If you could pass a piece of legislation right now what would it be and why?

SGT Joseph Gunderson — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 19:58:22 -0400

Response by Cpl Vic Burk made Jul 21 at 2021 8:05 PM

Cpl Vic Burk — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:05:47 -0400

So many things but I think term limits is one of the most important. Too many politicians spent their entire life in congress and lose touch with reality. It's good to get fresh new ideas from working people who understand something about life.

Response by SSG Michael Noll made Jul 21 at 2021 8:08 PM

SSG Michael Noll — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:08:52 -0400

Nail on the head brother Vic! That is my first choice, I'm even generous and would allow them three terms.
Reason no staying in place to build wealth and power. While doing nothing for the American people.

Response by SP5 Dennis Loberger made Jul 21 at 2021 8:13 PM

SP5 Dennis Loberger — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:13:41 -0400

I would require a balanced budget. I think it is not responsible to put the load of our fiscal deficits on our grandkids

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2021 8:50 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:50:34 -0400

Regarding Reservists and being on orders 30+ days:
Within the span of the service member's "enlistment year" BAH would be paid retroactively for 30+ cumulative (not consecutive) days on orders.

It would stop a lot of games with exercise and training planning, and by using the service member's service calendar instead of the FY it would nullify the FY effect of funding games.

Response by CWO4 Terrence Clark made Jul 21 at 2021 8:52 PM

CWO4 Terrence Clark — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:52:02 -0400

I am on board with y'all's term limits.

My wish list has two parts: every new law must have a sunset clause and a zipper clause.

Sunset means a law only has effect for a defined period of time. I vote no more than five years, at which time it has to be reviewed and put through the legislative process, then renewed or not. Maybe if we keep them busy re-legislating they won't have time to interfere with our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Zipper clause meaning every new law has to negate EVERY other related law. Why to we have laws against driving under the influence, driving while distracted, driving while texting? Why not simply driving while inattentive or something?

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jul 21 at 2021 9:06 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:06:05 -0400

Term limits tied to balanced budget with a 14% flat rate. No exceptions. Not balanced? Everyones' term is over including the President/Vice. Pols need to learn that if they can't do the job, they're fired.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jul 21 at 2021 9:08 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:08:11 -0400

SGT Joseph Gunderson Empower the Police to enforce laws and exact obedience to lawful commands. Cause the Courts to punish criminals and remove them from society!

Response by MSgt Don VandeBogert made Jul 21 at 2021 9:54 PM

MSgt Don VandeBogert — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:54:52 -0400

Term limits, Voter ID that makes sense, Balanced Budget (noone outside the US gets squat unless there's a surplus and NATO gets 2% period...and not a penny more), and a few more but it'd be a long post.

V/R
Bogie

Response by SPC Nancy Greene made Jul 21 at 2021 9:57 PM

SPC Nancy Greene — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 21:57:37 -0400

Good Question SGT Joseph Gunderson! I will probably get backlash for my comment...I agree with term limits; however, I would like to see the death penalty utilized. Tax dollars to pay for criminals receiving life in prison without possibility of parole is a waste of taxpayers money imho

Response by SGT Robert Wager made Jul 22 at 2021 5:28 AM

SGT Robert Wager — Thu, 22 Jul 2021 05:28:38 -0400

12 years of federal elected office, regardless of what elected office. Unless elected to President or Vice President.

Congressman could serve 4 terms and 1 term as a senator or any combination that equals 12 years. The only way to serve more would be to serve 2 terms as President

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jul 22 at 2021 12:54 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 22 Jul 2021 12:54:02 -0400

I see a lot of folks calling for term limits. I agree with the concept, however I also think this is exceptionally problematic in the House, where they have 2 year terms. Creating 2-term limits in the House would mean that your most senior members have less than 5 years of experience (if they filled a vacant seat with less than a year left on the term). If you think the laws being passed NOW are bad, think about what will happen when almost all of the lawmakers are learning as they go.

Here is how *I* would fix that particular issue. No sitting member of the House, or the Senate, nor the President or Vice President is allowed to actively campaign for any national office. You are allowed to have campaign staff who campaign based on your record. No position which is paid in total or in part by federal tax dollars can take ANY part in campaigning - no campaign meetings, strategy, nothing. They can respond to information requests from the campaign staff the same as they would to the public.

This solves a COUPLE of problems. First, we are 6 months into this Presidency and this particular set of Representatives. Mid-terms are 18 months away. And if you listen to the news, they are ALREADY discussing whether it is too late for Biden to accomplish anything because midterms are coming up. WHAT? Representatives spend more time trying to get re-elected than they do actually doing their job. This is less a problem with Senators, but it is still a problem. So... no campaigning. Let the voters vote based on your record. If you want to run for President, GREAT. Resign your current job, and let someone else who will actually WORK fill the spot while you campaign.
Second, not allowing sitting folks to actively campaign will (hopefully) greatly reduce the folks who spend 50 years in the House. If you are not out and about all of the time, you are less likely to get elected. Now, SOME folks will still continue to be re-elected, and that is good. We do need SOME seasoned hands to help steer the ship. But I believe this will create MORE turnover.

And this isn't even the *one* thing I would pass if I could (more about that separately).

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Jul 22 at 2021 1:04 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:04:35 -0400

I would tie Congressional pay to the budget. I understand that there are times when things come up, and we will go over budget. So I won't advocate for an absolute requirement for a balanced budget, like some are calling for. Many successful businesses are able to run a deficit for a year or two or five and still survive, I see no reason to think that America cannot do the same. But.....

If Congress CANNOT balance the budget (or run a surplus), they lose 25% of their pay, per year. So the 1st year, they make 75%. 2nd year, 50%. Third year, 75%. And if they run a deficit for 4 or more years, they work for free. They go back up at the same rate. 3 years of deficit spending is 25% pay. If they balance the following year, they go up to 50%. If they run a deficit the year after that, back down to 25%. No "automatic reset" which would allow them to run a deficit 3 out of every 4 years, and still get paid.

I guarantee, if Congress' pay is tied to the budget, it will balance a hell of a lot more often.

Of course, this scheme (or a similar one) will create a very large incentive for corruption and "off books" spending. So I would also beef up the CBO and give them independent auditing powers, with a REQUIREMENT to audit 20% of spending every year. Further, the 20% will be randomly determined, and kept secret until the results are published (so Congress won't know what will or won't be looked at). Similar to urinalysis. it will be entirely possible for one office to be audited two, three, or even four years in a row. (There was a stretch where I came down on 11 out of 12 monthly "random" whiz quizzes. It happens, sometimes.)