Automating the Federal Government

The Information Age has propelled US corporations into new levels of profitability. The key is productivity - the more productive you are - the more money you make. The biggest contributor to productivity are - computers. With computers (and software) on everyone's desk - corporations became much more productive (and efficient).

I remember a joke I heard around the time of the 1st Gulf War. Saddam's government used computers that were hackable. Pentium-2's? They were (very) obsolete at the time. The punchline was - which organization has the largest user base of P2s? - The US Government.

By most accounts, the US Government today has no where near the computer automation that most private companies have today. Sure the NSA has great IT - but what about the Energy department?

I don't think it can be fixed. Not in the traditional way of budgets and planning and ... Here's the Plan.

Agency IT Rollover

Basically the idea is to build a new agency - and parallel an existing one. You decide up-front what software systems you will be using, and the staff of the new agency builds the forms and records needed to run the agency. When the software is debugged and is ready to run the agency's day-to-day operations, you cutover to the new agency.

While this is happening, you start a massive training program on the new software that ALL NEW AGENCIES will be using. In this way, employees whose Agencies have not yet been "converted" won't be so stressed out because they have confidence in their computer skills.

The team that built the new Agency stays and trains the employees that transfer after the cut-over. Once the "original" employees can run the new software and can do their jobs, the "build team" moves on to the next agency.

That's the rollover. You keep doing this (getting better and faster at it every time), until all of Washington is automated.

It's never that easy, I'm sure "winding down" old Agencies and maintaining their old data will have its costs. But you end up with high-functioning government that is more responsive (to both government and the public), more secure (security built into the software from the beginning), and more productive (and less expensive and smaller!).

The best way to create careers for young Americans

Today, the local, state and federal governments have job training programs. There is a lot of duplication in the system - making it inefficient.

Looking at Germany - they have a lot of trade schools and apprenticeship  programs in addition to colleges. Although Germany pays for this using tax money (Socialism) - the US needs to have a more "fair market" approach. We need to support small businesses to do some of this.

Let's call this program The USA Sponsored Apprentice Program (aptly named for the times!).

This is how it works - a (small) company would hire someone for minimum wage. The government would "sponsor" that person - which means they would double (or more) his wages plus enroll them in health care.

The small business owner gets to expand his workforce for less money - but he still pays taxes/workman's comp/etc. on the workers paycheck (so its not like he's getting a worker "for free").

The US government benefits because they can spend money and actually fix something. Instead of having gang members, you would have young people working - plumbers,electrical,computer, etc. - and making a decent wage. They would be building a resume - which is something they can't do now.

It wouldn't be forever either. Maybe ages 17-25. By then they should have plenty of experience to find good jobs. Hopefully they learn fast and leave the program on their own - for more money in their pocket!

Isn't this what Conservatives would like? A limited program to actually get people on their feet so they can live the American Dream?

As for the different job training programs, The Program USASAP would find out where the demand is for jobs and make sure the training programs were teaching for those jobs. In that way, if you found out you needed plumbers - and all of the plumbers could use more workers - but one rookie (USASAP) on the team is enough - you could start training plumbers in those programs, and they could join the workforce in 2 years (or less).

USASAP is always looking at data to make sure that 1. Citizens in need are helped and, 2. Small business is fostered.

Making Congress more accountable to the people

Constituents
Legislators are responsible to their constituents - which SHOULD mean that they spend a majority of their time with them. So the rule here would be - the Congressman will only meet with constituents  - and no one else (why would they need to meet with anyone else?). Also, they need to spread their time to meet different constituents - so they can only meet the same person twice per month (max).

Lobbyists would need to be a constituent in order to meet with the Congressman.

Congressmen would be prohibited from discussing any country business with someone that is not their constituent - even outside the Capital building.

In a public forum (their committees), they could speak with whoever they invite (or subpoena).

Campaign finance
In order to limit the election cycle, fund raising would be limited to 1 (election) year. That year would start when Congress is seated (Jan 20) and last until 1 month after the election. At that time, all campaign funds would be required to be turned over to the National parties.

The Party would use this money to fund ALL of their candidates. NOTE: The Party would pay the campaigning costs (provide the accounting) - and NOT give cash directly to a candidate (or possibly a small stipend to live on ...).

If a Congressman were found to have kept money, or to fund raise outside of the election period - they would be suspended from the party, until they gave up the cash back to the party.

The Government would provide a public equivalent for Independent Candidates (possibly have Government-approved private companies).

War Powers Act 2

In order to constrain future presidents (or Congress) from using military force to take over another country - The US must give that country the same choice that Puerto Rico had (from Spanish American War). The country can choose Independence (like Philippines) or Commonwealth (Puerto Rico) or Territory/Statehood. This puts the US with a stake in the future of that country (no half-hearted efforts - all in).

