Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Would You Support This Reform


vcczar
 Share

Would You Support This Reform?  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Would You Support This Reform? (*Read my first post before answering*)

    • Yes
    • Leaning Yes
    • Leaning No
    • No
    • I don't know/Unsure
      0
  2. 2. Which part of the reform do you not approve of?

    • The Exception Clause in general
    • The Opt-Out Clause in general
    • Allowing Congress to mark some legislation "essential"
    • Letting the states, and not the Federal government, decide if a state can apply an "Exception" or "Opt-Out" clause.
    • Allowing the US Senate, and not the states, determine if a state has a "reasonable alternative" that allows application of the Exception clause.
    • Giving the states the chance to make the adjustments to reach the US Senate approved "reasonable alternative"
      0
    • Deducting federal aid from a state that successfully applies for the "Opt-Out" clause.
    • Allowing the state to recommend their own deduction of federal aid in exchange for the "Opt-Out" clause, subject to the approval of the US Senate.
    • Allowing the US Senate to reject the state recommendation of their own deduction of federal aid and recommend a higher or lower deduction for the state to pay.
    • Requiring 60% of a US Senate vote to mark a bill "Essential" and, therefore, ineligible for "opt-out" or "exception."
    • This would make the US Senate the most powerful part of the federal government
    • This would make the States too powerful
    • Other
      0
  3. 3. What do you think will happen if this Reform passes and was in effect?

    • None of the states would ever "Opt-out" even though a system is in place for them to do so.
      0
    • Too many states would "Opt-out" of legislation
    • Most states would apply for an "exception clause"
    • Only a few states would apply for an "exception clause"
    • Congress would mark about every bill as "essential," therefore making it a reform in name only
    • Congress would rarely be able to mark a bill "essential" and some states would abuse the "Opt-out" clause
    • States would start seceding from the Union because the federal government will have loosened its grip.
    • America would basically be two countries -- a union of Blue States and some purple states and a decentralized confederacy of Red states and some purple states
    • Gridlock on legislation would be mostly removed, but tension would increase in the US Senate over debates on what is or is not a "reasonable alternative" or a is or is not a reasonable federal aid deduction.
    • States taking part in federal legislation would prosper, while those that aren't generally will not.
    • States taking part in federal legislation would not prosper, while those that aren't will prosper.
    • The US will lose its prosperity in this system
    • The US will prosper in this system
    • Considering 15 of the 20 states that rely most on Federal Aid are Red States, the poorest red states are not likely to "opt-out" of legislation.
    • This will actually inflame States Rights activists, even though it actually gives the states more control.
    • This will enrage LW Activists because they'll assume a return of Jim Crow laws or worse in the South, even though this reform has checks to prevent that.
    • Red States will want to revote on old laws in order to "opt-out" or "exception clause" these laws.
    • The Senate won't be able to handle its new duties.
    • Other prediction that is positive, neutral, or negative.
      0
  4. 4. In the future, (distant future) would you play an RPG that has this reform in effect?



Recommended Posts

This is a system that I've advocated since about 2012. While I forget the exact year, I remember exactly when I was type this idea up. It's basically an attempt to remove the gridlock by removing the tension that often creates this gridlock. I've mentioned it in passing in the old forum before. But I'm bringing it back up. 

As with all of my personal politics, I deviate from stereotypical progressive politics. I'm not trying to follow a template or cram in a philosophy, I'm trying to resolve an issue. It's that what I think will generally resolve issues happen to fall in the progressive category.  

Unlike some progressives, I'll accept private sphere or privatization if it resolves the issue without causing more problems. I'll accept States Rights and limited government if it resolves the issue without causing more problems. I'd name every social policy program after a Republican if that's what needs to be done to get the issue resolved. 

