The American Government Goes Back to Work

Remove all ads!

And it's about damn time too. After years of conservative propaganda stating that the former Democratic Congress was made up of nothing but government employed slackers, the new Democratic Congress is about to take over. And things are already changing:

Of course, there are those real conservatives out there who feel that the less government does, the better off everyone is, and they would rather see less of Congress and the President anyway. But one has to wonder about the notion that if all those "Cadillac welfare" single mothers bothered them, how did the high-paid, high-rolling slackers in Congress make them feel during the last 12 years?

It's not enough that they were off for their Christmas vacations, but then they were back in January for more of the same it seems...

Just an occupational hazard, I guess....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16437039/

[ January 03, 2007, 05:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Hmmm... I'm not sure how to respond to this. It isn't exactly news that Congress takes long breaks - not just during Christmas, but throughout the year. I would guess that members Congress definitely average less than 200 work days a year. Maybe even as little as 170 days. By means of comparison, lets look at the average American. With 52 weeks in a year, that's 260 week days. Say they get two weeks of vacation time, and holidays and other stuff give them another 10 days. That means for the year, the average American works 240 days.

While showing up to work is a good start, I'm not convinced much will be accomplished regardless of how frequently they are in Washington. I know that many people are looking at 2007 as a year in which the Democrats have an opportunity to make great strides, but sadly, I do not see it that way. Bush still has veto power, and so the more demanding pieces of the Democratic agenda are never going to get through. After 6 years of justifiable discontent with the Bush administration, I think a pissing contest is a far more likely outcome than a compromise.

 

Just because Congress is in session doesn't mean they will accomplish anything. To be perfectly honest, I see the next 2 year as being big "do nothing" sessions. I think this is going to be a bunch of grandstanding where each side tries to pin the other into taking stands they don't want to so that they there is good material to bash each other with in '08 elections cycle. For example I think the Republicans will likely try to move back to the right on spending/taxes to try to make the Democrats look like big "tax and spenders", while the Democrats will try to repeal the Bush tax cuts and pass tax increases on capital gains and inheritance to force the Republicans to look like they are for padding the wallets of the rich...in other words nothing will really change other than nobody will be able to accomplish anything (especially with a Democratic controlled Congress and a Republican President).

Look for the same type of maneuvering on the war (the Democrats trying to force us to get out while painting the Republicans as failures while the Republicans try to figure out a way to win while painting the Democrats as not being supportive of the soldiers), stem cell research (Democrats painting the Republicans as not caring if M J Fox dies or C Reeves walks again and the Republicans painting the Democrats as baby killers), abortion, court nominations, UN nominations, etc ad nauseum.

Sorry if I am cynical, but it is time to clean house on the Federal Government...every major leader there is part of the problem, and they are all too worried about gaining/maintaining power to even consider turning away from the partisanship and trying to get some meaningful things done. Of course the American people are more concerned with Brittney's lack of underwear or latest see-though dress to even pay attention to the government.

 

That's already started. For example, Obama admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in memoirs he published some 12 years ago, right after he finished law school. That will definitely get more press if he runs in '08.

Well, seeing as how he's dead, I don't think any amount of stem cell research is going to get him walking again.

 

That was tongue in cheek. Just an example of the types of things I am talking about.

Besides, can you imagine the outrage in the Republican party if someone discovered the "Revive Dead" or "Rresurrection" spell?

 

You're right, Darkwolf. The American people are being "entertained" out of their liberty. I believe that those in power are delighted with the continuted ignorance of the citizenry as they scheme in the halls of government. The big problem is that the Constitution is practically a dead letter; it has been butchered by spurious court rulings over the years. The Constitution is not so arcane that it can't be interpreted by the common person. Unfortunately, the citizens of this country have allowed unelected judges to emasculate the law of the land while their "representatives" play power politics at their expense. The Federal Government has unprecedented power, far beyond that granted to them by the Constitution. It's almost past the point where the people can do anything about it.

Oops...sorry for the long rant. Back to the point. I say, the less they do the better. They can't cause as much mischief.

 

If he vetos everything, even the conservative members of Congress will see his blind rejection of anything not traditional and help overrun his veto. Or maybe thats just wishful thinking.

As for the less they do the better, normally I would agree, but as things are not doing so well, someone needs to fix things. Of course, no one in Congress is nearly as radical as they need to be to get anything actually helpful across.

 

One paragraph is a long rant? Boy are you new around here or what.

 

Six years of Republicans running all three houses, of course the Democrats aren't going to be happy about the way things are going. Add to this the fact that the Republicans can't do much worse than George W. means that the Democrats will have to build some serious momentum going into 2008's election if they want the white house back. I like the idea that congress will be in session as opposed to on lobbyist funded vacations...

 

I used to think this way as well, but entertainment and ignorance doesn't really work as an excuse. If anything, people are better educated today than they were in the past. Yes, we have about 20 million people living in the U.S. that speak Spanish and not English, so they can't read the Constitution. However, if you go back to the 1800s, an even greater percentage of the total population was foreign born and didn't speak English. My grandparents were the first members of the foppish idiot clan that learned to speak English. Before that, even the ones who immigrated to the U.S. at a young age, spoke predominantly their native language their entire life. On top of that, back in the 1800s, even the people who were native English speakers, a large percentage of them were illiterate - so they weren't reading the Constitution either.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I do not think people of today are any less informed about their government, their rights, or the laws of the land as a whole than they were in the past.

 

Gnarff - You appear to be right:

I agree.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16464157/

 

True, true. I'm pretty new at this and still trying to get comfortable.

Unfortunately, this is very true. I suppose that one could say that this is a good thing as it is a moderating influence and prevents the government from becoming too radical one way or the other. In this case, though, it might not be quite so good. I believe that we need a change back to a strictly Constitutional form of government but such a change is not in the interests of the politicians.

I believe that the average American is woefully uninformed on what is really happening in Washington. I don't think that they actually understand the Constitution and the limits it places on the Government. Most only know what they see on TV and never delve deeper into the issues. Look at the pathetically small percentage of people who actually vote. I would bet that a high percentage of them are nearly totally uninformed about who or what they are voting for; they vote party line. How many Americans are actually concerned about the Constitutional ramifications of the Patriot Act, for example. In my experience, not many. The citizens also get demoralized because when they speak, they are generally ignored...unless it's an election year.

Or maybe people really do understand the Constitution and are perfectly willing to abandon its principles, subject themselves to the nanny state and join the throngs feeding at the public trough.

 

I agree completely. I was only saying that I don't think this is a recent development. Regardless of whether you look back 10, 50, 100 or even 200 years, I think everything that you are saying would be just as true then as it is now. I don't think there was ever a Golden Age of American politics where the average American was well-informed about the government, the Constitution or even world events as a whole.

It reminds me of the classic George Carlin line: Think how dumb the average person is. Then consider that half the people are even dumber than that.

 

We never had a "stirctly" constitutional form of government. In the first administration under the Constitution, its unique set of powers were already being disputed by a few of its chief architects.

The first instance that comes to my mind is the Constitutional dispute over the creation of the first National Bank by Alexander Hamiltion. As the first Secretary of Treasury in George Washington's administration, Hamilton argued for its creation, dispite no Constitutional provision for the fedral government's role in crafting a National Bank. Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State argued against its creation; commenting that the Constitution did not give the federal government any such power. Jefferson argued that as long as we had a Constitution, we may as well follow it, this dispite the fact that he was not at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (he was in France) and had almost nothing to do with its crafting.

Hanilton and Washington were both at the Convention, which Washington presided over, and his was the first signature fixed to the finshed document. Hamilton was both a chief architect and a promoter for the Constitution's ratification with the states in 1788. He was also its chief defender, along with James Madison and John Jay - all authors of the Federalist Papers.

It is just a touch ironic that Washington sided with Hamilton, and approved the final creation of the bank over Jefferson's objections, and those of James Madsion, then Attorney General of the United States. Here's a few of Hamilton's remarks:

This is really the crux - the necessary powers clause which really allows the government to do pretty much what it wants, as long as it is not in direct conflict with those powers in the Contitution that restrict its "sovereignty." And this agrument allowed for the creation of the Bank of the United States in 1791.

Nevertheless, I agree with the tenor of your remark, which I think is that we have strayed too far from our intended Constitution as both a source for the blueprint for government, and the rights of its citizens, especially over the last 6 years.

 

That's six words I'm not used to hearing...

They're only leaving themselves 100 hours to discuss that? That's awful optimistic in my books. Sure Minimun wage increase is a good thing, and these ate things that need to be looked into, but wouldn't it take more than 100 hours to look into them properly? And if the republicans don't like them, they can stall things out past the 100 hours...

With such a split in the last two presidential elections and how divided the house and Senate appear to be, that may be a good thing. Neither side basks in strong support of the populace, so to accommodate as many as possible, they need to compromise. That's why I think it will take more than 100 hours to get all those things through Congress...

If I remember my history correctly, the last 215 years have been full of finding things that the Constitution doesn't cover but we really need answers to...

Without that, would the US have even survived the 1800's?

 

I think that the 100 hours refers more to the House of Representatives than the Senate. If you have a majority in the House, you can pretty much do whatever you want, so the House can pass these bills pretty quick.

One the other hand, the majority in the Senate means very little. Having 51 Senators in one party is insufficient to strong-arm any legistlation you want to get through. There are a few reasons for this, but the most obvious is the use of filibusters. You need 60 votes to stop a filibuster, and the compromises you speak of will have to be worked out on the Senate floor.

 

Amen, Montresor!

 

Yes, you are restating Jefferson's argument here. Hamilton countered that with the necessary powers clause, essentially that the government IS the people, or acting on what is necessary for the People's good.

Note: When Jefferson became president he too faced the same situation with the Louisiana Purchase, and guess what he drew upon? Some argued again that the Constitution allowed for no such power delegated to the federal government regarding the Purchase.