Definitely! My flexible spending account, in particular, is terrible - I get printed EOBs from insurance and receipts from doctors. I can't fax a little receipt - you have to make a photocopy of it onto full size paper. I could have scanned it in and send a perfectly legible PDF, but instead they get a crappy fax because they don't accept electronic submissions yet... and then I've had them contact me to re-fax it because they couldn't read it. Unbelievable. At least my company let's me do it that way for expense reports, now.
Agreed - especially when I'm annotating something, or in a meeting where people are telling me what they want - I can type it on my laptop (which I have to unlock from my desk, lug to the meeting which is often in a different building, lug it back, lock it back in...), which I can't annotate or diagram (I probably could with newer hardware, something like a surface book maybe, but then my company needs to get me that). Instead I grab my notebook, have my phone handy if I have to look up an email that was sent before the meeting, and just go. I don't need to translate my notes back to digital, but if I do then it's afterwards and I can make it clean.
As far as signatures go, every service I get done at my house the person doing the work usually has some touch screen (an iPad or something) for me to sign when the work is done, then they often print it out (sigh) or send me a digital copy in email. I've had doctors that have had the forms you need to fill out do it digitally, too... they hand you a tablet and stylus instead of a clipboard. I do think we could do more without printing, but printing has a lot of conveniences, too.
They spent every penny on iPhones (or similar) and then whine to the gub'ment they don't have money for food. Problem solved! Of course, when you complain about it a large segment of the population will claim that iPhones are now considered a necessity.
The same things happens every election - someone who was completely demonized as being the devil incarnate by the opposition wins. It might be worse with Trump - he is sexist; I don't believe he's necessarily racist (but definitely bigoted and prejudiced - and no, they aren't all the same thing); he's also not xenophobic by wanting to deport illegal immigrants and building a wall. He's also not likely to accomplish anything that takes away anyone's rights, because he's not a dictator. That's why we have elections. So explain to your daughter that people took the baggage that Trump brings because they disliked Clinton more... because that's what happened. It's what happened in every election in my lifetime - the lesser of two evils is still evil. In this case, more people disliked Clinton (and the establishment - both republican and democrat) than disliked Trump's annoying personality and nonsense. I'll say it again - anybody who is actually "fearful" of Trump is an idiot.
Good post - we need to stop conflating immigration with illegal immigration (Trump is not a xenophobe), and push people to follow proper channels. My wife is nationalized, we've helped other people come here legally and become citizens; we don't support illegal immigration... conflate it as much as you want, it doesn't change the simple fact that we have laws and processes regarding immigration, and we have them for a reason.
Completely agree - if you want to participate in our democratic republic, then great. If you don't, move to Venezuela. But if you do, then accept the outcome and move on, maybe plan how you can do better next election - that's why we have them every few years, so you don't have to get stuck with someone you don't like forever.
Yeah... no... the birther thing started before the election. Conflating democracy with our democratic republic aside, the question is why people participate in a democratic process and then protest the outcome? Yes, it happens on both sides - there are always the idiots who complain when the democratic process doesn't go their way, but I still see dozens of protests across the country by people claiming to want their voices to be heard. WTF does that even mean? Isn't the point of a democratic election? You vote... that's how your voice gets heard. Last election I only know of one protest at a university when Obama got re-elected - and, of course, the liberal media used the term "riot" when it was anti-Obama crowd, and now they are using "protest" when it's anti-Trump.
More than that, however, is the collective vitriol, hatred, intolerance... it happens on both sides, yes, so you can point out counter examples, but the PREPONDERANCE of incidences of liberals demonstrating their childish backlash at democracy, their intolerance for different views, the vile hatred spewed (I've had friends and neighbors shockingly telling friends and family to go fuck themselves if they didn't vote Clinton), and the insane hyperbole about the hell hole they think Trump will create ("What will I tell my children?" "I fear for myself and my children!") is astounding. And sad. I get upset when either side does it... but liberals are once again showing how much worse they are.
And why would any of the lesser populated states vote to allow California and New York dictate the presidency? That's why it won't happen - the electoral college (rightfully, IMO) retains power for the less populated states, since we're a union of states. I also advocate having state governments - the governors, choose the senators from their states as was the original intent - the senators represent the states, the representatives represent the people. Of course, nowadays they all only represent their respective parties, but that's besides the point.
