“Many programs have been proven to be effective and save more money than they cost the taxpayer.”

This is very true. Unfortunately, money spent on prevention is often labeled as “wasteful spending” by some because the benefits often pay off in longer time frames, but the expense is immediate.

When you talk about things that reduce potential criminal behavior, it is too easy to attack the program as being “soft on criminals” or “bleeding heart”. As I remember it, the data showed that midnight basketball programs, for example, actually reduced teen criminal activity. In short, they worked and cost much less than moving kids through the justice system. But the radio talk shows used it as an example of “liberal government run amok” without bothering to examine the actual results- so those programs got cut.

It depresses me, but spending a dollar to prevent spending ten later on should be a much easier sell (politically) than it is. This is probably much more the case in things like mental illness and criminal behavior—there are some hard hearted people out there would rather talk tough than spend one dime actually working on the problem.

I agree that State and Local conversations are critical.

Here is what I would like to see.

I’d like a system set up that would centralize what policies have been proposed or tried at the state and local level, and what the results were (good or bad). It should be easy enough that if you typed in “teen crime prevention” you would get a result of all the cities and states that had tried something related to that. Each city and state would be encouraged to list their projects – whether they worked well or not.

I’d also like to see colleges/universities get involved by checking out the effectiveness of these programs. How much was spent? What were the results? What measurable figures went up or down? Instead of researching “academic” questions, they could see what areas people were asking for data on, and then go out and study those areas. This way we combine the power of these institution to do through analyses with the needs of the people trying to work out the solutions on the local level.

In this way each person (be it a local citizen or a local lawmaker) could see what has already been tried, and propose something that builds on that rather than reinventing the wheel. I’d also like to see community rooms set up within the topics, so if your local group was working on an issue there would be one central (and free) place where you could exchange your ideas, look up research, and access federal resources.

Not sure why that word could cause a moderation trigger. I can’t think of any context where it would be inappropriate or disrespectful!

Guess we will all have to learn the ins and outs of the system…

I think the reason they went with a third party system was that some people had voiced privacy concerns over the government having a list of subscribers to these boards. By having a third party control the signups and manage the mailing list, no governmental employee will have access to contact information.

I do agree with the points about the usability of the current system.

Yes, there is technology which does exactly that.. relatively easily as it turns out.

I am working on a prototype mockup to show the folks at IntenseDebate that will have many of these features and I will post it when I finish.

I think the key would be to allow users that had earned a certain amount of points to be able to add tags to a posting. The more tags that were added, the more ways people could search (and find) the topics they were looking for.

We have fundamentally opposing views of government. I believe it ha a vital role to do the things that the "free market" will not do, and that people individually cannot do for themselves. You see it as something odious... to be "tolerated". In my opinion, this view has been thoroughly discredited by the current adminitration... and a lot of people now believe that there is a critical role for government to play.

Regardless, you still miss the point. When I said that there might be a way for government to provide either the same services at a lower cost, or offer more/better services for the same cost, that does NOT mean that there is a private sector "solution". If one government ageny ask you to fill out an application for a permit, and then another agency makes you fill out the very same form to do an inspection, if you suggested that both organizations SHARE the form data, it would reduce time and expense for all involved. That doesn't have anything to do with the free market, intrusion of rights, limiting of competition or anything else you have mentioned. It simply means "Here is an idea of how to do things better"... nothing more.

I'm guessing we could really go back and forth all day but I don't see much point to it. Good ideas are good ideas. They help in business. They can help in government. And aking a view that democrcay works "better" when nobody offers suggestions seems backwards, dangerous (look at where the last administration took that idea), and easily correctable.

The entire premise of this site is to increase the flow of information between the government and the people it serves. THAT is why change.gov was created. If you are not on board with that, great- that is your perogative. However criticizing those who DO want to participate simply for offering ideas seems ironic.

I guess we will have to agree to thoroughly disagree.

However it is incorrect to say that by having American citizens actively participate in their government AFTER an election, it somehow is "basing policy on what is good for some at the expense of others". The two things are entirely unrelated. If I see a way that government can provide the same services at a lower cost, or how service can be improved without spending any additional reources, that is not the us versus them scenario you paint.

You are also way off in logic. By ONLY using your vote as a tool for managing government, you leave out all of the entire executive branch that makes the rules, regulations, and oversight that affect each of us citizens on a daily basis. So, since I can't vote for any of them, We are just resigned to let them do their own thing and never offer any ideas or criticism. And even with elected officials, your logic doesn't hold. If neither Candidate A or Candidate B is aware of a potential solution to a problem, what good does my vote do?

In any event, I find it preposterous to suggest that the only ones who will have the answers to these problems are the lawmakers themselves. Who is more likely to have the answer (based on probability) 100 senators or millions of citizens. They NEED feedback... they NEED suggestions.... They NEED ideas. There should never be a monopoly on ideas... ANYONE with a voice can make a suggestion. It is up to the lawmakers to decide if that suggestion should be pursued further.

I don't understand your point.

How can it possibly be a bad thing to say to the people who are most engaged and participating in a democracy- "If you care about this issue, here is what is about to be proposed on it and whom you should contact if you have better ideas"?

All I am suggesting is that people can easily find out how to participate directly in their government AFTER the election. Electing someone, and then doing absolutely nothing until they run for re-election seems like a disasterous plan when whe have crisis on the level we currently do. It also runs counter to everything Obama ran on during the election.

Elected officials will govern better when hearing from their constituents than not.

There is no way a flat tax could realistically be implemented in 120 days. Trying to do that would be a train wreck.

The federal bureaucracy is a mammoth machine. The funding mechanisms are complex, and intricate- and can’t just be turned of and restarted at the snap of a finger. It would be like trying to work on a car engine while driving it.

And as for your statement that “DC seems to be a dysfunctional team of people who cater only to the bleeding hearts and freeloaders who've never done anything for themselves or the country” I think perhaps you should understand people’s situations before condemning them.

Just because someone is struggling does not make them worthless. Obama’s mother was on food stamps at one point- did that make her a “freeloader”?

The warranty doesn't help if the suppliers stop making the tools and parts needed to service your vehicle.

If you are a supplier for GM and they go into bankruptcy, are you going to keep making parts for GM vehichles and hope they pull through, or are you likely to start looking at other car makers.

A warranty with no way to service the car is just a worthless piece of paper.