News Fixing Congress: Is It Possible to Fix the "Broken Branch"?

[mheslep]

M, I appreciate that your heart is in the right place, and that this idea sound really good to you, but like most such things, the truth is not as idyllic as the principle.

Well that's one reason why we have discussion forums w/ guidelines, because neither you nor I have a monopoly on the truth.

Now, let me address ear marks specifically. The idea is great; Congress shouldn't push earmarks through under the table. So, how do we go about banning them, and who enforces the ban?
[...]
Congress could instead do it through rule making, and self policing. Ok, great, so who decides now? How about a majority of the Congress? Er, well, that's already how it works - every piece of new legislation has to be debated by the Congress, and then passed by that Congress. The particular rules vary between House and Senate, but the steps are there. How about requiring small, bipartisan committees, specialized to particular topics and with special access to technical details of the field, to review and approve new piece of legislation as to relevance and function? Er, well, that's also already how it works, through the Congressional committee system.
[...]
No one Congressmen can insert his own language in the dead of night without telling anyone else, and then force Congress to vote on it without debate.

Yes frequently that is almost exactly what happens, earmarks go in in the 'dead of night', especially for committee chairmen. No Congress is not required by the Constitution to debate anything, nor required to read legislation, and sometimes it does neither. No earmarks often do not even appear in final legislation, appearing instead in conference reports, and are thus sometimes not even voted upon on the floor, but are none the less funded and executed by federal agencies.

[Senator] DeMint asserted that NOAA and other federal agencies are under no obligation to fund earmarks stuck in congressional reports in the dark of night on Capitol Hill. "I agree that it's not legally required," Lautenbacher replied, "but it is in fact a practice that has been in place for many, many years."

http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertNovak/2006/03/27/how_to_erase_earmarks

The earmarking process today

On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen.
In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of logrolling, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase.
When passed legislation reaches the president’s desk, a similar problem arises. Not wishing to stall the budgetary process or risk a public relations backlash for rejecting a bill for transportation or defense appropriations, presidents are often forced to sign bills loaded with earmarks.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks

Also note that earmarks at this scale are a contemporary phenonmenon, not seen before the days of a Leviathon federal government.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog organization, has argued that widespread earmarking is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. The organization cites the evolution of earmarks since the 1970s. The 1970 Defense Appropriations Bill had a dozen earmarks; the 1980 bill had 62; and by 2005, the defense bill included 2,671. Among the earmarks in the 2005 bill was money to eradicate brown tree snakes in Guam. [2]

 

[talk2glenn]

Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again

See my point. Wherever the appropriation is added - in whatever phase - the bill must return to the floor for debate and a vote before becoming law. Again, where is the specific problem, and what is the proposed solution?

You could eliminate the conference system, and simply require both houses to pass identical legislation. I wouldn't really have a problem with that, but if the goal is to increase congressional efficiency, this is a really bad idea.

 

[mheslep]

See my point.

No.

A March 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) said more than 95 percent of all earmarks were not written into law but were merely contained in the reports of congressional committees and legislative managers.

Again, where is the specific problem, and what is the proposed solution?

Proposed solution: return to rules in place prior to the 70's, and stop this.

 

[Astronuc]

Democrats pressing Pelosi to step aside
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101111/ap_on_go_co/us_democratic_turmoil

. . . . a growing number of the rank and file [democrats] say they won't support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a politically symbolic roll call when the new Congress meets in January.

"The reality is that she is politically toxic," said Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, . . . .

 

[Astronuc]

Running as a Republican with little money in a district controlled by Democrats for decades, Mr. Schilling was initially received about as warmly as a stink bug. “The party folks in Washington were kind of like, ‘What the hell are you doing here?’ ” he said.

But his perseverance intersected with incumbent disenchantment and now Mr. Schilling, who owns a pizza restaurant, is among roughly 35 incoming members of the House — and four new senators — who have never been elected to anything. “I’m a story that never should have happened,” said Mr. Schilling, 46, soon to represent a giant squiggle of west Illinois.

. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12freshman.html

This years freshmen (newbies) will be next season incumbents. It will be interesting to see how many are re-elected, and for how long. Will there be substantial reform and increased fiscal discipline? Or will they adapt to the entrenched party system?

