I may be a lone voice in the wilderness here but I don't particularly have a problem with lobbying. I mean, that's what I'm engaged in every time I call my senators and my representative. I may not be waving cash in front of their faces but I'm lobbying for them to vote the way I as their constituent want them to. Better yet, if I form an association of like-minded people and we pool our resources and are then able to financially support candidates we believe will vote our values, we've just formed a lobbying group/PAC. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with a lot of the larger and more well-heeled lobbyists is just how "in-bed," with their politicians they've become. Do you try and regulate people into living principled lives or is it our responsibility as voters to elect prinicpled statesmen to begin with who'll tell the high-powered lobbyists with all the perks and fringe benefits they try to offer just where they can put those things? I rather think it should be the latter. It's on us to elect principled statesmen and all the while lobby them to keep doing the right thing.

Hey, I'm not necessarily hung up on the "more assets than liabilities," model. In fact, I specifically stated that I changed my position to that of someone who paid more in taxes than they received back as a refund. Looking at your situation, you quite obviously paid more than you got back which would, in my so-called "plan," qualify you for a vote, keeping in mind that my proposal was also that each state dictate their own terms for suffrage because I want the feds out of the issue entirely. No need to empower the federal govt with more power than the Constitution originally gave it.

All I'm suggesting is some sort of litmus test so that the "have-nots," can't simply vote themselves what the "haves," have worked, sweat and bled for. Maybe if we adopted a national sales tax (congress was originally only authorized to tax trade/commerce) then EVERYONE would pay taxes every time they purchased a good and/or service and that would potentially negate the need for states to define suffrage. I'd be ok with such a proposal as that, as well. Not trying to indisctiminately disenfranchise, here. Just trying to reason through a tickler of a problem.

And one more CRAZY idea that, I think, would solve a lot of our tax problems and directly addresses Plank 2 of the communist manifesto someone else already brought up, i.e. a graduated income tax: end universal suffrage. I can hear the complaints now: "What?! Take away some peoples' right to vote!? Lynch him!"

Now, are we not living in a form of "mobocracy," where a simple majority of the voices being heard is dictating how our politicians act and vote? Nominally, we still have a representative republic but these guys live and die by the polls.

So, what if you had to qualify for a voting privilege? Something simple, like your assets must value more than your liabilities. In other words, you have to have some net worth to qualify to vote. And this qualification would be done at the state--or maybe even county--level. No federal involvement in suffrage. Then, each voter would be a stake-holder as it relates to how government is run and especially as it relates to how tax-payer money is spent. I know I'd be highly disinclined to vote for a candidate who promises to take my money by force and benevolently bestow it on the guy down the street who has a negative net worth. It's the number of people who DO have negative net-worths allowed to vote for these guys that's getting the rest of us ripped off.

Just a thought, and I'm sure, a controversial one. Any thoughts, for or against it?

1. Term Limits for all elected offices--no more professional politicians
2. Term limits for all bureaucracies--set expiration dates for all existing and any proposed federal programs
3. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
4. Return to the gold standard.
5. A balanced budget with 70% of revenues divvied out to govt. programs, 20% to national debt and 10% to savings with only the interest earned allowed to be spent in emergencies.
6. 100 day (or less) congressional sessions (the less time they spend up there on Capitol Hill, the less legislative crap they can foist on us).
7. Term limits on all federal judgeships, including the Supreme Court
8. Abolish the Federal Reserve and any other quasi-government agency (i.e. FDMC and FNMA). Privatize most government activities as bureaucracies approach their expiration dates (see #2).
9. No income tax at all. Congress is only constitutionally allowed to tax trade, so we develop a simple tax structure on goods and services--this, by the way, should have the effect of encouraging savings as only consumption would be taxable!
10. Cede "federal," ownership of land to the States to dispose of as they see fit (most of the West, for example, is owned by the feds and is, therefore, mostly unproductive).
11. Unilaterally resign from such treaties/contracts/organizations as the UN, NATO, GATT, NAFTA, Kyoto accord, etc., etc. Not that some of these things don't have worthy goals, but they all erode our national sovereignty.
12. I don't have a specific proposal here, but a goal: level the playing field between small and big business. Big business is way too "in bed," with our politicians, getting them to pass regulations which stifle competition in the name of "safety," or whatever other reason they can come up with. There's too much regulation making it very difficult for small fish to compete with big fish. How do you legislate a proposal? I don't know, but smarter people than me may have good proposals.

There's lots more I'd love to see accomplished but perhaps some few of these suggestions would beget even better improvements.