THE TUNE-UP CHECKLIST
Can they tell you who will fix it now?
≈ 4 min read · or listen, or skim the bold lines
D · A tool for voters Built from the six fixes on What needs to happen now; each fix links to its evidence. How we verify →
Reform or no reform, there is a to-do list of things that would strengthen our government right now — and every one of them is a budget line, a filing cabinet, a memo, or a vote. This page is the checklist to hold up next to any candidate. Ask these, listen for the difference between a real answer and a buzzword, and decide for yourself who is serious. We never tell you how to vote. We just help you hear who will do the work.
The six fixes, in one breath
Publish the law (the Code stops at 2009). Publish the rulings, so a worker can learn the standard they are judged by. Fund the watchdog — oversight that cannot afford to look is not oversight. Staff the seams: name an owner where two rules meet. Put the Nation’s own eyes on healthcare money. And adopt the public checklist — budgets, contracts, decisions, and the law itself, posted where anyone can read them. None of these requires an election. Any winner could do all six.
The questions — and what a serious answer sounds like
The point is not the question. It is the difference between the answers. A candidate who has done the work can be specific; one who has not will reach for words like “transparency” and “accountability” without a single concrete step. Listen for that difference.
1. Do you support all six fixes — and which, if any, would you not do?
A serious answer sounds like: a reaction to each item on the list. Not serious sounds like: “I support accountability,” with no reference to the actual six.
2. Will you fund and direct publishing the current law — yes or no, and in which budget?
A serious answer sounds like: yes, with a funding line named. Not serious sounds like: “we’ll look into it.” It is a budget line, not a mystery.
3. Will you protect and fund the watchdog — even knowing a stronger watchdog might one day look at you?
A serious answer sounds like: a willingness to be watched. Not serious sounds like: wanting oversight only of other people.
4. How do the people, the chapters, and the leaders work together to make this happen — instead of it dying between the branches?
A serious answer sounds like: knowing the chapters have real power — resolutions, testimony — and naming how to bring them in. Not serious sounds like: believing it can be decreed from the top alone.
5. Walk me through the money. Where does the funding come from, and will you put it in the budget you submit?
A serious answer sounds like: understanding these fixes are cheap and doable. Not serious sounds like: treating a memo or a filing cabinet as impossible.
6. Do you believe this tune-up cuts waste, fraud, and abuse enough to be worth it? Make the case — or tell me it is overstated.
A serious answer sounds like: owning the value, or pushing back honestly. Not serious sounds like: dodging the question entirely.
7. While you do all this, how do you keep the community informed and transparent — what does the public see, and how often? Would you publish a scorecard on these six fixes so we can check you in a year?
A serious answer sounds like: a named channel, a cadence, and a yes to the scorecard. Not serious sounds like: “we’ll be transparent,” with nothing behind it.
If they already hold office
An incumbent can be asked one more, and it turns the checklist into a record check: of these six fixes, which did you already start — and which did not happen on your watch, and why not? The answer is either receipts or excuses. You decide which.
TAKE ACTION
Bring this to a forum, a chapter meeting, or your screen during an interview.
Print it, screenshot it, or keep it open while you watch. Every fix here is something any winner could do — so the only question is who will. That is yours to judge.