While most of us would agree that, almost by definition, democracy as a form of government is very expensive over the long run, I think we are all shocked at how it has so rapidly become unaffordable in recent years. Our cherished system of a government for, by and of the people that has helped to create the greatest, most altruistic and inclusive country in the world is now causing the United States to sink under the weight of its own debt, entitlement programs and annual spending. A system that has through the ages encouraged quid pro quo dealings in the legislative chambers of government at all levels drives the price of legislative progress consistently up.
Yes, there are great government programs that have helped citizens in tough times, in their golden years and in the area of health care, all of which were created with the greatest of intentions only to have become gargantuan and unaffordable by growing well beyond their original scope. The Social Security trust fund will be insolvent by 2037 and the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted by 2017. In 1990, these two expense items represented 28% of federal spending (PDF). By 2019, they will represent 40% of federal spending. Ouch.
Our Founding Fathers wrote a magnificent Constitution that has served us very well over the centuries, but I believe that its one flaw is that there is no provision for term limits in the Senate or the House or, in the absence of these, a check in the system to prevent runaway spending. The Federal Government can create as much money as it would like (e.g. QE2, artificially low interest rates and other money supply increases), and it most certainly has in the last few years. Although previously inconceivable, the United States could face insolvency or become vulnerable to the interests of some not very democratic countries that own our debt. It very well could be that the biggest enemy of the US is not terrorist elements, but rather the amount of debt we have outstanding and who owns it.
I have never met a legislator who isn't in his or her position to improve the lives of others, but there are stark differences in how to achieve this goal. There are those who seek to increase the size and expense of every governmental program who fundamentally do not understand that resources are finite and that the potential to pay for these programs grows only over the course of time through hard work, innovation and investment. Other, more realistic legislators, might seek program growth, but they have a solid understanding that it is vital to be able to afford these programs. I would argue that it is this kind of legislator who is giving humanity a much better level of service in the long run. Absolutely one of the cruelest things that we can do to those in particular need is bankrupt the system.
In the state of Connecticut, we have grown our state budget for nearly 30 years at just under 7% per year. According to our Constitutional Spending Cap (in effect since 1992), we were not meant to increase our spending by more than 2.9% (the higher of CPI or personal income growth) per year during that period. The mathematical disconnect is stunning as much as it is downright scary. We have earned the distinction of being the most indebted people on a per capita basis in the United States. We are pushing the limits of our borrowing capacity, used up our entire Budget Reserve Fund, raised taxes as high as the population will bear and are still looking at a near 20% operating budget deficit for the next 3 years. Add to that somewhere between $50 and $80 billion in unfunded pension and other than pension liabilities. California faces the largest budget deficit in the country at over $25 billion, yet the legislature has been approaching the crisis with a business as usual attitude. With very similar fiscal problems, Michigan and Illinois are following suit. On the other hand, in New Jersey, there is strong leadership coming from the governor who will help save the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people by living within the state's means and not bankrupting their unemployment fund, pension fund and other funds. Even in New York State, Governor Cuomo is proposing dramatic cutbacks across the board to remain solvent and give the maximum number of people a chance to keep their jobs and look forward to a bright future.
On behalf of the country or of an individual state, we have to ask the question of where we go from here if we are to salvage our strengths and previous economic well being. A very strong case can be made that if we were to restore spending to 2007 levels and adopt a pro-growth strategy with the reasonable existing tax rate structure in place, we could grow ourselves out of the danger zone within 7 to 10 years. Here in Connecticut, that is certainly what we will be trying to do as members of an outgunned minority, and the reason is that we care deeply about others, especially those in need, as well as future generations.
In other words, no your own words, Social Security is solvent. Therefore, many people in Mr. Frantz party, the Republican Party of course, have been lying about this fact.
