February 20, 2010
Broken Government
All next week, CNN will host its Broken Government series. This is one issue on which there is near unanimous agreement amongst the Left, Right, and everyone in the middle; our Government is Broken.
Throughout the week CNN correspondents and contributors will file in-depth reports …on issues including the debate over government spending, congressional gridlock, outrageous medical expenses, Wall Street bonuses, the disappearing middle class, and the rise of Independents as partisan extremism grows.
Democrats will blame Republicans, and Republicans will blame Democrats, and the Tea Party cult will blame everyone, as will I, (which does not, a bridge from me to the Tea Party, build).
CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) is reported to be noticeably more energized this year. Journalists reporting for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News have commented on the energy level of CPAC as being higher than in previous years. I find this very telling of an underlying dynamic behind why our government is broken. U.S. Representative Mike Pence (R) said during his CPAC speech Friday:
"Some folks like to call us the 'Party of No.... Well, I say 'No' is way underrated here in Washington, D.C. Sometimes 'No' is just what this town needs to hear.
Rep. Pence's defense of Republican actions to halt all progress by Democrats in addressing the nation's problems, highlights in the clearest terms, why our government is broken and unable to salvage our nation's future from debilitating grid lock and bankrupting debt. It is not one sided, either. The public oft heard the term "Do Nothing Congress" from Republicans about Democrat's obstructionist position toward Pres. Bush's agenda from 2007 to 2009. The politics of elections, is, in the final analysis, why our government is broken.
Today's politics in the U.S. Congress and between the two major Parties, is unlike anything that has come before in our nation's history. Historically, the Parties reflected the differing values of the American people in a competitive bid to legislate polices which reflected those values. Today, the Parties themselves define policy values for their constituents and spend billions of dollars persuading their constituents to make those values their own.
There is no clearer evidence of this than the Republican Party's unanimous blockading of legislation in the U.S. Senate, where 80% of proposed legislation has been defeated by Republicans, since Pres. Obama took office. Poll after poll demonstrates that Republican and Democratic voters are appalled by the absence of progress on the issues and challenges facing our nation.
These polls would lead one to expect that Republican voters would oppose the grid-lock created by their representatives. But, the opposite is true. Get Republicans together in a rally room like CPAC, and a kind of mob hysteria takes over in which these same voters hail and adamantly support the very grid lock they oppose when talking to pollsters. The Party is shaping their constituent's priorities, instead of the other way around, as had been more the case in American history.
A great many Americans however, reject the Party giving them their values and priorities on the issues. A growing segment of conservatives have left the Republican Party due to their rejection of the GOP's top priority being opposition to Democrats, instead of hammering out legislation which moves the nation forward, solving, if only partially, the problems threatening our future.
The same has been happening with the Democratic Party. While President Obama was able to garner the vote for change from Independent voters who had defected from the Democratic Party, those voters remain Independent, and have not rejoined the Democratic Party, recognizing that the Party remains primarily focused on elections, not governing. They know this by the evidence of the Democratic Party's promotion and election of conservative candidates like Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Sen. Ben Nelson in order to gain the power of a majority in the Senate. The end result, however, was a Democratic majority in the Senate that could not pass Democratic legislation with Democratic votes without damaging compromises made to these conservative Democrats.
The concessions and compromises made in the Senate to conservative Democrats, in order to get their votes, included dumping the Public Option in the Health Care Reform legislation, which the majority of both Democrats and Independents, demanded and expected in health care reform. When the top priority of a political party is acquiring power, all other principles and values the Party says it stands for, will be compromised when it comes to shaping policy. Democrats got their majority in the elections of 2006 and 2008, but, the price was a complete capitulation on the Party follower's values.
Similarly, the Republican Party and their agents in the media have a public mantra of higher taxes under Democrats going. This is evidenced by a Rasmussen Poll, in which, only 21% of voters nationwide believe taxes have been cut. This despite the fact that 95% of Americans have received a tax cut under the Democrats and Obama administration.
The poll further indicates that only 6% now expect their own taxes to go down during the Obama years. In other words, the GOP is in perpetual campaign mode, effectively spreading false allusions and distortions of reality in order to acquire power on election day, rather than focusing on giving the people at least some legislation the people want. In the House, Republicans routinely refer to higher taxes under Democrat rule in floor speeches. In reality, these same Republicans voted no on the budget to cut 95% of American's taxes.
In the Congress and media, Republicans are shaping the election issues, railing against debt and deficits. The Rasmussen poll however, indicates 50% of conservatives are comfortable with our budget deficit, if taxes are cut. Hence, the need of the Republicans to convince the public of the lie that their taxes have not been cut. Only then, can the GOP use the deficit as an election issue with those 50% of conservatives who aren't that concerned about the deficit if they know their taxes were lowered.
Even Democrats are complicit in fostering the false notions held by the general public, by not choosing to engage the public with the facts. Democrats act as if complexity is a loser with the American public, and therefore, TMI, (Too Much Information), is something Democrats fear, as it might confuse the public. Having found the health care reform legislation too complex to explain to the public, and that complexity taken advantage of by Republicans, Democrats are avoiding TMI like a plague. Again, this avoidance of TMI is a direct result of the Democratic Party putting November's elections and fears of alienating voters, above one of the central requirements of a functioning democracy, honest and accurate information, regardless of complexity.
Our government is broken because The Parties in Congress are now in perpetual, non-stop election mode from one election to the next, leaving no time or room for governing the national affairs of the American people, for which they were hired. From the day after the elections in 2008, Republican's set out to defeat Democrats in 2010. They did not sit down to discuss what legislation they could help Democrats pass to meet the needs of the American people and the nation's future. This is obvious by their legislative voting record and threat of use of the Obstruct-A-Vote procedure (filibuster) to halt progress by Congress under a Democratic majority. It is all about power and elections, and no longer anything to do with representing the governance needs of the people and nation.
Not surprisingly, then, those voters who are aware of these goings on for years, have been defecting from the Democratic and Republican Parties. Nationwide, Independent voters outnumber either Democratic or Republican voters. What I didn't know, and just discovered, is that registered Independent voters now outnumber BOTH Democratic and Republican voters in New Jersey and Alaska.
These facts are dramatically changing the political landscape in America. Though what the end result will be for good or ill, is yet unknown. Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice wrote a couple weeks ago, 'The Race Is On To Win Over Independent Voters'. The dilemma for both Parties is how to 'win that race' without alienating the base of their Party.
The hard core Progressive base of the Democratic Party is ideologically different on a some crucial issues from Independent voters, like deficits and debt, escalating the fight and nation building in Afghanistan, and tax issues. The hard core social conservative base of the Republican Party similarly diverges from the Independent voters on issues like Gay marriage, Gays in the military, abortion, separation of church and state, and corporate financing of election campaigns.
