Wild Idea time

While for the last few weeks it has been relatively quiet politics-wise (Congress and the State Lege being out of session will do that :) ), there still has been lots to write about -

Potential Presidential candidates (farewell, Evan Bayh, we hardly knew ye);

Bush being Bush (vague yet intransigent over Iraq);

Cultural shallowness (a mom leaving her baby with a valet at a Scottsdale mall);

The list could go on, but you get the idea. Most of these things either aren't very interesting (mall baby) or have been more eloquently discussed by others (Bush and his antics.)

So, since it's kind of the "silly season" for blogging, it's time to let out some of the crazier ideas that have been percolating through the synapses of my brain. "Brainstorm Blogging," so to speak.

This one was floating, unformed, in my mind for a while, but began to crystallize with Hurricane Katrina, and the debacle of the aftermath (FEMA's utter failure, incompetence of the Bush Admin, etc.).

A traveling Capital.

Leave the bureaucracy of government in D.C.; the agencies, bureaus, and offices can stay there. However, every 4 years, have the political capital of government move to the poorest part of the country. Congress would meet, and the President and First Family would live, in areas such as the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, East St. Louis, and yes, even D.C. occasionally.

The expected benefits of this:

1. If nothing else, these poorest areas would benefit from the permanent infrastructure improvements needed to support the temporary visit of the Capital.

2. The areas would also benefit from the increased economic activity brought in by the Capital. While the 'official' number of people moving with the Capital would number less than 600 (U.S. House, Senate, Prez and VP), they'd all bring staff and support personnel with them. I'd guess that somewhere near 10,000 people would be moving with the Capital on a regular basis, with the number of visitors bringing the total to 10 times that at any given moment.

Those people would need to eat and sleep and with the other details of daily living, that's a LOT of economic activity.

3. It would force lawmakers to pay attention to the infrastructure needs of the *people* of the United States, not just large campaign contributors.

4. It might just reduce the influence of lobbyists over our elected officials. A little bit, anyway.

Let's face it, most professional lobbyists would rather woo their targets while making the rounds of the D.C. cocktail party/exclusive golf club circuit than over fried crawdads at Bubba's Driving Range and Bait Emporium.

5. Such a move might also have the effect of discouraging dilettantes and snobs from running for office in the first place.

Can you imagine the likes of Tom Tancredo or JD Hayworth willingly working in places like New Orleans or El Paso? They might actually meet immigrants. Oh, the horror! :))

Also, much as with the lobbyists, too many of our elected officials (not all by any stretch of the imagination, but more than a few) really enjoy the perks of the job.

More than they enjoy doing the job itself.

True, some of the practical aspects of this proposal would be daunting, but I think that the advances in communications technology and travel would mitigate any difficulties in those areas.

Other things to worry about would include site selection - choosing the poorest area sounds easy, until you remember that statistics can be manipulated. Left to unscrupulous hands, it would be simple for a government agency to generate a report saying that Maui, HI or Orange County, CA are the poorest areas of the country.

Certainly, this proposal is light on details, but that's the nature of brainstorming. It's just an idea at this point.

Anybody have their own crazy ideas?