Changing the Constitution of the United States.

https://youtu.be/HW0oJpMl0eY

[This is in reference to current efforts by conservative and libertarian groups that want to cap the federal budget to be neutral (or balanced budget efforts per constitutional amendment via conference of the states ratification. There are better methods and responsibilities that can enhance the current constitution to capture the best representation and will of the people as possible.]

The Constitution was meant to be changed; and the changes the Republican party in respective states per convention are wanting to make would hamper the Military Industrial Complex, rich counterparts (who so happen to vote republican most of the time,) and organized corporations that want to continue to feed the system of the federal budget.

Note that the number of JOBS LOST due to budget restrictions that could become a constitutional amendment is proportional to the GDP affected, trade lines in the accounting books of government expenditures and revenue by private parties supplying the goverment, AND deflation or disinflation that would happen as to the loss of control of the interest rate policy that has been proven to be better off under a policy guidance (such as a federal reserve) than free market like policy.

In jest: the budget hampered by the constitution as per proposed amendment to the constitution would cause these things:
1. Frictional unemployment
2. Deflation or disinflation (increases the value of people who horde money...the mammon as vampire.
3.Would give more power to foreign and private trade partners than what the Federal Government of the United States would have at a balanced budget.

Yes, it would mean that if the United States restricts its budget, then it is possible that private individuals that are extremely wealthy have more power to buy the labor they need to cast themselves from the United States as citizens (loss of citizenship, in gain of exodus.) Likewise, these people become foreigners and may disguise themselves in a corporation wrapped and advertised as goverment entity or vice versa to manipulate the labor that follows them. Preexisting foreigners and foreign governments would do the same in more harassing style towards the United States Government, especially from the new ocean of technology and availability of resources untapped in space (and in our solar system.)

It is not recommended to cap the budget of any country as the voter block, available resources (common and privately owned) and thus its representatives already cap such a system anyway.

Keep in mind that in economics and accounting, personal and private budgeting is different from federal or state based budgeting and goals.

There is a list of goals to compare to in respect to maximize utility of the users thereof:


Private (household and firm):
User is the individual or collective as an individual such as a firm. The benefits are placed towards the individual or corporation, respectively thereof.
The budget shall:
1. maximize profits (max revenue and min expenses)
2. maximize social utility (of the local community, and money seeking behavior from the state, whenever possible.) [example is when a wealthy person says that their taxes are too low, but do not contribute per voluntary action to pay for what the state has declared as social goods or services (eg. and army, navy, police, community provided emergency services, roads, etc....)  The wealthy person is maximizing their social utility to paying too low of a price for the social services provided. If the price increased then the utility (of the object, not the total portfolio would go lower. The total portfolio may increase if taxes were higher and interest rates decreased because the state or goverment can now pay for it from the tax revenue.)


Government (state or federal, representative or totalitarian, etc...; can be of any form.)
User is the citizens that vote or have a say in the budget per their vision of utility for all.
1. optimize citizen pleasures relative to the utility desired per input (input is dependent on the voting structure (totalitarian is one voter with a size of the voting block of one (the same voter) making the goverment decisions. representative governments may have filtered voting per layer of what population can vote for what (think many democracies and republics worldwide and how they vote.))
2. maximize GDP and GNP (gross national product) this would supply the utility as mentioned in 1.


The conflict from the two points of view come from how household goals' point of view can influence goverment policy for or against maximizing resource distribution per goverment goals. If the goals are hampered, then GDP, and profit goals are reduced from the maximum state of utility that is socially and individually desired. Would you like to live less than what you could have been?

Likewise, free market and capitalism based policies may shift the social burden of interpretation of such goals from a unified entity (a party or goverment entities) to multiple entities (such as that as the private sector or individual households) that may have similar dead weight losses that are more hidden in a private market than a goverment market if possible.

Remember this as politics heats up over our constitution. It is better for the state representatives to NOT manipulate the choice factors that a federal unity goverment can cause for the security of the United States.

Imagine a world where a foreign entity manipulated the polity or elected representatives per private entity policies that direct the dialect of the political conversation. (Like the 2016 election about Russia interfering with Facebook posts? Or that of China or a communist regime using a neighbor like Russia (or is Russia) to manipulate forums like Facebook? Is that a security breach when domestic policy making is interfered by a foreign entity per the domestic policy is to let it be? Nevertheless, the sovereignty of the host nation/collective per trade of communication can be a conflict of interest for its utility and awareness of what the world can and should be. Therefore, it is of any upmost self-interest for facts to be gathered per awareness and entity. If the entities' awareness collectively choose, then that choice can be called just per the variables allowed by its previously consented doctrine (such as a constitution.)

