The current situation: The US managed to dodge a bullet by (barely) beating the Aug. 2 deadline to increase our borrowing limit. But there were costs:
· An immediate negative stock market reaction when investors realized the government would be less likely to spend in order to pull us out of recession;
· A loss of confidence in our government by US citizens who saw far too many instances of leaders from the monopoly parties acting badly;
· A downgrade from our AAA bond rating for the first time in our history (probably because the Powers-that-Be failed to offer S&P a large enough bribe not to);
· No assurance that our long-term problems will ever be satisfactorily resolved.
Proposal: Our debt bomb can best be defused by implementing a new national constitution based on Cross-Sectional Representation (CSR).
Background note: I developed CSR in the mid-70’s and have posted on this concept numerous times on this blog. Most notably at:
Question: Could a government based on Cross-Sectional Representation have done any better in terms of raising the borrowing limit and cutting expenses?
To recap CSR: Before answering the question posed above, it will be necessary for me to recap exactly what CSR is. This I’ll do by quoting directly from a truly unique historic document: “The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle, candidate for US President in 2008”:
Cross-Sectional Representation: The 435 Congressional Districts now in existence share a fatal flaw: they are distinct physical locations. Each district should be replaced with a new unit: the Cross-Section. Every eligible voter in the country should be randomly assigned to one of 435 numerically-equal Cross-Sections. A Congressman would still be elected, but his constituency would consist of voters who, as members of a Cross-Section, are literally scattered all over the country. This way, we avoid having Congressmen trying to please local constituencies at the expense of our broader, national interests. My proposal includes: Abolishing the U.S. Senate, thereby making the House our sole national legislative body.
Also included in CSR:
· All federal court decisions can be overturned by a simple majority of the CSR House.
· Abolition of the Presidency as a separate branch of government. Specifically: The President would not be popularly-elected, but would instead be a Congressman chosen by a simple majority of his peers in the CSR House. This “president” would only have the power (to the same extent as does our current president) to launch nuclear weapons; he would not have any other powers.
· Election to the CSR House can only be facilitated by posting campaign material on-line at a designated website. This will, in effect, eliminate the need for political parties and fundraising for office.
· Elections to the CSR House (for terms of about 3.5 years) would be staggered so that one seat to the House would be up for election every three days, instead of all seats every two years (which is the current practice).
So, how could CSR have done a better job?
The last bullet point (above) gives part of the answer. Right now, drama is created by Congressmen – all of them at once – worrying about reelection. That’s a huge force animating our virtual siege mentality when it comes to public debate on vital issues. Also, the fact that only one-third of the Senate is up for reelection takes considerable pressure off the other two-thirds.
But “pressure” and “drama” shouldn’t drive policy-making. The collective wisdom of our lawmakers should be the driving force – especially lawmakers who aren’t members of any political party. Due to the unique nature of CSR (detailed in the link above), political parties and bosses as we currently know them will cease to exist.
With each lawmaker freed from worrying about (1) advancing his party’s interests and (2) the influence of geographically-based Congressional Districts, he’ll be likelier to pass laws for more pragmatic reasons.
To put a finer point on item (2) above: There is a determined minority of Right-Wingers who are able to dominate the political agenda in this country because they can have a decisive effect on electing Congressmen in certain Districts where their numbers are concentrated. However, if we replace Districts with Cross-Sections, this “determined minority” will not be as effective since they can’t as easily sway Cross-Sections which are literally composed of average citizens who aren’t neighbors.
The role of the President
Right now, we have a system of government in which one man is allowed to be one of its three branches. And during the recent debt-ceiling debate, we were treated to the spectacle of this One Man Branch of Government coming right out and saying (in more or less these words): “Increase the debt limit by a large enough amount that I won’t have to be bothered by this issue again before I’m reelected in 2012.”
Not only was Barack Obama blatantly concerned about his prospects for reelection, but (as leader of his party) was concerned about his party’s prospects as well. [Reminder: Under CSR, there are practical reasons why parties or even lobbyists, for that matter, could no longer exert their present undue influence.]
In terms of efficiently passing laws that avoid “kicking the can down the road,” nothing is more destructive than the One Man Monarch (oops, I meant, One Man Branch of Government) and a Congress run by the seniority system which rules over committees.
The role of the Congress
The way Congress passes legislation is characterized by multiple built-in oppressors:
· Bills can too easily die in committee (they can be pried loose from committee control, but only with great difficulty);
· Chairmen of committees have too much power to control the fate of bills;
· The Speaker of the House can decide when or even if certain pieces of legislation can even be voted on;
· The Senate filibuster always looms large as a discouraging specter.
Had CSR been in effect, each Congressman could have reacted to the August 2 deadline for debt-ceiling increase by having made in advance (say, by July 27) the following sworn public statement:
ONE: To raise the debt-ceiling, but only by an amount sufficient to enable borrowing for one more quarter.
TWO: To mandate spending cuts of $1T spread over a decade, with at least 30% of those cuts to occur within the first three years.
THREE: To include this oath which would irrevocably bar consideration of any other debt-increase bill for two months: “By voting for this bill, I hereby swear by means of an oath, equal in authority to the Oath of Office which is required of all Representatives before assuming office, that I will not vote for any other bill to raise the debt ceiling earlier than 2 months from today.”
:UNQUOTE.
This kind of bill would have been a “take it or leave it” offer to the Senate, which the Senate could not refuse since (due to the oath contained therein) the House could not consider any other variation for two months. Similar examples of legislative creativity aren’t possible under our current, overly-rigid system.
The following link describes a Congress (or even just a House) that can operate in a more streamlined (not to mention, creative) fashion, unhindered by a hierarchal Committee system:
Cuts in spending & changes in taxing
Our biggest problem is we have too many sacred cows protected by too many vested interests. Put another way: “We’ve become expert at thwarting reform.” But if we continue to insist on remaining so “expert” at keeping good solutions (and problem-solvers) at bay, only bad solutions will remain. The worst? Our Elite will decide there are too many of us to properly take care of, so they’ll find a way to thin the herd. A war? An artificially-induced pestilence? Invite other-worldly aliens to take a whack at us?
I like to think an Independent House, as established by CSR, could level the playing field and wouldn’t be afraid to create:
· An equitable tax system good for the country as a whole;
· Rules to govern bond rating agencies to assure a consistent and scientific basis for their ratings;
· A military, no longer operating from over 700 overseas bases, that isn’t obligated to police the entire world;
· A reformed judiciary system (possibly allowing for non-traditional judges and ombudsmen) where participants don’t have to pay to play – that is, where justice isn’t so damned expensive;
· Alternatives to an education that aren’t as expensive as what the states are willing to allow. In this age of the internet, there should be widely-available access for citizens to educate themselves on-line, with credit for this knowledge being transferable to more traditional institutions;
· An environment where states would be barred from competing for business with other states by means of offering tax breaks or financial incentives to relocate;
· A cost of doing business which includes regulation of exotic financial instruments and disallowal of hidden ownership laws and off-shore shell corporations;
· Usury laws to deny outrageous rates of interest for credit card activity or bank loans;
· An equitable working environment for all, and not just for those who belong to a union, which assures fair treatment on the job and the possibility of a decent wage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Of course, we could continue on our current course and simply allow the chips to fall where they may. But I guarantee that will please few of you.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment