginning to override legal principles of sound government.

So, no we are not Rome, but we could learn ALOT from their historic example..

I don't disagree with much of this - the concept that structure replaced the rule of law is a common theme among Roman historians (one wrote that, near the end of the empire, the majority of Roman law was one group of lawyers trying to close tax loopholes and another group trying to find new ones).

The main difference,however, is that, unlike us, Roman citizens were granted rights by the Roman Republic i.e. their liberty was given to them by the govt. and could be taken away by the same. Similar to the British Constitution, the Roman Republic's checks and balances derived from traditional governing bodies which, in turn, granted "rights" to those participating in them. In the US, we assert that the liberties were always ours but we will give some up to the govt. "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

I believe this institutionalized difference is the fundamental difference between the US Constitution and all prior govts. dealing with massive, disparate populations.

The new Roman Aristocracy rose b/c they were given their "rights" by the govt. and were thus dependent upon it to retain those "rights". On the other hand, even now, we recognize that it is not the US or State governments that gave us our rights. Rather, even without a governmental "structure of society" we, and every living person on this earth, are entitled to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That simply was not true of the Romans or any other government before us.

So while we may learn from the Romans and their slow descent into Imperium, we need to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between the two governments.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well fair enough, I just don't get that we should accept a poor gov't just because it is what we have. Yes it is better than the worst governments out there, truthfully, so was the English Monarchy when the founding fathers revolted against it.

1. I absolutely agree that poor govt. is unacceptable and that a population should at all times demand, and those elected or appointed to public service, should provide that service effectively, efficiently and in a responsive manner. Even the best government in the world can be improved, but it requires a population willing to do so.

2. Currently, Foreign Policy Magazine ranks "failed states" considering a multitude of factors. We are ranked 159 out of 177 (i.e. we have one of the most stable govts. out there) and all but a couple of those govts. "better" than the US are smaller western European countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland make up the "best" five). 2010 Failed States Index - Interactive Map and Rankings | Foreign Policy

We should always strive for better government, but, rather blame govt. for all our ills, it is important to recognize just what our stable, central govt. has enabled us to accomplish. A failure to recognize where our govt. is working increases the likelihood of f'ing things up worse as we damn govt. to hell and rip it apart.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

[W]hat you "gov't is innately neutral" types don't get, is that there is an inertia within gov't which seeks to preserve its position within society and increase its own power. The founding fathers to some degree understood that, George Washington specifically understood that a permanent president was bad for the country. So is a Senate where a 94 year old can hold power and sway for 30+ years, and develop the necessary payouts to his/her constituents to ensure his/her continued re-election. NO ONE argues that gov't is not necessary, if anarchy were to arise, a central(and most likely bad) power would certainly and quickly fill that void. But likewise, gov't is not neutral. It is a power based position, and by definition, every person involved in it, wants the power to control what others do. Thus it should be limited, and restrained. Right now, we don't have that because the two parties have developed a natural block against anything that threatens their status quo.

I do not believe govt. is innately "neutral". It can, and should be neutral, but that is dependant on the governed. In dictatorships or oligarchies, the government is good or bad dependent on the dictator or oligarchy (the Nazis under Hitler were baaaad government). In a democracy, the govt. is reflective of its electorate. Today's electorate, certainly on a federal level is apathetic, so we have apathetic, sloppy governance (I think this is due, in part, to the sheer numbers involved). This, in turn, allows for things like money, race, and other undemocratic factors to undermine fair, efficient governance.

Everyone in govt. wants power? Maybe. Certainly, the government needs "the power to control what others do" to govern or it is not a government. The question is what do those who hold power want to do with that power? An effective, knowledgeable electorate insures that those in power are using the public power as it was intended - for the public good. Yes, the power "the power to control what others do" should be limited and, even today, the Bill of Rights provides those protections.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

... Well who is it that does not have the political will to cut "something"? I would argue it is the established politicians and government bureaucracy that so firmly believes in it's own pre-eminence that it thinks that States and people could not somehow manage without the Federal government dictating. Gov't is innately power motivated. Can power be used for good? obviously, but human history has shown that it just as often, or more often, is not.

First, the "government bureacracy" is pre-eminient. Can't have a central government "without the Federal government dictating." The bureaucracy (the unelected administrators of govt. power) know where their "power" comes from - the elected officials who appointed them - and will respond to pressure from them. These "established politicians" were allowed to become "established" by an apathetic electorate. And why is our electorate apathetic you may ask? Well, let me rant -

Mustering the political will to cut "something" means finding cuts upon which the majority of us can agree. I don't care how persuasive you are, convincing a majority of 300 million people to agree on the specifics of anything is, in my opinion, beyond a Herculean task. It requires all 300 million of us (well, 150,000,001 of us) to recognize that we will probably have to do some things we don't like in order to accomplish something we do like. Faced with this massive task of finding some common ground. TTE and his ilk believe that they have all the answers and that no answers can be found from beyond their spectrum. JTF and his ilk believe the same. From these two groups of idealogues there is no willingness or tolerance to even consider the other's positions in order to accomplish finding a consensus and effect some change.

TTE & JTF each claim that we, in the center, are having the wool pulled over our eyes - neither sees that they, and their zealotry, are the problem. By accepting nothing less than total victory, they set themselves up for exploitation and use by the very forces they decry. Set the ends against each other so the middle can accomplish nothing - And it's easy too, feed'em a little conspiracy theory and they eat it up. Rather than recognizing they can't have it all their way, they destroy any chance of consensus by claiming they alone have the secret to utopia.

Their zealotry increases voter apathy (ehh, why should I bother, nobody can agree on anything), which, in turn, leads to sloppy governance. Sloppy governance allows undemocratic forces to achieve illegal and unconstitutional ends which increases the apathy of the governed (well, except for the zealots). Rather than recognize the general apathy as a symptom of their own actions, the zealots claim it as proof of their cause.

You want an engaged govt. where "the minions" don't just toil? Then find a way to convince the zealots to acquiesce to considering principles that don't necessarily agree with their world view and may even be antithetical to it. Right now, the zealots are standing in the way of real solutions and they can't even see it. Fools who would blindly lead their country to Gotterdammerung rather than consider that they may not have a monopoly on the truth.