“We would have to change our corporate laws to value the welfare of people above profits, that would be a cost of doing business. With global warming upon us, we need to be able to reduce our consumption without causing starvation or stagnation.”

totally agree with this comment, reducing pointless consumerism relies upon a total shift in ideology.

BigIslandDave:
‘Your “I’m a rugged anti-government individualist and the hell with everybody else” theme is wearing thin, Anarcissie. ...’

My ideas are not going to wear at all unless somebody engages them.

Does our Government worship God or money?

TheRealFish:
’... If the “government” is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” as Mr. Lincoln reminded us, that “government” is us. U.S. is US. ...’

I don’t know about you, but I am not the government.

A good example of democracy in action was the Great Bailout bill.  Many congresspersons reported receiving mail 100 to 1 against it.  They voted for it anyway.  That should tell you something, although if you didn’t know it already, you probably can’t be told.

As I’ve pointed out before, Republican small-government talk is empty propaganda.  Reagan actually expanded the government.

What does it take to give a homeless man shelter?
What does it take to make a child’s belly full?
What do you spend to make a sick man healthy?
What is the cost to provide a school?
What is the price to put clothes on your back?
What is the point of speaking to a fool?

Governments deed is to provide for our needs
not to watch us bleed.

No Shineola:
‘The words stand on their own. Guaranteeing food shelter clothing health care and education are self evident.’

Not to me.  Want me to list the varieties of food, shelter, clothing, health care and education which are available?  It will be a rather long and variegated list.  Shelter, for instance, covers everything from a refrigerator box under a bridge to a 100-room mansion.

When a company falls on difficult times,  one of the
things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.  The remaining workers mus find
ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their
job would be eliminated as well.  Wall streetk, and
the media normally congratulate the CEO for making
this type of “tough decision”, and his board of
directors gives him a big bonus.
OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IMMUNE FROM SIMILIAR RISKS:

Therefore:
(1) Reduce the House of Representatives from the
current 435 members to 218 members.
(2) Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50(one per state)>
(3) Then, reduce their staff by 25%.
Accomplish this over the next 8 years(two steps/two
elections) and of course this would require some
redistricting.

SOME YEARLY MONETARY GAINS INCLUDE:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress.
(267 members X $165,200 pay/member/year.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff.(estimate
$1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House,
and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate
every year.)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks
each year. (those members whose jobs are gone.
Current estimates for total government pork earmarks
are at $15 Billion/year.)
The remaining representatives would need to work
smarter and improve efficiencies.  It might even be
in THEIR BEST INTERESTS TO WORK TOGETHER FOR THE
GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY!
We may also expect that smaller committees might
lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well.  It might even be easier to keep track of what
your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs
than it had back in 1911 when the current number of
representatives was established.(telephone, computers, cell phones, to name a few.)
NOTE:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was
a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the
economic problems.  Also, we have 3 Senators that
have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+
months(on the campaign trail) and still they all
have been accepting full pay.  These facts alone
support a reduction in Senators and Congress.
SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITY:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house
member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced Senate
member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for
remaining House members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for
remaining Senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills
by the reduction of Congress members.

$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings.
(that’s 8-BILLION just to start!)
BIG BUSINESS does these types of cuts all the
time!
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25,
or 30 years(like everyone else) in order to
collect retirement benefits, TAX PAYERS COULD
SAVE A BUNDLE!  Now they get full retirement
after serving only ONE term.

The words stand on their own. Guaranteeing food shelter clothing health care and education are self evident. It is up to the branches of government to implement. This is why I believe it should be a grass roots movement, coming from the people. It is the opposite of prohibition. It is a can do versus a not do. It can be implemented.

A “simple” comment, really: When Reagan (and all the other pro-corporatocracy class warriors on the right or left) mouth the words, “the government is not the solution to the problem—the government IS the problem,” the logic behind those words need more scrutiny than the emotional, gut-level populist reaction uttering those words tends to draw.

In other words, take two steps back, pause, then think about what Reagan and all those others are really saying:

If the “government” is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” as Mr. Lincoln reminded us, that “government” is us. U.S. is US.

If WE are the problem and you claim to be the problem solver, then you are against US.

The Reagan Revolution was indeed a revolution. Against us. Mr. Reagan and others of his anti-American ilk are very honest in that they admit they do not like the form of government that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

They preach that there is only a special class of “us” from whom all blessings flow. Give over the country’s wealth to this small cadre of special people, get the huddled masses to step out of the way, and the promise is that we will get some little trickle of wealth from On High, the bits that seep between their greedy fingers.

