1
   

Commentary: U.S. citizens can force Congress to change

 
 
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2012 09:53 am
Jan. 09, 2012
Commentary: U.S. citizens can force Congress to change
Tom Eblen | The Lexington Herald-Leader

New Year's is a day for hope and optimism — two words rarely associated with the U.S. Congress.

Americans' disenchantment with their elected representatives is nothing new. "There is no distinctly native American criminal class, except Congress," Mark Twain wrote more than a century ago.

But a Gallup poll in December showed that only 11 percent of Americans approve of Congress's performance — the lowest rating since the venerable research organization started asking that question in 1974.

It is no wonder. Partisan gridlock keeps Congress from getting almost any important work done. Worst of all, Republicans and Democrats have become captive to special interests whose big money funds their campaigns, often makes them rich and fuels a poisonous political climate.

How do we change things? Two recent bipartisan efforts offer some good ideas.

One is a movement called No Labels, which claims to include more than 180,000 Republicans, Democrats and independents. (Find more information at Nolabels.org.)

No Labels argues that the system is broken, but members of Congress could change their internal rules to fix many of the problems — if public pressure forced them to. Among No Labels' proposals:

— Require Congress to approve a budget on time. If members don't, they don't get paid until the job is done.

— Give the Senate 90 days to vote up or down on presidential appointments. If it doesn't, nominees would be confirmed by default.

— Curb filibuster abuse by requiring senators who want to stall legislation to actually take to the floor and hold it through sustained debate. Also, end the practice of filibustering "motions to proceed." That would allow the Senate to openly debate and vote on more legislation.

— Allow representatives to anonymously sign discharge petitions on proposed legislation. Signers' names would become public if a majority of House members signed. That would prevent party leaders and committee chairs from killing popular legislation for political reasons without allowing a vote. Enact similar reforms in the Senate.

— Prohibit members of Congress from taking pledges other than their official oath of office and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. That would stop special interests from controlling lawmakers through pledges such as those against raising taxes or cutting Social Security benefits. No Labels says a combined 80 percent of current lawmakers have signed those pledges, making it almost impossible for Congress to govern in a fiscally responsible manner.

— Require the president to appear before Congress for monthly televised question-and-answer sessions, such as the British prime minister does with Parliament.

— Encourage cooperation across party lines by ending partisan seating arrangements, initiating monthly off-the-record gatherings of lawmakers and creating a bipartisan leadership committee to work through issues. As No Labels rightly points out, how can people with different viewpoints work well together if they don't know one another and never talk honestly with one another?

Another good idea is a constitutional amendment proposed Dec. 20 by U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, a Louisville Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican. (The amendment's text may be found at Yarmuth.house.gov.)

The proposed amendment would get special-interest money and its corrupting influence out of politics by overruling key provisions of Citizens United, a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 that made a bad situation dramatically worse.

The amendment would specify that financial expenditures and in-kind contributions do not qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment. It also would enable Congress to create a public-financing system to be the sole source of funding for federal elections.

Imagine an election without endless attack ads and robo-calls funded by millions of dollars from often-anonymous special interests. Not to mention a Congress and White House beholden to the American people rather than the highest bidders.

Reform like this will never happen without significant pressure from average citizens. It will be opposed by many political leaders, not to mention partisans who cynically throw around words such as freedom and liberty as a smokescreen to protect the powerful people, corporations and organizations whose bidding they do.

Some people will resist change because the status quo works just fine for them. But if, like me, you are among the 89 percent of Americans who think Congress is failing us, this is a good day to resolve to do something about it.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 910 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2012 10:48 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Nice thought; but I would not bet on it...

The government thinks of itself as the government and it thinks of the people as something other than the government... Not one of those people; while they collectively hold enough power to make some positive change ever thinks they have enough power... Not one of them will return an ounce or an inch of their power to the people... Not one of them wants anything resembling democracy... The people to the government are the enemy, and they will make a deal with any enemy of the people before they will see the people of this land empowered.

If it were possible to change the government at all; the most sensible change would be to allow the house to grow with the people, and reduce the number represented by each representative to a ratio of one for every thirty thousand... Another change which would require no constitutional change would be to require all parties and corporations, any group having a charter, such as churches to keep open books, and to be able to prove at any moment that they have a just and pure public purpose... Why should any group be allowed to exist having the protection of law that has as its purpose the injury of the population??? Admittedly; the government was designed with the desire to injure democracy and keep the people from power... The problem is, that once the people were effectively removed from control, the government could freely evolve into a body existing only for the service of their own survival... The house was a sop, thrown to the people to gain their acceptence of the constitution; but once they had accepted the government, the government was free to limit representation to the people's house and construct the districts to deny democracy to whole groups of people... The only solution to this problem is the obvious one, of returning to a former situation which would require no great effort; and yet is beyond consideration because while the house would become all powerful, it would also become a market in which every ones honor would exceed the price each might recieve for it; in other words, a house of honor and democracy... It is simply too much to ask or expect... Every criminal would make himself judge... Not one would deliver himself up to justice...
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2012 11:23 pm
All good ideas but not likely to gain much leverage with the average U. S. citizen who only recognizes the republican mantra of dont raise MY taxes.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2012 06:44 am
The problem with that agenda is that the electorate would be required to pay close attention to the detail of congressional activities over an extended period of time, in order to hold the collective feet of Congress to the fire. That is unlikely. It would be easier, in fact, to amend the constitution so that Congress' rules cannot bypass these responsibilities. Getting amendments proposed is not easy, but it would be far easier than to work through the detail of the rules of order of each of the two houses (which are constitutionally entitled to make their own rules of order). Getting proposed amendments ratified would be far easier, if properly managed. It would require a significant public campaign for ratification in the year before legislative elections, when state legislators can be made to care.

The constitution allows the two houses to make their own rules of order, and that's the only practical way to make those legislative bodies functional. Any attempt to force Congress to change the rules of order would be a nightmarish proposition, and very likely ultimately futile because they could just wait until the spotlight were turned off, and then enact other rules of order to cancel what has been forced on them.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2012 07:27 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

All good ideas but not likely to gain much leverage with the average U. S. citizen who only recognizes the republican mantra of dont raise MY taxes.
The people are entirely correct to resist taxes that only serve to relieve the rich of their need to pay taxes for which they alone receive benefit... The man reason they do resist taxation is that they are put up to it by the rich who refuse to pay their share, and who point to all the destitute who seem to be benefitting while producing nothing... They never say that the entire aim of capital is to produce with less labor while selling to the very people pushed out of jobs to maximize profits... They do not want to tell what is left of the middle class that this is the fruit of capitalism: Flooded markets, mass unemployment, crumbling infrustructure in places that will no longer support its repair, a bankrupt government responsible for the support of growing numbers of poor and imported labor, the aged and infirm along with the price of defending the interests of the rich abroad where American Capital has made slaves of people once free so that we will sell our freedom for goods we can no longer produce...The moral bankruptcy of this people has led to the financial bankruptcy of the government... The government could find all the money they need to stem revolution or imprison the population; but they can find none to defend the rights of this people to our commonwealth... The people are correct to resist... Starve the government and watch it fall... The pain will be terrible, but only that sharp and sudden pain will shake this people from its slumbers, and lead them to cast of the shackles of slavery for the prize of freedom...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Commentary: U.S. citizens can force Congress to change
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 04:04:47