This post comes at a critical time in U.S. politics. The government is currently shut down after both parties failed to come to an agreement on a budget. The public approval rating of Congress is at a mere 11%. Thus, begging the question, is Congress dysfunctional?
Lee Hamilton, a former representative argues in "Public Criticisms of Congress" How Congress Works, that no, the inefficiency of Congress is by design. The original framers of the Constitution never intended Congress to be a machine, whipping out legislation at a rapid rate. Instead, Congress is supposed to cater to the American people's needs, but only after deliberate consideration of those needs. Congress is not supposed to produce a new law or piece of legislation after every public cry of want. They are only supposed to tackle the bigger issues that will stay around for years to come.
Columnist Ezra Klein argues the opposite. He contends that Congress is very dysfunctional for several reasons. First, even with a majority in Congress the last few years, and in Senate now, the Democrats cannot get anything passed. Here's where the problem is, the minority can obstruct the goals of the majority. Congress has become a political game. While in the past, there used to be political factions within each major party (Liberal Republicans, Conservative Democrats), those are nonexistent now, thus coalitions cannot be formed to pass legislation. It truly is all Republicans versus all Democrats now. If the Democrats were to pass any piece of legislation, it would be a loss for the Republicans. The same happens when Republicans are in power. Since the minority can obstruct the progress of the majority, isn't the minority proposing new solutions? No. The minority can obstruct all majority legislation, without proposing a different solution, and the blame for ineffectiveness will fall on the party with the majority power. All that matters is that the minority gain the majority in the next election.
Klein also argues that the filibuster is used far too often nowadays. Originally, the filibuster was created by mistake in the late 18th century. In 2009, the Senate had to break more filibusters than the 1950s and 60s combined. Filibustering obstructs any progress of a bill, and clearly something is wrong is its being used that much more.
On a different note, people running for public office currently have the option of using public monies for their campaigns. Few, however choose to use the money as it has become obvious that candidates can raise a lot more money on their own. Big donors get around laws restricting the amount of money they can give to candidates by giving money to political parties (known as "soft money") or SuperPacs. Whereas money given directly to the candidate is called "hard money."
Mark Green argues in "Change, For Good" in the 2002 book Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy, that adoption of public financing of campaigns would make elections more fair and open. Spending limits should be set in place for elections so that it would allow officials to spend more time actually doing their jobs rather than spending most of their time fundraising for their next campaign. If spending limits became a part of elections, they should not be set too high, because that would favor only certain candidates who could actually raise that much. But if limits were set too low, that would favor the incumbents whose names are already well known from serving in office.
John Samples argues the opposite in "Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns" from Welfare for Politicians? Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns in 2006. He said that public financing of campaigns would force taxpayers to support candidates that they don't necessarily want to. Most Americans do not contribute to campaign funds. Public financing of campaigns would not be fair also because the transfer of money from taxpayers to candidates and their select ideas and views.
No comments:
Post a Comment