Serious questions about the US government
cajunkiwi
Posts: 984
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a constitutional scholar or a presidential historian. I'm a foreigner who never followed American politics until he moved to the States at the tail end of the Clinton presidency (just in time to see Gore lose to Bush). I'm playing catchup, and trying to learn as much as I can - and, to be honest, I really enjoy the debates on this forum and I like reading from both sides of the aisle, even when things get heated (spirited debate can be fun).
So, that being said, I'd like to pose a few questions, and I'd like to see what both the liberals and conservatives (and Tea Party fans) have to say.
1. I hear a lot from the Republicans that smaller government is the answer. Can you point to a time in history when the government was running efficiently due to its small size?
2. What do you think the optimum size of the government is? How many politicians = too few to get a good range of opinions, and how many = so many that there's too much disagreement and inefficiency?
3. Do you think having a House AND a Senate is a good idea, and if you did away with one would it help solve the problem of too many politicians in D.C.?
4. As far as I can tell, the House and the Senate play the "checks and balances" role to make sure neither side gets too carried away. Is this a legitimate fear, or an illegitimate one? Has there ever been a point in time where one side has gotten so carried away that the other side needed to reign them in, or is the entire setup just a good excuse to have more people in government jobs?
5. Lastly, if you had carte blanche authority to change the entire political system - from the day of the week people vote, all the way to the structure of the government and the number of elected officials - what would you do?
So, that being said, I'd like to pose a few questions, and I'd like to see what both the liberals and conservatives (and Tea Party fans) have to say.
1. I hear a lot from the Republicans that smaller government is the answer. Can you point to a time in history when the government was running efficiently due to its small size?
2. What do you think the optimum size of the government is? How many politicians = too few to get a good range of opinions, and how many = so many that there's too much disagreement and inefficiency?
3. Do you think having a House AND a Senate is a good idea, and if you did away with one would it help solve the problem of too many politicians in D.C.?
4. As far as I can tell, the House and the Senate play the "checks and balances" role to make sure neither side gets too carried away. Is this a legitimate fear, or an illegitimate one? Has there ever been a point in time where one side has gotten so carried away that the other side needed to reign them in, or is the entire setup just a good excuse to have more people in government jobs?
5. Lastly, if you had carte blanche authority to change the entire political system - from the day of the week people vote, all the way to the structure of the government and the number of elected officials - what would you do?
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Firstly and foremost, a lot of what you touch upon and what people complain about is merely word-play and simply rhetoric to complain about. No one can really point to a specific time-frame when government was smaller and things worked better or more efficiently. The honest truth is that in todays modern world, there's more to deal with and whether its in a policy form, oversight or hands-on approach, a larger government is needed. Now with that stated, the US is a welfare state and since the post WW2 era, our population has shifted from the many supporting the few, to the few supporting the many (more older people). There are other influences in society as well so this many sound like an oversimplification of it, but things like healthcare, social security, education and social services are faltering because of this shift. Some it points back to government policy and some simply to society trends about the family and parenting. But generally speaking, as the world evolves and grows, it creates these larger and larger discrepancies and issues in society. Whether it's economic disparity in society or poor standard of living... some of it is on purpose as the government is in bed with big business, and some of it is merely an after effect of long term poor policies. And this takes me back to my point, it's not necessarily that our government is broken or too large by itself, it's the fact of what the politicians and practices we have placed them corrupt it and create the climate of business and government first and citizen needs second. Whether it's through lobbying, campaign finance, pork-barreling or gerrymandering amongst many other methods, our government and policy makers have corrupted our system from the inside out and due to low voter turnout, lack of accountability, lack of interest and follow through, nothing really changes except secondary social issues which are brought to the forefront instead of the being on the backseat where they belong (abortion, gays, guns, etc). The things that truly run the nation, economics, foreign policy and similar aren't really up for debate or change or only in very minor ways. In terms of the number of representatives, there is nothing wrong with how our government is actually setup. The balance between the house and senate is one of historical detail but to sum it up one balances the number of representatives by population in each state (house) where the other is evenly representative so each state has the same number (senate) so it keeps things in balance and you need both aspects to a certain percentage to pass policy and laws. The political parties power shifts from election to election typically, but it never really gets to the point as you allude too. There are plenty of cases where one party had the presidency and congress and much was passed in their political leaning, and there's times when it was split and nothing gets passed or much is compromised to pass. I don't know if it's necessarily "good" or "bad", but much of what we see in government in the past 20+ yrs is skewed to begin with due to it's business ties and agenda. I don't think there's anything wrong with the setup, it works as it should, what's wrong is the fact that is supposed to work with the citizens staying involved and keeping things in flux and that has gone by the wayside, leading to the downfall and corruption of the rest. Ben Franklin once said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". The founders of our nation knew what would make it work, as well as what would break it and hence we see pretty obvious effects as a result.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The United States is the world's first truly global empire. It has spread its control- through economic means, through its military, through its intelligence agencies. there are few countries left on the planet not under the US umbrella. (The "axis of evil" named 3, no accident.)
