MyDD :: Two Years of Legislative Majorities: Can We Build Some Public Policy Consensus?

Two Years of Legislative Majorities: Can We Build Some Public Policy Consensus?

by msnook, Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 09:39:17 AM EST

There are issues out there like net neutrality and illegal wiretapping where we know the answer -- preserve net neutrality and enforce FISA compliance. But there are some big issues out there with complicated problems and potential solutions, where the current policy is so old and outdated that a massive overhaul, a complete rethinking of the governing approach could be both politically viable and incredibly helpful.

This diary isn't necessarily the place sort out these issues, but there is potential for sweeping reform -- some wonkier proposals that have been forwarded by others/experts, and some more general possibilities for reform -- just as a way to show how much legislative reform could be approached in the next few years, and hopefully others (more knowledgeable than myself) will carry on the conversation on their own.

The Tax Code
Campaign finance and lobbying reform
Welfare reform reform, health care, social programs
Immigration
No Child Left Behind
NAFTA, CAFTA, Fair Trade, outsourcing
The structure of our national security institutions
Social Security

Taxes

The Fair Flat Tax of 2005 would be a huge, fundamental reform of the tax code, which could make sweeping changes to the distribution of the tax burden, and even the structure of government. Go ahead an read about it, if you like.

Campaign Finance and Lobbying Reform

Carville and Begala advanced a similar proposal, although I've made one change without which Carville and Begala's friends would make a lot of money at the expense of the integrity of the campaign process.

They suggest publically financing incumbents' campaigns by simply writing them a check for 80% of the amount of the highest-raising challenger, and forbidding them from raising any money for their own re-election, or taking any gifts from anyone outside their near family. They also suggest eliminating limits to personal contributions, but I'd rather just re-examine them, and maybe raise them to 5k or something.

It's hard to enforce lobbying reform, but doing about it this way makes it impossible to buy a legislator no matter who you are. There's certainly a lot of room for reform here, and I hope there's some reality-based discussion about the possibilities.

Welfare and Social Services

The current state of welfare is an abomination. The problem is providing real benefits while sidestepping political opposition which is generally overblown, but directed at real weaknesses in the system. One fundamental change that would possibly address these problems would be a change to the way we target social assistance. Target dependents directly -- children, the elderly, the newly unemployed, and the newly divorced. Give assistance directly to the dependents (health care's a good example of how this could shift the locus of assistance to the dependent) rather than writing checks to the caregivers and then invading their lives to address public paranoia over fraud and waste.

Immigration

Enforce the employment laws -- cut off the jobs. As far as the legal side of immigration, stop bringing people over based on family connections, and start bringing them in based on professional qualifications (like every other civilised nation). Any immigration wonks out there who can fill in the details?

No Child Left Behind, Trade, Defense, Social Security

I'm not the guy to suggest reforms for these things, but I know we've got some creative and knowledgeable people on this blog. What do you think?

I don't pretend to be the biggest public policy expert in the world, I just want to start a discussion, because we've got some smart and creative people, and I know we can have a discussion here in good faith. Thanks for reading, please share some ideas in comments.

Tags: governing, government, policy, public policy, house, senate (all tags)

Permalink :: 2 Comments :: Post a Comment

Campaign Finance reform (none / 0)

They also suggest eliminating limits to personal contributions, but I'd rather just re-examine them, and maybe raise them to 5k or something.

Raising the limits on individual contributions would be a step in the wrong direction. Limiting them to lower amounts (increasing over time to keep pace with inflation is fine) is designed to keep the big money out of politics and allow the small donor to have more sway. I would support 'clean elections' as they have in some states already that provides full funding up to a set maximum for canidates that rack up a certain number of small dollar donations to show broad support.

A reasonable and less ambitious step would be to keep the existing limits on contributions and provide for the first $200 of each donation to be matched by some multiple say by two or four times so if someone gave $100 it would be $200 or $400 as the case may be. I believe Feingold was talking about the need to reform the public funding for presidental elections along these lines due to the drastically increased cost of presidental elections leading to the current system not providing enough incentive (and may actually harm the chances of those who do) stay inside the limits of it.

by Quinton on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 02:40:03 PM EST

Re: Campaign Finance reform (none / 0)

Looked into the specifics of the bill Feingold was a sponsor for regarding reform of presidental public financing.

From Feingold's senate website:

In 2003, I joined Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in introducing legislation that would reform the presidential public funding system. This bill, S. 1913, the Presidential Funding Act, would have eliminated the current state-by-state spending limits and substantially increased the overall spending limit. It would have also required candidates who receive public funding for the general election to participate in the primary public funding system as well. The public financing system has worked well in the past by reducing the pressure to fundraise and by leveling the playing field between candidates. The Presidential Funding Act will help keep the system viable in future presidential elections.

Summary of S. 1913, the Presidential Funding Act from THOMAS:

SUMMARY AS OF:
11/21/2003--Introduced.

Presidential Funding Act of 2003 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code (including the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act) and the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to, among other things: (1) increase the presidential primary $250 one-to-one match to a four-to-one match; (2) increase the presidential primary qualifying threshold of $5,000 in 20 States to $15,000 in 20 States; (3) require candidates to be eligible to receive funding under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act to have received payments under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act; (4) revise candidate expenditure limits, including permitting the national committee of a political party to make expenditures in connection with the general election campaign of any candidate for President of the United States who is affiliated with such party in an amount of up to four (currently, two) cents multiplied by the U.S. voting age population and permitting an eligible candidate for the office of President of the United States to receive payments from the Secretary of the Treasury of up to $75,000,000 with respect to a campaign for nomination for election or of up to $75,000,000 with respect to a campaign for election to such office; and (5) double the three dollar presidential campaign tax return check-off to six dollars.

Comments in the congressional record when the bill was introduced in 2003 start on about the last third of that page and continue on to the next. The bill had three people sign on: Feingold, McCain, and Lieberman. It was read twice and referred to the finance committee where it seems to have died.

by Quinton on Mon Nov 27, 2006 at 03:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.