Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
On the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                       

Hired Executive Branch

 Eliminate the politics of the office!
  (-7)(-7)
(-7) 		  [vote for,
against]

I propose that the executive branch of the government be abolished as a political office and instead be replaced with a hired executive. Further the executive branch of the government would be run as a business. Congress would act as the board of directors. The Chief Executive would report to congress with Supreme Court oversight.

The Executive branch would then be structured like any large corporation and would become far more stable and accountable for its budgets and meeting its corporate goals(balanced budget, etc.) The will of the people would be exercised through the members of congress, but full congressional action would be required to set "corporate policy" The Executives primary focus would be obtaining those objectives.

—jhomrighaus, Sep 13 2007

British East India Company http://en.wikipedia..._East_India_Company
Similar in organisation to those companies that were used to colonise the Americas, the East India Company must be unique in history (at least up to the Parliament act of 1773 that imposed greater governmental control) as the most heavily armed corporate enterprise ever concieved. [zen_tom, Sep 14 2007]

Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL. E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)






       i guess you've never heard of office politics then? (-)
—k_sra, Sep 13 2007
   

       The last eight years have comprised the Enron/Halliburton administration. Keep trying to come up with a better idea.
—normzone, Sep 14 2007
   

       This is returning to the organisational structure used by the colonial trading companies of the early 1600's such as the East India Company, the Virginia Company, The Plymouth Company etc...(btw, check out the East India Company's flag)
—zen_tom, Sep 14 2007
   

       //executive branch of the government would be run as a business// - How? This makes no sense at all. Companies do things on the basis of what's best for them and what's most profitable in current market conditions; Government have to do things on the basis of law and their obligations to their electorates.
—hippo, Sep 14 2007
   

       Reading that wiki article, what you're saying [tom] is that if we employed [jhom]'s idea - there would be more pirates?   

       I'm so on the brink... [ ]
—theleopard, Sep 14 2007
   

       Such governmental systems are in place all across the country in towns and cities.   

       The BEIC is not a valid example as that was a company that took over a country. This is the government of a country hiring a person to do a job. This is not wholesale replacement of the government just hiring an executive who knows what it takes to run an operation to execute the commands of the duly elected congress. In essence the need for the executive should be to hire a manager based on ability to do the job and not on name recognition, political strength or who your daddy is.
—jhomrighaus, Sep 14 2007
   

       //would become far more stable and accountable//   

       Corporations are the antithesis of accountability.
—nuclear hobo, Sep 14 2007
   

       Once again I reiterate that this is only hiring an executive not subcontracting the entire government to a third party.
—jhomrighaus, Sep 14 2007
   

       Corporations and CEOs do very well where they have clearly defined goals. I am not sure that is possible on a national level. If you ask ten people what the goals of a government are you will get eleven answers. A corporation is much simpler. Minimize costs, maximize revenue. Sorry, but bone.   

       Of course at this point anything would look better than the current US administration. A blind, retarded monkey couldn't do much worse.
—Galbinus_Caeli, Sep 14 2007
   

       What have you got against retarded monkeys? You obviously haven't been to the little hidden shed, down an obscured path in one of the far corners of Monkey World where they keep the rescued, furless, slightly mad monkeys. They're very sweet and enjoy eating nuts, although sometimes they rock back and forth and stare. They stare at you with that glazed look over their eyes that just says, "You weren't there man. You weren't there."
—theleopard, Sep 14 2007
   

       How is this different from what the U.S. has now?
—Noexit, Sep 14 2007
   

       Actually this idea is much more similar to the British style Parliament. In the US the legislative branch and the executive branch are separately elected. In a parliament the Prime Minister is an extension of that body. Completely different.
—Galbinus_Caeli, Sep 14 2007
   

       This just allows congress to elect the president, and probably pay him more. Our national goals are more complex than just 'be profitable', so the presidents goals will reflect the political views of the congress, not the people. Can you imagine if the president's sole goal was financial? We'd probably end up invading oil producing countries across the world.
—GutPunchLullabies, Sep 14 2007
   

       And congress is intended to espouse the goals of the people, if they don't we dump them and get new ones.   

       The fundemental problem here seem to be one of the government not operating as a business. Lets define and address the issues not slide all over the place and make things up as we go. For congress that is a given but for the Business of the government hire an experienced manager to get things done.
—jhomrighaus, Sep 14 2007
   

       Government is not a business. If it was they could focus entirely on earning money. A business that made its own laws would be a nightmare! They would sell our organs, and force us to work for no money. A government sets the 'price' for its 'product' not to earn money like a business, but for the good of its substituents. The taxes we pay to the government are at the literal threat of force. Why would Americorp need a balanced budget? They could make more money through piracy and extortion!   

       "Food aid to starving foreigners? That doesn't help the bottom line!" "Let's fire (execute?) the least profitable tenth of the population!" "Qatar is a very profitable aquisition, now that their population is mining salt in utah!"
—GutPunchLullabies, Sep 14 2007
   

       There are numerous examples of Non-profit corporations that operate very effectively, the difference is the mission of the business. You still need a MANAGER to make sure your goals are being met whatever they may be. We don't have one of those at this point.
—jhomrighaus, Sep 14 2007
   

       I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what is the difference between a manager and a presider (president)?   

       The government is already, for all intents and purposes, a nonprofit corporation.   

       We pay the president, we hire and congress can fire him. How is he not a government employee?
—GutPunchLullabies, Sep 14 2007
   

       The elected executive does appoint nonelected officials (cabinet members) who then carry out the tasks of government. They are paid, so in a sense, "hired".
—bungston, Sep 14 2007
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle