Getting Control of Congress, Permanently

American Thinker ^ | January 07, 2010 | John Armor

[Congressman Billybob]

Thank you for posting this. It is a privilege to get published for the second time in two weeks in American Thinker. This is NOT just an academic article. It is a practical way to place on Congress controls and restrictions that have existed for up to a century on state legislators.

John / Billybob

[neverdem]

Balanced budget requirements (BBA)

A minor quibble, but one of the conventions for the use of abbreviations is that they usually agree with the first letter of the the word that they represent.

Other than that, this essay is absolutely outstanding. IMHO, the Tea Party movement can rally behind your proposals for a balanced budget amendment, line item veto and single-subject requirement. May I also suggest adding term limits?

[bigbob]

A very interesting concept, thanks.

We really need to target our energies on the most workable and do-able solutions and this may be better than hoping for the GOP to achieve and hold a majority. And to hope they will actually adhere to their principles if they did.

[anonsquared]

Doing those things would be fantastic, but politicians would probably find a way around them.

How about using the equal protection under the law clause to sue the Feds against taxing different state’s citizens at different rates?

If citizens from one state send $1.00 in taxes to D.C. and only get back $.73, while citizens from another state send $1.00 in taxes and get back $4.73, aren’t the income tax laws being applied unequally? If we tax the citizens of the states whose Reps and Senators are “bringing home the goodies” at a higher rate equal to the goodies they bring home, those citizens will either start electing people who are frugal or move to a state where the elected officials are frugal with the peoples money.

[goldstategop]

Doesn't work. California has a constitutional balanced budget requirement but its has never been enforced. What makes any one think its going to be different on the federal level? And our political class ignores the Constitution anyway and does what it wants.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[highlander_UW]

The second constitutional control common in the states but absent at the federal level is the line item veto.

Another way to achieve the same effect is to ban riders to other bills. Let each bill stand or fall on it's own merit. Then politicians won't have to vote for or against a bill based not upon the merit of the core bill but upon what has been attached to it.

The argument against this is that it'd take so much longer to vote on all the individual bills but I very much doubt that because most of the delay is the haggling over what is attached and counter attached to various bills. Plus, there are plenty of items that only get passed because they're attached to something else such as a military appropriations bill (for example). But if politicians didn't have the "cover" of saying they voted for something because of the other attachments or they voted against something desirable because of attachments then their true records would become clear. (which is, of course, why they would never go for this).

[RobbyS]

I agree.

[The Comedian]

Great idea.

It will never fly, at least with this gaggle of criminals.

We can't continue to operate under the ridiculous fantasy that this coup is concerned with the welfare of America, upholding the Constitution, equally applying law, or making America financially healthy.

It is only interested in looting everything while simultaneously trying to cement its place in permanent, unassailable power.

There are only two things that are capable of stopping it (and neither one of them is a new law): Armed revolution, or massive disaster (nukes, big quakes, plagues, solar radiation changes, or similar mega-death events).

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Carry_Okie]

The third constitutional control common among the states but absent at the federal level is the single-subject requirement on all bills. This exists in 41 states in various forms. It's another protection against kitchen-sink legislation when the issue is policy, not money.

There is a better fix than this one, which becomes a procedural nightmare when it comes to arguing what is contiguous and what is not. It is to invest in the Speaker and the President of the Senate the power to divide bills into pieces (I call it a "caedo" from the Latin root "caedere," "to cut off or divide" as with a sword), thus separating contentious elements from those upon which all are generally agreed. The process allows the Presidential veto to be much more discriminating. The beauty of this idea is that it is doable as a rule change, not requiring a Constitutional Amendment.

If you're in the business of suggesting amendments, why not fix the Supremacy clause as regards treaties and the Article II provision for ratification instead? Those are much more critical changes than what you are proposing here.

[okie01]

May I also suggest adding term limits?

Might I suggest an alternative?

Would not "session limits" be a more appropriate solution to the problem? The problem being defined as: our elected representatives totally lose touch with the wishes and needs of their constituents. Thereby, they create legislation which is more in their self-interest -- and the interest of the Washington establishment -- than of their constituents.

I'd submit that the current fundamental political conflict is not so much Republican vs Democrat or even liberal vs conservative...but Washington vs the rest of us.

It can be reasonably argued that term limits would actually serve to limit the choice of the voters -- an arbitrary limit effectively forbids them from keeping a representative they might wish to keep. And, demonstrably, term limits would tend to shift power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy -- parties who are unelected and, thus, unaccountable. Finally, if the Founding Fathers didn't believe there was a need for term limits, I'm inclined to trust their judgment.

Session limits, however, would work to solve the problem as I've defined it. Given six months to do the nation's business, the representative is a.) free to spend half the year among his constituents, hopefully becoming "one with them" again, and b.) removed from the toxic influences of the Washington establishment -- the lobbyists, the bureaucracy, the social circle, etc. -- for half the year.

In other words, the representative remains a primary resident of his district -- and not a denizen of Washington. Maintaining a primary year-round residence in Washington even becomes of questionable utility.

Would a six-month session limit harm the conduct of the republic's business? True, it might bring an end to the 3-day work week that Congress seems to favor. But if, due to the pressure of time, some legislation doesn't get done....well, wouldn't that actually be a beneficial by-product of session limits?