Agree... I was going to vote Johnson until this past weekend when my wife and kids discussed it. Who's worse? Hillary or Donald? As human beings, they're both "deplorable." So it came down to policy decisions. Thinking about terms limits, for example, and lobbying from foreign interests (or banning ex politicians from representing foreign lobbyists)... and then we discussed healthcare. This year was terrible for us - my daughter needed PT to the tune of nearly $3000, all out of pocket thanks to deductibles that are triple what I was paying before, and nearly double the cost premiums I'm paying now. Suddenly the picture started becoming more clear - I don't like Trump. He is misogynist. I don't think he's racist, but I do think he's prejudiced and bigoted (and yes, they are different things - related perhaps, and usually going together, but not necessarily). Targeting ILLEGAL immigration does not make him a xenophobe. So yes, I sadly accept the baggage of his terrible personality BECAUSE it came down to issues.
There was a single protest I read about when Obama was re-elected. Of course, the media calls what's happening now (even in my area - Atlanta, as well as all across the country) "protests." When conservative students did it, it was labeled "riot," and it was at one campus. And what do the liberals claim they are protesting for (an oxymoron, actually)? That their voices be heard. Because that's not what elections are for, apparently.
And while I don't use facebook anymore, my wife does - and I don't recall any conservatives "unfriending" liberals for voting for Obama (although I'm sure there were). The vile hatred spewed by liberals this time, however, is astounding - including one "friend" who said if you voted for Trump, Johnson, or abstained, then go f--- yourself. Another "threatening" to unfriend anybody she even suspects voted for Trump, including family. This is the epitome of liberal "tolerance."
And the hyperbole of "how do I explain this to my children?" How about as the democratic republic in action? If you actually fear for yourself or your children because of Trump, you're a complete idiot. Liberals are the most intolerant, hateful, spiteful people in politics - and that comes after recognizing the number of idiot conservatives who are also quite bad, hateful, and spiteful - but who pale in comparison.
Smaller states still get their voices heard... the same reason Senators used to be chosen by the people running the state - senators represent the state's interests, representatives represent the people's interests. The states have a voice, the people of the state have the voice - if you don't understand that people in Colorado or Wisconsin shouldn't have their leaders dictated to them by a few large states like New York and California, then I can't help you.
I didn't say Roe V. Wade wouldn't happen because Trump wouldn't do anything, I'm saying it because it simply won't happen - the SCOTUS is not likely to even entertain the idea of discussing it.
Why is it unfortunate? I'd accept the results either way - if Clinton lost the popular vote, but won the electoral votes, I wouldn't be clambering for a system that lets California and New York determine the election for the country. There's a reason for the electoral college, and it's a good reason, and the only reason people want to throw it away is because it doesn't suit their agenda.
I think, as a third party voter, you're suffering from liberal derangement syndrome. It's the same shit liberals get all upset over every time a republican wins. When Bush 2 won, they were talking about how Roe v. Wade would be repealed and we'd back to the days of "back alley abortions." So relax, and put things into proper context here.
I do NOT think Trump will try to force registration of Muslims, at least not in the way you are stating it. But even if he does try, he doesn't get to make the laws - only sign or veto them. Republicans have a majority on both houses, but it's a very slim one; it will not take more than a two or three senators to block any such nonsense... And it would be unconstitutional, and even a stacked supreme court has NOT done things like repeal Roe v. Wade, nor do I think they would allow a measure like this into law. Remember, a stacked supreme court (in GOP favor) supported the ACA - with the Chief Justice, appointed by Bush, actually changing the wording to make it fit being called a tax instead of a fine or fee if you didn't have insurance.
I think you people underestimate the power of a SCOTUS ruling... how many republican presidents have there been since Roe v. Wade, and how many times has it actually been challenged? Even with a stacked SCOTUS, they don't even want to hear it.
Again, third party voter - but I do not belittle or begrudge the people that voted for Trump. There are actual policy issues on the line; the middle class has been suffering since before Bush 2 was elected, salaries have stagnated (a lower median income than 1999), have not kept pace with inflation, and the middle class has the additional burden of paying a lot more for healthcare, for example, than they did before - higher premiums, higher deductibles, less benefits. Trump hasn't just said he'd repeal ACA, he said he'd replace it. There's a difference. So for 16 years we've gotten establishment nonsense, and enough swing voters have decided it's time for a change. A vote for Clinton was a vote for more of the same.
