If you were in charge...
POSTED BY: SoupCatcher
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 3, 2005 08:30
VIEWED: 14890
PAGE 1 of 8
Most of the time we react to real world events here so I just wanted to do a little proactive stuff. If you were running the show, what changes would you make? (hopefully this won't turn into an argument 
. Withhold judgement. Build on the ideas of others. Volume, volume, volume.).
Just a few off the top of my head (and not in any particular order).
1. Quality of life services (electricity, running water, etc.) are regulated.
2. If you shelter any of your personal assets in an offshore account you are ineligible for elected office.
3. We don't do domestic propaganda.
4. Insurance companies are run as not-for profits.
5. Every time a press secretary is quoted, the following line precedes the quote, "X, who is paid to make Y look good, says..." Or, more generally, every time a person is quoted, the following line precedes the quote, "X, who works for Y, says..."
6. Universal health care.
7. It is not cheaper to buy American-made drugs (or any other product) in a foreign country than it is to purchase them in the US.
8. All news stations have bookies who put odds on the accuracy of statements by public officials. Or, alternatively, every claim made by a public official has to include a probability of that claim being accurate.
9. Our environmental policies have input from hunters and fishermen.
10. Police, firemen, and public school teachers have the same pay scale and benefits packages as Senators and Congressmen.
I could keep going, but that's enough fun for now
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The very first thing that I would concentrate on were I in charge would be education. I mean, there are plenty of random things I would like to see modified, but this strikes me as our country's (the USA) biggest problem.
Education needs to be 1) better overall and 2) it *must* be as equal as possible for every child.
Following these simple guildlines, I would make schools a federal matter. I would do this for two reasons: there are states that are clearly failing in their responsibilities toward schools and in a time when we are trying to close the gap with regards to minorities and poorer families, it only makes sense to me that the playing field should be according to one standard.
Funding for schools should be emphasized (this would be juxtaposed to my changing the way this government is allowed to waste money) and teachers should be paid according to their worth (also according to a national standard), not just based only on test scores, but on performance in the classroom.
Taxes would still form the bulk of school funding but it would be evenly redistributed, so that wealthy neighborhoods have the same schools as poor neighborhoods. As soon as was fiscally possible, all schools would be held to as high of standards as we can go.
Intelligence must be emphasized. I don't mean that the slower children should be put down, but there is a definite lack of respect for intelligence in many places. Younger children are underestimated; they are spoon-fed altered and black and white "facts" until they are well into high school. Children have a natural curiousity that should be embraced, not supressed. They should go through math and science quicker, excellence in writing should be a source of pride, and they should not learn history again and again, but that history, like any area of study, is fluid and has holes and bias, etc. I believe if students were challenged early, they would continue to crave challenges in whatever they are interested in and school would be less of a place for babysitters and more of a place for those who want to learn.
If you're going to make a student take a language, make them take it early. Children are able to be bilingual much easier early in their lives and this would serve to develop their ability to think rather than be seen as some attempt to be cross-cultural by paying good money in college to learn something that quite possibly will never be used (I took Latin, for example, ha ha).
A level playing field and a higher standard of intelligence would do many things in my mind. Students would be more interested in just about everything during their school years. Students who did not want to attend college wouldn't have to if their field of interest wasn't something that required a college degree because a high school diploma (hell, elementary and junior high diplomas) would be something to be respected.
Affirmative action could be done away with.
Our political leaders, our business leaders would all be held to a higher standard because our people themselves would take pride in their own higher standards.
Things such as Intelligent Design would disappear because things such as the holes in evolutionary theory would be taught to and embraced by students as a continuation of a fluid science and a challenge and potentially someplace to put their faith, if they decide to within their own life, not because it is suggested to them as a "science" by a teacher's personal belief.
I know I had more (I've developed a lot of gripes with the school system over the years and I won't even get into the whole ADD and No Child Left Behind thing) but I think that's good enough for now. Plus, I'm hungry. :D
Anyway, I'm a soon-to-be junior at the University of Illinois and that would be my first thing to do if I were in charge.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, seeing as how I am a teacher, I would have to say that changes in education would be my main thing. I live in California, and (in my humble opinion) Governor Swartzanegger has all but completely ruined education here. As is the case everywhere, teachers in California get paid bumpkiss in comparison to the work that they do. Also, all together too many schools are being shut down because the Governor has reneged on promises that he made. Students do not have the textbooks that they need to learn, and teachers do not have the supplies that they need to teach. Lastly, we have a ghastly Exit Exam now for High School that was not created by educators, but was instead created by a bunch of bureaucrats who don't have a realistic idea of what's going on in the classroom.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like fun. I'll try to keep mine to one or two sentence descriptions, and assume that they can be implemented somehow, rather than having to do the "...and we can fund that Universal Heallthcare and still pay teachers more by..." thing. These are in no order of presidence.
1. Decriminalize or legalize drugs. And prostitution, with appropriate controls for the protection of workers (unions?).
2. Spend more of school funding on students and teachers and less on administration. (Washington D.C. spends around 50% on admin(!), per George Will's column in todays Post.)
3. News media must publish statements of their owner's, operator's and reporter's political views. They must be available for polygraph testing at any time to verify their statements.
4. Politicians at the national level cannot be employed after their terms end. They must retire and will be paid their highest government salary, adjusted for inflation, for life. This also applies to any military officer ranking Colonel (or equivalent) and above. Compliance will be enforced.
5. I'm tempted by the idea that only people who have served a term of national service, civilian or military, can vote, hold government jobs, or run for office.
6. Anybody can marry anyone, or any group of people, in any arrangement. Such marriages would be recognised by all state and federal governments and provide the same rights and responsibilities as currently. Statutory rape laws could still apply, based entirely on age, not gender or orientation.
7. Make civil liability law a non-profit business.
8. Get rid of 99% of gun control laws.
9. Make obtaining a drivers license much more difficult, with actual driving skill being emphasized.
10. Kinda off the wall, but... Only people who pay individual income tax (and file on time) can vote for president. Every four years the tax forms have check boxes for all qualified candidates. IRS tabulates the votes and announces the winner April 15.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
4. Politicians at the national level cannot be employed after their terms end. They must retire and will be paid their highest government salary, adjusted for inflation, for life. This also applies to any military officer ranking Colonel (or equivalent) and above. Compliance will be enforced.
I'm confused and curious. Why do this and what would it accomplish?
Quote:
5. I'm tempted by the idea that only people who have served a term of national service, civilian or military, can vote, hold government jobs, or run for office.
Besides the fact that I disagree that you can limit who can vote in any way besides age and being a citizen, what would you consider civilian national service and how do you reconcile the large population of this country (with regards to how large a military we can fund, etc)? What would you tell someone like me, who has thus far been spending her whole life going through the education system toward a Ph.D. and a research career who has neither the time nor the desire to do national service, but still has an interest and a responsibility in the future of this country and its politics?
Hm...run on sentence anyone?
I also happen to disagree about gun control, but I'm sure you've had that argument many times. I'm just curious as to what end you had in mind by getting rid of that much control.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
* editted to add (since the previous post and mine crossed paths). Kirikoli: I was hoping we could withhold judgement for a bit longer just to get a large number of stuff on the table. Otherwise, we'd probably degenerate into a debate on one or two points. Or maybe start another thread to flesh out specific proposals? Just a suggestion.
Geezer: Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking. Blue sky concepts. Implementation, not so much.
Just a few more.
1. If you hire illegal immigrants, you donate the difference in pay to the city/county in which you're operating.
2. All registered political parties are provided with access to equipment, and the trained personnel to operate that equipment, so they can create content to be broadcast on the public airwaves during major election cycles (maybe 30 minutes per network per party per week starting a month before the election).