What these trends portend, however, is more broken government as the focus of the Parties increases on campaigning and away from governance and process reform. As I have written and argued previously here at WatchBlog, reforms that will save our nation's future, like the issue of health care costs, cannot go forward without political reforms first taking place. The Parties have to be forced back to governance and away from the tug of war between wealthy special interests and lobbyists, election fund raising with the consequent legal bribery and blackmail that attends it, and the filibuster rules which have been seized upon as the weapon of choice by the minority Party to govern, not legislation, but the coming election.
It is difficult to imagine at this time how our government can be repaired without an overwhelming backlash and mandate by the voters which, punishes the Parties to the point of their crying "Uncle", succumbing to the will of the voters. There is a difference between public sentiment and a 'movement' in politics. CNN describes current polling results correctly as reflecting anti-incumbent sentiment growing amongst the American public. A movement however, is different than sentiment in that it is organized toward a specific call to action to implement strategy and tactics. The Tea Party (actually a conglomerate of three registered conservative organizations) and Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, (VOID) (an entirely non-partisan organization) are the only organizations registered with the FEC (as far as I can tell researching the FEC database) to focus on anti-incumbent voting in elections as a primary strategy to force the changes required in government. And they are both small organizations, though growing.
Can such anti-incumbent voting organizations gain the critical mass to rescue our nation's future from this broken government and political system? That depends entirely upon you, the voter, who becomes aware of these movements and chooses either to join, or not. The political parties have decades of fund raising relationships under their belts to tap from. These new anti-incumbent movements rely on small donations from the working public as a budget for getting their message out to the public. This means the two Parties are not really threatened by these anti-incumbent movements, as long as their funding remains competitively small.
The critical mass needed to fix government would be the number of anti-incumbent votes required to push the reelection rate of incumbents from the 90% range closer to the 50% flip of a coin range. The political parties will not accept a coin toss chance to determine their election fate. Before the reelection rate drops that low, they will have no choice but to devise ways to appease those anti-incumbent voters, and that will mean reforming the broken process as discussed above.
If our broken government is to be fixed, it will be the American voters who will have to fix it with donations and support of the anti-incumbent movement. The politicians in the two Parties will not fix our government, otherwise. They like the musical chairs of revolving power just the way it is. It is familiar to them, they understand the game, and will preserve the rules now in place to keep it that way.
Posted by David R. Remer at February 20, 2010 12:22 PMDavid
They said that U.S. was ungovernable when Jimmy Carter was president. A good leader, Ronald Reagan, made it work again in the face of Democratic opposition much stronger than the Republicans facing Obama.
The country looked ungovernable again in 1993, but then Bill Clinton got the government working despite/because of a Republican majority after the 1994 elections.
The problem is not America or its institutions. It is the poor leader(s) trying to make the system work.
You have a good point about Democrats pushing out moderates. But let’s hope the Republicans that replace Democrats this November will be more moderate, since they will come from mixed or Democratic regions.
Posted by: Christine at February 20, 2010 04:10 PMChristine, pure CLAPTRAP.
WHO is THEY, you refer to? Got link? Or, is this just more Republican inventiveness to make a counter-argument?
Reagan was an effective leader. Good is in the eye of the beholder. But, it is hyperbolic nonsense to credit a single person for the entire workings of the federal government.
And second, it is EMPIRCALLY FALSE that Reagan faced greater opposition than Republicans now enjoin upon Obama. A simple review of the number of threatened filibusters by this Republican minority, stands testament to that fact. Reagan had a Democratic Congress, ERGO, Reagan’s agenda was passed with Bi-Partian support, which is non-existent in the Senate and House today.
Again, Clinton faced a divided Congress, with Republicans the majority of the House, and the Democrats in the majority in the Senate. Bi-partisanship on legislation between Clinton and Gingrich’s House allowed for governance success. Such bi-partisan cooperation does not exist in the Congress today. 80% of all bills taken up by the Senate have met with Republican NO votes or threat of filibuster. That is unprecedented in modern political history, Christine.
It remains a mystery why the spineless Democrats refuse to force Republicans to actually filibuster and bring the government to shut down status for the public to witness. It’s not like Democrats are advancing legislation under current conditions.
The problem is the Republican leadership trying to make the system NOT WORK as a tactic for unseating Democrats in 2010 and 2012. In the meantime, leaving the status quo in place, which Democrats are trying amend, the nation’s demise hastens as the future unfolds without corrective action taken, due to Republican obstructionism, instead of bi-partisan cooperation.
You made an argument. Good. It was a falsely premised argument, and hence, your conclusions are also false.
Republicans will gain seats in Nov. But, nowhere near what they currently anticipate. Mark my words. A political party which opposes the majority will of the people consistently, will not be suffered by the public to have majority control of government. There is just barely enough effective democracy left in our election process to keep this a true statement.
I wouldn’t bet on how many more elections this will last, however, if the conservative Supreme Court’s ruling granting corporations control of our election campaign media content remains intact.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2010 05:15 PM
During their confirmation hearings, the Democrats were again playing the abortion card. Back then, I said that Roberts and Alito were nominated and confirmed because of their pro corporation opinions.
I hope the people watch and learn from the CNN coverage.
Ronald Reagan, the one man government. And all this time I have been falsely accusing Democrats of compromising to much with Reagan.
The Republicans are preparing to fight back against the complete takeover of America by Democratic socialism. They are coming out swinging with a budget of their own, the privatization of social security and the replacement of medicare with government/corporate insurance vouchers are part of that budget.
I wonder if they will present their budget before or after the November elections.
Posted by: jlw at February 20, 2010 06:19 PMDavid
Maybe Reagan figured out how to appeal to the opposition, something Obama can talk about doing but not do.
I see the attitude all the time on this blog. It is “we are not working together enough, YOU people have to get on board.” This is usually followed by an impotent threat that Democrats are going to get tough. The Democrats want to dictate. It isn’t working.
I think cooperation will improve after November, when the Democrats loose some seats. Right now, Democrats are tempted to dictate. When they are weaker, they will know they have to make deals.
BTW - one of the secrets to Reagan’s success was that he went over the heads of the Democrats and appealed to the American people. Why don’t the Democrats do that? Oh, yeah, the people don’t want what the Democrat leaders are selling.
Re Carter - I just remember the Carter times. You must too. Good times?
Posted by: Christine at February 20, 2010 08:03 PMChristine said: “Maybe Reagan figured out how to appeal to the opposition, something Obama can talk about doing but not do.”
Idle speculation. Republicans and Democrats were interested in governing back then. Obama and Democrats still are, but, Republicans aren’t any longer. Getting back into power by destroying America under a Democratic majority is all Republicans are interested in now.
We heard Republicans pledges to the American people in 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections. And we watched Republicans break faith on all their campaign winning rhetoric. There is no reason whatsoever, to believe what comes out of Republican candidates mouths, any longer, unless one is a GOP loyalist for better or worse. And then the reason is unreasonable.
Obama doesn’t have to go over anyone’s heads. The American people in a majority want the public option in health care reform, they want the too big to fail banks broken up, they want the financial industry overseen and regulated. They want energy independence and clean renewable energy. They want education reform so that American K-12 education can compete with the quality of the other 25 nations whose quality is higher. They want Medicare and Medicaid made affordable and retained as a safety net. They want Soc. Sec. made solvent and kept.
There is no need to sell the majority of Americans on his agenda. They voted for him and that agenda by a majority little more than a year ago.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 20, 2010 09:06 PMChristine wrote: “The problem is not America or its institutions. It is the poor leader(s) trying to make the system work”.
Presidents come and go. Voters come and go. But the corporation has tenure in perpetuity. Molded and handed down through generations. Able to buy a package of laws in one single bound. We are not a Democratic Republic. We, along with most of the world’s countries, are some kind of hybrid Corpocratic Oligarchy. Through incremental osmosis we have been completely transformed in the political sense. Consider just one aspect.
Antitrust law. Prior to Regan we kept businesses competitive with frequent use of antitrust law. Since Regan, nada. I can’t think of one instance of antitrust after 1980. All heads of state since have worked to facilitate the consolidation of corporations. Leading to rampant monopolies of goods, like pet foods. Remember the pets that died from eating pet food? China had captured the market on a good additive, wheat glutin. One company, Menu Foods of Canada, was supplying pet food for five of the top six independent brands and 17 of the top 20 retailers of pet food, covering products sold under more than 150 names. Insult to injury, high-end, expensive brands came off the same production line as the cheaper brands, differing only in the labeling. Prior to 1980 pet food brands operated their own factories, packed their own cans and managed their own supply bases. Where monopolies form competition dies.
No different for the auto industry. One company supplies 90% of dashboards for US cars made by – Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM, Ford and Crysler. So, to handle GM as a too big to fail means interfering with the supply chain for many other car manufacturers. The monopolists use trading companies to market retail products produced abroad and arbitrate between suppliers, communities and workers. Many are considered ‘global citizens’, some work for foreign governments. In many cases there is no ‘owner’ at all. Thus, it becomes easier to take risk with a small segment of a monopoly. It’s clear they don’t mind putting diethylene glycol (antifreeze) in your toothpaste, coat toy products with lead-based paint, feed drugs to catfish and mix ‘oversulfated chondroitin sulfate’ into raw materials for the production of the blood thinner heparin.
These conglomerates have been delivered to us by the government, incrementally, over the last 30 years. Do you think that by having Obama stand up and say he is going to carry out antitrust law would change things? This corpocratic-oligarchy cannot reform itself. That leaves only the people. The only way reform can be carried out is thru a 3rd party with a different political attitude. You know the spiel - - - -
Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.
David
If Obama and the Democrats could count on the support of the American people, they would not be running so scared. Until recently, they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. They still have more votes than any Republican president has enjoyed since the early 1920s. They have an overwhelming majority in the House.
It is hard to hear them cry weakness.
This is the bottom line. If Democrats cannot do it now, they cannot do it ever using the strategy they are currently employing.
Isn’t it you who quoted Albert Einstein saying something like repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity?
The Democrats can either roll the dice and get tough (unlikely IMO) or they can move more in the Republican direction to get more cooperation or they can wait until November and let the resurgent Republicans have more influence.
Posted by: Christine at February 20, 2010 09:44 PMGovernment is only broken when socialism cannot be enacted quickly enough.
Christine is right. The people do not want these policies. If this is truly so, then the fact that Democrats cannot get this enacted quickly enough to suit their fancy is democracy in action. The will of the people.
But… we know that sometimes the people are stupid and don’t know what’s good for them… unless they say they want Dem policies, then they are smart and sophisticated. If not, they are angry and uncontrollable (and likely ‘tea baggers’).
Seems a bit contrived to me.
Politics: Proles Have Gotten Under the Egalitarians’ Skin
Posted by: eric at February 20, 2010 11:57 PMChristine said: “This is the bottom line. If Democrats cannot do it now, they cannot do it ever using the strategy they are currently employing.”
I could not agree with you more! They are acting as if they are scared of alienating the Independent voters and their progressive base, which is, perhaps, a legitimate concern, since these groups diverge on some key issues.
But, they weren’t voted in to act scared. They were voted in to boldly make changes in the direction the country was heading previously. And they have been anything but bold, except to grab the health care Medicare third rail with both hands.
But, their dexterity was entirely absent. Pelosi and Reid completely mismanaged the health care reform bill and the Republican obstruction block in the Senate.
I do believe your assessment hits the nail pretty squarely on the head. This reconciliation course of action is another Democratic boondoggle. They cannot get the 60 votes required for the procedural steps necessary to move the reconciliation vote to the floor, requiring only 51 votes.
It is going to take some pretty spectacular politics for Democrats to resurrect the faith that was given them in Nov. of 2008. Not impossible, but, extraordinarily difficult at this point, given the personalities in their leadership and their modalities for problem solving.
I can’t quote Obama and Reid at the moment, but, what I heard from them on the HC reform bill this last week was that each would support the other if the other makes the first committed move. That is no way to lead on legislation. But, given the virtual impossibility of acquiring the procedural 60 votes, and their fear of abandoning their bi-partisan position, it seems obvious why they each left the ball in the other’s court.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 02:41 AMEric said: “Government is only broken when socialism cannot be enacted quickly enough. “
Pure partisan hyperbole. Government is broken when solutions to pressing challenges of the American people and nation cannot be advanced.
Eric said: “The people do not want these policies. “
The polls say otherwise, Eric. I will take the word of the polls over yours, with apology extended.
Eric said: “But… we know that sometimes the people are stupid and don’t know what’s good for them… unless they say they want Dem policies, then they are smart and sophisticated. If not, they are angry and uncontrollable (and likely ‘tea baggers’).”
Sounds like standard SOP reflex reaction by both Party’s politicians and media mavens. The American people are not versed in American politics, or governmental rules and procedures for legislation and policy. So, yes, they are ignorant about many things.
Just as I am ignorant about how rockets work, and you are probably ignorant of a host of skill trades which you have no experience in. That’s the thing. If we are an electrician, we hire a plumber to fix our drain. If we are citizens, we hire politicians to manage the nation’s government for us.
There is no shame in the American people not understanding the inner workings of legislation and politics, of economics and probability and statistics. That is what they hire the politicians and civil servants trained and educated in such areas to do for them, just as they hire a roofer when their roof leaks, or a mechanic when their engine knocks.
What Americans should know however, is the importance of their vote and its purpose, to remove from office those who abuse it, or are not able to generate the results from government that the voter expects and demands. That, the American people should know. And more and more of them are shedding their ignorance in that regard, as evidenced by the rise of the Independent voters numbers and anti-incumbent committed voters during these many years of federal government mismanagement and abuses of the privileges of office, in managing the public’s money.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 02:53 AMChristine
The Carter times? Yes,I remember. Healing is sometimes painful.
DR and all
I hope I can get some of the series on CNN international. Online maybe.