The reaction of democrats/liberals has been stunning to me. One former friend is posting on facebook that Trump voters "can go f*** themselves." Yes, where he is friends with his kids and their friends. Do you see reactions like that when Obama wins? Everyone gets upset their candidate doesn't win, but liberals are protesting the election results (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protest-berkeley-oakland.html) where conservatives usually just lick their wounds and try to figure out what they can do the next time.... by and large, on the whole (there are always exceptions - you can never underestimate the stupidity of some).
Traumatized? Please - don't believe the hype the liberal media has brainwashed you into believing. Even last night, as I switched around from CNN to Fox to MSNBC, I see people like Rachael Maddow opining that Roe v. Wade is in danger again. It's the same old rhetoric that we hear every time a republican wins - it's NOT going to happen. The world is not going to explode, the sky isn't falling, and there's NOT going to be another world war. It's unbelievable to me how much people have invested themselves into this, and it's more frightening how many people have been lead to believe it's the end of the world if Trump wins than the frightening fact that he actually won.
I did my job and was still stuck with choosing between Clinton and Trump (or a third party). So no, you're wrong. In fact, in my state you can vote in either (but only one) primary, and a lot of crossover voters chose Trump thinking he couldn't possibly win.... and by not voting in their own primary, they allowed Clinton to win.
I disagree. A large percentage of people - enough to swing the vote in Trump's favor, did not decide who they were voting for until the past couple of weeks. If they were voting to elect a woman, or against misogyny (or toupees), they would have decided a long time ago. Both the democrats and republicans have their brain dead supporters who will only vote for "R" or "D," but the swing voters who actually decide the election do not. I say this as someone who votes third party - the choice this year was a bunch of new, anti-establishment policies (even if some of them are ridiculous) vs. more-of-the-same. The "hope and change" that Obama brought did not help middle class America... salaries have stagnated for most of the past two presidencies - median incomes are stuck at 1999 levels. When you ask if you are better off now than when Obama entered office, the vast majority of people answer "no." Despite stagnant incomes, health care costs (for example) have skyrocketed for those middle class Americans who already had insurance....higher premiums, higher deductibles. Stagnant wages - through both republican and democrat "rule." People wanted anti-establishment. It's just that simple. They didn't vote for a toupee.... but much of the opposition is melting down and cannot accept that it wasn't a vote for xenophobia or misogyny - those things are just the baggage that comes along with the real hope of change.
And yet legislating can still be done at each level as if it were a village. Maybe instead of governing 10k people, you're legislating for 20 "villages" in a county, or 40 counties in a state, or 50 states in a country. It doesn't have to be that complicated if the higher levels stick to governing at a high level. What's the expression? In times peace, 95% of governing should happen at local levels?
Exactly - the complex laws are one way politicians can maintain their hold on power. Sadly, too few actually consider themselves public servants to act on our behalf.
She still suggesting passing it first, before understanding it. She may absolutely have been correct about republicans misrepresenting it (although, given the time it's had as law, they were largely right about it negatively affecting the middle income earners), but she still said we had to pass it in order to discuss it "away from the fog of controversy." Yes, she did say that you have to pass it first, then we can discuss it.
After all that blathering, she still said we need to pass it before "you can find out what's in it away from the fog of the controversy." No matter how you spin it, she still advocated passing it before understanding it. It was, and still is, a ridiculous statement.
It's an interesting proposition. I'm a solo programmer working in a fairly interesting role at my company - I write a lot of varied code and utilities, as well as doing a lot of other technical things. After about that magic five years, I found myself unable to keep up with new demands as I was maintaining old code to account for changes in the other software and hardware we use. After about 10 years it was almost all maintenance. I found an out in both switching departments and advocating for more off the shelf software that did what we needed (even if not quite the way people wanted... I told them to suck it up and deal with it).
Applying that sort of scenario to what you propose gives a pretty exciting result - after 10 years or so we're down to maintaining old laws (supposing the most important laws are passed first, after 10 years you're just down to nit-picky laws that probably don't mean a whole lot). After 10 years, you're refining and making the existing laws better instead of proposing complex new ones that benefit few at the expense of many (the typical law passed these days, it seems). Sounds good to me.
You make some excellent points in your second paragraph. The problem is that adding a more complex system (as you describe in the first) is that it then becomes the "job" of legislators to, instead of embracing the system, find ways to work around it.... the same thing our "leaders" have been doing to the constitution since before the ink was dry.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely! My flexible spending account, in particular, is terrible - I get printed EOBs from insurance and receipts from doctors. I can't fax a little receipt - you have to make a photocopy of it onto full size paper. I could have scanned it in and send a perfectly legible PDF, but instead they get a crappy fax because they don't accept electronic submissions yet... and then I've had them contact me to re-fax it because they couldn't read it. Unbelievable. At least my company let's me do it that way for expense reports, now.