3. First manned scientific mission to Mars happens before 2050.
4. Erik Estrada is not allowed to do mini-infomercials for scrubland (okay, that one was just plain petty ).
5. Corporations lobbying for changes that result in increased profits should at least have to spend an equivalent amount on lobbying (not sure I'm phrasing this well, it just seems like donating millions to get tens of billions in increased profits is a little out of synch - if we're going to be corrupt, at least be competently corrupt - I'm reminded of Bogart's line to Lorre at the beginning of Casablanca).
6. Threats against the judiciary are treated the same as threats against the President.
Just what ran through my head today. I'll keep thinking.
* editted once again to add a few more:
7. Emphasizing the National part of National Guard.
8. Concepts revert to the public domain after a generation (if you can't come up with a new concept after 10-20 years, you really aren't trying).
---------------------
Next up: Early "Nutcrusher" Jubal and the Firebuggers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirikoli:
4. Politicians at the national level cannot be employed after their terms end...
I'm confused and curious. Why do this and what would it accomplish?
I figure it would reduce the number of legislators and Pentagon brass who give sweetheart deals to goverment contractors, lobbys, law firms, etc. expecting to land big lobbying or consultant jobs post-federal employment.
Quote:
5. I'm tempted by the idea that only people who have served a term of national service, civilian or military, can vote, hold government jobs, or run for office.
Besides the fact that I disagree that you can limit who can vote in any way besides age and being a citizen, what would you consider civilian national service and how do you reconcile the large population of this country (with regards to how large a military we can fund, etc)? What would you tell someone like me, who has thus far been spending her whole life going through the education system toward a Ph.D. and a research career who has neither the time nor the desire to do national service, but still has an interest and a responsibility in the future of this country and its politics?
The national service idea is from Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers. Ole Bob had a way of sneaking his philosophy into a riproaring story. The general idea is that if you aren't willing to invest some of your life in working for your country, you don't have enough interest to use your vote wisely. You, for example, could spend a couple of years working at your research specialty for the government while having your basic needs met. Others might be teacher's assistants or construction workers in national parks or trash collectors or soldiers. Whatever fits, and no one who wants to volunteer and can understand the oath to join can be turned down.
Quote:
I also happen to disagree about gun control, but I'm sure you've had that argument many times. I'm just curious as to what end you had in mind by getting rid of that much control.
I'm in favor of getting rid of prior restraint controls in general. Not allowing me to have a gun just because I MIGHT shoot someone with it seems a pretty pessimistic and repressive way to go. It denies my ability to make correct decisions. If I commit a crime, punish me, but don't restrict my behavior if I'm doing no harm.
But let's hear your suggestions. Another point of view is always interesting.
SoupCatcher:
I'll try and not get bogged down in argument. I was just clarifying in this case. Keep 'em coming.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, Soupcatcher. Even though I couldn't resist throwing my opinion around, my intention was not to judge but to be ask for clarification. Your answers, Geezer, were very well thought out, and I agree in principle, if not in the method. So I'll throw my two cents in as a counter-point and to add to my list of things I would change if I were in charge.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I figure it would reduce the number of legislators and Pentagon brass who give sweetheart deals to goverment contractors, lobbys, law firms, etc. expecting to land big lobbying or consultant jobs post-federal employment.
I agree that this is something that needs to be checked, but I don't think you can deny anyone the right to work and, indeed, to do so would in some cases be a denial of perfectly good talent, say in the case of a politician who used to be a teacher or a doctor. After their term is over, they can still contribute to the community.
In my opinion, the fact that federal employees do give deals that may not be good for the country or the people for their own benefit is corruption, plain and simple. Just because these people are in charge doesn't mean they have a free pass to provide loopholes for themselves, which is of course exactly what they have been doing. We, as a country, need to simply stop standing for it. We need to demand that our leaders are held accountable for their actions.
Sounds idealistic, right? But I believe a more intelligent population will inevitably have more interest in their government (it is theirs after all) and if the media would start doing its job...
