1. Make lying to the public by a government official, in the context of government activity, a felony (we can't lie to police; government should not be able to lie to us)

2. Mandatory corruption investigations into all outgoing members of Congress, heads of agencies, cabinet, VP, and President, and their immediate family members

3. Graphical overlays of top 12 donors every time a member of Congress or other federal elected official is televised

4. Take the highest incarceration term and double it as a mandatory minimum for anyone using governmental authority to break the law

5. Remove qualified immunity for police officers who act outside of constitutional boundaries and require compensation for property they wrongfully damage or destroy

6. End civil asset forfeiture

7. Term limits for Congress

8. Mandatory balanced budget

9. Congress cannot exempt themselves from any laws or regulations

10. 5 year post-office restraint on regulatory capture (extends to high-level regulatory officials, Congressional committee members, cabinet members, etc.)

11. Delete the entire tax code and institute a flat 10% tax rate (plus FICA, unfortunately) on people and corporations (exempting corporate tax on dividends)

12. Use inflation-adjusted figures to calculate capital gains

13. Go back to pre-FDR understanding of the commerce clause

EDIT

14. Get rid of the Federal Reserve (Richard Ames comment below)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785824)

2. Agree on all fronts except family members of the elected officials. If the outgoing investigations result in probable cause to suspect the family members of having committed a crime, nail them to the cross too.

3. Let's take it one step further: Mandate Nascar-style uniforms for elected officials featuring the logos of their top donors.

4. I'm down with a level increase for that, but not double unless malice can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Cosigned.

6. Cosigned.

7. Cosigned.

8. Cosigned.

9. Cosigned.

10. 5 years is too short if the period in office is lengthy. 5 years is a great starting point for one-term reps, but each term thereafter should add on 50% of the term. If you serve 20 years in the house, the regulatory recapture period should be 15 years. If you're a senator and serve 4, that period should be 17 years.

11. Love it.

12. The fact this doesn't happen is maddening.

13. Just repeal the New Deal-era legislation entirely.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785982)

Item 1 is the one that would take the greatest care to properly institute and balance. Pecuniary gain is a huge problem, but so is Gulf of Tonkin type shit and the constant assurance of WMDs/imminent WMDs based on little to no real intelligence

For Item 2, we already see people like Paul Pelosi and Ilhan Omar's non-brother husband being used to channel the graft. We also see people like Hunter and Kushner engaging in what appears to be flagrant corruption. I don't see how we can avoid investigating spouses and children at very least. To avoid punishing people who aren't at fault, perhaps it should be required that those people who would suffer mandatory investigation must sign-off on the politician running for office in order for that politician to be eligible

On point 10, 5 years is an eternity in business. I don't think most businesses would actually wait that long, but if the reward is big enough, I guess any time frame could be sufficient (or indirect donations to people's "charity funds" or whatever). Maybe this is actually best handled as part of point 2 (mandatory investigation when leaving office)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786055)

#10 was phrased to account for the effect that lifers have more generally and broadly as it pertains to influence they retain even after leaving office. It's kind of like V10 firms getting into bidding wars over SCOTUS clerks, but inverted: It'd be appointing a biglaw partner as AG & having them target the fraud discovered in their time as a biglaw partner. Of course, lawyers have ethical obligations forbidding such things. Politicians do not. At the same time, term limits would obviate career politicians, so a 5-year recapture period across the board would seem fair.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786360)

After that we handle the remaining ones

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785846)

Lol. Go ahead and prepare for end of the republic with both sides constantly trying to get the other arrested until a strongman seizes power.

Also, how would you even gauge that? "I promise that I will push for adoption of a new law!" 2 years later- Arrest this man, he didn't push hard enough!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785871)

The hope would be the fucking idiots would focus more on doing their jobs and not constantly getting in front of cameras

When they do get in front of cameras, they keep it short, factual, and relevant. If they don't know, they simply say "I don't have enough information to answer at this time" or the equivalent

The devil is in the details, and none of these have all the details provided. However, I think you start from a point of failure if you assume that it's okay for the government to lie to and manipulate the people

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785898)

also, a transitory/mobile society is the easiest to control. Boomers are in the last possible position to allow generational housing to continue, which is why medical spending is through the fucking roof. They don't want boomers to pass on their homes or anything else really.

If people remained within 10 miles of where they grew up and the Congressional Apportionment Amendment were actually ratified, we'd have one representative for every 50,000 citizens (~6700 in total) and everyone in their community would know them and their family for generations. Think about the amount of pressure that amount of responsibility would bring. I don't think we'd be seeing as many unanimous billions for israel bills.

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons." (this was originally part of the bill of rights and is the only amendment in the bill of rights to not have been ratified by the required number of states)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786391)

Near anarchy might actually be better than what we have

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785926)

- Only puppies and kittens qualified.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49785907)

Damn, just read the wiki for Mayor Max and see that he and his kin have basically instituted an aristocratic line of succession. I never realized I was for monarchy until now

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786074)

Assuming a ~300 billion shortfall, it would be completely manageable given how much grift and bullshit we fund (look at the DOD alone). I think our government needs to be smaller and more focused anyway, so shrinkage would be a win

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786003)

accepting *anything* from a kike lobbyist is like accepting a pack of cigarettes from your new buddy on your first day in prison. next thing you know, you're bent over in the senate chambers getting sodomized.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786419)

Which, to be fair, might be superior.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786530)

My belief is that the people would more jealously guard against distortion by fringe interests if it were flat and universal as a baseline assumption

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786572)

This could help break down the political logjam and help moderate the extremists in both parties due to dominating their primaries as both parties would have every incentive to maximize winning moderate voters over extremist voters. It'd also prevent gerrymandering and one party wins all style in a lot of states that leaves many people feeling disenfranchised.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5852353&forum_id=2E#49786599)