In mid-July, a rare thing happened in Congress: two lawmakers from opposite political planets—Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democrat Ro Khanna of California—came together on a bill.
"Being told what to do means never having to take responsibility for a tough vote." -- Casey Burgat
Precisely, and when members of Congress cede their legislative authority for whatever reason to the courts, the White House and now their party's congressional leadership, what should be at least an equal branch of self-government becaomes its weakest link and least consequential player, which is the irrelevance Congress has rapidly become.
Politicians like to talk about threats to democracy, usually a tactic aimed at marginalizing and maligning the other party. The real threat comes when they neglect and disrespect the very oaths of office they took, and instead seek to make public office a career choice that provides their oversized egos a platform and good money for easy work.
A cheated and disrespected citizenry needs to term limit the constitutional free loaders, either by voting them out of office or voting in term limits upon them.
Legislation is a 50/50 proposition. Sometimes it works as intended and reaches most of its goals. Often though , even good legislation has unintended consequences, produces losers and winners, and forces some hard choices that get bad press.
Legislators don’t want the responsibility that comes with failure, or unavoidable choices. With the current system they have political cover for almost any choice. It is a moral quagmire.
There are 435 members of congress. The writer keeps telling us there is widespread bipartisan support for the bill. The number of congress people who have signed on is 41. Not even 10% of the House. Does that support the claim there is bipartisan support? If one person from both sides agree is that bipartisan. Now days one member from the other side makes something bipartisan. How low our standards have fallen. It takes 218 votes for a discharge petition to be voted to the floor. We shall see. That isn't even half.
What you describe is the turn of the 20th century. While Pelosi was a strong Speaker in that mode, none of her Republican contemporaries were. In fact, they are regularly deposed. And Epstein is tiresome. Scandal isn't policy.
Epstein IS tiresome and congres dabbling in it is ridiculous. But I don’t think that was the point of the article. The bill served as a good example. Indeed such a bill has little consequence beyond a bunch of press cycles. If a bill like that with Bipartisan support can’t run the gauntlet then the system is broken. That was the main point. I’m sure there are other examples but none so recent.
let us recognize two simple things ( might be 3) : 1. over last 60 years congress ( both houses) have allowed the Executive Branch to grow in power while reducing their own power . 2. What power that is actually remaining in congress ( both houses) is in the hands of less than 3 members of the majority party . And 3. MONEY is the power behind everything -- who gives it and who gets it and why !
there’s a line in Gilbert and Sullivan‘s Iolanthe “ When in the house MPs divide, if they’ve a brain and cerebellum too, they’ve got to leave that brain outside and vote just as their leaders tell’em to.
Does this mean that person who has spent the most time as speaker, Pelosi, in the last 24 years is mostly responsible for all of this. Or at least a vast majority? Add Reid in and it goes up to most.
"Being told what to do means never having to take responsibility for a tough vote." -- Casey Burgat
Precisely, and when members of Congress cede their legislative authority for whatever reason to the courts, the White House and now their party's congressional leadership, what should be at least an equal branch of self-government becaomes its weakest link and least consequential player, which is the irrelevance Congress has rapidly become.
Politicians like to talk about threats to democracy, usually a tactic aimed at marginalizing and maligning the other party. The real threat comes when they neglect and disrespect the very oaths of office they took, and instead seek to make public office a career choice that provides their oversized egos a platform and good money for easy work.
A cheated and disrespected citizenry needs to term limit the constitutional free loaders, either by voting them out of office or voting in term limits upon them.
Legislation is a 50/50 proposition. Sometimes it works as intended and reaches most of its goals. Often though , even good legislation has unintended consequences, produces losers and winners, and forces some hard choices that get bad press.
Legislators don’t want the responsibility that comes with failure, or unavoidable choices. With the current system they have political cover for almost any choice. It is a moral quagmire.
There are 435 members of congress. The writer keeps telling us there is widespread bipartisan support for the bill. The number of congress people who have signed on is 41. Not even 10% of the House. Does that support the claim there is bipartisan support? If one person from both sides agree is that bipartisan. Now days one member from the other side makes something bipartisan. How low our standards have fallen. It takes 218 votes for a discharge petition to be voted to the floor. We shall see. That isn't even half.
Term limits. 36 states already have this for their respective governors. Politics should be a tour of duty. It should not be a career.
What you describe is the turn of the 20th century. While Pelosi was a strong Speaker in that mode, none of her Republican contemporaries were. In fact, they are regularly deposed. And Epstein is tiresome. Scandal isn't policy.
Epstein IS tiresome and congres dabbling in it is ridiculous. But I don’t think that was the point of the article. The bill served as a good example. Indeed such a bill has little consequence beyond a bunch of press cycles. If a bill like that with Bipartisan support can’t run the gauntlet then the system is broken. That was the main point. I’m sure there are other examples but none so recent.
The fact that they are regularly deposed is irrelevant, as they are always controlled by Trump no matter who they are.
Check out Thomas Reed the 19th century speaker who consolidated power in the Speakership https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brackett_Reed
And Cannon who wielded the power ruthlessly.
let us recognize two simple things ( might be 3) : 1. over last 60 years congress ( both houses) have allowed the Executive Branch to grow in power while reducing their own power . 2. What power that is actually remaining in congress ( both houses) is in the hands of less than 3 members of the majority party . And 3. MONEY is the power behind everything -- who gives it and who gets it and why !
there’s a line in Gilbert and Sullivan‘s Iolanthe “ When in the house MPs divide, if they’ve a brain and cerebellum too, they’ve got to leave that brain outside and vote just as their leaders tell’em to.
Does this mean that person who has spent the most time as speaker, Pelosi, in the last 24 years is mostly responsible for all of this. Or at least a vast majority? Add Reid in and it goes up to most.