Quote:
The national service idea is from Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers. Ole Bob had a way of sneaking his philosophy into a riproaring story. The general idea is that if you aren't willing to invest some of your life in working for your country, you don't have enough interest to use your vote wisely. You, for example, could spend a couple of years working at your research specialty for the government while having your basic needs met. Others might be teacher's assistants or construction workers in national parks or trash collectors or soldiers. Whatever fits, and no one who wants to volunteer and can understand the oath to join can be turned down.
I like that idea. Enforced military or community service for a whole population always seemed so generic to me, but if you could somehow personalize your experience...it's an interesting thought.
I still wouldn't deny people the right to vote (there are time scales to think about...like I, for instance, won't be out of school until I'm like, oh god like 26 *cries*) but there could be other incentives...such as simply making it mandatory and osctrasizing people who didn't want to be bothered. I would only bring this about when many, many other problems in the country had been stabalized though.
Quote:
I'm in favor of getting rid of prior restraint controls in general. Not allowing me to have a gun just because I MIGHT shoot someone with it seems a pretty pessimistic and repressive way to go. It denies my ability to make correct decisions. If I commit a crime, punish me, but don't restrict my behavior if I'm doing no harm.
But let's hear your suggestions. Another point of view is always interesting.
I agree in principle that you have the right to be responsible for yourself and make your own decisions. This reminds me of a conversation I had not too long ago about the merits of making students wear security tags that alert the teachers as to who is in the classroom and who is not. My objection to this (and the inevitable tracing of a student's every move even though technology now only allows them to be followed from classroom to classroom) is not the usual privacy issue, but the fact that it takes responsibility away from both students and teachers.
You can't tag a student just in case they might not show up to class. That student needs to learn that they have a responsibility to attend school
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, I'll play along. Here are some simple fixes I've thought about for awhile, doesn't mean they're perfect, I'm not.
1) Make people afraid to commit crimes. In the US [it seems] criminals have more rights than their victims. Free room and board, sit around and watch TV all day and sue the state you are incarcerated in if you aren't treated like a king.
[Ok, slightly exaggerated] Chain Gangs. Work off your debt to society. Prison is supposed to be an unhappy place, not a resort.
2) Yeah fix the school system. Paying teachers more is a start, but the whole system needs an overhaul. You can't make a teacher's/administrator's pay based on the performance of the students. Some students don't want to learn. The result would be something like the movie "Pump Up The Volume", students that were at risk of not doing well, would simply be removed from the system. Therefore, I would divide the schools into at least 2 areas. Acedemic and vocational. You're a good student bound for college, or at least want to be? Acedemic. You already know you don't want to go to college? You want to open your own auto shop/ flower shop [these are neccesary things too and no less important than more acedemic pursuits, no offense is intended] or other? attend the classes that will help you do that. In other words make High schools more like college (or the choose your own adventure books :) )
3) Drugs. a large percentage of crime is related to the buying and selling of illegal substances or getting the money to buy them. Ok, legalize and regulate pot. Increase the twinkie tax. pay off the national debt from people with "the munchies". [most of this is just in fun, so don't take it too seriously, though it might work]
we'd also have to make the penalties severe for offenses while Under the Influence. see point 1. yeah you can smoke it, you can't drive. DUI, it's not just for alcohol anymore.
4) politics: At least 3, if not more like 5-6, Viable "parties". the 2 party system is broken and they know it. More time/money is spent telling us why to not vote for the other guy, than telling us why we should vote for the speaking canidate. [both sides do this] And as mentioned above. Lie detectors! more people might watch the debates if after every statement we pan to the guy at the lie detector, who whilst looking at the paper makes a mark on it, looks up, and shakes his head. Fun!
ok, I might be done. sorry i'm tired and not thinking clearly.
Visit WWW.Marillion.Com for a better way to live
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoot chain gangs! Yes! haha
This is kinda a crazy, out there thing, but has anyone else ever considered profit caps on like entertainment and sports events? Like if a movie makes a certain profit margin, the rest has to go to the government or charity or something...same thing could be applied to things like Wal-Mart. lol
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME