The nature of the present-day Congress
From commenter “Snow on Pine” a few weeks ago:
It seems to me that Congress has gone so far off the rails that it no longer really represents the people–no more traditional “regular order” budgets, no major bi-partisan legislation of benefit to the people; it represents itself and its member’s interests, it represents major business interests, it represents a whole variety of ideological interests of the Left, it even represents the interests of various foreign countries which have bought influence and, perhaps, even “reality” TV.
At this point it’s going through the motions, giving the appearance of life to an empty shell that has, in recent decades, been increasingly drained of substance or meaning.
But, represent the real interests of the American people? That, it no longer does, nor–despite what it’s members might tell us–does it actually care.
I think there’s some truth to this. What’s the reason? Some probabilities: the influence of big money. The growth of gerrymandering to ensure safe districts, which in turn fosters more extreme positions, which leads to less ability to compromise. Members who are elected again and again and again and are basically career politicians.
However – take a look at the plot of the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” It was made about eighty years ago in 1939, and although the subject is the Senate and not the House, it features a political system loaded with graft and corruption, and a stalwart guy fighting against that and for the old American ideals.
I am particularly struck by this part [emphasis mine]:
The constituents try to rally around [Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith], but the entrenched opposition is too powerful, and all attempts are crushed. Owing to the influence of Taylor’s machine, newspapers and radio stations in Smith’s home state, on Taylor’s orders, refuse to report what Smith has to say and even distort the facts against the senator. An effort by the Boy Rangers to spread the news in support of Smith results in vicious attacks on the children by Taylor’s minions.
The movie has a happy ending. But it paints a picture of Washington DC and politics in general that’s already highly tainted by corruption and rarely serving the will of the people.
But I agree with Snow on Pine that Congress has gotten worse in recent years.
You forgot conduct pointless grand standing investigations. That seems to be all they do anymore.
There’s a really easy solution to this problem: term limits. Two terms for senators, 3 for reps. Of course will never happen as Congress would have to approve such an amendment, unless there was a states constitutional convention.
“This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco,
This ain’t no fooling around
No time for dancing, or lovey dovey,
I ain’t got time for that now”
Well, all that and congress is unconstitutionally too small. (NY population)/(WY population) = 33.54. NY has 27 congresscritters.
Amendment 14: 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
Only thing it changes is the 3/5 provision of Article 1 Section 2.
Coming out of WWII politics was all about the lunch bucket. The Republicans were management and the Democrats labor. Labor unions were the largest single political force. It was the major issue and of great importance to everyone.
Vietnam and civil rights triggered the Balkanization of American politics. Now we can’t unite around the largest issues. We are overwhelmed with petty squabbles about race and sex where the only solutions lie in tolerance.
The government is now all about bread and circuses while the powers that be go about their real purpose – divvying up the loot. It’s the way of the world.
“Labor unions were the largest single political force.”
At that time labor unions were forbidden to government workers. Now? Government labor unions are the thing.
Makes little sense to me.
“There’s a really easy solution to this problem: term limits. Two terms for senators, 3 for reps. Of course will never happen as Congress would have to approve such an amendment, unless there was a states constitutional convention.” physicsguy
An Article V Convention is a future historical certainty. Just as the coming Second American Civil War is now a certainty, given that the Left will not rest until they achieve a tyranny “governed by propaganda, surveillance, and censorship”… i.e. Orwell’s 1984.
I think a Second Civil War is still less likely (10? 20%?), than muddling thru: Trump re-elected, huge Rep majority, and quite a bit of big clean up of the deep state and more exposure to Deep State crimes.
Dems start to climb back from socialism.
Then Pence, or another Rep gets elected in 2024, and the “fever” breaks, tho it’s clear the Dems continue to demonize Reps so Reps develop ways of defending themselves.
Some key issues on this to watch are city and state bankruptcies, as the Dem promises of higher and higher pensions eat up more and more of current tax revenue, leaving little to current expenses.
The other main issue is Dem dominance in colleges — this is the key root problem of the elites, who almost all come from college indoctrination. Demonization of Reps needs to end there.