 

[talk2glenn]

Proposed solution: return to rules in place prior to the 70's, and stop this.

Err, what? It is true that the growth in earmarking can be traced back to the early 70's defense appropriation bills. It is absolutely not true that this policy change was due to any change in congressional rules or structure.

In fact, most of the rules related to earmarking created in the last 30-40 years were efforts to restrict their use. Your proposed "reform" would have the effect of making earmarking easier, not more difficult.

Earmarks reflect a change in political trends (expansion of the role of government into most every sector of the economy, and dramatic growth in governments share of the economy), not institutional structure. When government had a much more limited role and budget, earmarks still existed - there was just far less incentive for their drafting.

 

[WhoWee]

Err, what? It is true that the growth in earmarking can be traced back to the early 70's defense appropriation bills. It is absolutely not true that this policy change was due to any change in congressional rules or structure.

In fact, most of the rules related to earmarking created in the last 30-40 years were efforts to restrict their use. Your proposed "reform" would have the effect of making earmarking easier, not more difficult.

Earmarks reflect a change in political trends (expansion of the role of government into most every sector of the economy, and dramatic growth in governments share of the economy), not institutional structure. When government had a much more limited role and budget, earmarks still existed - there was just far less incentive for their drafting.

I'll say it again - the answer is smaller Bills with clarity and focus - not hocus-pocus (that's new).

 

[turbo]

I'll say it again - the answer is smaller Bills with clarity and focus - not hocus-pocus (that's new).

And no non-germane amendments or pork added. Bring them out of committee to the floor for an up-or-down vote with no filibusters or secret holds or other obstructionism. Congress badly needs to be hosed out - a Herculean task.

 

[talk2glenn]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45023.html

Here's an article that reiterates my point regarding the demagoguery of targeted congressional appropriations (aka "earmarks"). It was written by a Republican Senator, granted, so he may have an obvious incentive to protect his appropriations process, but the arguments are sound.

An attack on the appropriations process is pure political theater - it makes for good tv, but is the very definition of style over substance. To return to my previous analogy, the Defense Department is getting its new base; the difference with or without an earmark ban is whether Obama picks where or congress picks where - an insignificant distinction in the long run (it is debatable whether Obama or the Defense Subcommittee would choose more wisely, but the Pentagon would wield tremendous influence in either case).

 

[mheslep]

, but the arguments are sound.
.

He makes one argument (the rest are assertions): that the detailed spending authority will transfer to the Executive, a concern but unpersuasive. My arguments are sounder. Kill the earmarks.

 

[talk2glenn]

He makes one argument (the rest are assertions): that the detailed spending authority will transfer to the Executive, a concern but unpersuasive. My arguments are sounder. Kill the earmarks.

M, you don't have an argument. You suggested rolling back the rules to the way they were in 1970, which would ease the earmarking process, not make it harder. You haven't defined earmarks objectively (the only working definition, "fiscal appropriations for specific projects" could be used to define the entire federal budget - how specific does the word "specific" entale?). You haven't proposed a specific reform to the congressional rules to provide additional appropriations oversight than is already in place, or a specific rule that as written would prevent Congress outright from appropriating "earmarks" while preserving Congress' authority to appropriate generally.

You just repeat meaningless catch phrases like "kill the earmarks". What this means is anybodys guess. Perhaps it's like porn - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Good luck with that. This is exactly my point - meaningless gestures that enable politicans to ignore the real problems while generating good soundbites.

That Obama, the most spendthrift chief executive in American history, is in favor of a "ban on earmarks" tells you all you need to know.

 

[mheslep]

M, you don't have an argument. You suggested rolling back the rules to the way they were in 1970, which would ease the earmarking process, not make it harder. You haven't defined earmarks objectively.

Pay attention.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2977390&postcount=57

 

[Astronuc]

Bring back old-style conservatism
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45293.html

I'm curious to see how and where Boehner will lead the GOP in Congress.

 

[Astronuc]

Some insight into recent congressional history.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/2012/01/02/120102on_audio_politicalscene

 

[ThomasT]

Your OP asks whether it's possible to fix the 'broken branch'. My opinion is that it is, but only if people stop voting for major party candidates.