government is not working alone. extremely wealthy corporations seem to benefit the most from this global conquest. the gov't uses debt or force to open the way into a country's resources, and the large companies come in and exploit them, benefit from them.
the system is so self serving that its satellites, in almost every case, end up with more poverty and misery after they enter the empire. clauses in these WB and IMF "agreements" put debt repayment ahead of social spending, ahead of all spending, so in many cases countries are forced to make payments to these (mainly US) institutions, ahead of things like health care and education. countries are forced into poverty, while their riches are taken.
often these country's are run by thugs, authoritarian regimes that gladly accept these billion dollar loans, leaving the people of the country with the debt. in one case you had a parking lot of BMW's owned by an individual neighboring absolute poverty and dirt streets. these "leaders" take the loans, the people pay them off.
Domestically, at the center of this empire, we haven't seen wage increases (relative to inflation) since 1979. this while corporate profits and paychecks have risen exponentially. absolutely the rich have been getting richer, and the poor poorer.
in the 70's a single laborer could provide for a family. later it required both partners. then it required borrowing. now it can be a struggle.
organized labor has become so demonized it is often blamed for this problem. never mind the 40 hour work week, overtime pay (that is under attack) workers rights and workers comp and abolition of child labor that it has given us.
selfishness and greed are rewarded, while compassion the exception, the church fundraiser or the non profit organization the only way many of the extremely poor see any help. the system serves those who own it, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
meanwhile we are allowed to vote on individuals to operate in this structure every 2 or 4 years and one thing is guaranteed every election: the militant capitalists will win. if voting could change the system if would be illegal. this government that controls a global empire, why would they allow us to change that?
on election day i left many boxes blank, some i checked, that is the extent of my participation in this empire. fundamentally nothing changes.
this a world run by an empire where 11-13 million people die every year from easily curable diseases (read: cheaply) or starvation every single year, according to the UN. a world where labor and resources are exploited to serve the opulent minority, where the majority of us are forgotten or used, reduced to servants for the ruling elite. an annual holocaust that we perpetuate by supporting this structure.
while we are all distracted with the illusion of participation, with illusion of debate, they continue the conquest. iraq/afghanistan, they are falling like so many others.. people bitch and moan and vote for republicans or democrats, thinking they are participating. the reality is there is little difference between the two, not for billions of people around the world, not for millions of people at home. institutions rule, while individuals suffer, and government officials perpetuate this; they represent a powerful one and they are all on the same side. not ours.
if i had carte balnche, i would end authority, the root of the problem laid out above. i would give it to everyone, essentially removing it from anyone. anarchy in a sense, minus the fire that usually accompanies that term. the tea baggers are onto something with their attack on government, but ignoring corporate power will only exacerbate that problem. institutions, any structure where individuals work together towards a single profit margin, towards a single empire, that is the enemy. profit cannot be put ahead of people, the community must be. i am looking for a world where participation in society rewards society, not the private institutions running it. this simple shift in ethos would end 80% of crime, end war, change the way we interact, behave, what motivates us every second of the day. in a world where labor is rewarded by its value, it changes the mentality at the heart of society. people will be working together, not against one another. and that is crucial.
socialism, to be sure. but also libertarianism.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm beginning to believe that only people that pay taxes, are going to school, or are retired should be able to vote.
I don't think it's possible to shrink a government, per se. How many politicians can you name that would voluntarily give up their jobs? I see Republicans all the time saying we need fewer politicians in D.C. - well, how many politicians are going to say, "You're right, it's too crowded and inefficient, I'll let you guys handle things from here on out." As for departments, you're now talking about thousands of government workers in cushy positions who certainly aren't going to want to give up their jobs, and I can't think of a politician who would want to close one of the departments down for fear of the public backlash - "You just fired 10,000 American workers, Mr. President!" I don't think they're any more likely to do that than they are likely to stop voting for pay raises for themselves. I personally think it's a Pandora's Box. I have no problem with the concept of smaller government, but I don't see a feasible way it can be attained.
I'm also not sure state's rights is the way to go, either. State governments are just as corrupt and inefficient as the federal one (though I may be jaded by the fact that I live in Louisiana), and if the federal government takes a hands-off approach then some of the more bass-ackwards states will back living in the 1950s quicker than you can say, "All the women and black people, go to the back of the bus!" It's bad enough that Louisiana's K-12 education system rivals that of a third world country - if it didn't have national standards it had to reach, it would completely go to hell. Higher education is currently getting killed by the governor, who is taking money from higher ed's cut of the budget hand over fist, while until this year was not letting universities raise their tuition to help make up the shortfall. Instead of there being a massive public backlash, a large segment of the Louisiana public is applauding the governor, because they hate universities and think they're just social clubs for dope smoking liberal elitists. One guy wrote to LSU and said Obama screwed up because he hired people with college degrees to run Washington, and people with college degrees are useless. When you have a state that dislikes education like Louisiana does, if you take away federal standards then the people here who do actually want a future for themselves will have to leave (as it is, I believe Louisiana leads the nation in percentage of college graduates who move out of state upon receiving their diploma).
Unsung, I apologize for derailing my own thread somewhat while replying to your answer, it's just that I was thinking about the state's rights argument while I was replying to you. It seems to me like you have one inefficient federal government trying to keep 50 states in line, and 50 equally inefficient state governments who all want to run things their own way. It's almost like the "United" in "United States of America" is meant ironically.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I still don't see, for all the talk about people wanting to shrink the size of the government, how it can feasibly be done.
Take my job, for example. I am technically an employee of the State of Louisiana. Until we started having budgetary problems and were forced to lay people off, basically the only way I could ever get fired was if I was found to have kiddie porn on my computer. I work with people who are blindingly incompetent - it's absolutely stunning how bad some of my coworkers are at their jobs. They spend money on crap like the world is about to end and they plan on going out with a bang, with absolutely no regard for whether or not we can afford it, and how it looks to the public to be spending during a budget crisis. The second-highest ranking person in my office is pulling in a six-figure salary, yet she doesn't actually do any work. She attends meetings and schmoozes, and usually her only input in a meeting is to clap for people. Yeah, she's getting paid six figures to lead a round of applause once a week. When she's behind her desk she's either doing work towards her doctorate, or planning conferences for other people who don't work for us (which is a state violation). However, she still has her job. All of the incompetent people still have their jobs. Why? Because they're state employees. Incompetence is not a dismissible offense. If you get caught with photos of naked kids on your computer, you'll be fired (and rightly so). But if you spend $20,000 on a party at a time when we're being asked to limit the number of photocopies we make because we can't afford office supplies, you'll get a raise for planning a great party (a party that is actually a shambles according to everyone other than the planner and the hand clapper). There's a lot of paperwork involved in canning someone, and it's not worth the hassle. That's what it boils down to.