As bad as it is in the US as far as governance goes,you ain’t seen nothin compared with the RP. There is an election comming soon. The agency in charge of it has set up armed roadblocks to confiscate guns,even from policemen or should I say,especially from policemen that might be on their way to whack their bosses opponents. They are going to try and automate the ballot counting nationwide for the first time.Saves having to stael the boxes,I suppose. That should be a laugh. There is already suspicions that some regions will lose electricity on election day. Another custom is direct buying of votes. I know several poor people looking forward to the elections for just that reason. They can get between 500P and 1000P per vote. 500P is about what a loborer makes in a day.One of the major presidential candidates and former president recieved a pardon from a corruption sentence. The current president can not run again for president but is running for congress. If she fails to get elected she will lose protection be immediately arrested for corruption. This is a constituional democracy,based on the US system. We can get a whole lot worse if we keep at it.
Government in America is not broken. People do however reinforce the talking heads on TV who say that it is. The point of two or more party politics is to ensure that no single party or individual has only their way. Single process politics is more to tyranny than it is freedom. Such a process takes time especially with issues that affect 300 millions souls.
Americans are bombarded with media personalities from the right, the left and others, some well off center, who try to convince us that the government is broken. Part of that rhetoric stems from (many who) lack of experience in participating in government actions or those who bailed out of it because they ‘became frustrated, can’t make it work, gave up… ‘. Governing is far more complex than business, mainly because of the incredible number of functions government addresses, many of them unable to be conducted by private enterprise. The collapse of the economy did not originate from the government unless one presumes inadequate constraints/laws exist; more ‘big government’ of which no one seems to want.
The federal government has thousands of core businesses and millions of constituents far more diverse than any private or corporate enterprise provides. Government uses the power of the nation (us) to invest in items that businesses can not or will not. Large business-oil companies could have put up the billions for the planned nuclear power plant in Georgia but did not. Why? Not part of the ‘core business’?
In 2009, the House passed almost 100 bills. Not bad. Certainly some of processes for those bills could be streamlined, such as the naming of Post Offices and Federal buildings on a case-by-case basis versus grouped once or twice per session. But there were many important issues enacted. Health care reform is the hue and cry of ‘the government is broken’. Polls are thrown about saying one side or the other is in the majority, depending on who took the poll or the sample group it was taken from.
The talking heads will tell us to reduce taxes and cut spending but not provide a solution as to how. Why? Reduce social Security benefits. That way, those of us who still have a job can support our parents. Or how about the Department of Education? Do farmers need a Department of Agriculture? These agencies were created through legislation. Defense and diplomacy by the Constitution. It has been that old sausage making process that has prevailed not the ranting of media personalities who do their best to convince us otherwise.
There are approaches to reducing taxes and spending. Perhaps mandatory retirement ages for pension-drawing federal and state employees to loose their well paying jobs to a newer generation of workers. Let state insurance commissions determine health care reform so that Medicare and Medicaid can be relieved from federal responsibility. After all, they already approve/disapprove premiums already, right? The only law from the federal government would be for states to provide for the health care of the young and indigent. Let the states provide their own version of higher education assistance. Let states, counties and cities bare the burden of the federal highway system already built with federal tax dollars. All that remains is to maintain it or, close it if they are not required. Supporting good people, including the common working man, along with wealthy business people, lawyers, academics and doctors to run for office may add some new grass roots perspective to the debate at all government levels.
Instead of talking down our great system or embellishing those that do, let’s hear more of talking it up! Yes, there are many challenges to be sure. Like marriage, you have to take the whole package, not just the good parts and work through difficulties to make it work. It is supposed to be that way. All voices heard, best solutions agreed to and carried out. A good, lasting successful marriage can not, must not, be one way. Either can good government.
Mulpartisan
LOL. You have a good deal more faith in state government than I,but then I am from California.
“They [Republicans] are coming out swinging with a budget of their own, the privatization of social security and the replacement of medicare with government/corporate insurance vouchers are part of that budget.
I wonder if they will present their budget before or after the November elections.”
Good point. The best thing that Democrats can do is to force public exposure of Republican policy options. My bet is that the public would be appalled if they really understood the Republican alternatives. Put up or shut up. That should be the Democratic mantra.
David
I am glad we agree re Democrats. We probably disagree in that I don’t think they can improve this year and I am content that nothing is a better option than that health care plan they are proposing or card check etc.
Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 11:02 AMMulpartisan,
Your argument is ABSURD!
You may think government is working just fine. But, by your own words, government is not supposed to serve just one, but, all the people of a nation. THERFORE, in a democratic government it is the majority of the people who determine of THEIR government is broken or not.
And the polls CLEARLY demonstrate the public has pronounced it broken. The people decide that issue, not you or I, the individual. Not in a democratically elected government.
Your argument reminds of some of the Loyalists positions and arguments during our Revolutionary War.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 12:14 PMChristine, I don’t see either the House or Senate HC reform solving the biggest problem it has to address, the long term Medicare deficits.
Where we disagree perhaps is whether or not either of those bills could constitute a down payment on more reforms which could address those deficits. I am inclined to keep an open mind.
The Republican mostly status quo plans however, utterly fail in even opening the door on keeping a health care safety net and eliminating the long term deficits. Competition and tort reform don’t even begin to address the long term problem - unless eliminating the safety net becomes the result. But, that constitutes wholesale poverty and suffering for 10’s of millions of Americans over the decades. Not exactly a prescription for sound economic balance.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 12:21 PMDavid
I really do believe in markets in the broad sense of the aggregation of many different ideas and preferences. And I am very suspicious of any comprehensive solutions meant to fit all parts of our increasingly diverse country.
IMO - the liberals are trying to go back to systems and ideas that failed in the 1960s and 1970s, when we learned that the Federal government cannot create comprehensive solutions that properly address social issues.
I am NOT against Federal activity. But Federal power must often be deployed through market mechanisms that allow for diverse solutions. Not everybody wants the same things. We need systems that allow greater choice and less central management.
The analogy I use (as you know) is that the Feds should build the road, but not try to decide who gets to use it as long as they follow the rules of law that apply to all. That envisions a large role for the Feds, but it is a leadership (setting general directions) and not a management (i.e. dictating how) role.
Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 04:07 PMChristine said: “IMO - the liberals are trying to go back to systems and ideas that failed in the 1960s and 1970s”
Poppycock. The Medicare/Medicaid program has been the most humane act of the U.S. government for its people, since Civil Rights legislation. More than 90% of all recipients approve of the Medicare Program. That is not a failed program.
The fact that the demographics have changed in the last 45 years and that Congress has failed to address the growing Medicare deficit issue does not define the program as a failed policy, anymore than the dramatically rising cost of our military budget constitutes a failed military.
The private capitalist markets are best where individuals are capable and willing to contract with each other for goods and services. Where people are NOT capable of contracting for humane treatment and life’s basic necessities, the government has a role to play, if it be the will of the majority of the people. And the polls demonstrate that the majority of the American people continue to want the Government to provide a safety net for Americans who fall under the economic free market bus through no volitional fault of their own.
Roads are not humane treatment and health care, Christine. Your analogy falls way short, as I have explained above.