Agreed - especially when I'm annotating something, or in a meeting where people are telling me what they want - I can type it on my laptop (which I have to unlock from my desk, lug to the meeting which is often in a different building, lug it back, lock it back in...), which I can't annotate or diagram (I probably could with newer hardware, something like a surface book maybe, but then my company needs to get me that). Instead I grab my notebook, have my phone handy if I have to look up an email that was sent before the meeting, and just go. I don't need to translate my notes back to digital, but if I do then it's afterwards and I can make it clean.
As far as signatures go, every service I get done at my house the person doing the work usually has some touch screen (an iPad or something) for me to sign when the work is done, then they often print it out (sigh) or send me a digital copy in email. I've had doctors that have had the forms you need to fill out do it digitally, too... they hand you a tablet and stylus instead of a clipboard. I do think we could do more without printing, but printing has a lot of conveniences, too.
They spent every penny on iPhones (or similar) and then whine to the gub'ment they don't have money for food. Problem solved! Of course, when you complain about it a large segment of the population will claim that iPhones are now considered a necessity.
You're right - and it's a click-bait headline that I fell for. Shame on all of us who clicked.
The same things happens every election - someone who was completely demonized as being the devil incarnate by the opposition wins. It might be worse with Trump - he is sexist; I don't believe he's necessarily racist (but definitely bigoted and prejudiced - and no, they aren't all the same thing); he's also not xenophobic by wanting to deport illegal immigrants and building a wall. He's also not likely to accomplish anything that takes away anyone's rights, because he's not a dictator. That's why we have elections. So explain to your daughter that people took the baggage that Trump brings because they disliked Clinton more... because that's what happened. It's what happened in every election in my lifetime - the lesser of two evils is still evil. In this case, more people disliked Clinton (and the establishment - both republican and democrat) than disliked Trump's annoying personality and nonsense. I'll say it again - anybody who is actually "fearful" of Trump is an idiot.
Good post - we need to stop conflating immigration with illegal immigration (Trump is not a xenophobe), and push people to follow proper channels. My wife is nationalized, we've helped other people come here legally and become citizens; we don't support illegal immigration... conflate it as much as you want, it doesn't change the simple fact that we have laws and processes regarding immigration, and we have them for a reason.
Completely agree - if you want to participate in our democratic republic, then great. If you don't, move to Venezuela. But if you do, then accept the outcome and move on, maybe plan how you can do better next election - that's why we have them every few years, so you don't have to get stuck with someone you don't like forever.
Yeah... no... the birther thing started before the election. Conflating democracy with our democratic republic aside, the question is why people participate in a democratic process and then protest the outcome? Yes, it happens on both sides - there are always the idiots who complain when the democratic process doesn't go their way, but I still see dozens of protests across the country by people claiming to want their voices to be heard. WTF does that even mean? Isn't the point of a democratic election? You vote... that's how your voice gets heard. Last election I only know of one protest at a university when Obama got re-elected - and, of course, the liberal media used the term "riot" when it was anti-Obama crowd, and now they are using "protest" when it's anti-Trump.
More than that, however, is the collective vitriol, hatred, intolerance... it happens on both sides, yes, so you can point out counter examples, but the PREPONDERANCE of incidences of liberals demonstrating their childish backlash at democracy, their intolerance for different views, the vile hatred spewed (I've had friends and neighbors shockingly telling friends and family to go fuck themselves if they didn't vote Clinton), and the insane hyperbole about the hell hole they think Trump will create ("What will I tell my children?" "I fear for myself and my children!") is astounding. And sad. I get upset when either side does it... but liberals are once again showing how much worse they are.
And why would any of the lesser populated states vote to allow California and New York dictate the presidency? That's why it won't happen - the electoral college (rightfully, IMO) retains power for the less populated states, since we're a union of states. I also advocate having state governments - the governors, choose the senators from their states as was the original intent - the senators represent the states, the representatives represent the people. Of course, nowadays they all only represent their respective parties, but that's besides the point.