So if you ask a governmental agency to shrink, who is going to get fired and what will it solve? The people earning the six figure salaries aren't going to take paycuts, and they're not going to lay themselves off. Once you get to a certain level, government employees also don't get fired - they get reassigned. So if someone does close an entire department, then the head honchos in that department will be given government jobs elsewhere, even if the job titles have to be invented for them (just what we need - more middle management!). The people who don't do the work will be taken care of, while the people who actually sit behind desks and get things done will be out on the street.
Consider: say, hypothetically, you have five government agencies. Each one has 20 employees. Of those 20 employees, one is a manager, two are assistant managers, and the other 17 are employees. If one of those departments ever did have to be shut down, the 17 employees would be out on the street while the manager and assistant managers would be found new jobs within the four remaining agencies (and they wouldn't be taking paycuts either - they may actually get raises to reflect their new job titles). And there's also the possibility that not all 17 would be out on the street - some of them may have been in the process of being groomed for assistant manager-level positions, in which case they too will be reassigned within the four remaining agencies. So, instead of eliminating 20 positions, you've actually only gotten rid of the 15 lowest paid people there, whose salaries combined barely equal the top three.
On top of that, what politician wants to be responsible for firing people? These guys - at both the state and federal level - are putting their own best interests ahead of anything and everything else. Priority #1 is usually getting reelected. They're not going to want to close down a department and send 15 people out on the street if it means an opponent can come back during the next election and say, "Don't vote for him, he's directly responsible for people losing their jobs!" That candidate will also make sure he tracks down every one of those 15 people and puts them in a TV commercial talking about how their lives have been ruined since the incumbent fired them. On top of that, the departments affect society too - if, in my hypothetical scenario, it was the Department of Education that was closed down, the opposing politician would find every possible thing that went wrong in schools after the department was shut down and use it against the incumbent, whether it was linked to the closing of the department or not.
The same goes for budgets - in the same way that no politician would ever vote for a pay cut, I don't think any politician would vote to shrink a budget. If Barack Obama comes out next year with his next budget and says, "You know what, guys? We spend way too much money on the military. We've cut their budget in half, and we're going to use the savings to help pay off the deficit." then a segment of the population will be up in arms about how Obama is making the country unsafe, and how he's just inviting terrorists into our country by screwing the military. Every Republican running for a seat in the next election will campaign against his opponent by saying, "He's voted with the guy who hates our military and national security 80% of the time! Is this really someone you want representing you in congress? He supports Al Qaeda!" The same thing would happen if a Republican president slashed the education funding - the Democrats would go after him for deliberately dumbing down the country and trying to ruin the future of America, and the PR hit would be insurmountable.
You hit on several key factors on why everything is so screwed up in our nation. The focal point of unions and job protection have become corrupted and undermined by greed and laziness. Inefficiency becomes rewarded due to lack of accountability and responsibility (by all). And in the big picture, if the checks keep coming, why make those changes? All of these types of underlying issues boil down to the fact that it doesn't have to be fixed because the tax payers keep flipping the bill and there's no end in sight to the limit on our debt. Not to repeat myself but I recently posted about this exact debt topic here (http://community.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=143420#p3285013). Until the rest of the world can fill our shoes as global leader (which doesn't appear to be anytime soon), we can keep just going along, but at some point it will all end. You have a good look at the most recent economic disaster - if the US was any other nation, the IMF and WB would be changing everything we do via adjustment loans, repayment schedules, social policies, etc.. but since we rule the roost, we're exempt. And to get back to the main point of how to fix it, it comes back to citizens participation in government, electing politicians to move away from the type of setup we have now and holding them accountable if they don't. Everything in our nation, all of our problems, have that basic start point to fix, but sadly everyone is either too uncaring, distracted or dumb to step to the plate.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
You can take my job - I think I'm going to leave the state.
