What's the solution to Washington gridlock?
Posted at 5:00 AM on December 21, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(52 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
The House's refusal to accept the Senate's two-month extension of the payroll tax cut has left the two sides blaming each other and taxpayers facing a tax increase next month. Today's Question: What's the solution to Washington gridlock?
Comments (52)
I believe term limits would help as well as limiting lobbying by special interests. There also should be a cap on the amount an elected official earns before entering office, no more than maybe $100 thousand per year not a million. Also a cap on what's earned while in office. We don't need life appointed delegates like the courts.
And how would you do that, Nicole? For good or ill, the constitution guarantees freedom of association, of which political parties are one form.
Get rid of the political parties. Canditates will be voted into office based on their personal views and beliefs and can act on those beliefs that get them elected rather than what the party tells them to vote on. There is so much childish bickering between the two parties I'm not sure that changing congressional members or the president will change that. Let's remove the polarizing influence of the political parties.
Kurt, I don't disagree with you about FDR, HST & LBJ's war decisions (and have mentioned them critically on these pages in the past), but don't forget Nixon's secret war, or McKinley's Spanish-American war. Heck, I even have quibbles about how Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War. No president is all good, George Washington included, or all bad, GWBush included.
To the nominal topic of this discussion, I'm not sure gridlock is really much worse than having Congress rush like lemmings into a decision, like they did in approving the Iraq invasion.
Abolish the Lobbyst system? Wouldn't that be back for the economy and drive up unemployment?
Judging from the comments I've read here so far, we have the congress we deserve.
Congress has no incentive to reach across the aisle, as their most vocal constituents are as extreme, stubborn, and convinced of their own superior political judgement as ever.
If we want to revolutionize our political system, we only need to do two things, neither of which tinkers with the fundamentals....
1. Abolish the Lobbyist system that prevails today.
2. Move Election Day to a weekend day, to allow the majority easier access to polls.
The current system, the chattering class, and the corruption that emanates from Washington is dependent on low voter turnout, media that is obsessed with covering only the extremes, and runs on big money, exclusively.
Well Steve, last I heard Guantanimo was still open for bussiness and the reporting from there is rather sketchy. And, as I recall, virtually everyone believed Iraq had WMD's and after 9/11 the Administration calculated that it didn't wish to wait around for a rogue state to use them. They were wrong.
Honest mistake I believe, understandable in the shadow of the terrorist attacks. That said, it was still a bad move. And Obama is less bad you say. What a comfort.
And, as you are hating on Bush, what then is your opinion of LBJ-I believe the Gulf of Tonkin was the totally fabricated pretext for Vietnam.
Or Truman and Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
And lets not forget the biggest war criminal of them all ,FDR and the relentless fire-bombing of civilian populations in Germany. Now that was a war crime. Makes Bush look loke a choir boy. But then all these war-mongers were Democrats, so I'm sure you'll provide a ready rationalization. Where is gridlock when you need it. (See how I went back on topic there).
Kurt, at the risk of getting too far off topic, and leaving it to the moderator to decide what to delete...
Yes, I suppose, insofar as he has committed war crimes, Obama should be impeached. However, I'm at a loss to identify what war crimes you're alluding to. Has his administration authorized the torture of any detainees? Has he ordered any unprovoked invasions under false pretenses? Even the most preposterous accusations against Obama from the ridiculous right that I've heard, if true, are still less bad than the Iraq invasion, as high crimes and misdemeanors go.
Obama is a war criminal
HE wanted change and instead increased the number of troupes.
@Steve the Cynic:
So, in that Obama has done the same things as Bush, should he be tried for war crimes as well?
And remind me again how you are a "centrist".
Thanks.
I don't think term limits are a good idea. In fact, I think we should repeal the term limit for the presidency. It's one of those simple ideas that sounds good on the surface, but with lots of unintended consequences. On the downside, term limits mean the elected officials turn over faster than the lobbyists, which means the lobbyists always know more than the legislators. It's good to have folks in office who are able to say to their ambitious young colleagues, "We tried that about twenty years ago, and here's why it didn't work." In states that have them, term-limited legislators tend to be too busy trying to make a splash and attract attention to help them win votes for whatever office they plan to run for next, while their lame-duck status makes them less effective.
And just think, if Emperor Bush hadn't been term-limited, the Democrats might have actually had the courage to impeach him for his war crimes (after impeaching Darth Cheney first), instead of waiting him out.
Elect Dr. Ron Paul and term limits for all!
