Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Wave a Magic Wand
On the latest Ricochet podcast with Rob Long, Peter Robinson, and James Lileks, they ask the following: If they could wave a magic wand, what one wish would they grant to change our country? I’ve thought about that a lot myself.
I would wish for a one-term limit on all offices. It would include lengthening that term for the President and the House of Representative to six years, just like the Senate. I see the possibility of so many benefits: less time and money spent running for office, fewer entrenched office holders seeking their own welfare instead of the welfare of their constituents, less money flowing to corrupt politicians, fewer politicians whose only experience in life is a series of political offices, more candidates that seek to make a positive contribution instead of seeking for contributions.
That would be my one wish. What would your wish be?
Published in General
I think a six year term for the office of the President is a sound idea. To your point – with re-election efforts, that’s all we’re getting anyway. This might also force the electorate to focus more closely upon legislative races and give Congress more incentive to check the power of megalomaniacs.
I wish Alexander III of Russia has continued his father’s policy of liberalization. The world might have been spared the myriad horrors of Marxism
That’s a good one. So much misery has resulted because of the Russian revolution.
This will sound harsh, but I’ll share it anyway. I would disenfranchise anyone who has taken more money from government (including the salaries of government employees) than he or she has paid in taxes. Only net taxpayers should get to vote.
On that same note, I would give everyone a vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. That way, if they want more influence they can pay for it directly to the government. Then the clever ones who find a way to get out of paying their taxes would be penalized for it.
I thought of that, but I don’t care to give Mark Zuckerberg enough votes to run the place himself. As far as I’m concerned, once we all pass the threshold, we all have skin in the game and we can use democratic methods rather than economic methods to resolve the true public questions.
You are singing my song. Thank you very much for this comment.
For my country, I would eliminate the three-year time limit on the ratification of constitutional amendments, so provinces would no longer be able to run out the clock by refusing to put the amendment to a vote.
For your country, I would humbly suggest banning all corporate and union donations to political candidates.
I fully acknowledge that it goes against every “free speech” bone in my body, but in practice it has worked out very well for us in the Great White North, and over time I’ve had to soften my “liberty or death” philosophy in this one particular area.
…
That, or limiting the right to vote to those who pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, subsidies, government contracts, and/or a government salary (this would disqualify me from voting in Canadian federal elections, btw).
I would publicly execute every politician involved in criminal activity similar to what China does. We are run by criminals. This will never change.
Don’t diss this guy! I’m invested in his company.
He’s a liberal pig. Sell your stock.
He had the foresight to buy Instagram. He’s making me money so I’m buying more. Steve Jobs was liberal as well, but Apple is one of my most profitable stocks.
So, more powerful politicians who are able to hide their criminal activities would gain the ability to condemn their opponents to death, theoretically for lesser crimes.
I’m gonna go with “skeptical” on that idea.
I would wave the wand and make everybody in America suddenly at their ideal weight for their height. Everybody happy, fresh start.
Then I would sit back and see how long it takes for everybody to put it all back on.
I said I would publicly execute them. Nobody escapes the wood chipper. It tolls for thee Eric Holder.
Somedays I get overwhelmed by all the corruption and say stupid crap. My idea is just a sick joke venting frustration at what the US has become. The sheer unfairness of it all is mind numbing.
To your point, Holder is the type of person who would abuse such guiilotining power to the extreme. Issa would have been first on his list. So my idea is stupid. Unless it’s just me in charge, then it’s awesome.
I don’t believe it is reasonable to disenfranchise government employees, or to describe government employees as non-net taxpayers.
You do realize this would include the military, no?
My wish is a bit more abstract: that government would be run based on a strict reading of its powers under the constitution. No penumbras. If you want a new right, amend the Constitution or get Congress or your state legislature to enact a bill granting the right (and, of course, no new rights can be inconsistent or go beyond the explicit delegated powers of the legislative body).
Second wish. Severely limit the power of administrative agencies to issue rules. When an agency does issue rules, it must be pursuant to explicit and specific authorization by a legislative body. All rules that go beyond these constraints should be set aside by a court. The agency bears the burden of persuading the court that it is acting within its powers.
That hurts. I’ve been on a diet as long as I can remember. And you’re right, I always gain it all back.
I don’t think anyone should be able to vote for his or her boss, or indirectly vote himself or herself a raise.
My overarching thought, though, is: What would be the one “magic” change that would most positively affect the character of our public life? IMO, it would be getting rid of the tendency for people to vote for goodies for themselves that others have to pay for.
And in that way, this proposal would be self-correcting. If a group votes itself too many goodies (including public funding of jobs and benefits), it loses the ability to vote and takes itself out of the decisionmaking process. If a citizen later foregoes the goodies, or becomes productive enough that he or she makes a net contribution — or gets benefits taken away by voters — then the person re-enters the political process. So there is no race to the bottom and no going over the cliff.
I might be persuaded to change my wish. I love these ones.
Thanks. You may have also noted that my first wish was to have two wishes.
If there were a way to actually implement your wish, I would go for it too. I’m afraid however that it is inherent in democracy and its greatest weakness.
I’m not a huge fan of someone voting for his boss, either. I do think the calculus changes a bit if that boss has the power to place his subordinates lives in danger.
Also, I’m not inclined to view a salary collected for work in the same manner I view, say, EBT cards.
I 100% agree with your aims, just not the means.
Then again, it is your wish, so maybe I should just think up my own & stop complaining about yours.
Leave it to Ricochet to come up with the most incredible well thought out ideas. I’ve changed my wish. After considerable thought I want a billionaire Swedish bikini model with minimal English skills beyond”Boston Bruins”, “Yes Jay” ,and “More lotion “.
In one of those strange coincidences that I find so amusing, I was thinking about how term limits might be the single most important change we could make to save our country, and after mulling that thought for about two minutes I came across your post. I couldn’t agree more.
The biggest problem with my wish is it would have to be implemented by the very people its meant to limit.
Have you really never seen principled objections to term limits?
That’s where DocJay’s first wish comes in.
I didn’t say the only problem, I said the biggest. I can think of many objections myself but none of them persuade me.
All political contributions must go through a clearing house that keeps the identities of the donors secret from the recipients. In this way, people who want to support a candidate can do so, but because the candidate cannot find out who actually did support him, he is not in a position to reward the contributor with a quid pro quo.
A contributor might tell a candidate that he supported him, but he can’t prove it.
If it can be shown that a candidate does know who gave him a contribution, and also that the candidate, once in power, supported any legislation or action that benefitted the contributor, then both are guilty of bribery.