This said, I think my best idea for decreasing tension is my idea of an exception clause and opt-out clause on legislation. It would deflate so many causes of tension.  Just to recap:

  • There are two ways a state is forced to comply to a Federal law under my system:
    • The state does not apply the "exception clause" or "opt-out clause," thereby embracing the law. 
    • The bill has been marked "essential" and the "essential" tag has passed Senate and US House by 60% of the vote. If passed as "essential," then the state is forced to accept the law. 
  • There are two ways a state is allowed to "nullify" the law in their state: 
    • A bill is not marked "essential," and the state has a state alternative to the law that is considered a reasonable alternative and so they can enact the "exception clause". The state legislature would vote to enact the "exception clause," and a US Senate Committee would confirm if the alternative is "reasonable" or not. The reasons for it not being "reasonable" would be given, and recommendations to make it "reasonable" would be given. The state makes the adjustments, or accepts the federal alternative, or applies the "opt-out clause". 
    • A bill is not marked "essential," the state can't apply the "exception clause," so the state applies the "opt-out clause." The state can be free of this federal legislation but at the expense of a "reasonable" deduction of their state federal aid. The state legislature would first propose how much of a financial penalty they should receive. A US Senate Committee will confirm the state suggested penalty or not. If not, they'll recommend a different penalty amount. Once determined, this goes back to the state. They can accept the deduction of federal aid to their state as determined by the committee or they can accept the federal law, or they can attempt to apply the "exception clause." 

My idea is that most Blue States would join in on a lot of the non-essential legislation. It's generally good to get more states involved, so in order to do so, it's puts more urgency in creating a Federal policy that is efficient, so that voters in the Red and Purple states want to join in with the Blue States. Likewise, the State alternatives might inspire better upgrades to the Federal alternative as it tries to complete with the states. At the same time, Red States and Purple states won't have the same cause of anger when dealing with a Democrat majority Congress or President. Likewise, Blue states won't have to fear legislation form a GOP Congress or President. In short, the federal government would work partially as a pace car, allow states agency to create similar or better alternatives that aim to 1) resolve issues 2) and aim to do so without creating more problems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, pilight said:

The federal government shouldn't be passing legislation that's not essential.

I think you are looking at the word "essential" a little too literally. By "essential" I mean laws that are "essential" that all states take part in and do it in the exact same way. By "unessential" I mean this is a law that is "essential" but we are allowing states try and meet this standard their own way or to opt-out if they don't think it is essential. I could probably use a different term than "essential." It's just the one I thought off. Think of the process rather than the label. I can change the term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I still hold to the strong belief that the one of the biggest problems in U.S. Government, unaddressed, and, in fact, even catered to, in this proposal, is the power of the Duopoly and it's stealing and rigging of elections, effectively, and limiting the political debate and all "valid planks and policies," to a limited bailiwick, stomping out all other points of view and ideologies as, "fringe," and, "unelectable," by sheer fiat and high abuse of incumbent power - two parties who agree and cooperate on more than they disagree on, which, unfortunately, includes the high crimes committed domestically and abroad, the abuses of power and growingly intrusive government policies, and the shameless corruptions and kowtowing to big corruption and toxic foreign allies over their own constituents. Currently, the U.S. has among the five worst political cultures in the First World for competitiveness, true choice in leadership at the ballot box, and effective range of ideology with real impact on government and any chance of being represented and addressed - or even taken seriously - in governance or lawmaking, along with Hungary, Singapore, Portugal, and Japan. As Albert Einstein once said, "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." As long as the Duopoly is comfortably and smugly entrenched in it's corrupt, unchallengeable power, the institutions and high crimes they represent cannot be called to task as they deserve to be, and as long as they know either they, or the other Duopoly party, will always hold government, and the other will be opposition, they will feel very little impetus for true accountability or transparency, or true reform, or to address significant hot-button issues requiring major change outside of the much slower pace than many other First World Nations, bizzare, half-working, Frankenstein's Monster, Jabberwocky, scarecrow-like compromises (like Obama-scare), or just still not act meaningfully on them to this day - or wait until a Supreme Court ruling forces their hand. You have often called me "radical," and, "an inflexible zealot," for my belief that true progress and advancement in U.S. society and lawmaking on a significant clip, true justice and accountability in the U.S., and real representative governance where the people of the nation and ALL the major viewpoints can have a voice, can only be achieved if the Duopoly is utterly broken and a truly free-and-fair, contested, multi-party system established. But, I ask you - what is radical about bringing U.S. political culture up to the level of most other First World - and even a notable number of Third World - Nations, none of whom are currently collapsing into chaos and civil war because of a multi-party system?

I'll read this if you rewrite it with paragraph breaks. I think this is my new policy (actually an old policy) with any comments. If one posts a block of text that exceeds five lines and contains no paragraphs or breaks, then I won't read it. I'm just letting you know now if you ask if I read something or not. 

I know you don't think it is a big deal, but it is. "Ease of the reader" is 50% of writing well. Your goal is to communicate, to convince, or to enlighten. However, you will fail in your task if you don't present your information in a way that they can put it into their mouth. It's like building a brick house for someone and then telling the recipient of the house to punch a hole through the brick if they want a door to get in. 

It comes off as either rage writing or some sort of diary entry that's meant only for you. 

Do you see what I'm doing here? 

This is very digestible. 

My eyes aren't skipping lines on accident. I'm not getting worn out by having no pauses to rest my eyes, and I can take in the information because the pauses allow my brain to reflect. 

This is a warning for everyone, but you're the only person I know that does this. Which is odd since you tend to be pedantic about everything else, but you're own writing. 

On a similar note, I once had a student turn in a 7 page paper that was all in one paragraph. He handed me the paper and said, "I worked on this all night. The last professor I had for this course failed me. He doesn't work here anymore." I looked at the one-paragraph, 7-page paper and said, "I will grade you by the same standard I grade everyone else." He nodded his head as if that would be favorable for him. I read the first 30 sentences of the one large paragraph and promptly gave him a 40/100. I think most professors would have given him a 0, but he at least had a thesis and filled up 7 pages. He failed the course, and I kept my job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I think you are looking at the word "essential" a little too literally. By "essential" I mean laws that are "essential" that all states take part in and do it in the exact same way. By "unessential" I mean this is a law that is "essential" but we are allowing states try and meet this standard their own way or to opt-out if they don't think it is essential. I could probably use a different term than "essential." It's just the one I thought off. Think of the process rather than the label. I can change the term. 

How is this different from an unfunded mandate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczarI will encapsulate my idea (which I don't think should be hard I see). I'm just a bit annoyed right now at this arbitrary post-deleting glitch, and am going to go out and grab a coffee.

McDonalds coffee? Also I’m not sure about the post thing. Has anyone else experienced it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pilight said:

How is this different from an unfunded mandate?

If I understand what you are asking, then here is my response:

The federal government will mandate a law, say universal, single-payer healthcare. The mandate is that the country should have universal, single-pay healthcare. 

However, let's say 30 states oppose a Federal System, but 10 of these states would support a universal, single-payer system if it isn't handled by the federal government. These 10 states announce that they will create a reasonable alternative to the federal system. 

Meanwhile, the remaining 20 states threaten to opt-out. However, 15 of these don't want to lose federal funding because they rely heavily on it. So, 10 of these aim for the Exception clause, and 5 of these just go along with the federal system, even though they will vote against the bill. The remaining 5 that are okay with a deduction of federal aid, opt out. 

This leaves us with: 

5 states not under the federal law and with no change in their current healthcare system. Additionally, the Federal government will save money by deducting federal aid from these states and by not having to spend money to implement this system in these states. 

20 states create a reasonable alternative. That is, the Federal Government gets a win-win. They apply their healthcare aim, and they get the states to use their money and resources to create their own system. At the same time, the state got to make healthcare their own way, provided it meets reasonable standards as determined by the US Senate. 

25 states stick with the Federal Alternative, with the government only having to worry about spending money to cover people in these states. 

Thus it is a funded semi-mandate. It's funded either by state or federal government. By allowing states the opportunity to opt-out, it would potentially allow the bill to pass so the states that want the coverage can be covered. A state might oppose a one-size fits all bill. But they might support one that allows deviation or allows them to be excluded. There's less of a reason to vote against a bill if you know your state can get out of it, but you understand it's a bill that works for most states.

The whole reform is about flexibility so that things can get passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

McDonalds coffee? Also I’m not sure about the post thing. Has anyone else experienced it?

I never have, but I might not have tried doing the thing that @Patine is trying to do. I'm not sure what the state of his CPU or internet is. He's had issues that have never happened to me before. However, that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vcczar said:

I never have, but I might not have tried doing the thing that @Patine is trying to do. I'm not sure what the state of his CPU or internet is. He's had issues that have never happened to me before. However, that doesn't mean they aren't legitimate. 

Right. I believe him, but he also had trouble signing in that the other 25+ people didn’t experience. It could be user-end but I’ll look into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DakotaHale said:

Right. I believe him, but he also had trouble signing in that the other 25+ people didn’t experience. It could be user-end but I’ll look into it. 

Yeah, he might need to clear out cache or something like that. That worked for him on a previous issue before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...