|
Page 15 |
|
©Ivan W. Parkins 2010, All articles, text, web pages property of
Ivan W. Parkins. Use of any material
requires permission of the author
and can be obtained by contacting,
info@americanpoliticalcommentary.com |
|
……...More
on the Bailout A Congressperson has
referred to the “Bailout” as a bag of dung left on the peoples' steps. In fact, the federal government (all
elective branches) has promoted sub-prime mortgages since at least 1977,
often by popular means. Clearly, there
have been abuses. Fed Chairman Greenspan warned of the danger publicly
several years ago. Now the American
and World economies are in danger. All
Members of Congress are part of the crew; it does not become them to seek to
be first in the life-boats. |
|
MUST OUR POLITICAL PROCESSES BE SO COMPLEX? More on
the Bailout Assuming that all of the more than four hundred pages (400
pages) that Congress added to the bailout are worthwhile, was there a real
need to add them to the President’s three-page (3 page) emergency
request? Why not halt the meltdown
quickly and get to the other items later? I know, many Members
were certain that their best opportunity for getting their favorite ideas
into law was to hold the entire economy at risk. What that delay will cost us will take a
long time to calculate, but it could easily outdo any benefits. It’s a little like extortion, and the
technique helps to produce many of our worst laws. Furthermore, it is so confusing that it
makes any accurate assessment of credits or blame almost impossible. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Being a first-time
home owner involves quite a bit of responsibility beyond the mortgage, as one
of my daughters is discovering. - - - - - - - - - - Regulation and
deregulation are results of laws enacted by Congress. Since FDR the Democrats have had far more
and larger majorities in Congress than Republicans have had. At no time while he was Speaker did Newt
Gingrich have as large a partisan majority in the House as Nancy Pelosi now
has. - - - - - - - - It is too little
noticed that, besides the many universities, hospitals, and libraries,
contributed by past “plutocrats,” they have contributed heavily to the
preservation of natural areas prior to their public acquisition. The Great
Smokey Mountain National Park, The
Pisgah National Forest (including Linville Gorge Wilderness), and Grand Teton
National Park are a few that I have enjoyed. |
|
RECONSTITUTE CONGRESS By Ivan W. Parkins One concern of those who
drafted the Constitution of the United States was that representatives should
not have such small constituencies that the office would fail to attract able
candidates. Even so, Chairman of the
Convention, George Washington, called for a minimum constituency of 30,000
instead of the already approved 40,000.
This was his only suggestion regarding details of the Constitution and
it was adopted. THE FEDERALIST, No. 51 states
that “dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the
government.” No. 52 adds “… it is particularly essential that ..” the
representative “… have an immediate dependence on and an intimate sympathy
with the people.” Now, with the congressional
districts having average populations of about
690,000, and with only 524,160 minutes in a year, we face a very
different situation. All Representatives,
whatever their origins, become members of the upper class by virtue of their
salaries and perks alone. The long
sessions and increasing details of
their involvement in nearly all matters of government, keep their minds and
bodies within the confines of the “Beltway” most of the time. National journalists, pollsters, lobbyists,
and congressional staff members, along with legislative “earmarks,” get them
reelected. Meanwhile, it is literally
impossible for them to allot one minute of their time per year to each
constituent. The House was intended to reflect changes in public
opinion. It too often reflects entrenched political power and
privilege. My
proposal, now very old and not so much forgotten as dissed, i.e. never widely
considered, was "Let's Disassemble the House,"--the title of my
article in SOUTH ATLANTIC QUARTERLY, Spring 1960. The legally fixed
number of the United States Representatives is now 435, far more than the
Framers, and I, believed to be practical for a legislative assembly.
But, with our vastly expanded national population and improvements in
communication, wouldn't it be possible, now, for much more numerous
representatives to operate separately, from their several districts?
And, wouldn't the representatives then be much more directly dependent on and
sympathetic with their constituents? My submission of that to
a couple of dozen political scientists, some acquaintances and some not,
produced several and mostly similar responses. My idea was declared to
be original, interesting, logical, and sound in its description of
Congress. But, it was unlikely to be accepted and unworkable.
Such comments came from senior people at Harvard, Cornell, Miami of Ohio, and
the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. My chief
reply, now, would be that the present House looks less effective and our
population and communications improvements continue to grow. A much larger number of
disassembled representatives would be a very practical defense if our
nation's capital were to be destroyed. It should also provide a
suitable base for nominating presidential candidates--as the earliest Congresses
did. It should reduce the need for vast media advertising and the money
to pay for that. Most of all, it should encourage more extensive and
meaningful involvement of "the people" in major policy decisions. Our representatives should be much more numerous; they should spend most
of their working time in their districts; and they should have infrequent,
but authoritative votes on major public issues. In order to add that to the Constitution, I
suggest the following: (See the
proposed amendment, “
Disassemble the House,”
) |
|
CONGRESS IS THE CRISIS By Ivan W. Parkins The
inability of Congress to resolve itself into a body that can distinguish
quickly between photo ops and a crisis, and to respond to the latter
appropriately, should produce a public demand for an end to Congress, as we
have known it.