Note that this proposal is also predicated on the model of the states. In most states, the legislatures conduct their business within specified time limits -- and nobody makes a career out of being solely a state legislator.

In sum, I believe our problem is not the number of years that a representative spends in office, it's the amount of time he annually spends in Washington -- with Washingtonians.

[sig226]

The idea that a balanced budget amendment will stop the debt accumulation of the federal government is unworkable. Here's why.

They'll need a supermajority to create a debt issue, so they'll change the way they plan the budget. Whatever is debatable in terms of pork or patronage will go into the regular budget, where it will pass with relatively little scrutiny. They will then declare an "emergency" and insist that they had to exercise the special power to incur debt so they could address the "emergency." The "emergency" could affect Medicare, or the Department of Defense, or any other government agency that has a large expenditure and a large constituency. They'll ignore the fact that those expenditures could have been placed in the regular budget and insist that they must sell another trillion dollars worth of debt to deal with the "crisis" at hand.

They all know that they have to bring home pork if they want to keep their seats. They will instinctively game this system. The problem is that ever since the representatives discovered that they could purchase re-election with money from the public purse, that's all they do. In fairness to the one or two honest representatives in Congress, if they don't bring home the pork, they will lose the seat. So, they act like irresponsible children with dangerous toys.

The only way to deal with such children is to take away the toy. I have been proposing to do exactly that. No government entity may regulate commerce between the states. If an act violates the laws of one state, but not the state where the act originated, the state where the violation occurred may extradite and pursue legal remedy for such act.

The abuse of the commerce clause has been almost the sole source for expanding the federal government. The commerce clause has to go.

[Carry_Okie]

May I also suggest adding term limits?

Term limits have been an utter failure in California. The reason is that an anonymous trail of unknown and incompetent agents for powerful interests stand for election looking for the "take-out" deal even before they are elected. It does not work.

[smokingfrog]

Some great ideas. Probably need to get rid of the current crop of crooks in congress for anything like this to pass though.

How do we solve the problem of gerrymandering?

[LucyJo]

Bump

[neverdem]

It can be reasonably argued that term limits would actually serve to limit the choice of the voters -- an arbitrary limit effectively forbids them from keeping a representative they might wish to keep. And, demonstrably, term limits would tend to shift power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy -- parties who are unelected and, thus, unaccountable.

There are at least a few reasons that I think term limits would help, IMHO. The longer these politicians stay in any government, the greater potential there is for them to become corrupt. It decreases the need for them to "go along to get along." It also decreases the need to "bring home the bacon."

As for shifting power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy, that was needed before the computer when all these laws, regulations and rules were on paper. With computers and the internet, much of the staff and bureaucracy could be eliminated.

P.S. I don't think session limits in Congress are a bad idea for regular business.

[okie01]

As for shifting power to the legislative staff and the bureaucracy, that was needed before the computer when all these laws, regulations and rules were on paper. With computers and the internet, much of the staff and bureaucracy could be eliminated.

Agreed. Yet, paradoxically, legislative staff and bureaucracy have exploded since the Computer Age began.

Gee. I wonder why... Couldn't be Congressmen hiring staff to do the job they were elected to do -- like reading bills and authoring legislation-- could it?

[Carry_Okie]

The longer these politicians stay in any government, the greater potential there is for them to become corrupt.

I just don't buy that. Can you say that about Tom Coburn or James Inhofe?

It decreases the need for them to "go along to get along."

As opposed to the need for relying upon more experienced staffers we don't elect to explain how things work?

It also decreases the need to "bring home the bacon."

This is just not true. With term limits, it takes LESS money to buy a candidate, run him, and offer him a cushy job on the back side up front. It also increases the likelihood for a chain of complete unknowns running for office with little identifiable record by which to qualify their integrity under pressure.

With computers and the internet, much of the staff and bureaucracy could be eliminated.

Please explain the basis for this claim.

Really, our experience in California has EXACTLY fit the model I am suggesting. I ask that you investigate this idea further.

[okie01]

How do we solve the problem of gerrymandering?

There is a pretty straightforward solution. Require a "minimum boundaries" standard -- either based on counties or state legislative districts.

Currently, district boundaries are drawn using the smallest unit of population -- the census tract -- which creates the distortion that people living across the street from one another (and with presumably common interests) lie in different districts. Using a larger unit of population would eliminate this distortion.

The "minimum boundary" standard -- which could be produced automatically by a properly-programmed computer -- would ensure that each district was a compact, cohesive geographical area -- and would ignore voting patterns altogether.

Of course, this process would immediately run afoul of the court's requirements for district boundaries which favor minorities. Paradoxically, it is the court's requirement that has created the practice of "packing" -- drawing district lines so as to achieve districts that are, say, 90% black, then drawing other districts that offer a 55/45 Dem/Rep split (or vice versa) so as to maximize the seats for one party or the other.

"Packing" is a demonstrably bad idea, however, even for the minorities it was designed to "protect". It ends up producing the kind of Congressmen like the Congressional Black Caucus -- elected-for-life, deeply corrupt and solely concerned with enriching themselves while scattering crumbs for South LA, with virtually no concern for the country-at-large. "Packing" is one reason why "racism" still lives.

In other words, eliminating the "gerrymander" would require the courts to go along.