The basic problem is the way big money drives Congress. Pandering to corporations and other large contributors distorts the entire legislative process and distracts representatives from the public business. The first need is publicly financed campaigning and rigid spending limits with real penalties for improper financing.
Term limits are nonsense. We can already limit the term of any elected official by voting for someone else, but that doesn't work. People who push for term limits mean to limiting the other guy's term.
Without actually defining anything or setting criteria, I think prohibiting stupid people from voting is a pretty good idea. It's OK if they watch or make a lot of noise, but there' too much at stake to turn some wingnut conspiracy theorist loose in a voting booth.
Elect more Democrats.
The new redistricting plans should eliminate the "safe" districts that allow elected officials to cater to a small rabid base of true beleivers instead of running a campaign of educating the public, considering the common good and differing opinions, and promoting the ideal of compromise.
Also, candidates should be able to accept contributions only from the people who reside in their district. National special interest groups should not have the power to use their money to go after the people they most dislike.
The problem is complex. There is not an easy fix-all solution.
We need to start somewhere. (1) Citizens United needs to be over turned. This is an incredulously poor decision by the SCUS. I can’t believe even a conservative justice believes the constitution supports this finding. (2) Severely curb the activities and influence of lobbyist. I was optimistic when Obama announced his administration would hobble lobbyist. Nothing has changed. (3) We, yes we, need to hold politicians and businesses accountable for the full weight of the harm they cause, whether it's a banking crisis, oil spill, obesity epidemic, etc. (4) We need to pay the full cost of consuming resources: e.g. gas and water need to reflect the full cost of their extraction, production, distribution, use and discharge.
Another fine mess you’ve gotten me into (Stan Laurel)
Kudos to the moderators for curbing the obloquy.
Steve the Cynic, new “cracy for you: kleptocracy sadly it applies in too many cases.
Two words: TERM LIMITS
We need guns to go a blazon.
The revolution must start!
Clearly the media and Wall Street control our political system.
We have no choice, people must be held responsible; all the banksters from the 6.8 trillion dollar bailout should be taken out, given a fair trial and then hung. Then our representatives who agreed with the bailout. We need blood. Then we can end these damn WARs and quit this crap.
First, vote only for members of Congress you could trust to administer your personal estate. Second, try to assure that person is smarter than you and can do advanced math. Third, completely do anyway with corporate campaign money. If this person believes in a Higher Power, that's ok, but make sure the Higher Power isn't his ego.
A dictator!
The simple answer is a tactical nuke during a state of the union address.
The serious and more difficult answer is to overwhelmingly vote in one of the two main political parties, both to Congress and the Presidency, and then live through the effects of the values of the party elected.
Gridlock will remain because both sides have backed themselves into corners and now their group pride won't let them be the first one to change their positions. So, as these loosers head home fo their holiday break (can't use the word Christmas), we the people will suffer, while they get themselves better pay, better benefits, better retirement packages, better fringe benefits, better .........
Maybe there shouldn't be a Occupy Wallstreet - but a occupy the parks and streets around Congress and occupy the parks and streets of the homes and businesses of the Congressional persons.
Gridlock? sounds to me like things are actually happening. People like the Simpson-Bowles plan which cuts and increases taxes? Well guess what...It looks to me like these folks cut the crap out of the budget and are letting dumb tax cuts expire, wait until the Bush tax cuts are left untouched as well. It is similar to Simpson-Bowles, the only difference is who is paying the extra taxes. Now that is were we should have an adult debate.
There will be no functional US government until 'Citizens United' is done away with and we have public financing only (no private money) for political campaigns.
Until that happens, try to find a "happy place" where you can try and ignore the buffoons who say they represent us.
We need term-limited, publicly financed legislators.
SInce that ain't gonna happen, dysfunctional corpocracy is the order of the day -- forevermore. Happy Holidays!!
Bernie Sanders Constitutional Amendment S.J.Res. 33 is a good start. http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/sjres33.pdf
we get bills that to quote Nancy Pelosi "we'll have to vote on this bill so we can see what's in it" bills.
If you'd like to believe that's the onlyu bill that ever got treated that way, or that she is the only congress member who operates that way, or that your most simplistic reading of that statement is the full measure of its intent ... . You just go on believing that. The only bills that most congress members have any clue on is the ones they truly author - and ... oftent then... they don't care or attempt to seek out the unintended consequences.
If they can't work it out then the people can decide which ones they want to throw out in the next election cycle. ====================== > that's only one solution. WE the PEOPLE can change the rules under which those polician operate.