We’ve now tried that method for 28 years, and we see the results all around us. Big Government is BIG, when it is a 300 million person government.

And yes, Teddy Roosevelt was very correct in his many discussions of the true meaning of “commonwealth.” The wealth of the country belongs to every man, woman and child citizen of the country, not just those glorious few whom Reagan and others worship.

Those glorious few entrepreneurs grow fat on the largess of the commonwealth, and as TR insisted, owe a very large debt to the commonwealth for the privilege of capitalizing on our common wealth.

To be anti-government, especially in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, literally means you stand against the underlying principles of the United States.

Operating on that basis, when taking the most broad view, is treason; preaching this anti-government spew that has been made to be populist dogma is just as easily viewed as sedition.

Perry—the Republicans did not make the government smaller in recent years, they enlarged it significantly.  You have only to look at the budget figures, the Federal deficit, the activities of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the huge expansion of military and police activity to figure this out.

However, a few years of history probably don’t prove very much one way or the other.  I am more interested in your conviction that human societies can’t exist without governments, that is, permanent institutions of forcible coercion.  You seem to find them almost a biological necessity, although humans existed without them, as far as we know, for many millennia.  Or, given the (to me) improbable principle that human beings cannot function without a gun being held to their heads, why these institutions should not at least be minimized.  I hope you have more evidence and better reasons than the Republican small-government propaganda hitherto cited.

I’m asking you how you would write the positive obligations you’ve named into the Constitution.

In the Constitution before the 13th Amendment, slavery was permitted and accommodated, but it was not required or mandated.  No one was obliged to keep slaves, nor was the government commissioned to supply people with slaves.  However, you’ve mentioned several positive obligations, like the supply of food, housing and health care, and I’m curious as to how you’d put them into the Constitution in a meaningful way, remembering that the contents of the Constitution are obligatory and very difficult to change.  Note that there is already a “general welfare” clause which has been there since 1787.

No Shineola—I believe I understand the sort of economic structure you’d like to see.  However, I don’t see how you would fit it into the Constitution.  The Constitution actually compels very little; it’s mostly about the structure of government, and what the government is allowed and isn’t allowed to do.  It says that Congress can pass laws for the common defense and to promote the general welfare, but it doesn’t have to.

Suppose the Constitution mandated a set of benefits, but the government had gone broke.  It has happened before, even to governments.  What then?

Anarcissie

Reorganizing our tax priorities would be the way to go.
There would be a guaranteed base for each individual. Regulated capitalism would still exist. We would have to change our corporate laws to value the welfare of people above profits, that would be a cost of doing business. With climate change upon us, we need to be able to reduce our consumption without causing starvation or stagnation. The idea of a base could be imported to nations around the world. FDR had a similar idea in the 1930’s. It wasn’t implemented. It is time for a new deal for the 21st century.

No Shineola:
‘There needs to be a grass roots movement to create a constitutional amendment guaranteeing food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for all Americans.’

All right, but then the Constitution probably needs to specify how these things are to be obtained.  They come ultimately from labor, and if no one wants to supply them voluntarily the government will presumably be required by the Constitution to use force to obtain them.  At present, however, the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude, so there seems to be a possible contradiction there.  However, I’m open to suggestion.

A second difficulty is that the quantity and quality of “food, shelter, clothing, health care and education” are thus far unspecified.  In the past, for instance, many states guaranteed education to the children in their jurisdiction, but contrived to not provide very much to those who were poor or improperly pigmented.  So this is something the new amendments to the Constitution would have to address if any constructive effect were going to be obtained from them.

There needs to be a grass roots movement to create a constitutional amendment guaranteeing food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for all Americans.
There needs to be a minimum base for humanity that cannot be changed by the greedy among us.

Pass this and all other progressive initiatives will fall into place.

Mr Madrick is correct in his analysis. We just need to be bolder.

The enlargement of the government in a country is probably a pathological condition, corresponding to the enlargement of the heart in an overstressed animal body, presaging early disease and death.  In the case of the United States, two motivations combine to produce this excessive stress: the desire of the ruling class to extend empire in the face of bankruptcy, and the desire of those in and outside the ruling class to drive the economy as hard as possible to produce the stuff the common people have been promised in place of freedom, equality, peace, a liveable physical and social environment, and some time off.

What I find truly sad in all this is the pathetic celebrations of this degenerative process by many who call themselves liberals, leftists or progressives, even as the halter is tightened around their necks and the lash is laid to their backs.