How I would reboot the USA

JJR512

JJR512

New Member
If I had the unlimited power and authority to restructure the USA, here are some of the things I would do.

Some non-essential services would be funded entirely by fees and fines related to those services. For example, the ATF would be funded entirely by taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, fees for applications for firearm permits, fines collected for violations of the related laws, etc. On the other hand, some essential services would be universally funded. These services are those that benefit everybody. It is in the best interest of the entire nation to have a well educated and healthy workforce, so education and health departments would be funded through tax dollars that are paid by everyone. Some services may be funded through a combination of both universal tax dollars and service-related funds, such as the EPA, FCC, or FDA.

As much redundancy and needless replication of services would be eliminated as possible. How many federal investigation and police forces do we need? The US Park Police has a SWAT team. Does the US Park Police really need a SWAT team? Do we really need a US Park Police for that matter, or could it be a division of a more centralized federal police and investigative agency?

The US Military is another good example of a tremendous amount of redundancy. The Marines and the Army both have attack helicopters. The Navy and the Air Force both have fighter planes. The Air Force and the Army both have cargo planes. The Army and the Marines both have ground attack soldiers. I believe that the four individual branches should be merged into one all-inclusive armed force, to be called the "US Military" or the "US Armed Forces". There would be one organizational structure of ground attack soldiers, not the two or more we have now. The same goes for fighting aircraft and all the other replicated parts that exist in multiple branches of the armed forces now doing basically the same thing.

That's it for now... *dons flame suit* :D Comment on my ideas, and/or come up with your own!
 
Further to my last, some services would be realigned into more appropriate departments. For example, the education standards and curriculum for Emergency Medical Services providers are set by the Department of Transportation. EMS providers are healthcare providers, therefore it is more appropriate for the central department of health to oversee EMS education and standards.
 
JJR512 said:
Do we really need a US Park Police for that matter, or could it be a division of a more centralized federal police and investigative agency?
Click to expand...


i would say yes at first glance. national parks and such consist of vast acreage and while no one person or entity can be thoroughly familiar with all of it within one park, it could be crucial to have persons at least passingly familiar with the territory encompassed therein, the terrain, features, etc. now if these people were to be 'housed' under a larger umrella agency yet still remain assigned to one site, then that might save some dough. but we all know that government, at any level, is fraught with redundancy waste and excessive oversight while not enough actual ground forces to do the assigned tasks. in a perfect world that could be eliminated, but 235 years have failed to do it

my ideas on what i would do will be posted later when i have more time
 
Not quite toss it, no. As a software programmer might understand, sometimes when a program doesn't work quite right, you have to take out a lot of the old code and rewrite it from scratch. The intention isn't to come up with a completely new program that does something entirely different; the intention is to come up with a new version of the old program that actually works as intended, and works efficiently without wasting system resources and being a hog. Well, that's the same basic idea here.

And actually, I don't think a lot of the problem is with the Constitution itself. The US Park Police isn't defined or created by the Constitution, nor does it mandate having a separately managed Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. I don't believe it specifies in detail how the ATF, FCC, FDA, etc. are funded.
 
smiley-piano.gif



Obama to reboot his Iraq policy/rhetoric on Wednesday
 
It works marvelously...when it's followed.
The Constitution starts with limiting federal powers. All of which you, seemingly, wish to strengthen. The Commander-in-Chief is in charge of military. All the programs you want to create are unfunded mandates or will you create a new tax?

If you wish socialism on the people, how do you plan on paying for its components? When hard work doesn't reward one, what is the motivation to create & propser?
 
Actually...the armed forces are fine as they are. The Marine Corps is part of the Navy Department, and are supposed to be the 'first force on the ground'. The Air Force used to be part of the Army, but was split off because the battle areas are different enough to require a different type of strategy. The reason the Navy uses fighters is because they need some kind of fleet defense, and the USAF can't be everywhere. Also. Think of it as extremely long-range naval batteries.
 
Gonz said:
It works marvelously...when it's followed.
The Constitution starts with limiting federal powers. All of which you, seemingly, wish to strengthen. The Commander-in-Chief is in charge of military. All the programs you want to create are unfunded mandates or will you create a new tax?

If you wish socialism on the people, how do you plan on paying for its components? When hard work doesn't reward one, what is the motivation to create & propser?
Click to expand...
Like it or not, the USA is a federal nation, not a confederacy. There are some things the central government needs to do and be in charge of. For example, a a national set of performance and education standards for EMS providers would be great, so EMTs and Paramedics can perform the full scope of their duties in any state.

I do not wish to strengthen all federal powers (in your words). In fact, I don't think I talked about strengthening anything at all. I talked about changing how some things are funded. Don't we already have an ATF? Don't we already have an FCC, FDA, and EPA? Don't we already have education and health departments, and a DOT? The only powers I think I talked about was the power to set education standards for EMS providers, and I didn't talk (then) about strengthening that power (although I did suggest that earlier in this message); I talked about reassigning that power to a different department of the government than the one that has it now.

My point was not to suggest a change to a socialist form of government, so we don't really need to talk about how to fund such. I am not suggesting that at all. I would like to point out, however, that some programs of our government now are socialist in nature or have aspects of socialism. I would also like to put forth that socialism as a concept is not completely pure evil. In any event, although I am not suggesting radical changes to our form of government (merely to how many parts of it are organized and/or funded), to answer your question about how will it be funded, allow me to answer in a general sense of how something would be funded, and would I create a new tax. The answer is no, no new tax would be needed. One of the main points of the other funding changes and organization restructuring would be to save money by streamlining the government, getting rid of unnecessary beauracracies, reducing redundancies, etc. Since a lot of money will be saved this way, if any new programs were added to the government--which, let me reiterate, adding to the government isn't really my point at all--could be funded through those savings.

And let me be the first to say that I am no economist, politician, or lawyer. I don't really know exactly how to do any of these things, how much money would actually be saved, etc. These are just idealistic ideals. A slightly more specific sense of what could be changed when people think "we need change", a feeling that many in this nation have and which certain political candidates have recently appealed to.

Think of it this way. In a computer, you have one operating system and many programs. Most of the programs have at least a few things that they need to do which are in common with other programs. For example, many programs need to open some type of document file. Should each program be written with its own code that opens a document file for the program, or perhaps could the operating system have a method to open a document file that individual programs could use whenever they need? The operating system is like the central government and the programs are like different departments of that government. Going back to the third paragraph in my original post, how many police and investigative agencies does the federal government really need? How many SWAT teams does the federal government really need? Can't some or many of those SWAT teams be eliminated and/or combined into one team under one command to be used by other departments as needed?

And don't give me that BS about the President being the Command-in-Chief of the Military, as if that answers anything I was talking about. In fact, I would say it actually backs up my position. If the four services can be commanded by one person, then why do the four services need to be separate at all? Combining them will make the military a bit more streamlined and efficient, making it bit cheaper to operate, and enabling all the armed services able to work together quicker, better, and more efficiently.
 
that might work some, except for the bastiches in charge in dc.

Plans only work out as good as the leaders of them make it.

and IMO most of those leaders came into power through corruption, not the
fair process that was intended.
 
The problem with revolution is that there is no way to guarantee that the asshats you put into power will be any improvement over the asshats you're replacing. :shrug:
 
chcr said:
The problem with revolution is that there is no way to guarantee that the asshats you put into power will be any improvement over the asshats you're replacing. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Well, since I was talking about what I would do if I could, I guess that would hypothetically put me in power... And I can absolutely positively utterly totally completely entirely wholly fully thoroughly unconditionally unquestionably undeniably unequivocally and without reservation say you don't want to do that. I'm just an idea man. :D
 
JJR512 said:
Like it or not, the USA is a federal nation, not a confederacy.
Click to expand...

Only since Lincoln.

We are a republic whose fedeal goverment is limited per Constitutional mandate. The states are supposed to be the authority & the feds are supposed to privide roads, armies & stamps.

Abe changed that, Wilson expanded it & Roosevelt blew it out of proportion.

Read your Constitution & the Bill of Rights. Notice that it limits the feds & there are two amendments saying that the States, and the people, hold more power than the feds.

If we want it changed, why don't we follow procedure & amend it? Instead, they federal gov't has stuck it's nose into everything & made sheep of us all. Cradle to grave is their goal. We should be fighting them with everything we have. Instead, we stand by & hope the check is in the mail.

JJR512 said:
Don't we already have an ATF? Don't we already have an FCC, FDA, and EPA?
Click to expand...
Unfirtunately, yes. Once again, overstepping it's authority.
 
JJR512 said:
Well, since I was talking about what I would do if I could, I guess that would hypothetically put me in power... And I can absolutely positively utterly totally completely entirely wholly fully thoroughly unconditionally unquestionably undeniably unequivocally and without reservation say you don't want to do that. I'm just an idea man. :D
Click to expand...

Heh. I wouldn't mind being in power (it would have to be absolute power though) but I'll bet most folks wouldn't like it much. :D

The IQ/looking good in a bikini requirement for being a government employee might be problematic at best
 
Gonz said:
If we want it changed, why don't we follow procedure & amend it? Instead, they federal gov't has stuck it's nose into everything & made sheep of us all. Cradle to grave is their goal. We should be fighting them with everything we have. Instead, we stand by & hope the check is in the mail.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that if the bulk of the power to govern was with the states then people like you would be complaining about how powerful the states are, how they try to run your lives and manage your business. Because we both know that if there's power to be had, somebody's going to want it, and somebody's going to find a way to take it. If not the federal government, then the state government, and if not them, then your county or city or somebody else. If the federal government doesn't have these powers and do these things that you're complaining about, then somebody else is going to have them, and you're still going to complain about it.

And I know you'll be complaining about it because of one statement you made: " We should be fighting them with everything we have." No justification given. Just fight them for the sake of fighting somebody, just fight them because they have power. Why does it have to be a fight? Why does it have to be just because they have power? How about this: "Try to change the individual things you don't like." And while you're doing that, stop complaining about which part of the government is doing the things you don't like; it doesn't matter who's doing it, somebody's going to be doing it, one way or another, so it would seem to make more sense to try to change what they're doing rather than who is doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top