My top five:
There would be universal health care
Public university would be tuition free
Lobbying would be outlawed
The SCOTUS would be expanded and have term limits
Taxation would be equitable
2 Likes
That’s of course the good ideal situation. But if that is not sutstainable, a tiered system could be an alternative. For example no tuition for the state’s own residents, some tuition for out of state residents, and more tuition for non-US residents.
We used to have free college and university for everyone on all levels (at the public schools; private schools are a different matter), also for students from abroad. Sadly, we came to a point where that was no longer sustainable because it was just too generous, and we just got too many students from abroad, leaving less available student places for our own. So that was changed. Now our universities are tuition free for citizens of EU+EEC+Switzerland (still pretty generous). For others, there is tuition (although there are exceptions). For the current academic year, tuition is roughly USD 15k.
Here, we don’t have term limits for the supreme court, but a mandatory retirement age (70 years). Also, judges cannot be laid off or removed by the government or the parliament. The supreme court is also supposed to reflect the general population, both regarding age distribution and background, while also being gender balanced. Also, the judges are not politically appointed, but rather appointed by a committee under the control of the court administration, and then confirmed by the king. These are all safeguards to protect the courts from political pressure and influence.
My suggestions:
- Corporations are not persons.
- Set limits to election campaign contributions, per person, per entity, or whatever makes sense.
- Get rid of the electoral college and the winner takes it all systems.
- Living minimum wages.
- Tax churches, alternatively vigorously enforce their non-involvement in all politics.
- Limit the powers of the president.
- Improve workplace protection (i.e. no at will employment) to reduce exploitation of employees.
- And last but not least: Get rid of the f*cking tipping system
3 Likes
I’d do the following:
- Eliminate the Electoral College and use the popular vote alone to elect the president
- Change first-past-the-post elections to ranked choice or STAR
- Outlaw gerrymandering at the federal and state level
- Eliminate the filibuster in the Senate
- Term limits on Supreme Court justices – 12 years
- Reverse Citizens United and Dobbs
- Tax churches and prohibit them from lobbying or contributing money to campaigns
- Prohibit all private money in elections and replace it with public financing of campaigns
I’ll update this post as I think of more.
3 Likes
There are some interesting writings floating about regarding how some of the natural ossification that occurs in a large political system can be countered. Most of them speak of highly participatory community-level governance, at the neighborhood level, then that governing entity elects a representative to maybe a city-level entity, then county and so on all the way up the chain.
This resonates with me; I just became treasurer of the home owner’s association for our (un-gated) community of 29 residences. As I’m pretty sure we’re headed for an economic depression and other not-very-fun things I’m looking for ways to increase solidarity and mutual aid in these natural kinds of groups, then liase with the larger community. In my area that would be the Town, then the county legislature, then the state legislature.
Historically, I have been a typical 'Murican, not all that “involved”, busy working, raising a family, etc. I’ve voted in major elections and that’s about it. And I’m trying to change that level of participation, within reason. I think a big thing that would have to happen if this country manages to shake off fascism (or rise from its ashes) will be to have more involved and politically literate citizens with skin in the game. In some countries for instance voting is mandatory, as sometimes are other forms of community involvement. I think the US needs to lean more in that direction. Because what we’re experiencing is SUCH an unforced error, based on laziness, ignorance and stupidity.
Not so much US (I’m British) but I’d add universal basic income.
UK Atheist
2 Likes
I would focus on restricting certain types of guns (like the AR-15), and I would focus on preserving the environment.
One of my “pet projects” would be an infrastucture that makes biodiesel from Chinese tallow trees.
The Chinese tallow tree is an invasive species that makes up about 40% of the trees around Houston, Texas . . . and it has spread through the American South.
Yet it can be used to make a high quality biodiesel fuel that doesn’t contribute to global warming, and it works just fine in current diesel engines.
See below:
Renewable engery makes economic sense and tactical sense, because it would reduce our dependency on imports, as foreign supplies of fuel could be cut off during a war . . . so renewable energy makes sense for the military.
Also, renewable fuels remove a source of income for terrorist groups in the Middle East, so renewable energy can contribute to world peace.
Or that’s how I see it, but maybe I’m wrong.
2 Likes
Minimum wage? It’s currently just $7.25/hr, so based on a 40hr week that’s just $15080 a year, though some states have higher.
In the UK it’s £12.21, so that’d be $16.35/hr, or $34008 per year.
Here in New York state it’s $16.50 so roughly on parity with the UK. It is pretty much liberal states and even counties or cities that are islands where living wage are paid. And oddly enough, businesses thrive just fine that way.
There was a radio interview with some business owner (small restaurant chain) who was conservative and staunchly sold that he couldn’t afford higher wages but when forced to pay them he was so impressed with the increased quality of labor and employee morale that he was a total convert. He calculated that his savings in various forms of productivity like far less having to discard mis-prepared foods and do them over more than made up for the higher wages. To his credit, he was willing to do a public mea culpa on it.
1 Like
In Norway, we don’t have minimum wages set by law (because they normally are set through negotiations between trade unions and employer organisations, which works very well). However, there are exceptions for some trades that employ lots of foreign workers. For these trades, the minimum wages are set to prevent social dumping and to prevent foreign employees from being ripped off. For employees in hospitality industries (waiters, catering businesses, etc), the minimum hourly rate is, as per writing, NOK 197.79/USD 19.10/GBP 14.24. A work year is normally defined as 230 days/1695 hours, which translates to yearly wages of NOK 335254/USD 32378/GBP 24151. Before tax, of course.
In the U.S., the highest minimum wage is the District of Columbia at $17.50, followed by Washington state at $16.66.
The lowest are Georgia and Wyoming at $5.15. However, employers there that are covered by the FLSA must pay the federal rate of $7.25.
How is that possible? Does biodiesel made from these trees not contain carbon? If it does contain carbon, burning it in a diesel engine will create CO2.
1 Like
Minimum wage here in California is $16.50, and we’re not doing bad as an economy considering we have the fourth largest economy in the world (surpassed only by the U.S. as a whole, China, and Germany).
I think it’s carbon neutral, as the trees absorbed the carbon the fuel will release.
But there is a flaw in your logic.
Burning biodiesel from tallow trees does release carbon dioxide just like any other form of diesel fuel.
It’s just that these trees take carbon dioxide out of the air to manufacture the oils for the biodiesel to begin with.
And–since this process isn’t 100% efficient–using biodiesel actually represents a net decrease in greenhouse carbon dioxide.
The only problem with biodiesel is that it can go bad in 6 months if it isn’t used, but I don’t see this as a real problem except under some niche requirements.
1 Like
COUGH! Scroll up COUGH!
2 Likes
Sorry. 20 characters.
1 Like
S’ok…
1 Like
Then it’s better to leave the trees alone, where they’ll continue to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, and use other forms of renewable energy for transportation. The only benefit of using biodiesel is that it lets you continue to use existing diesel vehicles.
1 Like
But how much pollution would come from manufacturing millions of new vehicles?
I think of biodiesel as an intermdiate stopgap to tide us over as we move in a new direction of renewables.
Not quite, as some fuels are carbon neutral, so for example if the carbon gathered by a tree is the same as the carbon released when it is used, then the nett carbon in the atmosphere has not increased at all. So if you use this to replace fossil fuels, it reduces carbon emissions by that amount.
Of course it’s also vital that we reverse years of deforestation, and that the bio fuels are harvested in a sustainable way. It’s also worth pointing out that this tells us nothing about the impact on unique and vital ecosystems around the globe, where deforestation is an environmental disaster, even without considering carbon emissions.
It’s unlikely such biofuels could entirely replace fossil fuel use, and not cause an environmental catastrophe in its own right. However this does not mean we should completely ignore such fuels as part of our plans to reduce carbon emissions either. It’d be about striking a balance, how likely that is to happen, is another matter.