The world-wide reach and velocity of communications, economic transactions,
and violent attacks now requires political responses that are many times
faster than those of two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, the authors of our Constitution, in their foresight
regarding its change, seem not to have contemplated that the very structure
of Congress itself might be what most required overhaul. The amending process is unduly, but not totally,
dependent upon Congress.
More than half a century ago, when I first suggested to young college
students a reconstruction of Congress, some of them questioned the difficulty
of any such change. I replied, then,
that I did not expect it to become possible soon, but thought that by the end
of the twentieth century we would face a situation in which either the
American people would force a reconstitution of Congress or Congress would
destroy the nation as we had known it.
Obviously, I was impatient, but recent events lead me to believe that
I erred by only a decade. Few
things were more clear in 1787-9
than that the ‘Framers’ expected the
Representatives to live in active association with their constituents. Now, Representatives live, mostly, in
Washington and contact their constituents chiefly thru aides and commercial
media. In that, they are much like
Senators and Presidents. Furthermore, all three are chosen by similar
processes of election. Regarding the
original Constitution’s provisions for separation and balance, little except
confusion remains. And, Presidents,
being much more in the media/public eye, are arguably closer to the people
than Representatives are.
What our Founding Fathers borrowed and invented has been allowed to
become a musty monument to some distinguished ideas. It now serves neither the ideal of a
People’s Government nor the more urgent needs of a Great Nation. . |
|
CONGRESS AND FINANCE column, The Daily-Times
News, 9/19/70, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: President
Nixon's vetoes of two appropriations bills call attention to the fact that
Congress, as usual, is far behind in its work. The appropriations were
for the fiscal year which began six weeks ago. Numerous excuses can be
made for most Congressional delays, but few of them are applicable to the
appropriations process. The President, by law, presents his budget to
Congress in January, every January. The new fiscal year begins July
1. Congress knows what it has to do, when it can begin, and when it
should finish. Thus, its habitual failure to do the job on time is not
excusable. By delaying
appropriations long into the year for which they are intended, Congress
complicates planning immeasurably and imposes inefficiency upon the Executive
Branch. Numerous government officials are now operating on temporary
authorizations to spend based upon last year's budget. They are
supposed to be preparing their budget requests for next year, even though
they do not yet know what they will get this year. The
demoralizing and wasteful effect of Congressional delay is illustrated by the
case of a professor friend of mine. He had worked several years for
government and liked the job. Some years ago, during months of
uncertainty and temporary authorizations to spend while Congress delayed
action on a new budget, his agency concluded that it must cut back its
personnel. My friend got three weeks notice of his termination.
Shortly after he found a teaching job, Congress having finally acted, he
received a letter inviting him back into government service. He
declined to go, however, and is now chairman over about a dozen other
professors. Much of the
appropriations problem originates in the tendency of Congress to involve
itself in details which belong to the Executive Branch. The first
budget submitted by George Washington contained five lump-sum items, an item
to pay the civil employees, one to pay interest on the debt, etc. Since
then, budgets have become much more detailed. Often, Congress attempts
to deprive the President and his subordinates of discretion by appropriating
money for such specific purposes and with such reservations as to make the
appropriations subcommittees the real administrators of government. On
at least one occasion, President Eisenhower denounced this
"unconstitutional" practice. Another
major aspect of the problem is the common practice of making appropriations
for one year only. The Constitution limits appropriations for the army
to two years, but imposes no other limit. Congress, however, steadfastly
insists upon subjecting practically all of the federal establishment to a one
year routine, a routine with which Congress itself is unable to keep
up. Because of the long range nature of many federal programs they
could be more efficiently managed if funded for longer periods of time. Not
only does Congress use the appropriations process to claim control of
administrative details and to keep the Executive on as short a leash as
possible, it also uses appropriations as a check upon itself. Most new
federal programs require enactment of two separate laws. The first
authorizes the program; the second provides money to carry it out. The
separate authorization and appropriation processes would make sense if they
dealt with different aspects of the problem. In fact, the
appropriations committees reconsider all aspects, and frequently attempt to
change what Congress itself has just authorized. Some
Americans feel that our federal government spends too much. Not even
they should take comfort in the performance of Congress. The piecemeal
hearings, delays, and reservations to which Congress subjects appropriations
do not imply careful supervision of federal spending. Mostly, they
facilitate pork-barreling on behalf of local and special interests.
Meanwhile, Congress gives little or no consideration to such important
problems as the size of the total budget and its economic effect. Most
Congresses make loud noises about economy in government, and most Congresses
actually appropriate more than Presidents request. |
