|
Democrat Irresponsibility (The following
article was printed two years ago and is a
multiple part series of articles discussing the failure of Congress.) Have our
major parties been equally responsible for failures to enact and maintain
sound long-term policies?
From the first substantial popular vote for Presidential Electors in 1828
(about 10% of Americans participated) until 1956, every President who won a
majority of the popular votes entered office with a Congress of his own
party. In 1956 Eisenhower was reelected by a landslide majority (57.7%)
but faced a Congress in which Democrats controlled both houses.
From 1955 until very recently Democrats controlled at least one of the
elective bodies. For fourteen of those years they controlled all
three. Throughout that period they could either have their way or delay
and force compromises on the Republicans.
Now, with President Bush having a slim majority advantage in Congress,
Democrats are outraged. They employ every device available to the
minority, forcing delays and compromises. Among such devices is the
Senate filibuster and threats of its use. Two recent Democrats, Johnson
and Carter, have had Senate majorities large enough to close off
filibusters. No Republican President (ever) has had such an advantage. |
|
Congressional Candidates for President? The Wall Street Journal, noted in an April 3 editorial “Hoover
Heirs”, that the taxation remedies our
two Democrat presidential candidates are proposing are remarkably similar to
legislation signed into law by President Hoover. Many economists have regarded those as
among the most significant factors aggravating the “Great Depression”.
One blessing of knowing little history is being able to enjoy the wave
of enthusiasm that goes with making creative changes, while actually
repeating old errors. |
|
A WORLD CRISIS Unprecedented billions of people, living in
the world today, enjoy greater individual comforts, security, and
opportunities than was previously possible.
But, at least one critical threat to most of human progress has
emerged. This crisis has three major
features. First, the burgeoning of world-wide
communication and trade is heavily dependent upon a particular natural
resource that is currently in short supply.
Without adequate oil supply the world’s economic boom will almost
certainly stall. And, some of the
consequences of that are likely to be horrendous. Second, a large part of the oil likely to be
available in the next decade comes from one region, the Middle-East. Unfortunately, many of the nations of that
regions are not very strong, and they are Islamic. Also, from that region, there has emerged a
quasi-religious terrorist movement, and that movement is sworn to use all
means of dominating the nations, their religion, and the oil. Partly with violence, and partly with oil,
they hope to dominate the rest of the world as well. Third and ultimately, humanity and many of our
freedoms will almost certainly survive this crisis. The real issue is whether or not that will
become obvious in the lifetimes of any who are now
living. I. W. Parkins-5/08 |
|
Page 7 |
|
Naked Emperors Newt Gingrich’s
revolution, taking over the House of Representatives in the elections of
1994, can not be appreciated unless one first understands that for an
unprecedented time, 40 years or twenty Congresses, the Democrats had held
firm control of the House. They took
it from Eisenhower’s Republicans in 1954 by a margin of 29 votes, and 29
votes was the smallest margin of their control for 40 years. In seven Congresses the Democrats
controlled the House by 100 votes or more.
None of the Republican advantages in the six years (1995-2001)
following the Gingrich’s victory was by a margin as large as 29 votes. Scot
Faulkner’s book Naked Emperors details his effort as first-ever chief administrative officer
of the House to correct the management problems left by 40 years of Democrat
majorities. Faulkner had no
legislative authority; his job was to oversee
how 800 million dollars was spent and how 13,000 employees served the
needs of House Members. For starters,
a private accounting firm called in to do an audit quit, the records were
simply too few and poorly kept for auditing. The
reform met with strong resistance. Why
should any Member not be happy with a bank where his checks would be cashed
and no one had authority to demand that he make deposits? Recent media stories had forced release of
names of the 303 Members (both parties) who were taking advantage of
that. The largest such individual
indebtedness totaled nearly $600,000. Contracts
for services and supplies were often missing.
Apparently, they were let as political favors and evidence had been
destroyed. Thousands of lobbyists and
journalists had passes to enter the Capitol Building after the hours
available to mere citizens. Faulkner’s
book is very specific about persons, times, places, and other details. Obviously, he is presenting his report of
his work. Not so obviously, because
poorly publicized, that work attracted dozens of foreign officials, including
at least one Russian, anxious to learn of how to provide better
services to a legislative body. He and
his management team achieved at least one real First, The first reduction of
a House budget in the twentieth century. Some
of this makes dull reading. But, it is
worth at least a quick skim by any citizen serious about voting in the 2008
elections. Some of the Congresspersons
involved are still there, and they have more seniority and power. Should
we now trust the party that had 40 years of solid majorities
in the House prior to 1995, and now is in control again,
to oversee the management and budgets of our government’s other branches? I.W. Parkins |
|
Congress, Road to Chaos It
takes a bizarre partisanship for the majority of 110th. Congress to suppose that their modest victory (in an election attended by nearly 30
million fewer American voters than elected the 109th. (Two years earlier) mandates major changes in the nations direction. The evidence suggests more clearly that
many Americans are alienated and confused about how their government does, or
does not, work.