Also, certain reforms are needed.

 

[turbo]

I have a problem with the self-proclaimed "conservatives" in Congress. They are willing to blow through taxpayer's money on wars, defense spending, agricultural subsidies, etc, while relentlessly attacking Social Security, Medicare and other programs that the poor, elderly, or disabled need to stay alive. Are the Democrats the new conservatives?

 

[russ_watters]

Um...you didn't say what the democrats do and what you describe of conservatives sounds like a proper description to me...

And how is that relevant to the thread?

 

[Astronuc]

Wasteful spending of your tax dollars: Martian menus, the “non-profit” NFL, and a $132 million do-nothing Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...llars-martian-menus-non-profit-105911755.html

Think Congress does not have much to show for itself this year? Think again. A new report from Senator Tom Coburn's office highlights dozens of examples of government waste in 2012. Included for the first time on this list: Congress. The very people looking into government waste find they themselves are wasteful. Coburn's report estimates $132 million of taxpayers' money was wasted on "the most unproductive and unpopular Congress in modern history."

"The waste is unbelievable," says Coburn. "We're bankrupt, this country is bankrupt, and people just don't want to admit it."

Loopholes are part of the problem. The National Football League, for example, pulled in more than $9 billion last year, yet is technically a "non-profit" organization, costing the federal government tens of millions of dollars every year in lost revenue.

"We have some of the biggest corporations in America paying no taxes whatsoever, you know something is wrong with the code," says the Republican senator.
. . . .

Would either presidential candidate press for reform? Will congress?

 

[mheslep]

Wasteful spending of your tax dollars: Martian menus, the “non-profit” NFL, and a $132 million do-nothing Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...llars-martian-menus-non-profit-105911755.html

Would either presidential candidate press for reform? Will congress?

The US House did pass a budget as it was required to do that cut $1-200B out of FY13. Of course it never saw daylight in the Senate. If Romney wins I expect to see more reductions to baseline increases any many areas, with the unfortunate exception of military spending, which seems bloated to me.

 

[Astronuc]

Bloomberg Starts ‘Super PAC,’ Seeking National Influence
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/nyregion/bloomberg-forming-super-pac-to-influence-2012-races.html

Seeking to reshape a national political debate he finds frustratingly superficial, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York is plunging into the 2012 campaign in its final weeks, creating his own “super PAC” to direct millions of dollars in donations to elect candidates from both parties who he believes will focus on problem solving.

Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire and a registered independent, expects to spend from $10 million to $15 million of his money in highly competitive state, local and Congressional races. The money would be used to pay for a flurry of advertising on behalf of Republican, Democratic and independent candidates who support three of his biggest policy initiatives: legalizing same-sex marriage, enacting tougher gun laws and overhauling schools.
. . . .

I suspect these are elections outside of NY City and even NY state.

Is this what it takes? Is this appropriate?

 

[snorkack]

It is possible to lose the popular vote by a significant margin, and still be elected President by the electoral college. In a democratic (supposedly) country, this should not be possible - the will of the people is reflected in the popular vote.

No. It is a feature, not a bug.

All states regardless of population, whether California or Wyoming, are equal. Accordingly, they have equally 2 seats in Senate.

That is the only clause of Constitution exempt from amendment by 3/4 majority of states. Unlike e. g. 13th amendment.

In Congress, there are 2 houses. However, there is only 1 president. While States do not have equal votes in Electoral College, they do have votes according to number of both houses of Congress together. California has 66 times the population of Wyoming, but 53 times the number of representatives and equal number of senators - therefore 18 times the number of Electoral College votes.

 

[Astronuc]

Congress has to produce the spending bills, which the president has to sign.

Here's some interesting commentary on the 'fiscal cliff' and the fact that no one seems to know what to expect from either president in the current or next fiscal years. It doesn't look good either way.

Congress and the administration have been 'kicking the bucket down the road' for some time. Now we come to the 'fiscal cliff' and there is no more road on which to continue kicking the bucket.

John Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group, says "the political system is corrupted by money" and "mutual funds should have a say in political contributions by corporations they own shares of."

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/10/19/n-jack-politics-corrupted-by-money.cnnmoney

 

[BobG]

Wasteful spending of your tax dollars: Martian menus, the “non-profit” NFL, and a $132 million do-nothing Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...llars-martian-menus-non-profit-105911755.html

Would either presidential candidate press for reform? Will congress?

The problem is that Coburn's report is junk. Some of his issues might be valid, but I wouldn't take any of them at face value.

For example, the robot squirrel didn't cost $325,000 - the entire San Diego State study on rattlesnakes cost $325,000, including the cost of the robot squirrel (created by UCDavis) and numerous surveillance cameras. The cameras will be installed on the http://www.blueoakranchreserve.org/BORR/Welcome.html which is quickly becoming the most technologically wired nature preserve.

It's not the first time UC Davis has made robotic animals. To fund the projects in robotics, the robots have to fill some function and they seem to have found a niche creating robotic animals for biology studies. And the use of robotic animals take biology projects from the standard "observe and take notes" type of project to actual experiments where variables can controlled to test specific theories about what's being observed (remember the old "correlation doesn't imply causation" problem - you have to see variables change to see if the correlation is real).

Getting money for post-graduate biology studies is probably pretty competitive when budgets are decreasing. Including an engineering project (the squirrel), multiple universities, and upgrades to a multi-use nature reserve probably make the overall project a lot more attractive, funding-wise. Unfortunately, the squirrel video was entertaining enough that it draws the public's attention completely away from the project, itself.

And, suddenly, what was a unique and efficient method of funding several projects (the nature reserve, the rattlesnake study, and robotics projects) is pointed to as a great waste of money.

Oh, and as my dog would say - "SQUIRREL!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0hyursVxG0

 

[Bystander]

A six year old thread?

Okay, gang, how about introducing a "write-OUT" ballot to the election process? The electorates of the other 49 states don't get to pick your senators or representatives, but they do get the option of denying seats to the real lemons. Dunno whether it's a matter of number of objections voted outnumbering the number of ballots cast for "X" in the home state, or quite how to work such a vote numerically, but the end goal is to place the ability to discipline members of congress in public hands.

 

[snorkack]

A six year old thread?

Okay, gang, how about introducing a "write-OUT" ballot to the election process? The electorates of the other 49 states don't get to pick your senators or representatives, but they do get the option of denying seats to the real lemons.

Other 49 states would be a problem interfering with the freedom of a state to pick representatives.

Division of a state into constituencies is another matter.

Simple plurality, winner takes all districts have the effect of amplifying small majorities and weighing them over others.

Would it be better to require multimember constituencies, not single member ones, for Representatives? (With exception of States having a single seat.)

 

[Astronuc]

Physicist Elected to Congress Calls for More Scientists-Statesmen
Bill Foster, member-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives, wants more scientists in Congress who can bring to bear an analytical mind-set to lawmaking

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=physicist-elected-to-congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politician)

I'm all for more analytical, rational minds in Congress.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It wouldn't help. Republicans would support loop quantum gravity and Democrats string theory.

 

[Astronuc]

It wouldn't help. Republicans would support loop quantum gravity and Democrats string theory.

and keep the government tied up in knots?

 

[Angry Citizen]

Physicist Elected to Congress Calls for More Scientists-Statesmen
Bill Foster, member-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives, wants more scientists in Congress who can bring to bear an analytical mind-set to lawmaking

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=physicist-elected-to-congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Foster_(Illinois_politician)

I'm all for more analytical, rational minds in Congress.

If I remember right, the last scientific minded individual in the Presidency was, well, Herbert Hoover (Mining Engineer). He didn't turn out so good. Not sure how scientific training can itself help one govern (indeed, the hard sciences show the highest rates of conservative thought in the higher education bubble). What we need is scientific literacy in governance. No more Marco Rubios who think the Earth is 6000 years old.

 

[BobG]

If I remember right, the last scientific minded individual in the Presidency was, well, Herbert Hoover (Mining Engineer).

A scientific minded person would realize you can't build a trend line from a single data point.

In fact, a truly scientific minded population would elect nothing but engineers, clothing retailers, and peanut farmers for the next 200 years just to improve the trend lines on our graphs.