I’ve often when in despair of the MSM’s stranglehold on news, thought of that scene where the Boy Rangers publish their own newspaper and are able to break the news blockade. It tickles my imagination to see Twitter unwittingly be Trump’s Boy Rangers. However, after Trump, who is there who will have a voice loud enough to be heard through and silence and the distortions?
Perhaps, as with the movie, I should have more faith in the common man. But it was a different time then when there were shared values of what this country represented. Now there are two main diametrically opposite visions. Perhaps 2020 will show that that one formerly common vision is still held by most of the “ordinary” people. Or perhaps as Jefferson said, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Les, if you look up the letter in which Jefferson made that comment I think you’ll find he was writing from France expressing (sarcastically maybe) his displeasure with the strong executive power in the new Constitution, a power he himself assumed a few years later.
How about term limits for federal employees?
huxley: “How about term limits for federal employees?”
How about many fewer government employees? The government is too bloated, too bureaucratic, and too out of touch.
I worked summers for the Bureau of Entomology during my college years (1950-54) doing White Pine Blister Rust control. My boss was a penny pincher. He talked about being a good steward of the taxpayers’ money, and he practiced what he preached. The bureaucrats weren’t as political and the country was trying to pare down the WWII debt and pay for Korea at the same time in those days. Money for the bureaucracies was tight and people believed that getting debt under control was a good thing. But then LBJ got his Great Society programs passed while fighting in Vietnam and the money started washing into and out of D.C. Politicians began accumulating wealth as they kept getting elected over and over. Fifty-five years of that and here we are. Now Modern Monetary Theory is the rage. Tax and spend, debt be damned.
If we could get rid of government unions, it would be a big step to better stewardship of the taxpayers’ money. Why do government workers need unions? They’re more secure than most in private sector jobs and with better pay. They can’t be fired except in the most extreme cases. They have a retirement program to die for. The taxpayers, their employers, have little say in their pay and working conditions. It just does not calculate.
The idea that term limits would be a cure all is rather naive. We did that with the presidency and quite frankly, over the last 50 years, I haven’t seen many of our finest and best in the White House.
The House long a go gave up their power to the executive branch. Now they are bitching and moaning. Sissies.
How about term limits for newspaper and broadcast “journalists” — 5 or 6 years in the byline business, then they have to get a real job for the same amount of time before going back.
AND replace “jounalism degrees” with a a substantive college major, with only a minor in journalism, or maybe just a technical certificate, if the media organizations insist on some kind of credential.
Of course, that’s after we repair the colleges….
Aesop, you run on that ticket, you got my vote for sure.
“The idea that term limits would be a cure all is rather naive. We did that with the presidency and quite frankly, over the last 50 years, I haven’t seen many of our finest and best in the White House.”
True, but then we only have them for two terms then the HAVE to be gone. The damage they inflict can at least be somewhat limited and then we hopefully get a “do over”. No “Presidents for LIfe”, but we seem to have a lot of senators and reps for life, or close to it. A person who is a senator for 30 years is no longer working for their constituents, but is solely working for themselves.
Term limits would likely mean that the permanent bureaucracy ends up controlling things more. Current problems are related to the size of the system: spending too much, top-down regulation, not enough federalism, loss of control for things better left to the states.
Looking ahead twenty years or so, we may see the United States with over 400 million people, and thus each Congressman representing a million people or so. Some other states (like Maine) could drop to just one person representing them. And today’s balance will shift greatly when white people of European descent are no longer the majority.
So don’t worry, as things can always get a lot worse.
And Epstein did not kill himself.
The idea that term limits would be a cure all is rather naive.
Who ever said it was a cure all?
Term limits would likely mean that the permanent bureaucracy ends up controlling things more.
No, it would mean that if the legislature allowed it. (In any case, what you have now are conspiracies between lobbies, state agencies, and legislature bosses).
The utility of term limits (as well as age floors and age ceilings to run for office) would be to cut down on the number of career politicians in legislatures. Look at Trent Lott. He completes law school in 1967, gets hired as a congressional aide that year, runs for Congress himself in 1972, and spends the next 34 years there. In 2006, he leaves Congress and lands a lobbyist gig. Contrast with Bill Frist, who also had a turn as Senate Majority Leader: a middle aged man of genuine accomplishment before his election, 12 years in Congress, and then back to Tennessee. You want to set up the screens so you get a lot of Frists, and very few Lotts. Someone like Howard Baker, who was the echt insider, would be an improvement over characters like Lott. Baker was a working lawyer for 17 years ‘ere being elected to office, limited his time in Congress to 18 years and his time in public office to 25 years, and always maintained a home in Tennessee.