Congress has come to believe that oversight of the Executive and Judicial
Branches is it’s most important function.
And, the resulting conflicts do win media attention. Meanwhile, Congress focuses too little of
its attention on providing our country with effective laws for dealing with immigration, energy needs, etc. Even more significantly, Congress fails to
approve timely, manageable, and “clean” budgets. If the United States is to survive and to
prosper, it cannot afford a Legislative Branch that neglects its own primary,
and most constructive, powers while it interferes in time-consuming and other
damaging ways with the Executive and Judicial Branches. No simple reform will remedy what has
become a systemic and institutional failure of Congress. The problem extends beyond the short
comings of individual members and practices.
Congress must be reconstituted to be both closer to the American
people and more respectful of the other branches. Anything less is just more pavement on the
road to chaos. I.W. Parkins |
|
Confused
Elections By Ivan
W. Parkins Our
national election system has become confused in ways that hamper effective
leadership and obscure partisan responsibility. Since 1948, the first post WWII
presidential election, five democrats (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and
Clinton) have won office. There have
also been five Republican winners (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, G.
W. Bush). But,
contrary to our previous history, there has been little apparent correlation
between presidential election successes and congressional support. In 1992, Clinton, who had just won 43% of
the popular vote, entered office with larger majorities in both houses of
Congress than any Republican President has had since the 1920’s.
Carter, a majority winner of the popular vote with 50.1% got one of
the largest congressional majorities in our history.
Among recent Democrats, only Truman and Clinton have had to face
Congresses dominated by the other party, and neither of those Presidents won
a majority of the popular vote. Among
the five recent Republicans were three winners of landslide reelections
(Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan) and none of them got a Republican Congress
with his new term. Do
American consciously vote against leadership and for partisan conflict, or
are other factors shaping our election results? |
|
Reconstitute Congress One concern of those who drafted the Constitution of the United States
was that representatives should not have such small constituencies that the
office would fail to attract able candidates.
Even so, Chairman of the Convention, George Washington, called for a
minimum constituency of 30,000 instead of the already approved 40,000. This was his only suggestion regarding
details of the Constitution and it was adopted. THE FEDERALIST, No. 51 states
that “dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government.” No. 52 adds “… it is particularly essential that ..” the
representative “… have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy
with the people.” Now, with the congressional
districts having average populations of about
690,000, and with only 524,160 minutes in a year, we face a very
different situation. All Representatives,
whatever their origins, become members of the upper class by virtue of their
salaries and perks alone. The long
sessions and increasing details of
their involvement in nearly all matters of government, keep their minds and
bodies within the confines of the “Beltway” most of the time. National journalists, pollsters, lobbyists,
and congressional staff members, along with legislative “earmarks,” get them
reelected. Meanwhile, it is literally
impossible for them to allot one minute of their time per year to each
constituent. The House was intended to reflect changes in public
opinion. It too often reflects entrenched political power and
privilege. My
proposal, now very old and not so much forgotten as dissed, i.e. never widely
considered, was "Let's Disassemble the House,"--the title of my
article in SOUTH ATLANTIC QUARTERLY, Spring 1960. The legally fixed
number of the United States Representatives is now 435, far more than the
Framers, and I, believed to be practical for a legislative assembly.
But, with our vastly expanded national population and improvements in
communication, wouldn't it be possible, now, for much more numerous
representatives to operate separately, from their several districts?
And, wouldn't the representatives then be much more directly dependent on and
sympathetic with their constituents? My
submission of that to a couple of dozen political scientists, some
acquaintances and some not, produced several and mostly similar
responses. My idea was declared to be original, interesting, logical,
and sound in its description of Congress. But, it was unlikely to be
accepted and unworkable. Such comments came from senior people at
Harvard, Cornell, Miami of Ohio, and the Legislative Reference Service of the
Library of Congress. My chief reply, now, would be that the present
House looks less effective and our population and communications improvements
continue to grow. A much
larger number of disassembled representatives would be a very practical
defense if our nation's capital were to be destroyed. It should also
provide a suitable base for nominating presidential candidates--as the
earliest Congresses did. It should reduce the need for vast media
advertising and the money to pay for that. Most of all, it should
encourage more extensive and meaningful involvement of "the people"
in major policy decisions. Our representatives should be much more numerous; they should spend most
of their working time in their districts; and they should have infrequent,
but authoritative votes on major public issues. In order to add that to the Constitution, I
suggest the following: (See the
proposed amendment, “
Disassemble the House,” Page two)
|
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |