Congress as an Institution... is Stupid

[fj1200]

Is my opening statement, that you are able to accept or reject at your pleasure, correct?

For the first 150 years of our republic the collective intelligence of our elected officials was largely a non issue as the Federal government was not looked upon as the provider of solutions to all that ills us. But since FDR's court packing scheme, which arguably led to concessions by some Supreme Court justices to allow greater leeway in accepting ever expansive government programs, the inadequacies of the institution have become apparent.

If you accept my posit what can be done to counter its effects? If you don't accept my posit, why not?

[Palin Rider]

There's nothing inherently stupid about the concept, for the following reason.

The ONLY thing that any individual congressperson is supposed to do is represent his or her constituents. If those constituents want bigger government, so be it. If not, they have to get off their collective butts and start writing letters to let their representatives and senators know what they want.

[fj1200]

There's nothing inherently stupid about the concept, for the following reason.

The ONLY thing that any individual congressperson is supposed to do is represent his or her constituents. If those constituents want bigger government, so be it. If not, they have to get off their collective butts and start writing letters to let their representatives and senators know what they want.

The CONCEPT is fine where legislation is limited by a piece of paper and an understanding of it. Where it breaks down is when the rules by which legislation is made becomes subject to the whims of an electorate now undefined. If the fickle voters decide that an expansive government is now desired then you have 435 members who now have input into a "solution." If to gain consensus you need to rely on the truly stupid, or even moderately stupid, then any perfect legislation I might propose will be watered down by the stupid. Hence Congress becomes stupid by the sheer weight of bipartisanship.

[Palin Rider]

If to gain consensus you need to rely on the truly stupid, or even moderately stupid, then any perfect legislation I might propose will be watered down by the stupid.

It seems to me that the only alternative is to allow only the intellectually gifted to vote or run for public office.

[fj1200]

It seems to me that the only alternative is to allow only the intellectually gifted to vote or run for public office.

Well that would keep the Dems out of office so it might work. :poke: Sorry, couldn't resist.

Even if you pick your "intellectually gifted" and I chose my "intellectually gifted" they would still need to compromise to pass legislation. No, the only alternative is to limit the questions upon which they can legislate. It's impossible to run a huge multinational corporation, let alone the largest economy in the world by compromise; we must downsize and push decision making to the lowest possible level, i.e. a renewed decentralized Federalism.

[Palin Rider]

Well that would keep the Dems out of office so it might work. :poke: Sorry, couldn't resist.Hey, it won you points from the peanut gallery. Can't blame you for that. :)


Even if you pick your "intellectually gifted" and I chose my "intellectually gifted" they would still need to compromise to pass legislation. No, the only alternative is to limit the questions upon which they can legislate. It's impossible to run a huge multinational corporation, let alone the largest economy in the world by compromise; we must downsize and push decision making to the lowest possible level, i.e. a renewed decentralized Federalism.So what specifically would you limit the powers of Congress to legislating? And what governing bodies (again specifically) would gain that powers being taken away from Congress under your proposal?

(As an aside, corporations are not democracies or representative republics, and therefore don't need to be run by compromise; and Congress doesn't run the economy to begin with.)

[NightTrain]

(As an aside, corporations are not democracies or representative republics, and therefore don't need to be run by compromise; and Congress doesn't run the economy to begin with.)

I would say that taxes and tariffs directly impact the economy. Wouldn't you?

[Palin Rider]

I would say that taxes and tariffs directly impact the economy. Wouldn't you?

Of course. In fact, Congress can do a lot to influence the economy, but that's not the same thing as running the economy.

[SassyLady]

Of course. In fact, Congress can do a lot to influence the economy, but that's not the same thing as running the economy.

So, who does run the economy....in other words, who/what/where is the equivalent to management in a company to government?

[Palin Rider]

So, who does run the economy....in other words, who/what/where is the equivalent to management in a company to government?