Such pitfalls of relying on a doctrine as prescription can be statistical in nature. The United States has the same issues when electing representatives and senators to the capital. I, tonyotag, propose two amendments (maybe three) to the Constitution of the United States.

(1) In reliance of political parties and collectives gauging the voting block and constituents' wills to vote; a senator is elected in 6 year terms. Two senator's per state means that there would be a gap in voting unless it was every three years; instead it is a 2 year cycle with a 4 year gap. The United State's senate is also reelected (by framers of the constitution) by one-third every two years, just a different set of states per schedule made by congress of when the election should take place in per state per agreement of the six year term. As proposal to minimize the effective change to the current system AND to maximize the polling variety that political parties need to gauge the population's will for policy changes, it is proposed that three senators per state is needed. The change is minimal and would lead to the US Senate to have 150 senators, where as 76 senators needed to pass a bill. A senator in each state is elected every 2 two years for a 6 year term. This also allows that one-third of the senate to rotate as currently as in the system anyways. Finally, the addition of these representatives has a very low impact to the expenditure pool of the United State's payroll per GDP.

(2)  435 representatives now represent the United States per district chosen by state. Originally, some of the founders, notably Madison, would have liked one representative per fifty-thousand people. Today each representative is managing an approximated amount of 700,000 plus to a million of people represented per district. [327.2 million divided by 435 representatives in the house of congress.] This is a gross mistake as this concentrates the respective party's power over the people (per representative's party affiliation) rather than true representation that needs to happen for a goverment represented by the people and for the people.
To increase such representation I propose more representatives to as much as 1500 house of representatives. (this brings the electoral count up for presidential elections, more on that later.) If Madison's estimate was done then today's house would be about 6,550 house of representatives. Very unlikely that the states would support such a move. 435 representatives were agreed upon per constitutional amendment that capped the rate for the sake of something superficial: not enough physical room in congress to fit all the desks. The best practice would be for the states to increase at a compromise of about e rate multiple of more representatives (e is Euler's number of 2.71...https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/e-eulers-number.html) for the sake of argument...multiply by three and found up to a multiple of 50 (due to 50 states;) so, 1500 was chosen. [435 * 3 = 1305 and I, tonyotag, am flexible and for room for improvement eh...1500 reps.]

This would be a little more than triple of the current representatives in congress. This would also give a more accurate snapshot of political will in an ever growing country that needs the proper representation and statistics to thrive for accurate choices. The representatives as allocated, would be proportional to the census counts per state as currently done for proper representation. Each state's legislator would gerrymander no matter in which system, so the Senate proposal above would help alleviate any issues that the disproportionate would gain per party anyway. Furthermore, all current congressional representatives are elected every 2 years anyway. Finally, Since the issue of gerrymandering has been legally tied up on courts recently, adding more districts per state may mean less consistent to the population's will per the results of more representatives if and only if technology and mobility increase in the future as like what has happened since 1780's

(3) To solve the issue of court cases by political parties nagging each other of the real estate of voters (gerrymandering) it is proposed that instead of every 10 years, the census would be done every 5 years. Since the typical presidential election cycle is 4 years and maximum of 2 terms then the degrees of freedom must be counted more often. Such degrees of freedom (statistically) can be to increase of frequency of census. Since many computational systems have good estimates, it is possible that any more frequent counting than every five years can cause issues with the annoying idea of census. (Note that the parents of Jesus fled the roman census in the new testament of the christian religion. This is one clue that a christian nation such as America might not want to be counted more frequently for more accurate representation. There are two factors at play: paranoia of a totalitarian regime that would abuse census information to target individuals for resources, abuse by the population that votes to use their Representative more frequently in the house for greater disproportional power over the rest of the power of the house itself. (in other words the district's population is low compared to the rest of the nation reducing the voice of alternative views from the voting block getting national attention in the house; instead a collective party targets the district to "own" this district for increased chance of incumbency and manipulation of America's politics and respective systems.) Additionally, judicial action has been noted to take more than five years to complete about gerrymandering. There is not much that can be done about gerrymandering except in the constitution that could be construed as arcane overall language of what a boarder is as is. Therefore a more simple method is to cut the prize of gerrymandering's value as increasing the frequency of census in this case from ten to five years.

Overall, the two or three amendments to the constitution of the United States would increase representation and accuracy of such representation to the federal goverment and more accurate laws would result.