Rational Gun Laws

Rational Gun Laws

In order to bring some objectivity to restrictions on weapons, I propose the following definitions.

1. A Military Weapon (a weapon of war) needs to fire repeatedly - the more bullets you can spit out, the better the battle's outcome. Rate-of-fire is the most important factor when choosing a weapon for the battlefield.
2. A Civilian Weapon needs to be accurate. Accuracy is the most important factor for hunting or defending your home.

You can use a sledgehammer to pound a nail, but that's not what it was designed for. Military weapons can be used for hunting, but likewise they were not designed for that purpose. And conversely - Civilian weapons can be used on the battlefield, but they might put you at a disadvantage.

This Rate-of-fire has 2 aspects - fast firing and maximal ammo feed. Semi and full automatic "actions" were designed for fast firing (more so than bolt action/revolver actions). Clips and belts of ammo were designed for maximal ammo feed. The M-16 and AK-47 are examples of this high rate-of-fire (also called assault rifles) and are used in most armies around the world.

High rate-of-fire and battlefields are strongly connected. Soldiers use these weapons on the battlefield and battlefields most always have these weapons.

When you introduce these Military weapons into Civilian areas, what happens? You create battlefield "conditions" - where the "true nature" of these weapons can be unleashed (and has been).

Not all guns are equal - as I have defined above. High rate-of-fire weapons are extremely dangerous in Civilian areas as we have witnessed for many years (Aurora,Sandy Hook,Virginia Tech, etc.). But because there has been no explicit definitions of weapons, people equate all weapons as being the same - and the risk of having any weapon also being the same.

The new Gun Law

I propose that no Military weapon exist outside of the military. That essentially means that Civilians cannot own a Military weapon.

This goes beyond restricting fully automatic weapons - it makes any high rate-of-fire weapon illegal.

Remember that high rate-of-fire weapons require 2 things - fast firing and maximal ammo feed. In order to determine what weapons can be Civilian, they must break that rate-of-fire paradigm - either they must be slow firing or restricted on ammo feed.

The first aspect - slow firing - could be achieved by making every gun single-action i.e. bolt action for rifles and single action revolvers. Single action revolvers existed over 100 years ago and are not well suited for today (Bolt action rifles are still a mainstay of hunters).

The second aspect - restricted/reduced ammo flow - can be achieved through elimination of clips. Guns would be reloaded one bullet at a time (you could use those revolver 6 bullet "fast reloaders" - which really aren't all that fast compared to slapping in a new banana clip).

How many bullets a gun holds or how to design the reloading process should be left to the gun manufacturers.

The "Armory" Law

The Revolutionary War started when the British tried to seize an Armory. Armories are stockpiles of weapons and they must be protected. A citizen has the Right To Bear Arms (without limits), but having many, many weapons creates a de-facto Armory. A law will be established that having more than x(3?) unsecured weapons in your possession is a violation of The Armory Law. Pistol locks and gun safes secure weapons - but keep them from your ready, so a (small) amount of unsecured weapons will be allowed.

These 2 restrictions are the ONLY ONES to ever be established over weapons. This would be enforced by the "Hair Trigger" Rule - if any law is enacted that restricts citizens of their choice of (existing legal) weapons (not where they are carried); these 2 Laws will be considered null and void i.e. If a hostile government tries to restrict the citizens of their legal weapons (setting off this hair trigger), citizens are then allowed to "break" the law. This should allay the fears of gun manufacturers, NRA, etc. over "more and more" laws eroding the 2nd Amendment

Gun Crimes

There are many different definitions for gun crimes - murder, manslaughter, etc. There are also extenuating circumstances such as "self defense". In order to simplify the definitions, here is what I came up with.

If you shoot a weapon at another person, and the bullet either hits something other than clothing or the front of the target - you are guilty of a crime (not necessarily murder). Shooting someone in the back has always been the definition of coward - but shooting someone through an obstruction should also be considered as cowardly. Bullets travel a long distance and can hit other people - so it is your responsibility to aim (see) and hit your target. Therefore, shooting someone through a door, wall, window, etc. would be a crime.

I wanted to bring attention to this as there have been instances where (an example) A man was drunk, thought he was at his house, and pounded on the door to let him in. The woman inside shot him through the door and was not charged with a crime. Or a burglar trying to open a window was shot though it. You have a gun AND a mouth - warn the person to stop - DO NOT FIRE THOUGH THE WINDOW! Both of these examples were from Texas ....

Advise and Consent

The Nation's problems are too great for a single man (president) to tackle. The Founding Father's knew this and created the Advise and Consent Constitutional role for the Senate. It was assumed that learned men with experience and wisdom would become the Senators - and the President could draw upon them to help govern the Nation.

I propose a standing confidential lunch meeting with the President and all members of the Senate (25 at a time, every Wednesday?). This allows for more important discussions away from the media circus.