The FOMC comes closest, although they're arguably not as powerful as the management of a company. Only planned economies (i.e., communist ones) have bodies that truly run things.

[fj1200]

Hey, it won you points from the peanut gallery. Can't blame you for that. :)

I like to think they were focusing on the second part of my post. Please allow me my delusions. :laugh:


So what specifically would you limit the powers of Congress to legislating? And what governing bodies (again specifically) would gain that powers being taken away from Congress under your proposal?

I suppose that depends on if the function is necessary. DoEducation? Largely unnecessary as the states/locals handle this already. If the function is necessary, EPA? then it can set rules and the states can decide best how to comply. Either way until Congress is no longer seen as the decider of national programs then we are going to have to deal with a "stupid" institution.

There's been talk of a 10th Amendment commission but I'm not sure how that fixes the problem; some reading for me perhaps.


(As an aside, corporations are not democracies or representative republics, and therefore don't need to be run by compromise; and Congress doesn't run the economy to begin with.)

True, the country is not like a business but the government is like an unwieldy conglomerate with vast interests that are impossible to run effectively with competing interests; but Congress does impose the rules by which the economy is run and those rules are becoming our downfall in remaining competitive globally (as per another thread) not to mention new rules that further bog down the private sector.

[fj1200]

The FOMC comes closest, although they're arguably not as powerful as the management of a company. Only planned economies (i.e., communist ones) have bodies that truly run things.

No one "runs" the economy, millions of people and businesses make individual decisions every day on what's best for themselves. The problem is that they must make those decisions in an environment that can be ever changing based on governmental whims; and the Fed? they should have one goal, monetary stability, and if done correctly will not be a factor at all.

[Palin Rider]

I suppose that depends on if the function is necessary. DoEducation? Largely unnecessary as the states/locals handle this already. If the function is necessary, EPA? then it can set rules and the states can decide best how to comply. Either way until Congress is no longer seen as the decider of national programs then we are going to have to deal with a "stupid" institution.

There's been talk of a 10th Amendment commission but I'm not sure how that fixes the problem; some reading for me perhaps.

This still leaves us with the fairly crucial question of who, exactly, decides which functions are "necessary" at a national level and which ones are not.

[fj1200]

This still leaves us with the fairly crucial question of who, exactly, decides which functions are "necessary" at a national level and which ones are not.

Besides me? Well it's already been decided by the SCJs back in 193? that allowed the expansion beyond the original constitutional bounds which was my original posit. But you're right about getting the Genie back in the bottle.

[LuvRPgrl]

is my opening statement, that you are able to accept or reject at your pleasure, correct?

For the first 150 years of our republic the collective intelligence of our elected officials was largely a non issue as the federal government was not looked upon as the provider of solutions to all that ills us. But since fdr's court packing scheme, which arguably led to concessions by some supreme court justices to allow greater leeway in accepting ever expansive government programs, the inadequacies of the institution have become apparent.

If you accept my posit what can be done to counter its effects? If you don't accept my posit, why not?

r e v o l u t i o n

[DragonStryk72]

Is my opening statement, that you are able to accept or reject at your pleasure, correct?

For the first 150 years of our republic the collective intelligence of our elected officials was largely a non issue as the Federal government was not looked upon as the provider of solutions to all that ills us. But since FDR's court packing scheme, which arguably led to concessions by some Supreme Court justices to allow greater leeway in accepting ever expansive government programs, the inadequacies of the institution have become apparent.

If you accept my posit what can be done to counter its effects? If you don't accept my posit, why not?

What we need to do is essentially rip out the provisions that led to these problems in the first place, and set in checks and balances to make certain that we cannot do this to ourselves again.

We need, as well, to relay the lines for voting districts sensibly, with no gerrymandering. Just clear, simple lines that are set.