(warning - not-so-brief tangent)
Under the Louisiana state constitution, everybody has a protected budget - except for higher education and healthcare (who, I assume, had the worst lobbyists when the amendments were passed). That means when the state is in the hole, the government takes money from colleges and hospitals to dig itself out. There had been a tax on luxury goods in place that helped fund higher education, but that was one of the first things Jindal axed when he became governor (because taxes are bad, regardless of what the money goes towards). Well, the state went broke (not exactly a unique position to be in at the moment), so Jindal started slashing the higher education budget in Louisiana (instead of fixing the constitution, which is what should have been done decades ago).
Obama came in with his bailout money (and for all of the national interviews Jindal gave about refusing the money, making him a Republican hero, he took the cash in the end) and Jindal used that to prop higher education and healthcare up - so we were only getting 10% a year cut from the budget, instead of a number much higher. Well, the bailout money is now gone - or at least it will be at the end of the current fiscal year. Jindal told the state's universities to prepare for budget cuts in the 33-38% range, which would be devastating. Students statewide protested, and he ignored them - his press secretary wouldn't even return phone calls from the media (also not a unique position - his press secretary does not respond to media requests. How do you like that?). He didn't say anything publicly until the LSU student government president wrote a letter to a newspaper in New Hampshire, where Jindal was campaigning, calling Jindal out for flying around the country raising his profile for a 2012 presidential run instead of fixing the state's problems. Jindal finally responded then, and said it was all the universities' fault because they put out a shitty product (which isn't an untrue statement--LSU is the only university in the state with a graduation rate over 50%--it just happens to be totally irrelevant).
Well, Jindal finally came out with a plan for how he was going to "fix" the problem today: he announced he's going to take federal stimulus money already earmarked for K-12 and use it to plug holes in the budget (the state will be short $1.5 billion next year). The federal government said it would give Louisiana $147 million, as long as the state spent X amount of money on higher education. The state pledged to use all of that $147 million on K-12 schools, and the schools have already been planning accordingly (hiring new teachers, etc). Then Jindal figured out that with all of the money he was cutting from higher education, there was no way he was going to be able to spend the amount of money on colleges that he'd need to in order to get the $147 million in the first place. So his solution was to tell the federal government he'll use $68 million of the $147 million to make up the higher education shortfall, and he'll put the rest of the money towards fixing other budget holes - leaving $0 for K-12. We have no idea how that will affect the universities, because he hasn't provided any numbers about how much that will lessen the cuts, but I suspect it won't make much of an impact. With this kind of creative economics, there's no telling how things will shake out next June.
The moral of the story is, politics makes my head hurt.
1. Not sure. I guess you would have took back to the 1800s - before income taxes, social programs, all the departments we have now, etc. But I bet people then would argue the government was just as ineffective as it is now. I think government is just one of those things people will loathe even if it was running effectively by anyone's definition.
2. I don't think the number of politicians is the problem. To me, the problem is the number of agencies, the number of lobbyists, and the rules by which people and corporations can influence the politicians.
3. Yes. I think the bicameral system is fine. It certainly isn't unique in democratic republics.
4. I think checks and balances refers to the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial). But in practice the House and Senate check each other since bills have to be approved by both houses before being signed by the president. I think that is OK, because otherwise you would have one body of legislators constantly battling the president instead of coming to consensus first. I cannot think offhand of incidents where one side had to be reigned in by the other specifically.
5. This is just off the top of my head:
I would consider altering the terms for presidents from two four year terms to one 6 year term. Too much time is spent campaigning.
Similarly, I would bump up the House to 4 and give them a two-term limit and leave the Senate as is, but with a two term limit. Again, we seem to be in a state of constant campaigning.
I would eliminate any and all government departments that were not absolutely necessary.
Lobbying by ANY corporation or person would be strictly forbidden. Campaigns would be funded with taxpayer money only. I know everyone hates that, but if you did that and gave everyone a set budget I think that would much more fair.
Line Item Veto.
I would do away with the Electoral College and make it a strict popular vote.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
&
high unemployment
+
shirking the government
=
bigger disaster than what we have now