The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The United States. The President of The United States may sign the legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.
If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States. If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.
If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.
If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation. If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States. The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.
This Constitutional Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.
Showing posts with label constitutional amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutional amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Constitutional Amendment 28 Will Give Power To The People
This movement will work and it can be done in one of two ways. Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a majority, online vote of the people before legislation is enacted into law. Two-thirds (2/3) of the states must ratify such an Amendment. Another way to pass a Constitutional Amendment is by putting it on state ballots, bypassing congress completely. This requires ratification by a three-fourths (3/4) of the states.
Members of congress will never voluntarily give Americans the online voting right. We the people will have to do it on our own, by passing an Amendment and ratifying it in three-fourths of the states. Members of congress are addicted to their power and many of them truly believe they know better than the people who elected them what is best for the people who elected them. Congress is only.000004% of all American voters and we the people are allowing this .000004% of Americans to destroy America.
Case in point; the House and Senate passed The Affordable Care Act despite outrage from a majority of American voters. In 2010, many of those members of congress were replaced in The House of Representatives, but they were replaced too late. The damage was done. The Affordable Care Act was already passed.
We are now facing multiple issues with The Affordable Care Act. The issues are so bad that members of congress have exempted themselves and their staff from the Act. Once again, they have put their own well being over the well being of the people who elected them to office. The final word on legislation before it is enacted must be taken away from congress and given to the people.
Congress will still have a very important job; to propose and pass laws for the voter consideration. After the law is passed by congress, and signed by The President, the American voter must have 72 hours to log into a secure site and vote for approval, or rejection of the law. If a majority vote of the people is for approval, the law is enacted. If a majority vote of the people is for rejection, the law must go back to congress for further consideration. It really is that simple and it will work every time.
Will all registered voters log into a site and vote on every law passed by congress? No, but a large majority will, especially on legislation like The Affordable Care Act. The majority vote of the people will be the final voice on legislation. That majority vote must be our check and balance on a congress that does not always do the will of the people.
Would we have The Affordable Care Act today if it had to pass a majority vote of the people? The polls at the time it was thrust upon us by congress indicate that The Affordable Care Act would not have passed a vote of the people. The 2010 elections indicate that Americans were upset at members of congress who passed The Affordable Care Act. Many of those members of congress were voted out of office, but voting them out of office was too late to save Americans from The Affordable Care Act.
Every American voter must have the opportunity to vote on all legislation before he/she has to live under the law. Such a vote will also put an end to congress passing laws, then exempting themselves from the law without our approval. It's time for this .000004% of American voters to live under the same laws all other American voters live under.
The wording of a Constitutional Amendment must be simple. Here is an example.
The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to
pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The
United States. The President of The United States may sign the
legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.
If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States. If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.
If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.
If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation. If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States. The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.
This Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Online Majority - The movement will work!
Congress is .0000004% of all registered American voters. Those members of congress are elected by a majority vote of American voters in their respective states, and those voters can vote a member of congress out of office. What is wrong with that process?
There is nothing wrong with the process if you are satisfied with accepting the damage done by members of congress before you have the opportunity to vote them out of office. The real question should be; what can we do to improve the process and protect Americans from members of congress who ignore their campaign promises, putting their own agendas before the will of the people who elected them?
One twitter follower and I have been exchanging ideas. I would like to thank him for his thoughts and ideas. One of his ideas involves term limits in congress. I wholeheartedly agree that term limits is an option we should consider. However, let's take that to the extreme and assume a member of congress can only serve one term. That member, once he/she is elected can choose to ignore campaign promises and promote an agenda that is not good for the people he/she is in Washington to serve.
In fact, if a member of congress is term limited it removes one reason for that person to be concerned about keeping campaign promises. He/she will not be concerned about earning the trust required for re-election, which makes him/her more vulnerable to lobbyists and the personal gains lobbyists offer to members of congress. Term limits could be an incentive for a member of congress to ignore campaign promises and support bills that hurt their constituents, for personal gain offered by the lobbyists.
I support term limits in congress, because I believe we need the fresh new ideas in congress we will have as members rotate in and out when their term limits expire. That said, term limits are not a check and balance on congress while its members are serving. We must have a check and balance on members of congress while they are in congress. We can have that check and balance on congress and take away the pressures lobbyists now exert on members of congress.