Agree... I was going to vote Johnson until this past weekend when my wife and kids discussed it. Who's worse? Hillary or Donald? As human beings, they're both "deplorable." So it came down to policy decisions. Thinking about terms limits, for example, and lobbying from foreign interests (or banning ex politicians from representing foreign lobbyists)... and then we discussed healthcare. This year was terrible for us - my daughter needed PT to the tune of nearly $3000, all out of pocket thanks to deductibles that are triple what I was paying before, and nearly double the cost premiums I'm paying now. Suddenly the picture started becoming more clear - I don't like Trump. He is misogynist. I don't think he's racist, but I do think he's prejudiced and bigoted (and yes, they are different things - related perhaps, and usually going together, but not necessarily). Targeting ILLEGAL immigration does not make him a xenophobe. So yes, I sadly accept the baggage of his terrible personality BECAUSE it came down to issues.
There was a single protest I read about when Obama was re-elected. Of course, the media calls what's happening now (even in my area - Atlanta, as well as all across the country) "protests." When conservative students did it, it was labeled "riot," and it was at one campus. And what do the liberals claim they are protesting for (an oxymoron, actually)? That their voices be heard. Because that's not what elections are for, apparently.
And while I don't use facebook anymore, my wife does - and I don't recall any conservatives "unfriending" liberals for voting for Obama (although I'm sure there were). The vile hatred spewed by liberals this time, however, is astounding - including one "friend" who said if you voted for Trump, Johnson, or abstained, then go f--- yourself. Another "threatening" to unfriend anybody she even suspects voted for Trump, including family. This is the epitome of liberal "tolerance."
And the hyperbole of "how do I explain this to my children?" How about as the democratic republic in action? If you actually fear for yourself or your children because of Trump, you're a complete idiot. Liberals are the most intolerant, hateful, spiteful people in politics - and that comes after recognizing the number of idiot conservatives who are also quite bad, hateful, and spiteful - but who pale in comparison.
Smaller states still get their voices heard... the same reason Senators used to be chosen by the people running the state - senators represent the state's interests, representatives represent the people's interests. The states have a voice, the people of the state have the voice - if you don't understand that people in Colorado or Wisconsin shouldn't have their leaders dictated to them by a few large states like New York and California, then I can't help you.
I didn't say Roe V. Wade wouldn't happen because Trump wouldn't do anything, I'm saying it because it simply won't happen - the SCOTUS is not likely to even entertain the idea of discussing it.
Why is it unfortunate? I'd accept the results either way - if Clinton lost the popular vote, but won the electoral votes, I wouldn't be clambering for a system that lets California and New York determine the election for the country. There's a reason for the electoral college, and it's a good reason, and the only reason people want to throw it away is because it doesn't suit their agenda.
I will continue to vote my conscience despite your rant precisely because of the issues, thank you very much.
I think, as a third party voter, you're suffering from liberal derangement syndrome. It's the same shit liberals get all upset over every time a republican wins. When Bush 2 won, they were talking about how Roe v. Wade would be repealed and we'd back to the days of "back alley abortions." So relax, and put things into proper context here.
I do NOT think Trump will try to force registration of Muslims, at least not in the way you are stating it. But even if he does try, he doesn't get to make the laws - only sign or veto them. Republicans have a majority on both houses, but it's a very slim one; it will not take more than a two or three senators to block any such nonsense... And it would be unconstitutional, and even a stacked supreme court has NOT done things like repeal Roe v. Wade, nor do I think they would allow a measure like this into law. Remember, a stacked supreme court (in GOP favor) supported the ACA - with the Chief Justice, appointed by Bush, actually changing the wording to make it fit being called a tax instead of a fine or fee if you didn't have insurance.
I think you people underestimate the power of a SCOTUS ruling... how many republican presidents have there been since Roe v. Wade, and how many times has it actually been challenged? Even with a stacked SCOTUS, they don't even want to hear it.
Again, third party voter - but I do not belittle or begrudge the people that voted for Trump. There are actual policy issues on the line; the middle class has been suffering since before Bush 2 was elected, salaries have stagnated (a lower median income than 1999), have not kept pace with inflation, and the middle class has the additional burden of paying a lot more for healthcare, for example, than they did before - higher premiums, higher deductibles, less benefits. Trump hasn't just said he'd repeal ACA, he said he'd replace it. There's a difference. So for 16 years we've gotten establishment nonsense, and enough swing voters have decided it's time for a change. A vote for Clinton was a vote for more of the same.
The reaction of democrats/liberals has been stunning to me. One former friend is posting on facebook that Trump voters "can go f*** themselves." Yes, where he is friends with his kids and their friends. Do you see reactions like that when Obama wins? Everyone gets upset their candidate doesn't win, but liberals are protesting the election results (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protest-berkeley-oakland.html) where conservatives usually just lick their wounds and try to figure out what they can do the next time.... by and large, on the whole (there are always exceptions - you can never underestimate the stupidity of some).
Traumatized? Please - don't believe the hype the liberal media has brainwashed you into believing. Even last night, as I switched around from CNN to Fox to MSNBC, I see people like Rachael Maddow opining that Roe v. Wade is in danger again. It's the same old rhetoric that we hear every time a republican wins - it's NOT going to happen. The world is not going to explode, the sky isn't falling, and there's NOT going to be another world war. It's unbelievable to me how much people have invested themselves into this, and it's more frightening how many people have been lead to believe it's the end of the world if Trump wins than the frightening fact that he actually won.
I did my job and was still stuck with choosing between Clinton and Trump (or a third party). So no, you're wrong. In fact, in my state you can vote in either (but only one) primary, and a lot of crossover voters chose Trump thinking he couldn't possibly win.... and by not voting in their own primary, they allowed Clinton to win.
I disagree. A large percentage of people - enough to swing the vote in Trump's favor, did not decide who they were voting for until the past couple of weeks. If they were voting to elect a woman, or against misogyny (or toupees), they would have decided a long time ago. Both the democrats and republicans have their brain dead supporters who will only vote for "R" or "D," but the swing voters who actually decide the election do not. I say this as someone who votes third party - the choice this year was a bunch of new, anti-establishment policies (even if some of them are ridiculous) vs. more-of-the-same. The "hope and change" that Obama brought did not help middle class America... salaries have stagnated for most of the past two presidencies - median incomes are stuck at 1999 levels. When you ask if you are better off now than when Obama entered office, the vast majority of people answer "no." Despite stagnant incomes, health care costs (for example) have skyrocketed for those middle class Americans who already had insurance....higher premiums, higher deductibles. Stagnant wages - through both republican and democrat "rule." People wanted anti-establishment. It's just that simple. They didn't vote for a toupee.... but much of the opposition is melting down and cannot accept that it wasn't a vote for xenophobia or misogyny - those things are just the baggage that comes along with the real hope of change.
And yet legislating can still be done at each level as if it were a village. Maybe instead of governing 10k people, you're legislating for 20 "villages" in a county, or 40 counties in a state, or 50 states in a country. It doesn't have to be that complicated if the higher levels stick to governing at a high level. What's the expression? In times peace, 95% of governing should happen at local levels?
Exactly - the complex laws are one way politicians can maintain their hold on power. Sadly, too few actually consider themselves public servants to act on our behalf.
She still suggesting passing it first, before understanding it. She may absolutely have been correct about republicans misrepresenting it (although, given the time it's had as law, they were largely right about it negatively affecting the middle income earners), but she still said we had to pass it in order to discuss it "away from the fog of controversy." Yes, she did say that you have to pass it first, then we can discuss it.
After all that blathering, she still said we need to pass it before "you can find out what's in it away from the fog of the controversy." No matter how you spin it, she still advocated passing it before understanding it. It was, and still is, a ridiculous statement.
They'd all have to know and recite all the riders, too.
It's an interesting proposition. I'm a solo programmer working in a fairly interesting role at my company - I write a lot of varied code and utilities, as well as doing a lot of other technical things. After about that magic five years, I found myself unable to keep up with new demands as I was maintaining old code to account for changes in the other software and hardware we use. After about 10 years it was almost all maintenance. I found an out in both switching departments and advocating for more off the shelf software that did what we needed (even if not quite the way people wanted... I told them to suck it up and deal with it).
Applying that sort of scenario to what you propose gives a pretty exciting result - after 10 years or so we're down to maintaining old laws (supposing the most important laws are passed first, after 10 years you're just down to nit-picky laws that probably don't mean a whole lot). After 10 years, you're refining and making the existing laws better instead of proposing complex new ones that benefit few at the expense of many (the typical law passed these days, it seems). Sounds good to me.
You make some excellent points in your second paragraph. The problem is that adding a more complex system (as you describe in the first) is that it then becomes the "job" of legislators to, instead of embracing the system, find ways to work around it.... the same thing our "leaders" have been doing to the constitution since before the ink was dry.