"In reality there's nothing magical about the center. Instead, ask whether it's the right policy or not."
Good point, Amy. Though, it's not that the center is "magical," but that the ideological poles are problematic, in that strict adherence to any ideology causes more problems than it solves. A true centrist should be willing to take good ideas from whatever the source.
First -congressionally and consitutionally end coprorate "personhood". Second - politicians may only receive money from constituents who live in their district. From company's - they can only recieve % representative of the company's presense in their district. Third - Any and all politicial and policy advertising MUST name a person(s) responsible for the ultimate accuracy of the content - and liable for damages. Four - ALL PACS mus name a person(s) legally responsible for the content of all output.. Five - No politician, pac , or any other political entity can spend any of its money until a full report of that specific donation is publicly available for a full 48 hour period in an electronically readable format or database.
Suffer the sunshine.
THERE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A "SOLUTION".
It's called the separation of powers, it's not supposed to be easy. If they can't work it out then the people can decide which ones they want to throw out in the next election cycle.
Having more than one branch with different majorities is a good thing. It means those folks need to work things out. When we have one party in power controlling the executive, and both branches of congress we get bills that to quote Nancy Pelosi "we'll have to vote on this bill so we can see what's in it" bills.
We, the voters, are to blame for all of the problems in "Washington." If we want better politicians, we need to elect them.
To the issue that raised this particular question, I thought the payroll tax cut was a seriously misguided idea in the first place, and it should be allowed to expire. Social Security and Medicare were designed to be funded with a regressive tax, because they provide progressive benefits. Decoupling them from the payroll tax makes it easier for politians to undermine public support for them by framing them as a government handout, instead of something people have worked for. The payroll tax cut plays into the Gang Of Plutocrats' hands.
Reduce corporate influence by a constitutional amendment ending corporate "personhood".
Vote for moderates, in today's world that means vote democrat.
Kurt, were you in favor of gridlock when it was the Bush tax cuts which were in peril? The fact that the Republicans insisted on unfunded tax cuts when it was mostly the rich who would benefit but now won't support a tax cut which benefits mostly the middle class is pure hypocrisy. If there is "class warfare" going on, the rich are just as guilty of war against the middle class.
Mutual assured destruction -> peace talks.
Seriously, with the way the Democrats are the only ones compromising, why in the world would the Republicans stop?
There really is no answer to Washington gridlock. Politics evolves and the art of compromise has no place in the current political environment. Until one party gets the presidency, control of both house of Congress and a fillibuster-proof Senate, there will be gridlock. It is amazing that Congress has a 9% approval rating and yet the overwhelming majority of these members of Congress will be reelected. I guess the majority opinion is that it is the other person's member of Congress that is the problem.
Presidents should be elected for one six year term with a one term limit. That would allow our President to focus on specific goals for that presidency. Congress should be elected to four year terms with a term limit of two four year terms.
If anything, what needs the most overhaul is the endless 24 hour infotainment cycle which seems to focus on everything but the substance of the issues that we face.
Dear MPR:
Seriously wrong question today. Not reaching agreement about a couple of trivial issues (trivial meaning the sun will still rise tomorrow, no matter the decision) is not indicative of gridlock. That's the way the process works.
Now, if your question was "What is is the solution to 11'th hour legislating with no apparent big picture in mind," then you have a question with some meat on the bones.
Unfortunately, I'm starting to believe the easiest answer to that one is a new president, with vision, conviction, and hopefully without the the utter disdain of the other side.
It blows me away how much Obama is hated by the right, especially given that he seems to be Bush with healthcare. But he's hated and they won't work with him. As voters, we either need to elect some people who will work with him, or toss him out.
Time to scrap it and start over. This time design a system where politicians aren't bought and sold by lobbyist and corporations. Then the morons won't tack on a controversial, unrelated rider to what otherwise would have been a slam dunk. Then they can't cry foul and that the other side isn't compromising when that's far from the case. It seems compromise is only possible when both sides are receiving campaign contributions from the same source.
Since horsewhipping is not a civilized option, how about a running a gauntlet from one end of the Mall to the other: eggs, tomatoes, rotten lettuce, a little manure?
I agree Ann.
Simpson-Bowles should have been embraced by Obama. He had an opportunity to do something meaningful regarding the long-term structural imbalance.
Now here comes the economist in me: On the other hand the short term economic instability needs to be addressed. Once we get back on our feet, we can then address the long term. But you are correct when you state that most all of the solutions will involve some pain.