There are certain activities which the private sector cannot, and will not, provide for, and humane health care cost provisions for those who cannot afford the private sectors offers, is one of those. The military is another. Fire and Police services are another. K-12 Education is another. Our society will not function as efficiently without these services. Our society will not function as efficiently in the wake of wide spread poverty. Our society DID not function as efficiently in the absence of civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs, as the burning and rioting in American cities in the 1960’s and 1970’s amply demonstrated.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 05:40 PMDavid,
Politicians are not experts on governing or serving the people. They are mostly experts on serving themselves. Also, I believe that fostering a permanent class of rulers is a bad thing for democracy (ie a representative republic should be run by citizens not professional politicians per se.)
For instance, I may not be a plumber but I can do many home repairs. I am not a mechanic but it behooves me to know how a combustion engine works so that I am not taken advantage of by unscrupulous capitalist garage owners (as they might be characterized in leftist circles).
RE: public versus private… I think it is a false choice to say that we either have private markets or government programs. Private charity does play a role and there is plenty of room in society for non-profit enterprise.
Philosophically there is a point to be made about government programs crowding out voluntary non-profit actions. For instance, I think that many progressives reflexively see charity as being valid ONLY when it is administered by a government bureaucracy.
Posted by: eric at February 21, 2010 06:05 PMDavid
I am not addressing the goals of these programs but their means of implementation. Entitlements are too costly and bankrupting us. If we make all health care like Medicare, we will have real problems.
Re the majority of Americans - they don’t want the Democrat’s health care proposal. But there is a bigger problem. Sometimes there are things you cannot have, even if we all agree we want them. We cannot both has inexpensive health care and an extension of Medicare. It is not something we can vote about.
Re Markets - I tried to make clear. We are not talking only “capitalist markets”. The market is a way to provide maximum choice.
You mention the K-12 for example. Think of the market choice. In some places in Europe, with very good schools, they have “state” schools, but the money goes with the kids. They have choice. It is PUBLIC schools, but delivered through the market.
Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 06:16 PMThe government tends to convolute many services that would be deemed beneficial. For instance, in today’s Wash. Post there is an article titled “Has the Stimulus Done Any Good”. “The Prince William (County) Community Health Center came within two weeks of closing in 08 as the country government ended a $450k annual subsidy, partly because of unhappiness that some of the clinic’s patients are illegal immigrants”.
Apparently thats what the local community wanted. But, the FED stepped in with Stimulus (keep the illegal population from returning home at all cost). The clinic reeived $1.5M from the US taxpayer/China (whichever comes first) The writer notes “as for the illegal immigrants, the federal government has shown it’s incapable of keeping them out. They’re here, many do a lot of menial work for low pay and we ought to make sure they get decent health care”. What has happened to states rights?
We didn’t have these educational problems when the states were running the school systems. Incrementally, the FED has moved to take control of the public schools, carrot and stick approach, if you do this we will reward you with this. Failed, not broken, failed. 50% graduating is not just broken. We’ve had this ‘no kid left behind’ and now we are off on some other FED program. Funding public and charter schhols, what nonsense.
As for road building. Why will the FED take Interstate highways that were paid for with taxpayer/China dollars (whichever comes first) and lease them out as toll roads for 75 year stints to foreign corporations?
Regarding capitalistic markets, where are they to be found? Best product at the best price. Such markets have been gone for nigh 30 years. Markets are now contolled by monopolies who use fianciers and trade companies to market products and whip the employees into line. Best example I can think of at the time: Menu Foods of Canada that put out the poison pet food a while back. They market pet food to 5 of the 6 top brand retailers and 17 of the 20 independent retailers. Putting out 150 brands of pet food, all coming off the same production line with different labels, expensive brands included. Only difference is the label on the can. Now, where is the competition or best product for the best price in that arrangement. You can take that analogy to any product you can name; autos, pharmas, software, mining, ad infinitum.
Failed, not broken.
Otherwise - - -
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 21, 2010 07:04 PMRoy
You mention the “corpocracy”. Maybe you can write a post re to wit
Why is the corpocracy a bad thing? Corporations spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out what products people want and then giving it to them. All of us have a fantastic array of choices. The goods we buy are cheaper than ever in terms of the amount of hours we have to work to buy them.
We can choose to partake - or not - of what they offer.
The corpocracy is merit based, at least as merit based as government. We get to “vote” with our choices and the corpocracy is very responsive.
Our government still trumps the corpocracy, but most of most people prefer to make their own choices.
So why should the average person care to make a change?
It quickly assimilates immigrants.
Posted by: Christine at February 21, 2010 08:11 PMChristine wrote “Why is the corpocracy a bad thing? Corporations spend a lot of time and money trying to figure out what products people want and then giving it to them. All of us have a fantastic array of choices. The goods we buy are cheaper than ever in terms of the amount of hours we have to work to buy them. We can choose to partake - or not - of what they offer”.
Would take a book Christine. Or, we could regurgitate every post I’ve put on watchblog. We could start with the premise that business professors teach that a start up monopoly will need the support of a large legal staff to handle antitrust. Also, a monopoly must be prepared to invest heavily in reshaping the people’s laws. According to Barry Lynn in “Cornered” there are several common breeds of monopolies to choose from: Home base, Pincer, Railroad, Trading, Middleman, Privatized, Leap frog, Futures, Respect Others, and Perfect Your Own. If you aren’t familiar with those terms it’s because there has been no debate, there was no debate as the government, over the last 30 years, facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. No debate because our government IS the Corpocracy (a monopolistic empire of which one arm is government).
Briefly – “an array of choices” - ? I just posted that Menu Foods put out 150 brands of pet food, all from the same production line, just differing labels. Not an anomaly – a way of doing business today. “cheaper than ever” - ? Monopolies/conglomerates have devasted the US economy through low wages, mandating a larger, often illegal workforce than there are jobs. As the monopoly controls the market outlet, Wal-Mart for example, the monopoly can force the supplier to take a lower price for their products often leading to risky ventures such as stuffing catfish with drugs and adding antifreeze to toothpaste, etc.
“We can choose” – No we can’t Unless you feel that by choosing one of the 150 brands of pet food, identical except for the label, you are getting the best quality for the best price. Yes, you can choose in that sense.
Just more tautology Christine. Thirty years worth of history. Yet, few seem concerned. Life is good. Wal-Mart does have good prices and they greet you at the door. No other store does that.
Otherwise - - -
Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 21, 2010 10:20 PMeric said: “Politicians are not experts on governing or serving the people. They are mostly experts on serving themselves.”
eric, if you are referring to the U.S. Congress, this is a gross over-simplification reflecting prejudice, not awareness or knowledge on this topic. True enough that the campaign process tends to select self-serving Type A personalities for our U.S. Congress. But, many arrive in Congress for other and less selfless purposes, as well.
First, a great many are schooled in the law. Which makes them as expert as anyone can be in government, which in the U.S., is all about law making in accordance with the law. Those who are not schooled in the law, often have backgrounds in government at lower levels. Though voters do not elect entirely on the basis of qualifications, they do elect on the perception of qualification, which helps insure our U.S. Congresspersons have either law education or experience in governance or management.