I think a Second Civil War is still less likely (10? 20%?), than muddling thru: Trump re-elected, huge Rep majority, and quite a bit of big clean up of the deep state and more exposure to Deep State crimes.
I think his re-election is very much in doubt and I suspect the best the Republicans can do is a narrow and ineffective majority in the chambers. Enough to put an end to the Schiff shenanigans, but that’s it. That’s an optimistic scenario.
My dad warned me back in the 70s that Congress was filled with gutless self-promoting idiots and there is NO doubt it has gotten worse, for all kinds of reasons. Much, much worse.
The institution itself promotes lack of leadership and consensus which is nearly always a recipe for bad policy. Yet we rely on them to make our laws, with corrupt amoral a$$holes like Edward Kennedy serving for almost 50 years.
An ongoing train wreck, now with 200% more Socialism!
with corrupt amoral a$$holes like Edward Kennedy serving for almost 50 years.
Kennedy was in office for 47 years because Massachusetts voters were content to be served Kennedy. He ran nine campaigns in Massachusetts. He was vigorously challenged just twice and only in danger of losing once. The political sachems in Massachusetts allowed the Kennedy mafia in 1962 to impose on them a thirty year old man whose law career consisted of five months as a prosecutor. The political establishment in Massachusetts in 1969 leaned on the prosecutor in Barnstable County to avoid doing the obvious and securing an indictment of the man for vehicular manslaughter. That prosecutor buckled and Kennedy’s Republican opponent in 1970 (along with the Massachusetts media) just rolled over and played dead. The public and the political establishment in Rhode Island embraced his idiot son in 1994.
BTW, his opponent in 1962 had a long career as a business school professor, fathered six children, and is still alive at age 92. Losing that election may be the best thing that ever happened to him.
ALL political systems are run by people. Some of them succeed by being good at whatever job the system was created to do, some succeed by being reliable or agreeable, and some succeed by lying, cheating, and manipulating. That last group has an unfair advantage because creating an unfair advantage is part of their strategy, and often ends up in charge.
Kant said it: ‘Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made,”
Entirely possible that a better Congress will emerge if their pay (and perks) is/are drastically reduced.
Just sayin’….
(No doubt, AOC and the “gang of four” will be excited with this, um, “concept”…. Maxine Waters not so much….)
Though you can probably count on those wingeing Congress-critters to make up any shortfall by signing sports jerseys, footballs, basketball, golfballs, hockey pucks, sneakers, etc…or maybe copies of the Constitution, pen and pencil sets, brief cases and garage door openers(?).
(I, for one, have always wanted an official signed—or in his case, thumb-printed—Joe Biden fountain pen; except that I’m almost certain that it would leak.)
It’s either that or adopting William F. Buckley, Jr.’s creditable suggestion of picking the first several names from the local phone book. Except that there aren’t any phone books any more…. (Cue “Where Have All the Phone Books Gone?….”).
I’m sure there’s a lot of ideas out there that can be tried.
Entirely possible that a better Congress will emerge if their pay (and perks) is/are drastically reduced.
The junketeering is a scandal. I don’t think ample compensation is a problem per se, so long as their compensation package is transparent. BTW, the ratio of Congressional salaries to ordinary people’s wage and salary is a great deal lower than it was ninety years ago.
And it’s entirely possible that I speak for many when I note how impressed I have been by their determination to—so selflessly—be exempted from the blessings of Obamacare….
“Let the common people benefit first” seems to be their credo. (It does have a nice ring to it.)
Yes, serving by example.
Related? (H/T Instapundit):
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/01/lets-not-pay-congress-if-they-cant-pass-a-budget-on-time
But I’m not sure this is entirely fair: so many of them are working tirelessly to get the president impeached, one wonders how can any reasonable person expect them to find the time to actually legislate?
It used to be the case that Congress had exempted itself from having to adhere to all of those pesky Labor Department wage and hour regulations, and protections for workers.
Thus, members of Congress could hire and fire without any recourse for those fired.