You are currently using the tool that will give us checks and balances; the internet. Think about everything you now do online. You are reading this blog. You can do your banking online. You can communicate with others in seconds, using chat various forums. You can shop online and have merchandise and food delivered without leaving your home. You can find a mate online if you choose to join one of the online dating sites. You can even file your tax return online; a definite interaction with the federal government.
Consider for a minute everything members of congress do online, besides the things I have already mentioned. Most of them tweet on a daily basis, promoting their agendas. Nearly all of them have websites, complete with a "donate to my campaign" button. Members of congress definitely rely on the internet as much as other Americans have come to rely on it.
So, why has no member of congress ever proposed a Constitutional Amendment to allow all American voters the opportunity to vote on legislation before it is enacted? Why has the subject of online voting never been a topic of discussion in congress? Simply stated, online voting would take power away from members of congress and give it to all American voters, where it belongs. Members of congress feel threatened by online voting, and they should be endorsing it. Their jobs would still be important.
Online Majority does not want to do away with congress. We need congress to pass legislation, but we also need the check and balance of giving all American voters the opportunity to approve that legislation before it is enacted. There is no good reason for .0000004% of all American voters (congress) to be the final word on legislation before it is enacted. A simple majority vote, allowing all registered voters the opportunity to approve legislation before enactment should be the law of the land.
Some say it will not work, because the government is corrupt and the online voting process will be corrupted. Think about the absurdity of argument. It starts with the premise that government is corrupt, which is all the more reason to install all of the checks and balances we can install, to fight corruption.
Some say the system will be to complicated to install. It could be designed, written, debugged and installed within six months. There is ample brainpower in America to do the work, and run it smoothly.
Some say it is unconstitutional. Yes, it is right now, but a Constitutional Amendment will make it constitutional. Constitutional Amendments are not unconstitutional. If you are a woman, you have not always had the right to vote. A Constitutional Amendment gave you that right. The same is true for black Americans. Constitutional Amendments have played a major role in reforming American politics and we have an opportunity to continue reforming it for the better.
Would the founding fathers have given us the right to vote online? I have to believe they would have if the technology had been available at the time the Constitution was written. They had the foresight to realize times would change the needs of Americans and the Constitution would need to change from time to time. The Constitution is the document that established our rights as Americans and the Amendments to it have strengthened it. It's time to strengthen it again.
Join the movement and let your voice be one of the voices that approves legislation, before it is forced on you as the law of the land. Americans must have the final voice over the agendas of politicians before those agendas damage the lives of all who live in this great land.
More will be coming soon on how you can join the movement. Prepare to claim the power you should have.
There is nothing wrong with the process if you are satisfied with accepting the damage done by members of congress before you have the opportunity to vote them out of office. The real question should be; what can we do to improve the process and protect Americans from members of congress who ignore their campaign promises, putting their own agendas before the will of the people who elected them?
One twitter follower and I have been exchanging ideas. I would like to thank him for his thoughts and ideas. One of his ideas involves term limits in congress. I wholeheartedly agree that term limits is an option we should consider. However, let's take that to the extreme and assume a member of congress can only serve one term. That member, once he/she is elected can choose to ignore campaign promises and promote an agenda that is not good for the people he/she is in Washington to serve.
In fact, if a member of congress is term limited it removes one reason for that person to be concerned about keeping campaign promises. He/she will not be concerned about earning the trust required for re-election, which makes him/her more vulnerable to lobbyists and the personal gains lobbyists offer to members of congress. Term limits could be an incentive for a member of congress to ignore campaign promises and support bills that hurt their constituents, for personal gain offered by the lobbyists.
I support term limits in congress, because I believe we need the fresh new ideas in congress we will have as members rotate in and out when their term limits expire. That said, term limits are not a check and balance on congress while its members are serving. We must have a check and balance on members of congress while they are in congress. We can have that check and balance on congress and take away the pressures lobbyists now exert on members of congress.
You are currently using the tool that will give us checks and balances; the internet. Think about everything you now do online. You are reading this blog. You can do your banking online. You can communicate with others in seconds, using chat various forums. You can shop online and have merchandise and food delivered without leaving your home. You can find a mate online if you choose to join one of the online dating sites. You can even file your tax return online; a definite interaction with the federal government.