Second, I do not believe most politicians choose to serve in the Congress for purely personal gain, though many have, and do. Just as many, if not more, choose to serve as representatives of ideals and principles they believe in. These do get compromised by Party and the bargaining process in making law, whence comes the old yarn: there are two things one doesn’t want to see made. They are sausage and legislation.
This said, it is true enough eric, that a law degree does not insure one will be a good representative of law, the nation and her people. Conversely, a good manager in the private sector can make a terrible law-maker, guilty of attempting to legislate according to principles of operating a small business or large corporation. That is very much like being a manager of an auto-body shop and believing one has what one needs to therefore do surgery on human beings. Some experience in the one can usefully cross-over, but, most will not.
But, here is the crux of the matter spelled out by our founding history. There is no substitute in government for the broadest of education, and widest possible array of interests as well as disciplines. The most notable of our founding fathers were men who were as well versed in the humanities, literature, science, and technology of their time as has ever been assembled for the purpose of establishing and leading a government. These were people who had read Plato, Aristotle, and Copernicus, and knew their history of the government of England, and Western Civilization. They were versed in Religious texts, both the canons and the secular works on Religion.
Some of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin for example, turned to the ideas of Adam Smith’s works, Theory of Moral Sentiment, a treatise on human psychology and sociology of enormous brilliance, and The Wealth of Nations (which actually had a much longer title) and which built an understanding of markets and money on the foundations of the psychology and sociology in Theory of Moral Sentiment.
My point being, that I agree in general with your comment that our politicians today are not so well read and versed in human history and knowledge as our founders, and therein, certainly lies much of the difference in the competence of our U.S. Congress today, and at our beginnings.
Our most learned founders were not however, infallible, and were certainly constrained by the extents of knowledge and history of their day. But, our leaders today tend to be specialists in one field or another, often having nothing to do with history or law, philosophy or classical literature, and hence, they come to Congress as the auto-body manager donned in mask and rubber gloves to do surgery upon the body of American law.
In the end, and Obama gets this, a nation which elects its government leaders, can only be as competent and great as the education of the voters and those they elect to represent them, will permit. Ignorance of history condemns the ignorant to repeat it, either its mistakes, or the wasteful and inefficient endeavors of reinventing the wheels of ages past.
Imagine a government run by individuals who all partook of the same read works and broad generalized education, and how much more efficient that government would be run. The same broad exposure to classical history of civilizations for example, would not eliminate arguments and debate over how like the past is our current problem to be solved is, but, that is precisely what the majority vote process of law making is in place to handle.
The process of debate based on common understanding and exposure to the great thinking and applications of that thinking in the past, would be dramatically reduced and vastly more rational and informed, than what daily takes place on the floors of the House and Senate today.
If the education level of the public is not elevated, there is no basis for electing the most competent for federal office. America committed a fatal error in passing universal suffrage laws without commensurately investing in ever broader and more competent education for future generations of voters and potential candidates for elected office.
Much of the failure in our current political system rests on this lack of investment in the education of the electorate, who ultimately decide, often ignorantly, who shall lead them.
The design of our original Constitution took these matters into account, and recognizing the general illiteracy and lack of education amongst many classes of Colonialists, they erected a system of expanded Republic and very limited democracy. As universal education came to evolve through the early 20th century, it seemed reasonable to expand the democracy and limit the republic to accommodate this vast increase in education underway.
Regrettably, however, after the 1960’s, investment in expanding broad generalized education began to be curtailed. In many areas of the country, expanding classical education began to be viewed as a threat to social order and the status quo, especially any aspect of education which fostered questioning authority, which was one of the great strengths of our founding fathers, who not only questioned, but defied the authority of King George.
What we have today then, is universal suffrage without universally upgraded education. Instead of an ever more knowledgeable electorate selecting their leaders, we increasingly have self-servers selecting the electorate demographic to target and elicit their support from. This is contrary to the vision of our founding fathers and how they envisioned this democratic republic agreeing upon its leadership.
We simply must begin to catch up on our investments in education quality and breadth of future voters, to include foremost the studies of history, government, sociology, and the basics in economics and finance. In 1964 in the 9th grade, I took a class in home economics, in which, I was taught the basics of the banking system from the consumer’s pov, how to write safe checks, how to reconcile balances, how to get excited about the growth of a savings account, and why compounding interest is so important, how to budget income and expenses, and the importance of building successes and accomplishments on that budget. Today, home economics is not taught like that at all, and is not visited by very many male students, at all.
America’s future rests upon returning to these basics in broad and comprehensive education, both theoretical and practical, if our nation’s leaders are ever to be chosen for their ability to competently and knowledgeably lead us forward. There simply is no substitute for education where competence and effectiveness are desired.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 10:43 PMChristine, your comment appears to be confusing private sector enterprise, which you refer to in your question to Roy, and “corpocracy” which, is defined as a form of government where a corporation, a group of corporations, or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country.
Corpocracy has but one motive and very short term at that, greed, with the end fulfillment of that greed residing in monopolism. There is no wiggle room in this definition for public interest, or will of the people, not in today’s highly effective marketing and advertising disciplines versed in the manipulation of consumer psychology.
Free private sector market places accomplish the trade of goods and services, but, not without a framework of law and contract enforcement which is enforced from outside those free private sector markets. Pirateering in the 17th and 18th centuries and off the coast of Somalia today is what you get in the absence of a separate and strong governmental enforcement entity.
Marrying the market place with government through corporate influence on legislation, is a prescription for failure of both government and the society from which it arises.
Go back to your Adam Smith. An individual can and should make decisions based on all the perceptible possible consequences of their decision on their family, community, and nation from which they derive enormous security and benefit. Corporations are NOT human beings capable of Smith’s concept, later coined by De Toqueville as “enlightened self-interest”. Corporations are driven by a most severely limited and sharply defined aspect of human nature, the desire to gamble on lending money for the opportunity to of being paid back money lent with substantial addition in the form of either interest or stock appreciation.
NO OTHER ASPECT of human knowledge, desire, or education is common to investors in a corporation, and hence, the only mandate and objective of a corporation is to satisfy their investors common but, narrowly defined objective, of acquiring more money than they put into the investment. This becomes a guiding principle and mandate upon a corporation’s actions, decisions, and objectives, and subjugates, and even dismisses, all other consequences and costs that might accrue to the society at large, the environment, or even the sustainability of the planet as hospitable host for human existence, as irrelevant to their raison d’etere, or reason for existing.
Acquiring wealth is but a small portion of the goals, and needs, and desires of a people and society. Corpocracy threatens society by invalidating, as necessary, all those other goals, needs, and desires of society by exercising its singular objective of greed fulfillment in its legislative function and influence in government.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2010 11:16 PMThe phrase broken government is now officially over used. It irritates me.
Bob says it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9pURJlmFek&feature=youtu.be&a
Posted by: gergle at February 21, 2010 11:25 PMChristine said: “Entitlements are too costly and bankrupting us.”
