Why Congress barely functions

[scandal 951]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/analysis-why-congress-barely-functions-1.3215795

Analysis: Why Congress barely functions

Published: October 1, 2011 9:15 PM

By CHARLES BABINGTON. The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- How did it get this bad on Capitol Hill? Why does Congress barely function today? The legislative branch of the world's most powerful nation is now widely scorned as it lurches from one near-catastrophe to the next, even on supposedly routine matters such as setting an annual budget and keeping government offices open.

Congress is accustomed to fierce debate, of course. But veteran lawmakers and scholars use words like "unprecedented" to describe the current level of dysfunction and paralysis. The latest Gallup poll found a record-high lack of faith in Congress.

There's no single culprit, it seems. Rather, long-accumulating trends have reached a critical mass, in the way a light snowfall can trigger an avalanche because so many earlier snows have piled atop each other.

At the core of this gridlock is a steadily growing partisanship. Couple that with a rising distaste for compromise by avid voters.

Instead of a two-party system, American government has become a battle between warring tribes, former Rep. Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.) said. When House and Senate leaders set out their goals and strategies, he said in an interview, "it comes down to the party first," with the public's welfare lagging.

Interviews with current and former lawmakers, congressional scholars and others point to several events that have tangled up Congress. They include:

Political realignment. Years ago, Southern conservative Democrats often worked with GOP lawmakers, and Rockefeller Republicans joined forces with moderate and liberal Democrats. Now, except for black enclaves, the South is overwhelmingly Republican. Liberal Republicans hardly exist, and moderate Republicans face criticism from tea partyers and others.

1994 Republican revolution. The GOP ended four decades of House minority status when Newt Gingrich led an insurgency that would change Congress' way of doing business.

Cultural shifts. Unlike two, three decades ago, most lawmakers keep their families in the home state, and many spend as little time as possible in Washington. They rarely socialize across party lines, further discouraging compromise. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), in one of several essays on Congress' decline, writes that "Fox and MSNBC . . . certainly inflamed partisanship." Social media, he says, has "popularized nonfact-based reality."

Unrestrained use of partisan tools. Until the mid-1990s, the House majority often let the other party offer legislation for debate and votes. The measures typically failed, but the practice gave the minority a chance to air its philosophies and push for compromises. That rarely happens now.

In 2004, House Speaker Dennis Hastert adopted a "majority of the majority" rule, which essentially made the minority party irrelevant. He let no major bill pass without support from most of his fellow Republicans, even if it would pass easily with Democratic votes and just under half of the GOPers' backing.

Bigger changes occurred in the Senate. Used sparingly during most of the 20th century, the filibuster tool was routinely employed by both parties, enabling the minority to block almost any bill if its members stick together. Unrestrained use of the filibuster contributes heavily to gridlock, Edwards said.

Money's role in polarization. New laws and tactics have steered millions of campaign dollars to interest groups on the far left and far right, and these groups spend to defeat candidates they oppose.

[mawilson 2,133]

Dysfunction and paralysis would actually be good for the economy.

Unfortunately they keep trying to "fix things" with pieces of legislation, each one more retarded than the next.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Congress has "functioned" all too well. We have the disasters of Obamacare, TARP, "Stimulus" Spending, and deficit funding gone wild.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It was intended NOT to function. It is SUPPOSED to be difficult to pass a law. Our government was not intended to run things that were intended to be run by private business. That is why it will always fail miserably. It is trying to do something it is not designed for

[scandal 951]

Dysfunction and paralysis would actually be good for the economy.

Unfortunately they keep trying to "fix things" with pieces of legislation, each one more retarded than the next.

I know you actually believe this, though I'm hard pressed to understand how or why that may be so.

Consider, for example, the items which I've heard you express repeatedly that you'd like to see corrected in our public policy such as tax policy and entitlement programs.

If I've got you right, you favor tax reform that would flatten and broaden it. Correct?

You also favor a restructuring Social Security and Medicare - presumably by reducing benefits (and hence expenditures). Correct?

You do realize that to achieve such goals we would need coordinated legislation in Congress by both parties in both chambers?

It's fine to b1tch about the system, but to actually DO anything about it we need legislation and that needs working Congressmen and compromise. We're royally screwed until we get that. We are in a global economy and other societies we compete with aren't waiting for us to fix our structural issues. Legislative dysfunction is not a ticket to prosperity.

[mawilson 2,133]

If I've got you right, you favor tax reform that would flatten and broaden it. Correct?

