If you were King for 30 days

[vulturesrow]

Rather than come up with all my own ideas, I'll just list the ones I diverge from you on. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Dept of Homeland Defense-I would keep this one.
Nationalizing transportation-Yuck. You do realize the Amtrak is essentially nationalized right? And Southwest and Jetblue seem to be doing just fine on their own, no need to nationalize, just stop bailing out incompetent corporations.

Not sure what you mean by regulating health care. This industry is highly regulated already. Its a mess for other reasons, mostly because it has very little free market principles at work in it.

I will add one of my own. Get the Fed out of the welfare business other than possibly providing grants (without strings attached) to private charitable organizations. This is something states can do on their own.

[wmspringer]

hmm. This is actually something I've thought about before, although it's been a while. I'm assuming here that you have absolute power over the *federal* government, but not the states.

The first thing I would do is get rid of all drug laws. You want to shoot up? Fine, it's your funeral. Replace them all with a law mandating STRONG penalties for anyone operating a vehicle (or other potentially dangerous equipment) under the influence. This one step alone should cut costs dramatically (no more wasting millions of dollars catching people who want to smoke pot and keeping them in jail for years), increase revenue (since we can now tax the drugs), and decrease money going to terrorists and criminals (since the drugs are no longer illegal)

The second thing I would do is kill the PATRIOT Act. Has anything (aside from the Clean Air Act) ever been so misnamed?

The third thing I would do is simplify the tax system. It's too complicated, and full of loopholes...and without exactly this opportunity (absolute power over the system) it's probably never going to be fixed. First, I eliminate *every* federal tax - income, social security, medicare, etc. (Note the apparent contradiction with #1 above; I'd say just give the *states* the option of taxing drugs, but keep the feds out of it) I replace them all with a flat tax which applies equally to *all* income, regardless of source. (If you're getting your money from investing, you still pay as much as someone who actually works) The first $X isn't taxed. No deductions.

Note that this does NOT affect the states; they can continue to set up their tax structure however they want. The point of this is to overhaul the federal government, simplify the tax structure (both making it fairer and eliminating the need for a large part of the IRS)

Fourth, the government takes over health insurance. You get the same service you do now (assuming you currently have good health insurance) but the government pays for it instead of your insurance company. The money saved on paperwork covers those who are currently uninsured. Businesses which currently provide health insurance increase your salary by the amount it would cost, and your taxes increase a smaller amount (efficiencies of scale) to pay for it. We'll probably still be spending more per capita on health insurance than most industrialized countries, but probably less than we do now and for better coverage.

Maybe more later..

[PorscheNGuns]

<<The first thing I would do is get rid of all drug laws. You want to shoot up? Fine, it's your funeral. >>

No, dumb dumb, often a heroin or meth addiction means the funerals of the closest family members as well. (I've seen this in my own family). And then there will be the funerals of the victims caught in the violent rages spurned by certain drugs such as PCP and angel-dust.

And I'm always confused when someone complains about the Patriot Act, yet when prompted to name just one freedom they have lost since it was put into law, or just one way it has affected his life, he can never respond.

-Matt

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm always confused when someone complains about the Patriot Act, yet when prompted to name just one freedom they have lost since it was put into law, or just one way it has affected his life, he can never respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck. The best answer I have gotten yet is a link to a list of ACLU talking points.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Nationalizing transportation-Yuck. You do realize the Amtrak is essentially nationalized right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but Amtrak is a political football. They serve many non-profitable routes for no better
reason than one of the cities is in some congressman or senator’s home state. Amtrak is fixable, but it would take major changes.

[ QUOTE ]
And Southwest and Jetblue seem to be doing just fine on their own, no need to nationalize, just stop bailing out incompetent corporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both are fine operations but they only serve selective routes. A national airline discussion would require a separate thread, so I’ll leave it at that.

[ QUOTE ]
I will add one of my own. Get the Fed out of the welfare business other than possibly providing grants (without strings attached) to private charitable organizations. This is something states can do on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good one, I’ll add that to my list.

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm always confused when someone complains about the Patriot Act, yet when prompted to name just one freedom they have lost since it was put into law, or just one way it has affected his life, he can never respond.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it that you've never read Section 802.

[PorscheNGuns]

I'll post Section 802 so that everyone can go over it, and to answer your question - Yes, I've read section 802, and I'm relatively certain that I'll never commit acts of mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping in my lifetime.

-Matt

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion;

[/ QUOTE ]

Call the cops - Congress tries to blackmail the States everyday! Wait they've probably exempted themselves from this law too! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[flatline]

I don't pretend to know enough about national policy to make changes that would be more beneficial than harmful, so I'd just do one thing that would make me happy: 8-team College Football playoff, starting this year.

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll post Section 802 so that everyone can go over it, and to answer your question - Yes, I've read section 802, and I'm relatively certain that I'll never commit acts of mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping in my lifetime.

-Matt

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see how that is way overbroad?

Enjoy neocon facism.