As well, we also need fewer Representative in the House in general. 400+ people trying to come to decisions is both seriously inefficient, and leads to exactly what we get out of the house now: tons of earmarks burying any good legislation that comes through. There is absolutely no transparency in our government these days, and it is sorely needed in order to have an informed populace voting.

And finally, this: We need to stop paying people to be congressmen. No more professional politicians, you have to legitimately be able to do something aside from being a politician.

[fj1200]

Agreed on all that DS but the problem is years of precedent and bureaucratic growth and redundancies. We could also eliminate direct election of Senators so that they would be appointed by the states to act in the interest of the states.

[Kathianne]

Agreed on all that DS but the problem is years of precedent and bureaucratic growth and redundancies. We could also eliminate direct election of Senators so that they would be appointed by the states to act in the interest of the states.

I think that representatives should be paid, for the same reasons the Founders did. However, they were supposed to be there limited amounts of time, not full time. They also were to go home when they left, not go into lobbying and being on boards of directors so they could continue influence peddling.

I'd like to return to state legislatures picking Senators again. Whether or not the number of representatives to population should be lowered, well that could be put to a vote. I think there should be restrictions of at least 5 years before a 'retiring or defeated' representative can work for companies that have ties to government. In fairness though, there would have to be grandfather clause, since nearly all businesses are now regulated to some degree, so it would only be fair to know that going in.

Congress should not be allowed to hand over powers to the executive, such as undeclared wars.

[DragonStryk72]

Agreed on all that DS but the problem is years of precedent and bureaucratic growth and redundancies.

Yeah, it would be a slog ripping out all the idiocy that's crept in, but there's no reason we couldn't start ripping through it so that we can essentially "re-boot" the legal system, and set checks in place to keep us off that path.


I think that representatives should be paid, for the same reasons the Founders did. However, they were supposed to be there limited amounts of time, not full time. They also were to go home when they left, not go into lobbying and being on boards of directors so they could continue influence peddling.

This is essentially what I mean by "professional politician". They don't do anything else, and get paid extremely well, while still only technically being part-timers, since Congress has such long recesses. What gets me is that Congressional sessions were limited the way they were specifically to allow reps to get back home to keep up their businesses and such.

I'd like to return to state legislatures picking Senators again. Whether or not the number of representatives to population should be lowered, well that could be put to a vote. I think there should be restrictions of at least 5 years before a 'retiring or defeated' representative can work for companies that have ties to government.

My thinking is this: With few reps, states would have to be pickier about who represents their interests, while at the same time cutting down on earmarks due to a more transparent set up. Even if you only cut out 135 reps, and switch it to State Legislatures picking the reps, you'd see a vast reduction in the waste, either because it's clearer who is putting said waste in there, or because the States themselves aren't going to put up with it.

In fairness though, there would have to be grandfather clause, since nearly all businesses are now regulated to some degree, so it would only be fair to know that going in.

Congress should not be allowed to hand over powers to the executive, such as undeclared wars.

As for getting rid of earmarks, I think this should be done: Have it made so that any addendums to a bill have to be explained by the person adding them, as to how they relate to the bill at hand. Then Congress could vote yay or nay on including it. That would curb the worst abuses by simply casting light on those doing it, and making it so that it cannot be "slipped in" at the last minute.

I also believe in the line item veto, so that the president can veto particular items within a bill that are not a part of the main bill, or have no place in it.

[LuvRPgrl]

There's nothing inherently stupid about the concept, for the following reason.

The ONLY thing that any individual congressperson is supposed to do is represent his or her constituents. If those constituents want bigger government, so be it. If not, they have to get off their collective butts and start writing letters to let their representatives and senators know what they want.

Its precisely what you say above that made the founding fathers want to limit the power of the federal govt as much as they possibly could. Unfortunately, the feds have found ways around the constitution to get power grabs and havent looked back.
It is a major part of the ultimate demise of our country. Your desire for a breakdown of our society is greater than you realize.

[fj1200]

Was PR given the OK to come back or has he just left on his own?