The important government post you've probably never heard of.

Today I learned something new. I've been toying for weeks on how I would set up a government if I started from scratch, with the Federalist Papers as my rough guideline for the reasoning behind it's various components. I like that our highest government is neither federal nor national (or is an amalgamated both, depending on one's perspective, it's perfectly debatable i.e. #41.) I also like our bicameral setup for the legislative branch, but I can't help but feel it's the least circumspect element of the government. So, what I was toying with was an idea I had for a watchdog group, one that had the smallest of checks and balances given or received. It'd have to be an internal component of the legislative branch itself, as obligation to the executive or judicial branch would place undue checks in the hands of these two branches. But it seems someone beat me to a similar idea.

It's only in an advisory and admonishing position, but the Government Accountability Office is an agency that performs in depth reporting on important U.S. government issues, mostly it performs audits, and expressly operates to expose fraud and waste in government, its sole stated mission. Of course, it has no authority, but as a bully pulpit. The head honcho of this agency is someone called the Comptroller General, who is appointed every 15 years by the president and affirmed by the legislature. And they basically cannot be removed, with this current system (if it were more than an advisory and admonishing board there would need be a greater check, naturally). All they do is create reports and give speeches on what those reports show. Like this one:

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08371cg.pdf

Proof this guy actually knows American history and reads, for example, the Federalist Papers, he understands the correct role of the United States government:

"Shockingly, the major functions expressly envisioned by our Founding Fathers as a proper role 

for the federal government—things like national defense, homeland security, foreign policy, the 

treasury function, the federal judiciary, the Congress and the Executive Office of the President— 

are in the remaining 38 percent of the federal budget!" - page 2

That means the other 62 percent are programs - some good, some bad and some just plain ugly - that states could easily undertake instead (and do - the states have to duplicate many of the programs that the feds botch).

Anyone desiring socialist european BS, impose it first on your state. Not mine. After you're done bleeding, the rest of us will patch you up and get on with finding WORKING solutions. This means obligatory national health care funding. That's your platform Democrats.

But back to my version of the government, there'd be three levels of this watchdog agency:

The GAO. Pretty much like it is, but the Comptroller General will be in part of a monthly rotation with two other equally capable counterparts (The Comptroller Representative and the Comptroller Judge) in running the program. They would be on five year staggering of terms, similar to the Senate. This would mean for four interspersed months out of the year, one Comptroller runs it and gives the final report, trading time with two others. None can fire the others, of course. The three are nominated by President, Legislature, and Judiciary, respectively, and confirmed by each other (Exec by Leg, Leg by Jud, Jud by Exec... rock, paper, scissors). As before, they would be mostly an advisory body, but with a twist. On their advice a door opens for another branch to act. More on that later.

The Shadow GAO. A GAO nominated and operated by the double minority components of government. It only needs one comptroller. It is in an advisory role only. This is mostly for public record. The idea behind this is that neither dems nor pubs would have this one in their belt, yet it is paid to rip them up, should they agree together to fleece the public, as they've proven they are more than willing to do in the past. It would only bear the Legislative nominated Comptroller, nominated then voted on by a majority of all representatives not bearing the top two party labels.

Finally, the most controversial but most necessary component of how I would set up a government, The Watchdog Branch. It would be an actual component of the legislative branch, effectively making it a tricameral institution. It would operate only in a case of advice given by the GAO that a federal program is "Constitutionally Inflated" that is, performing a function that would benefit from the closer, immediate accountability of state government.

Our constitution was intended to serve certain needs that only a unified government can fill. (see federalist papers, mentioned nearly everywhere) But we have multiple levels of government. The lower the level of government, the easier it is to change to fit complex issues of style, for instance, economic style. (also in the federalist papers, also mentioned nearly everywhere) Here's my maxim: May the best economic evolution win (and be emulated). This is, of course, short of things that are expressly forbidden by the Constitution, like printing "state money," setting duties or tariffs on other states, etc.  However, some programs we currently have operating, which are issues of style, should rightfully be handled by state governments. This proposed branch reallocates that responsibility. Both the tax raising and expenditure of resources will be assessed, and if requested by a 3/5ths majority of state legislatures, are then reallocated to the states. This means the federal tax rates that procured the funds will be dropped by a universal percentage of the rate that will exactly match the program liability cost history. This enables individual state legislatures to pick up the program if they wish (or establish even a more aggressive or extensive policy if they wish, too), or drop it if they do not. Then, if this branch votes to reallocate, the last check is from the Judiciary (the Supreme Court, in this case), who assess the Constitutionality of the reallocation. They are a bunch of lazy butts doing nothing anyway, most of the time (they judge what, like 10 cases a year?) they can check that, too.

But I'm torn on it. I kind of want the Shadow GAO to perform this role, but not really, since it'd have similar origins (too much opportunity for corruption). Needling reports are the best role for it.

Oh, and how would the Watchdog Branch be formed? We have it already. It's the state governments. Instead of duplicating program after program, the states can finally say to the feds in one voice (or 3 /5ths of a voice), "Hey, that's our jurisdiction, back the h off and focus on what you're supposed to focus on." As the states are rarely so unified, having the structure built in for miniature financial revolutions would be nice. And don't be so dismissive of state governments, if you're thinking to yourself that they're more corrupt than federal ones. They're not. They simply don't hide it as well (less swindling, wool-pulling politically skilled individuals, as with any other skills, are to be found amongst smaller populations, the proportionality being the same). People can understand and are outraged when hundreds of thousands or a couple million dollars are mishandled. Their eyes glaze over when the number becomes trillions. Yes, trillions.

Finally, I cannot drive this home enough, if we really need a government mandated healthcare program, why haven't the states stepped in and done it? Why must it be at the federal level?

Answer: Because it's a horrible idea and people can see its fetid rottenness when it's implemented on a smaller (read: visible) scale. Illinois (home of Obama), New York (home of Clinton), you're two of the wealthier states, let the others see you chug this snake-oil first. When taxpayers flee your borders and costs operate void market checks that keep them proportional, we'll be happy to welcome you back into the fold once all wild european oats are sewn, all self-imposed anguish exacted and the prodigal phase begins.

Nothing prevents any state from trying an extensive healthcare program effective immediately, not even my insightful, perhaps, "incite-ful?" exhortations. I would even possibly encourage such an action. I like both tragedies and comedies. I like to watch them, that is, not partake.