Wednesday, January 09, 2013

So, how would you change the Constitution?

The first thing I would do is pass a balanced budget amendment. Let's remember, kids, that unless Congress did not want a budget deficit and debt, we wouldn't have one.

Then in no particular order: No one can be compelled to purchase any public or private service.

That would, if properly crafted, kill off the festering sore of Obamacare.

An amendment to get rid of anchor babies.

No one born here of illegals should be citizens.

An amendment requiring all government agencies at every level (including schools and government funded hospitals) to actively report illegals, and then require the US government to deport them within 30 days, and then make any illegal caught in this country ineligible for legal entry and/or citizenship; all non-citizens or naturalized citizens convicted of a felony are to be deported upon completion of their incarceration... and those naturalized shall automatically lose their citizenship as a result of their conviction.

Further, it would be illegal to provide any service of any kind to illegals, not related to the service of deporting them.  That would include employment, housing, or even feeding.  Those businesses that engage in this activity would be confiscated and the ownership/management involved imprisoned.  No employment would be offered or granted, on the books or off, without undergoing an immigration check.

Illegals would not be eligible for licenses, permits, ownership of property, including personal.  Being here illegally should mean that everything they do that follows is subsequently illegal, good.... or bad.

It is, after all, the AMERICAN dream, and rewarding anyone for breaking our laws is completely oxymoronic.

If you are going to disrespect our laws to get here, there's a damned good chance you'll disrespect them once you arrive.

Harsh?  Perhaps.  But if the goal is to stop illegals from coming here, then we pretty much have to eliminate any reason for them to do so.  Removing the American dream from their grasp would accomplish that.

An amendment forbidding public service employee unions.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.
112 - Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service
August 16, 1937
Roosevelt wasn't right about much, but he was certainly right about this.  Allowing this rampant ethical violation of paying millions to get people elected and then expecting those same people, now bought and paid for, to bargain in good faith for the people they are SUPPOSED to represent?

Will, billions in unfunded liabilities has been the answer to that scam.  And it's time to put an end to it.

Government workers making more than those who pay them?  Seriously?

There may be others and I'd like to hear serious suggestions... So, let's start!


Martin Hash said...

I'd like a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution too but I don't think we're on the same page...

The Legislative process produces spending. Done deal. A Balanced Budget Amendment would mean that TAXES must be raised (or lowered) to equal the spending. Math rules.

Anonymous said...

I like your idea, Kelly.. :)

Anonymous said...

But Martin, you may not see the requisite issue we now face at many levels of government. I believe the state of Washington has a balance budget law or state constitutional amendment, the only different between the feds and our state government, is they can't print money to cover debt, which the feds do.

I think some of us would not have such an issue of advocating for a budge amendment in the federal constitution that would have to be ratified through various processes.

In that state constitution, I would WOULD only exempt state of WAR for a maximum of 5 years or national emergencies? After that, there is NO reason than that.

We as a nation is going into a near twenty trillion dollar budget issue. Where are we going to get that kind of money, at some point, the credit rating agencies are going to say, enough is enough.

I know I was recently reading that Fitch was almost ready to drop our debt down by two notches if we hit the fiscal cliff drop off. (and yes, I believe I agreed with Kelly on this one too.)

At some point, the world is going to stop giving us money or exchange. Now, I do see a PLUS in the fracking of oil and natural gas, because it might be the first time in more than sixty years, we can tell some to go F* themselves. And it might help us pay some down some of our own debt? And lower the prices of gasoline.

But I doubt it will lower the additional taxes, that seem to be commensurate with the wishes of government to tack more and more on.

I believe the budget needs to be taken care of and faced. If it takes a national, constitutional amendment, I will advocate for it. And with our new defense posture moving to robotic defense systems, I have a few hundred thousand REDUNDANT!!! systems from many moons ago that I think could cancel ON the spot!

If one doesn't know, robotic
systems can do 10x than a human can. Though it may not be have the cognitive abilities and human decision trees, its variability and simpler cost could help us achieve greater cost savings here in the US.

And help our budget situation! And other levels of our budget that are so out of control, like social costs of various kinds?

Tell me, I know you are a smart engineer and lawyer type, am I wrong in my comments? -- Jeremy