Consider for a minute everything members of congress do online, besides the things I have already mentioned. Most of them tweet on a daily basis, promoting their agendas. Nearly all of them have websites, complete with a "donate to my campaign" button. Members of congress definitely rely on the internet as much as other Americans have come to rely on it.
So, why has no member of congress ever proposed a Constitutional Amendment to allow all American voters the opportunity to vote on legislation before it is enacted? Why has the subject of online voting never been a topic of discussion in congress? Simply stated, online voting would take power away from members of congress and give it to all American voters, where it belongs. Members of congress feel threatened by online voting, and they should be endorsing it. Their jobs would still be important.
Online Majority does not want to do away with congress. We need congress to pass legislation, but we also need the check and balance of giving all American voters the opportunity to approve that legislation before it is enacted. There is no good reason for .0000004% of all American voters (congress) to be the final word on legislation before it is enacted. A simple majority vote, allowing all registered voters the opportunity to approve legislation before enactment should be the law of the land.
Some say it will not work, because the government is corrupt and the online voting process will be corrupted. Think about the absurdity of argument. It starts with the premise that government is corrupt, which is all the more reason to install all of the checks and balances we can install, to fight corruption.
Some say the system will be to complicated to install. It could be designed, written, debugged and installed within six months. There is ample brainpower in America to do the work, and run it smoothly.
Some say it is unconstitutional. Yes, it is right now, but a Constitutional Amendment will make it constitutional. Constitutional Amendments are not unconstitutional. If you are a woman, you have not always had the right to vote. A Constitutional Amendment gave you that right. The same is true for black Americans. Constitutional Amendments have played a major role in reforming American politics and we have an opportunity to continue reforming it for the better.
Would the founding fathers have given us the right to vote online? I have to believe they would have if the technology had been available at the time the Constitution was written. They had the foresight to realize times would change the needs of Americans and the Constitution would need to change from time to time. The Constitution is the document that established our rights as Americans and the Amendments to it have strengthened it. It's time to strengthen it again.
Join the movement and let your voice be one of the voices that approves legislation, before it is forced on you as the law of the land. Americans must have the final voice over the agendas of politicians before those agendas damage the lives of all who live in this great land.
More will be coming soon on how you can join the movement. Prepare to claim the power you should have.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Want To Defund Obamacare - Just Refuse To Raise The Debt Ceiling
Congress is starting to debate the issue of the debt ceiling, which now stands at $16.8 Trillion. The current debt ceiling will be reached by September 30, 2013. What should congress do about it? What will happen if congress does not increase the debt ceiling?
The fear mongers tell us government will shut down if the debt ceiling is not increased. Government will not shut down, but not raising the debt ceiling will force spending cuts. Some of those spending cuts will hurt, other cuts will not even be noticed with respect to the things that matter to America. With respect to cuts that will hurt, Americans have clearly stated they are willing to make some sacrifices. They made that statement loudly, by sending members of congress to Washington who promised to cut spending, balance the budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
If those members of congress do not keep their promises to cut spending, balance the budget, and they agree to raise the debt ceiling, they lied to Americans and should not be re-elected to congress. To their credits, some of them are looking for spending cuts; sponsoring bills that will never pass both The House and The Senate.
Spending cuts that are the focus of futile legislation will be forced if the debt ceiling is not raised. If members of congress who promised to not raise the debt ceiling keep that promise, they will also keep their promises to cut spending and force a balanced budget.
For example, there is a movement in congress to defund Obamacare. Legislation to defund Obamacare will never pass in The Senate and there are not enough votes to override a presidential veto if The Senate managed to eek out enough votes. Why not just refuse to increase the debt ceiling? There will be no money to fund Obamacare. If the debt ceiling is not raised, there will be no money to implement Obamacare and no money to launch a 2014 advertising campaign for Obamacare, costing $700 million dollars.
When the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed, we were told it would save money. Now we are being told it will cost money. It has not yet been implemented and it is already set to receive a $700 million bailout in the form of a promotion campaign. The fact that it needs a promotional campaign is a clear indication that success of the Act is doomed.
We were initially told that much of the cost of Obamacare would be paid from savings that would be generated by ending fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. We are approaching two years after that claim was made and there is no evidence that fraud is being eliminated in either of the aforementioned programs. So, where does the cost of that unrecognized savings come from to pay for Obamacare?
