I believe that the only way to solve the problem while maintaining democracy is to separate the powers of taxation and general legislation by electing two separate legislatures - one solely to legislate (without the power to tax to pay for it - so the voters can only elect them on their legislative promises and record) and one solely to raise taxes (without the power to spend any of it - so the voters only elect them on their taxing intentions).

This idea is just a combination of two thoroughly well-tested constitutional arrangements - bicameralism and the separation of powers. The explicit purpose of the doctrine of separation of powers is to prevent the domination of a single political faction in the government of the nation. It’s pretty clear that in almost all Western democracies the tax-and-spend, big government, statist faction dominates and will continue to dominate (Is Old Europe becoming less Socialist, or America less porkalicious?). Separating the powers, so that a politician got elected not on promises of pork to his constituents, but on either his pledge to legislate responsibly or his pledge to tax responsibly (not both - there’s the rub) would move the balance of power towards the citizen and away from the state.

There are plenty of suggestion for adjusting the mechanism ( term limits, graded priorities, various ideas for tax reform, a hundred others, some of which may have real value in reducing the problem), but they’re only addressing the issue at the edges. The ability of power-seekers to make the standard corrupt bargain with the electorate lies at the root of the problem. End that, and you solve the problem.

This isn’t just an American problem. I’m British, and though we don’t have the spectacular pork-o-rama of American politics, we have the even-more-pernicious aspect of the same problem - the pervasive intrusive welfare state, whose fundamental MO is “Vote for me and I’ll get you lots of lovely skools ‘n hospitals ‘n government jobs. I might have to raise your taxes just a teeny wee bit to help pay for it, but I’m really going to soak those rich stockbroker bastards for most of the money.” So I’m interested in looking at this idea wherever it might apply, not just in America.

The president IS NOT a MONARCH!!

Let’s constitutionally abolish this ridiculous and antiquated presidential power.
It is unnecessary, as our judicial system provides the accused plenty of opportunity to acquit themselves.

The problem with the pardon power is it is absolute in nature. A president can pardon anyone who was convicted of a federal crime (excepting impeachment). Once it is granted, it cannot be overturned.

I am particularly offended when a president pardons someone in his own administration in an attempt to protect himself or his reputation.

“Wherever there is interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done.”
James Madison

The presidential pardon is an enormous power to do wrong.

Where is the accountability?

We need to find, fix, and punish those who violate the law, and yes, let the punishment fit the crime. Perhaps we need a few more laws to close loopholes that allow some of these creeps to escape. Perhaps we need to rein in the power of the President to pardon money men–surely for altruistic reasons alone, don’t you think?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/sir-allen-stanford/4735829/Sir-Allen-Stanford-could-face-criminal-fraud-charges.html

A video is here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0c761d6-fdee-11dd-932e-000077b07658.html

At the end of the article it states: “One former employee said he tried to pass on his concerns to regulators six years ago.”

and

“Mr Hazlett said he repeated his concerns during an arbitration hearing when he left the bank and believed regulators would follow up on them.”

Oh well. Stuff happens.

Sir Allen Stanford is the first American to be knighted by Antigua and Barbuda. He is also a citizen of the small island nation, considered a tax haven by a site that proclaims, “Tax Havens are GOOD.”

http://www.zyra.org.uk/taxhaven.htm

I am not excited by this or getting off on it in any way. I am sad and scared. What does it mean when the stream of corporate corruption flows this freely?

I hope to God, if found guilty, he will be punished. I will start praying that he is not placed under house arrest or simply returned to his island paradise home toe escape justice.

Anybody out there share my concerns?

It’s nice to be in agreement with somebody around here on occasion.

One more thing…
Retribution is one part of justice.
If someone kills my wife, I would like to see them suffer as she suffered.

If my retirement account and/or pension is destroyed one year before I retire, by corrupt white collar criminals (be they Ken Lay or Arthur Anderson stooges), I would like to see them suffer as I suffer.

I gain a psychological benefit “when the punishment fits the crime.”

Is retribution, or punishment, the only purpose of justice? I say no. I still think it is valid.

Here we are again, and I think we agree. I was just trying to make a point that people don’t mind seeing CEOs “suffer” (as Chuck says). I would imagine that more people get turned on by the payback they imagine they’re getting when wealthy people squirm.

I don’t get off watching poor people hurting. If you only knew how many hours I spend in my community volunteering….I see lots of things I disagree with. There is nothing wrong with demanding accountability. Is there? Tell me there’s not, or there’s no hope at all anymore.

Getting back to Rick’s post.

A month or so ago, regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh were all freaked out because they thought that he was one of the conservatives invited to dine with Obama. Rush had put the word out that he was in Washington DC, people put two and two together, came up with the idea that Obama had cleverly, manipulatively, asked Rush to come and offer input. People were truly upset by the thought that Obama might unleash a charm offensive that would sway El-Rushbo.

While I was 99.9% positive Rush would never give up his stance against porky spending just because Obama smiled in his direction and offered flattery, there was still a minute possibility that he might.

And what caused that fear, that .01%? Because, even the most well-intentioned people have gone to Washington and come back stained. Look at Rick. He came back completely disillusioned by what he experienced.

This is what we fear: “Rush,” says Obama, “You support me on this deal, and I can promise you we won’t go after you on the Fairness Doctrine.” Stuff like that. We wonder - will our leaders sell us out?

Whatever happens up there, whether it’s bribery or blackmail, it’s not good. We need to save people from it. We need term limits to save people from going to Hell and us from living in it.

Hypothetical situations:
A man lies to collect double unemployment benefits.

A man sells cocaine in Miami and launders his illegal profits by investing in local businesses.

A man defrauds investors to make a profit on Wall Street, he puts the profits in a Swiss bank account to hide his gains and avoid a U.S. tax liability.

I want to see all of these criminals punished. No house arrest for ANY of them.

An argument could be made that the drug dealer causes the most social harm, so he should get the harshest sentence. Maybe. As we have all found out, sometimes Wall Street crime can have a wide ranging negative social impact too.

Also, some things I dislike are legal. If a woman has an abortion, she has not done anything illegal. It makes no sense to call her a criminal. She has broken no law. Likewise, anyone who collects a social security or other welfare payment is not a criminal for collecting it, if they have not committed fraud and meet all the criteria necessary to collect it. Just because something offends me does not make it illegal.

Finally, if what you say about Obama’s Aunt is true, accountability demands she go through the appropriate deportation proceedings. If she gets away with being here illegally, it will be because:
1. there is little enforcement of immigration laws
and/or
2. Obama is president. (In America, the president and his closest comrades are above the law.)

It will not have anything to do with Obama being a Democrat.

No, I’m a rule of law kinda guy. It’s just that watching people suffer doesn’t really turn me on. Everyone’s got their thing though, that’s cool.

Yep, me and about 50 million others. Do you feel somehow superior because you support illegality, when it’s done by the “poor”? Congrats, dude.