If, for some reason–for any reason–the member didn’t like something about you, or what you did or didn’t do–it was clean out your desk, turn in your ID badge, and be out of his or her offices in an hour, and out on the street.
They could also pay someone they hired whatever they wanted to, and require them to work long hours with no regard to those regulations either.
I wonder if this is still the case?
You might also notice that those Congressional junkets–officially to do some “fact finding” or to attend some meeting or conference or other–almost always seem to be at the best, most comfortable, and high end, posh locations–Paris, Rome, Berlin, Geneva, Rio, Copenhagen, Hawaii, London, Australia, New Zealand, and Bora Bora, but very rarely have Calcutta, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Palau, Papua New Guinea, or the Arctic as their destinations.
Mr. Smith, is a classic film. A much lesser quality film, but related is an Eddy Murphy comedy, “The Distinguished Gentleman” (1992). From IMDB,
I only saw it once around the time of its release. It has some earmarks of a legitimate satire, but mostly follows a goofball comedy format. The morality play plot twist is a little unfortunate in that it uses a junk science McGuffin. But… I remember wondering, near the end of the film, are things really that bad in congress?
For those that think that terms limits are completely ineffective, consider if FDR had lived another 7 years or so. Or imagine 4 or 5 terms of Barack Obama, or an Obama dynasty.
FDR was adamantly against unionizing gov. workers, but JFK did it anyway. I’m just guessing, but I think the Kennedys knew exactly what the consequences of that move was going to be.
Gingrich’s Contract with America promised to make congress live by exactly the same rules and regs. that were required of ordinary citizens. It was actually implemented in some form or other, but I don’t know the details or how it seems to have faded away.
To prove my point about Congress, what it’s attention has been focused on, and what it’s been up to (or, in this case, not up to) pick any one of the crises below—this is just a few, and there are a lot more—and tell me if Congress has actually been focused on any of these issues and holding a lot of hearings, vigorously debating these issues, their causes and solutions, and, more importantly, has been fashioning bi-partisan legislation to deal with any one of these issues; legislation that has been passed and become law—
** The massive number of deaths from overdoses/opioids that are ravaging our communities, all across this country—according to government statistics, total 2017 U.S. overdose deaths were 72,237 vs. by comparison, the 58,220 war deaths that the U.S. incurred during the entire 20 year course of the Vietnam War—and the responsibility of the drug producers in China and elsewhere, the largely Hispanic smugglers that move there drugs across our borders, and the supposedly “ethical” drug companies who knowingly pushed these highly addictive drugs on patients.
** Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens invading our country, and the great number of crimes committed by many these illegal aliens, who clog our Federal prisons—many of these criminal illegal aliens, I note, having been deported numerous times. Not to mention the tremendous burdens—financial and otherwise—that such a massive influx of illegals puts on our society, culture, and economy.
** Reforming our Immigration system.
** Funding for the Wall.
** Growing attacks against police nationwide, and the increase in policemen who are killed.
** The rise of homeless encampments in the major Democrat run cities on the West Coast and elsewhere, and the prevalence of and increases in crime, drug addiction, mental illness, disease–Typhus, and TB, with perhaps Bubonic Plague to follow, and the general decline in living conditions for ordinary citizens they have brought with them.
** There is the rise of political violence in this country, spearheaded by the masked thugs of ANTIFA.
** There is the rise of Leftist politically correct speech and conduct codes on college and university campuses—which seek to destroy the open debate and inquiry that the university was founded on—and whose restoration is essential if this institution is to survive.
** There is the rise and dominance of of giant technology companies like Apple, and the parallel rise of social media companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter—all of which threaten every individual’s Privacy, Independence, and their Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Free Speech and Debate, our Republic, and our political system.
** There is the easily foreseeable and massive wave of tens of millions of low skilled jobs that are about to be automated out of existence by the combination of AI and robots.
Is there any real discussion and debate, any planning, some massive program in the works for dealing with and retraining or otherwise dealing with these millions of soon to be out of work people?
As far as I can see, no.
Snow on Pine: As a former Bay Area resident, home to Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Gavin Newsom, I notice how little they’ve done for life there — at least life for the sub-millionaires.
Everything you saw or read about how amazing life in California was, until recently, pretty much true. I feel fortunate to have lived there for 40+ years.