That does not necessarily mean we must abandon safety nets. The answer is obvious. Reform the entitlements and health care system in ways that will eliminate the future deficit costs of the current entitlement programs, while preserving the safety nets for all Americans, who fate may deem they depend upon at a future point in time.
If the screw which hinges the two halves of my pliers comes out and renders my pliers ineffective except as two small levers, I can choose to throw them out and buy a new one, or, vastly more efficient to the conservation of my resources, reinstall the screw that came out, making the pliers useful again.
We can change the entitlement programs without having to eliminate their fundamental benefit to our society. This is a blind spot in the ideology of the conservative Right. They just can’t seem to imagine the enormous and costly consequences of just eliminating Medicare and Social Security. Lack of imagination seems to run rampant amongst Republicans in Congress today.
Paul Ryan has a Republican counter Budget to offer along side Democrat’s. It is draconian and will create a great deal of suffering down the road, but, it will end projected deficits. The irony is, he can’t get even fellow Republicans like Boehner to co-sign his budget. It is a guaranteed election loser for Republicans, and his fellow Republicans know it.
I respect Ryan for doing what no others in the GOP have been willing to do, propose an alternative that will realistically meet its stated objectives. But, his budget only highlights the necessity of the Democrat’s approach, which is, to do no harm to the electorate in fashioning solutions to the short and long term deficits.
To do otherwise, would not meet with electorate approval, and therefore, such a remedy would not remain in place as a solution; rendering it ineffective on the drawing board. Which is what Ryan’s budget is, politically ineffective a priori, despite its lauded adherence to GOP ideological objectives and its clear capacity to eliminate future deficits. It is a proposal that would be rejected by the American people in the very next election. Boehner and other Republicans are acutely aware of this fact, which is why they won’t co-sponsor it.
On comparing Reagan to Obama, Reagan got shot his first year. It was late April when he spoke to Congress. He signed his signiture tax cut bill four months later.
Bottom line is that Reagan had more public support at the time of passage than Obama (About 60% to 48% for Obama).
You can argue about this, but the reality is Reagan was more popular when the votes were cast than Obama is now, which happened in large part because of the Assasination attempt against Reagan.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at February 22, 2010 12:20 AMDR
Paul Ryan is interesting. He is forwrd thinking,honest and not self serving.Its almost refreshing. Problem is he is just plain wrong.
Did you see where CCAP picked Ron Paul for president. Love it.31% for Paul,7% for Palin
Posted by: bills at February 22, 2010 02:19 AMCraig, I would argue we were a less politically divided nation back then, in word and deed, also. In fact, it was the Reagan era that heralded in the seeds of the chasm between the parties evident today. Republicans haven’t been able to find as effective a leader, since Reagan. However, they still feel entitled to Reagan’s leadership by any other means.
Reagan was reasonable and logical leader. His actions were designed and motivated by reason and logic, whether one agreed with his premises, or not. The Republicans today, are almost entirely dependent on ideology for their rhetoric which fails as policy to jive with reality.
Reagan’s policies were rationally thought out for the time and circumstances Reagan found himself in. Times and circumstances have changed, but irrational and largely uncreative Republicans in leadership today, are unable to think things through as Reagan did. They continue to try to apply Reagan’s solutions to our changed time and circumstances, as if such a cookie cutter approach were all that is required of effective leadership.
It is what failed GW Bush and so very many in his cabinet, and their Congressional leaders, leaving a devastating legacy for the GOP that Reagan would have berated Republicans for, and that won’t be quickly or easily overcome.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2010 02:50 AMbills said: “Did you see where CCAP picked Ron Paul for president. Love it.31% for Paul,7% for Palin”
Well, at least Paul is a doctor and therefore has a bit more education. Neither will have snowball’s chance in hell of becoming president. One is too Libertarian and the other is an entertainer for the radical Right.
Though I find Ron Paul’s arguments full of holes and horrible potential consequences, he has contributed something of value to the national public debate regarding fiscal responsibility, and Congressional irresponsibility.
Sarah Palin is a divider, not a uniter. She hasn’t a prayer of being elected as president, unless a virus infects Americans and destroys all sense of reason, history, and common sense. She has the linguistic and communication creativity of a rapper, and not much else.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2010 02:59 AMDR
Paul is also anti-imperialism. They would never let him be elected. It should be fun watching the long knives come out now.
Caught a CNN discussion with two governors. One,a Rep from Vermont and the other a Dem from Mass.They both were outstanding. The Rep also supported the stimulus bill,BTW. We have some good governors.
It occured to me is that the Reps in DC might be suffering from a corallary of the Peter Principle. No one gets rewarded for being smarter than the leadership and their leadership is none too bright.
Posted by: bills at February 22, 2010 03:21 AMAhhh, David. No need to get agitated. Geez, all of those caps… take a breath. Not sure I follow your logic, but that’s OK. People have complained the govenrment does not work for years. But 234 years later, here we are. You can see by this blog alone on how folks agree or disagree, or agree to disagree. Imagine trying to get a major piece of legislation through 535 legislators with their views added to views of their electorate? Like health care, tax reform, privatizing social security, for example.
President Reagan was a charismatic man. Liked him. He, great a leader as he was faced legislative challenges. He could not defeat Medicare or cause voluntary or privatized Social Security, two of his favorite issues. Probably because such issues emit emotion from people (tranlation: voters), not logic used to formulate them. And that was in an era when conservatives were gaining momentum. I’m going to stretch here based on your arguments that the people did not want care for the aged and to make social security voluntary or eliminated when he was elected, both times. Well, those same people who elected Reagan disagreed with him. But that doeesn’t make Mr. R a bad president or that the legislators were remiss. The people elected both Reagan and the legislators. That is the point.
Agree with far left or right views like Paul and Palin stand little to no chance in Presidential elections. And where extreme views by entire congressional districts arise, they are countered by greater numbers of moderates voices.
Good to see some State’s Responsibility comments in this string from other commentators. Mass, MD, others have expanded health care beyond thier share of Medicaid/care. Income/sales taxes are no picnic in those states, either.
Finally, I do agree about being a loyalist, loyal to the red, white and blue, the Stars and Stripes. You bet! Going for broke - 200+ more! Have a great day.
Posted by: Mulpartisan at February 22, 2010 07:43 AM
David,
If government is broken it is because the parties only want to use government to empower themselves. Both parties concentrate power. That makes the party in power far more dangerous than the party out of power. So, if oppostion means simply saying no, and “NO” means government does not become more powerful I’m all for having a powerful “party of no”.
There is no one apart from the Tea Party group speaking for those who wish to disempower government, so they serve an absolutely vital function in the current conversation.
As to government being broken, that’s a function of not listening to us. We are being heard only in so far as the powerful think our voices can contribute to their becoming more powerful. That makes us mad.
Tea partizans are simply trying to impress on the powerful people ignoring us that they won’t like us when we really get mad.
Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 22, 2010 10:25 AMLee said: “If government is broken it is because the parties only want to use government to empower themselves.”
Agreed. Your statement approximates mine, that the Parties exist for one purpose above all others, power; acquiring it, and keeping it, fashioning law to serve that purpose, which includes their open door policy to lobbyists and wealthy special interests and their campaign bribes (err…donations).