Whenever conservatives start to speak, you have to realize that you have entered a fact-free zone. One of the most revealing things--revealing of the true nature of their agenda--conservatives have done in the recent past was insisting that tort reform was the way to reform our broken health care system. This was revealing in two ways: it showed how gullible they believe the public to be; and it showed that they will seize any opportunity to decrease the power of ordinary Americans vis a vis big business. Their tort "reform" would have made the playing field even more uneven than it is now for anyone who would bring a legal challenge against a major corporation.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/25/hot_coffee_doc_explores_how_corporations
Limiting terms is innately undemocratic. Implementing them without changing anything else will give us a series of briefly-serving corporate-controlled candidates instead of long-serving corporate-controlled politicians. A difference of nil.
There really is no rational reason for term limits. If the voters in a district like what its representative is doing for them, why force a change? Could it be so a weaker candidate will be overwhelmed by Republican wealth?
I live in California where Republican backed term limits exist. Do you like what you see? Competent representatives have been replaced by Republican lackies in enough districts to deadlock our legislature and ruin the state. Republicans are truly enemies of democracy.
In Germany after WWII, the Germans were given an updated Constitution modified to avoid some of the problems the US Constitution had, and they seem to be doing well.
The American Constitution is the oldest document of its kind now ... it is way out of date, and like the Bible, the authority of the Constitution is constantly abused to push activism on people to control them and support the status quo.
I wish we would set a date in 25 year and have a discussion to improve the Constitution, or seriously amend it. One very big problem is that the Supreme Court can be stacked as it is and break the whole country for a very long time. There may be some good in preventing trivial change over the long run, but see how long it takes to just justice for so many millions, there has got to be a better way.
Who are these evil plotters? The Corporations and rich people. They buy the politicians and enact their plans to extract a profit from every human interaction. Republicans are wholly owned by the rich, and you can see their plan in Republican actions. The debt and the deficit always rise during those administrations. There is a reason for this.
America is a very wealthy country, but the government can no longer function by taxing labor. It is time to start taxing wealth. If America started taxing wealth, we could eliminate our deficit, pay off our debt, upgrade our entire infrastructure, and still pay the pensions of our government workforce.
If any senator feigns ignorance of this he is DERELICT OF DUTIES.
Mountains of cash is hoarded by ogres that will only use it to influence elections when and if they get more tax breaks. The blackmail of jobless benefits was evil. They are causing unemployment and foreclosures.
HELLO! Anybody awake in Washington, or drunk on gluttony.
The responsibility of the Oversight Branch would be in the recommendation and enforcement of regulations implemented in the Government and Private Sectors. The Oversight Branch would be able to go directly to the public with Regulation Propositions during Federal Elections bypassing the other three branches of Government entirely. The other key mission of the Oversight Branch would be a vigorous and independent Department of Comprehensive Audit. The DCA would have power to Audit any other branch of Government and initiate impeachment proceedings on Federal Officials found engaging in Corrupt Activities.
The DCA would also build civil and criminal cases against any private sector company that were granted government contracts and were sited for malfeasance. Cases of corruption would be referred for prosecution. In order to insure prosecutions occurred, the DCA would be able to black list any company indicted from further government contracts until the pending case was adjudicated. The DCA would also have the power to rescind Articles of Incorporation for flagrant violators.
If every elected Federal Official knew they were one false move from incarceration, we wouldn't need term limits, because criminals would no longer be attracted to public service. Likewise, if every Company that entered into a contractual agreement with the Government understood the penalty for criminal behavior and acted with enlightened self-interest we wouldn't have the deficits we currently have.
The reason for the 17th Amendment was mostly because as you can imagine for any political appointee there was a lot of corruption. But I think the founders foresaw this and even if the Senators were corrupt as long as they were there as another check on federal power they served their purpose.
Today state governments are completely helpless against the federal government because their only recourse is to take things to federal court.
I imagine that you think you believe in democracy, but you should think again.
I don't believe democracy is an effective form of government. Which is why I'm glad we live in the US which isn't a democracy.
It is pure British empire thinking from the 1700-1800's that the Westminister type system of government can continue in this age without restriction on who has the required ability to fill the congressman role.
People in the street no longer have the ability to just step into the complicated roll of politician.
What is needed is for the people to be able to call a member to account by having the ability to call an election for their congressman seat. This could be achieved by petition being presented to the electoral authorities to call an election. The petition must be signed by 10000 of the people in his electorate to be able to get a election called.