No, I don't. Whenever you hear politicians talk about "simplifying the tax code"

or "tax reform", worry because it's a code word for "stick it to the taxpayer".

You also favor a restructuring Social Security and Medicare - presumably by reducing benefits (and hence expenditures). Correct?

Yes, we do need a structural reform of entitlements. I realize that Social

Security is not responsible for today's humongous budget deficits (and in fact

has been running surpluses for decades), but the trust fund has been raided

and pillaged by politicians to cover shortfalls in the general tax fund, and

now we have to face the consequences of their actions.

You do realize that to achieve such goals we would need coordinated legislation in Congress by both parties in both chambers?

Not necessarily - we just need one party to control both chambers.

We are in a global economy and other societies we compete with aren't waiting for us to fix our structural issues. Legislative dysfunction is not a ticket to prosperity.

Other societies have their own structural issues - just take a look at Europe.

We are not the worst by a long shot.

[scandal 951]

No, I don't. Whenever you hear politicians talk about "simplifying the tax code"

or "tax reform", worry because it's a code word for "stick it to the taxpayer".

ok. So you favor leaving the Internal Revenue Code intact, as is? Freeze it in place with existing brackets, loopholes, shelters?

Yes, we do need a structural reform of entitlements. I realize that Social

Security is not responsible for today's humongous budget deficits (and in fact

has been running surpluses for decades), but the trust fund has been raided

and pillaged by politicians to cover shortfalls in the general tax fund, and

now we have to face the consequences of their actions.

I largely agree with you on that.

Not necessarily - we just need one party to control both chambers.

Ah, so in other words you don't really want paralysis and a dysfunctional Congress. You just want a Congress dominated by one party. Gotcha. BTW, you'll probably find that you need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and also have your one party control the White House for this strategy to work. And even then you'll find that it's hard to make progress without taking account of disparate regional interests in that one-party caucus. Compromise and political discourse are still essential to solve the thorny policy issues. Hence the items raised in the OP remain relevant and should not be dismissed summarily.

Other societies have their own structural issues - just take a look at Europe.

We are not the worst by a long shot.

I agree, we're doing better in this regard than the Germans/Greeks at the moment. But we're not investing in infrastructure and long term strategic planning as much as the BRIC countries are, for example.

[mawilson 2,133]

ok. So you favor leaving the Internal Revenue Code intact, as is? Freeze it in place with existing brackets, loopholes, shelters?

Actually, yes - I'm quite happy with the tax code the way it is today.

I largely agree with you on that.

Ok

Ah, so in other words you don't really want paralysis and a dysfunctional Congress. You just want a Congress dominated by one party. Gotcha.

I don't really want that either - I worry about the GOP going after the EPA,

Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NPR, Planned Parenthood, abortion funding -

things that most people consider sensible and reasonable.

I want checks and balances. We just have to accept that checks and balances

often lead to inaction and paralysis. The system was designed to keep

politicians from getting much done and that's ok. One side doesn't get what

they want, but neither does the other side. We live in a huge, heterogeneous

republic where the citizens don't agree on what's broken - how can the government?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

How about the simple version: when it functions, it is the opposite of progress!?

[scandal 951]

Actually, yes - I'm quite happy with the tax code the way it is today.

That would make you + the tax lawyers and accountants who feed off the current IRC, its only fans.

Nobody else likes it.

I don't really want that either - I worry about the GOP going after the EPA,

Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NPR, Planned Parenthood, abortion funding -

things that most people consider sensible and reasonable.

I never figured you for a whacked out nutjob Tea Party member.

Glad to see you are not. Welcome to the light

I want checks and balances. We just have to accept that checks and balances

often lead to inaction and paralysis. The system was designed to keep

politicians from getting much done and that's ok. One side doesn't get what

they want, but neither does the other side. We live in a huge, heterogeneous

republic where the citizens don't agree on what's broken - how can the government?

Checks and balances are currently leading to inaction and paralysis. But it was not always so and it need not always be so and I don't think it's good at all that it is currently so. The nation is divided, that's true. So it may be difficult to get the large legislative achievements. But we passed Civil Rights during a deeply divided national crisis, we got the New Deal at the height of the Depression. The system can work, it historically has worked. Today we can't get routine things done like confirmations of mid-level federal officials and circuit judges. That's broken. And the reasons are listed in the OP - the unprecedented use of filibuster as a routine legislative tool, the lack of attachment of Congresspeople and staffers to the institution and each other, an incendiary 24X7 talking head media culture, among others. None of these things existed previously, and none were intended by the checks&balances system envisioned by the founders.