A No minority party, however prevents the people, the nation, and the government from solving problems. Which insures the nation will be overrun and overwhelmed by them. You advocate for that, obviously. I think your argument is untenable.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2010 01:48 PMDavid,
I advocate for the sort of checks and balances the founders wanted- a government that would not be able to capriciously empower itself. What we have is a government that is designed to require the people’s consent, but is being run by people who are slowly getting the hang of overwhelming the checks and balances.
What Republicans are doing would only redound to their own destruction if there were not support in the country- and among independents, for it. This is what elections are for.
If people clamor fow what a “party of no” denies them that party will lose elections.
Who appears to live in fear of the next election, then?
Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 22, 2010 05:24 PMLee, The original checks and balances were designed for their government, then. We are not the same government and 230 years of enormous changes have taken place since the founders conceptualized a government for their time.
Minorities have a voice in American politics. The design of the founders however, was NOT to grant minorities power over the majority to nullify majority will.
You must not be reading any of the polls. The majority of Democrats and Independents want the public option HC reform. By large majorities, not squeaker numbers.
The vast majority say our government is broken.
The majority want energy independence without breaking the bank, the government’s or their own.
The list is very long, and you can research on your own what the polls say about the majority’s position on the issues. As for Republicans, their approval rating hangs around 29 to 31%. They should be heard, but, should not, and will not, acquire the power to rule with numbers like that.
Democrats numbers hand around 35 to 37%. What these numbers mean is simple. The majority of Americans do not approve of either Party’s governance, in keeping with their view that the process and product of government is broken.
The 60 vote cloture requirement has served its purpose and now no longer does, having become a destructive political tool by the minority Party, instead of a constructive legislative tool for the American people and our nation’s future.
The great strength of our Constitution is the provisions the founders installed for amending it and interpreting it, to meet needs of the future which they could not possibly foresee. As the nation changes, so too must some of its Constitutional provisions, in accordance with the provisions provided for just such change.
I remain amazed that our form of government has lasted this long, as I believe many of our founding fathers would be. The power of government is inherently predisposed to protect itself. When the people control that government’s overreach with their vote, the nation retains the capacity to hold onto its form of government without civil war or revolution.
Of course, whether the people are educated enough to acknowledge overreach and aware enough to use their vote to check power in government in ways that further the majority of the people’s objectives, is at varying times in our history, dubious.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2010 07:00 PMDavid,
You said, “It remains a mystery why the spineless Democrats refuse to force Republicans to actually filibuster and bring the government to shut down status for the public to witness. It’s not like Democrats are advancing legislation under current conditions. “
I agree completely. I’m not sure what the Democrats believe to be the case.
It’s worth noting that the number of cloture votes held has increased in the Senate dramatically in the past few years (under the leadership of both parties) as a change in the way that procedures are handled in the Senate. Every cloture vote does not necessarily represent a threatened filibuster.
You also said, “Of course, whether the people are educated enough to acknowledge overreach and aware enough to use their vote to check power in government in ways that further the majority of the people’s objectives, is at varying times in our history, dubious. “
It is always dangerous for the government to be charged with “furthering the majority of people’s objectives” in my mind. Would we have been able to pass the civil rights act under those terms? Would we have been able to pass the Income Tax laws under those terms?
Very often in our history, it has been the job of the government to charge in exactly the opposite direction of “the majority of people’s objectives.” The greatest successes were often found there. Certainly the same can be said by the most critical of our failures as well. So that seems to point to a different charge and evaluation criteria as being more appropriate.
I do not deny that we have reached gridlock at this point in time. We hit a very similar point between 1993 and 1994. I believe that the most reasonable explanation for this is that we are adjusting to a change in direction and a new agenda at the same order of magnitude. Dealing with this change and finding balance in how to proceed with the new agenda appears to take time. Over the next two years, we will find some balance in how to deal with it, I believe. It will likely require that Democrats and Republicans learn how to negotiate.
The lessons must come from both sides. And I firmly believe that the voters will set the groundwork to force them to be learned. Republicans having reached their nadir for representation in the decade will come back to the table so that they can make good on their gains. Democrats having similarly reached their zenith will come back to the table in order to protect against further erosion.
The reality is that the two-party system works relatively well when the parties find some method to coexist. When they reach their extremes, the most acrimonious relationships seem to follow.
Posted by: Rob at February 22, 2010 09:40 PMRob said: “The reality is that the two-party system works relatively well when the parties find some method to coexist.”
But, the reality ALSO is that the two parties have been mismanaging our nation for many decades now, accounting for both continuous erosion in real wages and shrinkage of the middle class, and deficits and debt that threaten government bankruptcy as has just occurred in Greece, and is about to occur in Spain and Portugal.
Someone wrote in the last 24 hours in other comments that we have always managed to salvage the situation that threatens us for more than 230 years. The appropriate retort to that statement is that the Romans, Ancient Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, and many others citizens surely said the same thing of their dominant civilizations and nations, prior to their fall.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 22, 2010 11:17 PMDR et al
The number of parties maters not. Its the quality. There are lots of parties in some very mis-managed countries. Its a over simplified solution. You might argue that the two major US parties are closed new ideas and directions. As rebutal,I give you BHO.
Good insight bills. Agree, quality (ability to manage legislation?) is a key factor. Numbers of parties, their splinter factions, caucases, et al can have effective leadership and likemindedness but still fall short of their goals. Getting the others to buy in through dialog is the tough part.
To one of Rob’s points, recommend a look at the variety of parties representing the Japanese public. Second largest economy in the world, great business minds as we all know (well, Toyota is working overtime to put a chink in that armor, but generally, those guys have it together). Service we dream about, right? The Diet-an Upper and Lower House (our Senate and House of Reps respectively) consisting of elected Liberal Democrats (our version of conservatives), Japan Democratic Party (the liberal/progressives, Communists, Social Democrats (somewhere between the libs and communists?), and others. Each of these has ‘factions’, something akin to our caucuses, the head of whom is the spokesperson. Easily 50 or more of them. The Prime Minister has to deal with them and his cabinet members that are often aligned to factions of other parties or the same party he ‘leads’. Not uncommon for the blood to be bad between them. How (PM) Jun Koizumi survived for eight or so years is a miracle considering the frustrations this structure presents. Most PM’s last a couple of years (Nakasone, another exception) before they are tossed for ‘failing’ to make changes.
Oddly, the LDP controlled the Diet since the end of WWII when this governing body was established, by the occupation forces led by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur. New PM, Mr. Hatayama, the Japanese version of President Obama (going to bring change to Tokyo) is a seasoned politician. While his JDP broke tradition in the general election by winning it, he is finding out how fast change is happening there, too.
U.S. gridlock, the state of affairs opined this week in many commentaries above, resembles an express-process compared to The Diet. Others may have seen prompt Japanese (major) legislation, but generally, plan on some time.
Posted by: Mulpartisan at February 23, 2010 08:16 AM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