The glaring question is; why should ending fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program, be tied to paying for any other program? If there is fraud in any government program, the perpetrators should be prosecuted. Money saved from ending fraud in any government program should be used to effect a balanced budget and pay down the national debt.
By the way, a balanced budget is not the answer. There must be a surplus generated by America to pay down the national debt. America will have to generate more revenue than expenses to ever pay off the national debt. After we do manage to pay off the national debt from surpluses, continue to generate those surpluses and pay for a healthcare program. That actually makes sense.
It's time for congress to realize that they must run the government within the constraints of the money that is generated from revenues. Borrowing money is not the answer. The budget must be balanced now and we must find a way to generate surpluses in the future to pay off the $16.8 Trillion we now owe.
Republican Congressman Paul Ryan presented a budget that would be balanced about 18 years in the future. At the time he presented that budget he was a running for Vice President of The United States. Assume he had been elected to that office in 2012 and re-elected to it in 2016. Then assume he were elected to the Presidency in 2020 and re-elected in 2024.
The budget he presented would not be balanced for a couple of years after his second term as President. His administrations would still have generated deficit spending, under his own budget plan. Paul Ryan was not even willing to hold his own feet to the fire with respect to government spending.
Of course, he did offer a budget that balances, somewhere in the future. The Democrats have not presented a budget that balances at any time in the future. In fact, the democrats have not presented a budget for the past three or four years and is offering nothing in the foreseeable future.
Congress is attempting to run the country on "continuing resolutions", a term that means, "we have no idea what to do". Along with those continuing resolutions congress continues to raise the debt ceiling to pay for them. There is no end in sight to this practice. Congress shows no interest in addressing the issues that will eventually be addressed by bankruptcy of The United States.
We the people are being played for fools by every member of congress. Of course, our votes to re-elect these people to congress shows that we are willing to be the fools. It's time to end the foolishness. Some argue that we have the final word at the ballot box when members of congress are up for re-election. Those who believe that are living in fantasy land.
Yes, we can vote members of congress out of office after they do damage to America. We still have to live with their mistakes after they are voted out of office. Hindsight may be 20/20 with respect to seeing mistakes made by congress, but the pain of that 20/20 hindsight is is felt long into the future. Right now America has a $16.8 trillion debt and 20/20 hindsight as to what caused this debt.
Our children's grandchildren, and generations beyond will inherit that debt. Do you really want to make them pay? Members of congress have no issue passing our current problems on to future generations.
Congress is .0000004% of the American vote. It is time for a Constitutional Amendment that will give all voters the right to vote on legislation before it is enacted. Online Majority is a movement to give us that right to the online vote. We must have a way to protect ourselves and future generations of Americans with a majority vote on legislation.
Think of all you do online now. Voting online is long overdue and having the final word on legislation before it is enacted is long overdue as well. It is time we fight for the right to let a majority of Americans be the final word on legislation, before it is enacted.
The fear mongers tell us government will shut down if the debt ceiling is not increased. Government will not shut down, but not raising the debt ceiling will force spending cuts. Some of those spending cuts will hurt, other cuts will not even be noticed with respect to the things that matter to America. With respect to cuts that will hurt, Americans have clearly stated they are willing to make some sacrifices. They made that statement loudly, by sending members of congress to Washington who promised to cut spending, balance the budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
If those members of congress do not keep their promises to cut spending, balance the budget, and they agree to raise the debt ceiling, they lied to Americans and should not be re-elected to congress. To their credits, some of them are looking for spending cuts; sponsoring bills that will never pass both The House and The Senate.
Spending cuts that are the focus of futile legislation will be forced if the debt ceiling is not raised. If members of congress who promised to not raise the debt ceiling keep that promise, they will also keep their promises to cut spending and force a balanced budget.
For example, there is a movement in congress to defund Obamacare. Legislation to defund Obamacare will never pass in The Senate and there are not enough votes to override a presidential veto if The Senate managed to eek out enough votes. Why not just refuse to increase the debt ceiling? There will be no money to fund Obamacare. If the debt ceiling is not raised, there will be no money to implement Obamacare and no money to launch a 2014 advertising campaign for Obamacare, costing $700 million dollars.
When the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed, we were told it would save money. Now we are being told it will cost money. It has not yet been implemented and it is already set to receive a $700 million bailout in the form of a promotion campaign. The fact that it needs a promotional campaign is a clear indication that success of the Act is doomed.
We were initially told that much of the cost of Obamacare would be paid from savings that would be generated by ending fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. We are approaching two years after that claim was made and there is no evidence that fraud is being eliminated in either of the aforementioned programs. So, where does the cost of that unrecognized savings come from to pay for Obamacare?
The glaring question is; why should ending fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program, be tied to paying for any other program? If there is fraud in any government program, the perpetrators should be prosecuted. Money saved from ending fraud in any government program should be used to effect a balanced budget and pay down the national debt.
By the way, a balanced budget is not the answer. There must be a surplus generated by America to pay down the national debt. America will have to generate more revenue than expenses to ever pay off the national debt. After we do manage to pay off the national debt from surpluses, continue to generate those surpluses and pay for a healthcare program. That actually makes sense.
It's time for congress to realize that they must run the government within the constraints of the money that is generated from revenues. Borrowing money is not the answer. The budget must be balanced now and we must find a way to generate surpluses in the future to pay off the $16.8 Trillion we now owe.
Republican Congressman Paul Ryan presented a budget that would be balanced about 18 years in the future. At the time he presented that budget he was a running for Vice President of The United States. Assume he had been elected to that office in 2012 and re-elected to it in 2016. Then assume he were elected to the Presidency in 2020 and re-elected in 2024.
The budget he presented would not be balanced for a couple of years after his second term as President. His administrations would still have generated deficit spending, under his own budget plan. Paul Ryan was not even willing to hold his own feet to the fire with respect to government spending.
Of course, he did offer a budget that balances, somewhere in the future. The Democrats have not presented a budget that balances at any time in the future. In fact, the democrats have not presented a budget for the past three or four years and is offering nothing in the foreseeable future.
Congress is attempting to run the country on "continuing resolutions", a term that means, "we have no idea what to do". Along with those continuing resolutions congress continues to raise the debt ceiling to pay for them. There is no end in sight to this practice. Congress shows no interest in addressing the issues that will eventually be addressed by bankruptcy of The United States.
We the people are being played for fools by every member of congress. Of course, our votes to re-elect these people to congress shows that we are willing to be the fools. It's time to end the foolishness. Some argue that we have the final word at the ballot box when members of congress are up for re-election. Those who believe that are living in fantasy land.
Yes, we can vote members of congress out of office after they do damage to America. We still have to live with their mistakes after they are voted out of office. Hindsight may be 20/20 with respect to seeing mistakes made by congress, but the pain of that 20/20 hindsight is is felt long into the future. Right now America has a $16.8 trillion debt and 20/20 hindsight as to what caused this debt.
Our children's grandchildren, and generations beyond will inherit that debt. Do you really want to make them pay? Members of congress have no issue passing our current problems on to future generations.
Congress is .0000004% of the American vote. It is time for a Constitutional Amendment that will give all voters the right to vote on legislation before it is enacted. Online Majority is a movement to give us that right to the online vote. We must have a way to protect ourselves and future generations of Americans with a majority vote on legislation.
Think of all you do online now. Voting online is long overdue and having the final word on legislation before it is enacted is long overdue as well. It is time we fight for the right to let a majority of Americans be the final word on legislation, before it is enacted.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
The Detroit Bankruptcy - No Bailout?
There is no question that The City of Detroit is bankrupt. Sadly, there may be many more cities making trips to the Federal Courts with the "we are broke" paperwork. The ink is barely dry on Detroit's paperwork and many in congress are using more ink on a bailout bill.
Let's be clear, I do not favor a bailout program for Detroit. Even if I did support a bailout, there is no question that members of congress should first determine how much is needed to bailout the city before they rush to pass a bill with a "fill in the blank" amount. After all, the amount that will be filled in will add to the national debt. Here we go again, rushing to spend money the country does not have.
That makes about as much sense as someone with a sexting problem entering the race for Mayor in New York City. Thank God, that would never happen in America. Silly me for mentioning that, but it is the only thing I could come up with that is as outlandishly crazy.
The federal bankruptcy laws need to apply to Detroit. It is time for politicians to stop arguing for equality under the law, except when they do not want equality to apply. Let the bankruptcy move through the court system and work within the law to do what is best for Detroit. It will move the city further down a road to fiscal responsibility in the future.
Much of Detroit's problems relate to millions in unfunded pensions. How did the city manage get by with failing to fund pension plans? There needs to be a law in place that requires all municipalities to fund pension plans before it pays for any other goods and services. This will force city officials to address problems before they reach the magnitude of the problems now facing Detroit. It will force city leaders to look at places to cut expenses that will not effect employee pensions.
Will it force them to layoff some employees. Possibly, but now they have to tell employees the time they spent working for the city leaves them with no retirement benefits for their years of service. Perhaps it would have been better for some of those employees to have changed jobs years ago. Would those people be better off now? I am certain many of those people are now asking themselves that very question.
Remember, we taxpayers bailout the automakers. Even President Obama claimed that move would bring prosperity to Detroit. For some reason, it did not. Now, the city needs another bailout?
Online Majority believes there is no valid reason to bailout Detroit with taxpayer dollars. This is yet another reason why American voters must fight for the right to have online voting. We must have a Constitutional Amendment that requires an online vote of the people approving congressional legislation before that legislation is enacted. A majority of American voters must vote to bailout Detroit before it happens.
This is a concept that should be supported by every member of congress. After all, they use the internet to campaign, raise money for campaigns and stay in touch with their constituents. We live in an era that allows us to do most everything online. Congress is .0000004% of all American voters. Why not give 100% of American voters the opportunity to cast a vote on laws that affect their lives, before those laws are enacted? Let the majority decide.
Perhaps a majority of voters would approve a bailout for Detroit, but the polls do not indicate it, and congress is not inclined to listen to a majority of the people who cast votes to re-elect them. Voters can go to the polls and vote members of congress out of office at election time, but that is too late. The damage is already done. We are closing the barn door after the the horses are out.
Let's be clear, I do not favor a bailout program for Detroit. Even if I did support a bailout, there is no question that members of congress should first determine how much is needed to bailout the city before they rush to pass a bill with a "fill in the blank" amount. After all, the amount that will be filled in will add to the national debt. Here we go again, rushing to spend money the country does not have.
That makes about as much sense as someone with a sexting problem entering the race for Mayor in New York City. Thank God, that would never happen in America. Silly me for mentioning that, but it is the only thing I could come up with that is as outlandishly crazy.
The federal bankruptcy laws need to apply to Detroit. It is time for politicians to stop arguing for equality under the law, except when they do not want equality to apply. Let the bankruptcy move through the court system and work within the law to do what is best for Detroit. It will move the city further down a road to fiscal responsibility in the future.
Much of Detroit's problems relate to millions in unfunded pensions. How did the city manage get by with failing to fund pension plans? There needs to be a law in place that requires all municipalities to fund pension plans before it pays for any other goods and services. This will force city officials to address problems before they reach the magnitude of the problems now facing Detroit. It will force city leaders to look at places to cut expenses that will not effect employee pensions.
Will it force them to layoff some employees. Possibly, but now they have to tell employees the time they spent working for the city leaves them with no retirement benefits for their years of service. Perhaps it would have been better for some of those employees to have changed jobs years ago. Would those people be better off now? I am certain many of those people are now asking themselves that very question.
Remember, we taxpayers bailout the automakers. Even President Obama claimed that move would bring prosperity to Detroit. For some reason, it did not. Now, the city needs another bailout?
Online Majority believes there is no valid reason to bailout Detroit with taxpayer dollars. This is yet another reason why American voters must fight for the right to have online voting. We must have a Constitutional Amendment that requires an online vote of the people approving congressional legislation before that legislation is enacted. A majority of American voters must vote to bailout Detroit before it happens.
This is a concept that should be supported by every member of congress. After all, they use the internet to campaign, raise money for campaigns and stay in touch with their constituents. We live in an era that allows us to do most everything online. Congress is .0000004% of all American voters. Why not give 100% of American voters the opportunity to cast a vote on laws that affect their lives, before those laws are enacted? Let the majority decide.
Perhaps a majority of voters would approve a bailout for Detroit, but the polls do not indicate it, and congress is not inclined to listen to a majority of the people who cast votes to re-elect them. Voters can go to the polls and vote members of congress out of office at election time, but that is too late. The damage is already done. We are closing the barn door after the the horses are out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)