Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

josh.crechriou

User Profile Image josh.crechriou
Member since : May-29-2009 (Verified)
0 Ideas, 4 Comments, 13 Votes

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted

josh.crechriou 9 months ago
This is a great concept.

I think that the American people would be much more aware of democracy and feel much more empowered (for the people by the people) if they just got a chance to voice their opinions and solutions on individual issues as opposed to being limited to voting for a representative who embodies a number of principles and ideals some of which they agree with and some of which they don't.

A look at where the American people stand on the issues, and the solutions they have to offer, may provide the policy makers great material to work through with technical representatives to create excellent policy that is what the people want.

I would not suggest that all policy be open to vote by the American people, but let them share their ideas and thoughts before the policy is already drafted.

We all know it takes a long time to generate policy so lets make sure that it is pollished with the best ideas of all of America, and with a solid base of support from the people before it comes to a vote. This should help make the policy process more efficient. I believe this would allow much more to get done.
- if it is right the first time it doesn't have to be re-drafted or repealed after damage is done. Once on the books it can stay for generations.
- if it already has a solid base of support amoungst the American people the House and Senate will be less stand offish to vote it in.
- if the American people play a role in it's developement then they will have BUY IN and they will work in their lives to make the policy a success. (afterall our representatives are now representing huge quantities of people. Can one man or woman alone, do as much as they could with the support of the thousands they represent?)
josh.crechriou 9 months ago
I would have to agree with Mike here.

Consider this... A different president is in power. Perhaps a present from the past...

A bill is voted in by congress that does something great, and adds 5 special projects. The president isn't the good guy here though so he veto's the something great that the bill got passed for and passes the 5 special projects that his budies wanted. You need the separation of power here.

Sending taxes home with the candidates project may be affective though... after all this would directly affect their vote turnout.
josh.crechriou 9 months ago
I agree with a lot of the ideas here but personally would make a few changes.

DISCLAIMER: I have not been on Goverment assisstance yet, so my comments are based on observing others I have come to know, and attempting to place myself in their shoes to understand what that would be like.

ISSUE 1: SELF-WORTH/"LIVING ON THE SYSTEM"
I believe that many people who "live" on the system do so because of a lack of self worth. They tend to have grown up with poor family lives and now they live at poverty levels with no purpose in life. Afterall who wants to live at the subsistance levels of welfare?

RESOLUTION 1:
Require that all peoples on Welfare contribute in some way. For the most part this should be in the form of work as needed by the gorvernments writing the check. If there were insufficient government projects recipients could work for non-profits, and do community service. It is important that this work be dignified to give them the self-worth they need to work for a better life (which in my book does not include government assitance). The exception here would be folks who were disabled (should already be on disability), single parents with children below school aged, and elderly. Even here if there were a good match with some part time community service or some way for the individual to give back I think both the individual and the tax payer would benefit.

ISSUE 2: NEGATIVE FEEDBACK MECHANISM
The income cut off level should be changed. It is horrible that our current system provides a negative feedback mechanism every time an individual begins to better themselves.

RESOLUTION 2:
Support should be scaled back as income increases, but I think a bit of supplementing at a slightly higher level than before would be appropriate to help the individuals make this switch.

i.e. orignally on welfare an individual made $4, they got a job that pays $3, welfare still kicks in $2 yielding $5>$4 (obviously made up numbers to illustrate my point).

ISSUE 3: SUPPORT
I think that a lot of welfare recipients are treated as "undesireables" and are discouraged to better themselves in many ways.

RESOLUTION 3:
I would propose that mechanisms are put into place to help and encourage individuals to engage in government, increase education (also builds self worth), and become leaders in their own lives and communities. Potentially something as simple as an online support community facilitated by the gov would help in this. Show these individuals that others like them are trying to better themselves and pull themselves out of this living hell so that they can have the courage to continue. I think too often it is our neighbors and friends who may pull us down to justify their own stagnant lives. At least in the case of individuals living in subsidized housing, and on government assitance.
josh.crechriou 9 months ago
I agree that it would be nice to be able to curtail wasteful spending, but I would worry that this could have the affect of crippling governement. If every piece of legislation that spends any money is met by an uproar from fiscal conservatives then what we are really saying here is smaller government. I want a government that takes appropriate action. I want to pay tax dollars, so long as they are used to make my life, and the life of others more pleasant.

One could of course argue, that the more liberal individuals inclined to spend money in key location could counter the fiscal conservatives, but it seems (particularly in politics) that the naysayers get the most attention (seen as greater loss of potential votes).

--personal opinion only.