Unfortunately politics, unlike the economy, is in fact a zero-sum game. The purpose of a political party is to gain and keep power. Therefore, a rational minority party will seek to maximize discontent, as it can hardly fare worse. This is particularly true in the winner-take-all House of Representatives where a party with 10% of seats has the same power as one with 49%.
It's funny how all the policies you agree with are "centrist". Except of course most of the things that need to be done really aren't centrist at all, and don't have broad support.
In reality there's nothing magical about the center. Instead, ask whether it's the right policy or not.
Most of the stuff that really needs to be done certainly isn't popular with the center (or even most Americans).
How much support is there for raising the retirement age, cutting Medicare, or getting rid of everyone's favorite deductions?
Stop talking up the center like it's a magical place. In reality many of the worst government policies have been created by compromise.
Again, why do we have to pretend like the problem is "both sides not talking to each other" and that both sides equally pander to their extremes?
All the self-anointed voice-of-reason "moderates" clamoring for a third party conveniently neglect that most of their fantasy third party platform consists of positions the Democrats already take. Sorry, but it's the Republican party that has become both extreme in its ideology and intransigent in its dealings. In many cases, the Democrats are adopting positions that were espoused by the Republican Party a few decades ago; or as it's now called, "Socialism! Death Panel! Job killer! Assault on our Freedom!"
Obama has disappointed many on the left. And you know what? Good. He's trying to manage the country in a time of financial crisis, and accordingly, maybe he's not forcefully advocating on issues such as gun control, reproductive freedom, gay rights, etc. in a manner that, in an ideal world, a guy like me might prefer. But you wouldn't know that from watching the news, because for every step the Republicans take in their extremist bent, most news outlets are keen on playing it safe and pretending that both sides are becoming more rigid.
If the GOP was actually called out on its extremism, there would be an incentive for cooperation in Congress, and the Democrats have shown time and again that they will meet the GOP halfway and then some.
Keystone just isn't that important. It won't destroy the atmosphere or revive the economy. And how can an international pipeline make America energy independent?
Given that the average person is going to lose a $20/week "tax cut" if the extension of the payroll tax cut stalls, this should be easy.
"Hey Timmy, toss another worthless bond into the Social Security Trust Fund so we can give the average guy some money today."
"Okay Mr. President"
"On second thought, wait. Congress is playing games again."
"Whatever you say Mr. President."
Regards
The key is to elect centrist Republicans and Democrats who can work across the aisle. There is a surfeit of ideology and a lack of pragmatism in congress. Measure such as California's non-partisan drawing of districts and non-party primaries will make more of a difference than any center presidential candidate. The presidency isn't really the problem. The job forces whoever is elected towards the center. It's Congress which can afford to be ideological.
P.S. Good things happen in Washington when a 'President" crosses the aisle. Thus we get "Clean Water Act" under Nixon, "Welfare Reform" under Clinton. This President will never do so.
The $83 per month is based on an annual salary of $50000 or nearly $4200 per month. It could be nearly twice that if the salary was near the max for FICA withholding. In either event it shifted the revenue source to other areas or additional tax or fees.
Or, the question might have said that 'taxpayers will not face yet another addition to our debt next month'. Gridlock is, as often as not, a solution in search of a problem. Our founders wanted change to be an arduous as opposed to capricious process. Ironically, one of the factors that bodes well for Obama's reelection is that the House and Senate are now devided and he can no longer effect a far-left agenda that the majority despise. God bless gridlock!
Since I never was in favor of the payroll tax holiday, I am satisfied with the current gridlock. The 2% reduction in the payroll tax is only $83 per month, either two months or twelve. The Pipeline approval was 20000 jobs, but they would not have been available for several months. The only item that I felt was necessary was the Doc fix., but that can be handled after the holidays. Congress will not look good on this and I feel the major impact will be on Harry Reid and his Democratic caucus.
Personally, I don't need the additional money from cutting the rate from 6.2% to 4.2%. The feds cut this rate, less money for SS trust fund so the Feds need to borrow more money to pay benefits. This was a fact in 2011 and additional borrowings will be required to pay SS benefits in 2012.
we have a huge spending problem in this country. Obama couldn't manage a hot dog stand so I have no faith in our clueless community activist. His goal is to penalize success and reward failure. A nation of citizens dependant on entitlements and therefore dependant on democrats.
You can't just raise taxes unless you cut spending, something the lunatic left will never do.
Therefore, my solution is to vote for pragmatic politicians who ackowledge our spending problem.
| December 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock