Congressional Reform

WhoWee

Juan Williams is more popular.

ThomasT

Of course. The only conclusion is that Obama, like virtually every other politician, has been bought and paid for. He's a tool of Big Money. People can of course change this, but not if they keep voting for Republicans and Democrats.

CRGreathouse

I wonder if this might favor the rich, since a wealthy person could lobby effectively on their own behalf but nonrich persons might need to work collectively. What do you think?

WhoWee

It appears to me that organized labor has adequate access to this President.

mheslep

Many of the recently wrecked Democrats in the House agree. See this letter they just collectively penned. I can't recall seeing anything like it. Prediction: she's so utterly disconnected she won't move an inch.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...osi-step-aside

turbo

I find it interesting that FOX ran with this a day ago, and I can't find a real news service that has picked it up, though it's all over the right-wing blogs. Surely ABC, NBC and CBS have high-placed congressional contacts. Who is FOX's contact? Andrew Breitbart?

Not a single defeated Congressman has been identified, which is also pretty rare in the leaky House. Smells like a plant to me.

Astronuc

I frankly don't see any sign of reform, although I have heard that Boehner wants to relax House rules and allow for open debate. That would be good.

But I'm concerned about the pattern that one party gets a majority in the House and the other party gets shut out of the deliberations. Both party are acting in a partisan manner that as far as I can see harms the ability of government to serve the people.

My other concern is that congress doesn't check the president. The president is considered the head of the party, campaigns for the party, and then expects support from the party if the same party controls congress. Then there is essentially no checks or balances.

We have a significant accumulation of debt, and chronic deficits now running at about 10% of the GDP, compared to growth rates of 2-3%/annum, and these guys talk about cutting earmarks, which account for ~$60 billion in a recent year. That leaves about $1.4 trillion or $1400 billion to go - just on the deficit.

I heard this afternoon one congressman talking about cutting federal expenditures by $350 billion over 10 years! That's peanuts - unless he means cutting $350 billion each year for ten years. To get anywhere near a balanced budget, congress has to cut by $1 trillion / yr - or ~7% of the GDP.

If the dollar decreases in value to further trade, more dollars flow out of the country to purchase oil. I don't see where the US is simply going to double exports, because various other countries want to produce and export themselves. Exports might increase a few percent - maybe in the 10-20% range - but that might be optimisitic.

It's mindbogglingly surreal.

turbo

Many candidates ran on "reform", but what will change? Rand Paul has already backtracked on his "no earmarks" pledge, and it has only been a week since the election.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...626268782.html

WhoWee

We need deep surgical cuts to spending in every area - and fast. Any legislation that will artificially inflate prices (cap and trade) needs to be shot down.

CRGreathouse

Hopefully legislation would look beyond the next six years. (OK, I guess that's too much to hope for...)

CRGreathouse

Would you elaborate on "surgical" (usually this would mean the opposite of deep) and "artificially" (so I understand what other things you're claiming to oppose)?

mheslep

Because no one has signed it yet, as the article said.

mheslep

An earmark ban would be a huge reform, or nothing garners the label reform! Earmark bans have never been about reducing the deficit in themselves. The point is that banning earmarks enable the fiscal discipline needed to do the real work of cutting larger programs. Earmarks are the candy that allows Congressional leadership or the Whitehouse to keep large programs growing wildly: "vote for another 10% increase in the overall budget Congressman, and we will allow your lobster museum earmark."

After that, some of "these guys" have detailed plans for serious spending cuts.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budge...an/summary.htm
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budge...lan/#appendix2

mheslep

From the same article:

turbo

It's one thing to introduce an amendment, and another entirely to get it approved, then wait decades for the states to ratify it. He knows that, but when you're grandstanding for the unwashed mass the sound-bite is enough.

BTW, have you found a reputable news organization that has picked up on FOX's draft letter? I just checked ABC, CBS, and NBC (including MSNBC) and found nothing. Apparently, only FOX has access to Democratic congressmen and their staffs - or mainstream media are conspiring to keep the letter quiet. Some blue-dog Democrats have asked Pelosi to step down recently, so they certainly wouldn't mind having their names associated with FOX's letter, if it were true.

mheslep

I see that stance nicely allows you to i) continue saying nobody is reforming anything, despite what they say they plan to do before taking office or even after introducing a bill/amendment, and ii) remain perched loftily above the 'unwashed mass'.

Yes I get it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...writing-l.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44753.html

turbo

Again, the Post only links to FOX's story, and the politico link does nothing to address the letter. I find it hard to believe that none of the mainstream news networks can manage to confirm the existence of the FOX letter. There are lots of disenchanted Dems on the hill, and the knives are out.