I’m grateful to have lived in that California and I’m grateful at my age to have so little nostalgia.
I find it curious in my late sixties that I have so little nostalgia. Yet in my 20s and 30s I was often overcome with it. I would have figured it the other way around.
sdferr:
A fuller quote (the anarchy Jefferson writes about is Shay’s rebellion):
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
I’m not sure if Jefferson was being sarcastic at all. I think he sees violence, even when unjustified by the facts, as a natural process which serves as a warning to the powerful. Of course, in the current situation, I believe it is the left which has a misunderstanding of the facts so, yes, the whole quote does not fully describe my thoughts on the 2020 election.
Interestingly, the letter also contains something of a “Mr. Smith” scenario.
“Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. “
From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787
The original members of Congress were citizen legislators–many farmers, businessmen, and some lawyers–who made the long, uncomfortable, usually arduous, and sometimes dangerous trip to Washington, stayed in crowded uncomfortable hotels and guest houses in the often sweltering, unhealthy Washington, D. C. climate (it was built on a malarial swamp don’t you know), did the minimum they had to do, and then headed back home and their real occupations, for which service to their country they were originally paid $1.00 per day.
The pay of today’s members of Congress is substantial, but they have a lot of legitimate expenses, and may have to maintain two residences–one in Washington and one in their home state.
There are members of Congress who were already rich when they were elected, but many candidates were not rich.
Considering all of these annual expenses, you would not think that the salary they receive would make them rich, yet, it is amazing how many members of Congress arrive relatively poor, and somehow end up retiring rich.
I wonder how that happens?
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm
This says a per diem of $6.00. During the period running from 1789 to 1815, the number of days Congress would be in session during its term varied wildly, but tended to bounce around a set point of about 230 days. So, a member of Congress could expect to be paid about $680 in a typical year. Nominal incomes were a great deal lower then than now. I think that’s about 6x what nominal per capita income would have been at that time. A contextually similar sum today would be about $350,000 a year.
In the country at large today, about 20% of a typical worker’s compensation package is in the form of fringes, and some people have expense accounts. Not sure what the deal is for members of Congress right now. My guess would be that ca. 1802, their cash compensation was about all they received.
Art Deco–I stand corrected.
I do not remember where I got that $1.00 dollar a day figure, but it might have been from the reading something in the Annals of Congress, a predecessor to the Congressional Record.
Here is the most recent CRS material on this issue, which does give the figure of $6 dollars per day paid to Representatives and Senators while Congress was in session—
See https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-1011.pdf
There was a modest run of years when members of the House were paid $1 for each day in session (and a two-year period when they were paid $50 a day). Compensation for House members bounced around some during that run of years. The $6 figure is the median for that 26 year period. I think the Senate’s compensation was consistent at $6-$7 a day.
Now consider the 71st Congress, the last one elected before the Depression hit. Their legislative calendar ran over 223 days (i.e. about 45% time over two years) and they were paid a salary of $9,000 a year. At the time, nominal domestic product per capita was about $690 per year. So, they’re paid 13x nominal domestic product per capita per year. A figure 13x nominal domestic product per capita would be about $760,000 a year in our own time, more than most corporate CEOs are paid. Pretty sweet deal given that you’re only clocking in 45% time (and the dimension and scope of the federal government made oversight responsibilities and constituent pressure that much smaller). Of course, they did not have fringes.
IMO, travel expenses for members and staff to and from any locus other than the home district better come out of committee budgets or the chamber budget, not member budgets. Travel expenses covered by member budgets ought to cover the member and a restricted menu of his relatives (spouse, juvenile dependents, and perhaps an elder dependent). Travel expense allowances for staff ought to approach zero; put them on short leaves and pay the bills out of campaign funds if you just have to have them moving around. Franking privileges are unobjectionable, although they do have unfortunate effects. Medical and long-term care insurance for federal employees (including members of Congress) is properly financed out of assessments on their total compensation and properly incorporates high deductibles. Retirement programs for federal employees (including members of Congress) are properly defined contribution programs.
Art Deco–I stand corrected.
That always sounded like “I stand correct” to me. Which pissed me off to no end, due to intuitive empathy reading the emotion and then reading the logical line.