Why Congress has become so dysfunctional, discredited
“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
— Mark Twain
Voters have rarely held Congress in high regard. In fact, over the 38 years in which Gallup has asked the question, only 34 percent of Americans typically say they approve of its performance. These days, however, public disgust has never been deeper. In its most recent poll, Gallup found that just 10 percent of Americans approve of how Congress is operating.
Personally, I don’t know what that 10 percent is thinking, because Congress is by any measure a broken institution. While never a paragon of efficiency, in recent years it has lost the ability to function at almost any level. It produces nothing, it solves nothing, it does nothing. It serves solely as a stage upon which political actors strut and prance.
The question of why has many answers, most of them traceable back to the very beginning, to the days in which the Founding Fathers were designing the structure of government that we still retain today.
Given their ties to Great Britain, it would have been natural for the founders to model the American system after the British parliamentary system they knew so well. They didn’t. Instead, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and their colleagues consciously rejected the parliamentary model, and they did so for very American reasons.
First, they had seen enough to recognize that a parliamentary system was a “winner-take-all” system. The party that controls the majority of votes in a parliamentary system also wins the right to name the prime minister, giving it control of both the legislative and executive branches. Our founders distrusted the untrammeled power that produced, so they built a system that conspired against it.
The founders also understood that under a parliamentary system, voters cast their ballots less for individual lawmakers than for the party they represent. Moreover, once in office, members of Parliament owe more loyalty to their party leaders and platform than to the folks back home who elected them. Those were all evils that Madison, Hamilton and others wanted to minimize, even if they could not avoid them altogether.
As a result, the American system of government diffused authority and undercut party loyalty. Individual politicians could be more independent, able to vote their own conscience and the interests of their own district. And with neither party able to dictate to the other, and with the legislative and executive branches acting as competitors, compromise across party lines would be required to get anything done.
For most of our history, that system functioned more than adequately. So what has changed?
I would argue that over the past two decades, our political parties have gravitated toward a mindset in which elections have been nationalized, party discipline takes precedence over personal conscience and compromise is considered losing. It is in essence a parliamentary mindset, which is precisely what the founding fathers had hoped to discourage. And when you take that parliamentary, winner-take-all mindset and graft it onto a political system designed specifically to frustrate that mindset, you get what we’ve got: No movement.
Put another way, if you take a system that is designed to run on compromise, and you deny it access to compromise, it cannot operate.
Historically speaking, the party most responsible for that transformation is the Republican Party, and the single individual most responsible is Newt Gingrich. That observation is not intended as criticism, because from their point of view it made perfect sense. By the early ’90s, they had served as the minority party for most of the preceding 60 years, and they had grown frustrated. They could and did compromise, thus allowing the system to function, but as they compromised they saw the arc of history bending against them. They saw compromise as a way to lose slowly, and they no longer wanted to play that way.
The result, however, is a system in which two things are true: 1) With no compromise, change can now occur only when one party holds absolute dominance and 2) The pursuit of absolute dominance is hopeless, particularly in a country as evenly divided as this one.
The result, sadly, is a system of governance rapidly losing credibility with its people.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
818 comments Add your comment
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
4:29 pm
I have said for years that TERM LIMITS are the answer.
We already have TERM LIMITS, they’re called elections.
You and all the conservatives in the state of Georgia can TERM LIMIT the incumbents Chambliss and Isakson by voting for a Democrat in the general election.
weetamoe
August 28th, 2012
4:29 pm
Obama established Simpson/Bowles. That was easy. But when Simpson/Bowles presented the results of their study, their conclusion, and their recommendation, it suddenly became waaay too hard. Erskine Bowles himself, the left side of the bipartisan duo ( lavish in his praise of Ryan in other discussions), claims that Obama is to blame for the refusal to even consider implementing the S/B recommendations.
josef
August 28th, 2012
4:30 pm
CRIER
He could still be one of THOSE Adairs. They have had a habit of getting around…
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
4:30 pm
Could be because 47% pay no federal income tax at all, and could care less how bloated and inefficient the government is? They’ll vote for the party that gives them to most welfare, regardless of what it does to our country.
Well, if you’re going to play the role of a blogger who is completely disconnected from reality, you don’t eff around with it at all. Hopefully, you’re getting paid to post crap like that. Somebody could plant some prize winning knock out roses in that heaping pile of bovine fecal matter.
However, there is just one question I have about that statement. When you refer to that group, are you referring to the working poor who generally vote democratic or are you referring to that significant section of that 47% group who’s net tax liabilities have been zeroed out, even though their income is $100,000 or more, thanks to Bush and his magic tax cuts and keep voting GOP to get even more tax cuts?
If you could clarify that for me just a bit, I might be inclined to think you’re spewing more than just regurgitated fecal matter.
Oscar
August 28th, 2012
4:31 pm
Oscar’s right…it was the fault of Lincoln.”
Are you related to Booth as well?
——————–
Are we related to Both of what? (You should use spell check)
Child, please
August 28th, 2012
4:31 pm
Losing credibility, etc., yet finding a way (on both sides of the aisle) to ingratiate the government in more and more of everything every day. OK, I’m Libertarian. But, face it, with Republicans you generally have a choice of more government, with Democrats you have a choice of a hell of a lot more government. Either way you lose.
St Simons - he-ne-ha
August 28th, 2012
4:31 pm
for josef & Fred – powow on the Oostanaula? this means waw, mon
really, we should’ve waited 400 years & picked it up on the short sale
Fred ™
August 28th, 2012
4:32 pm
oldfart
August 28th, 2012
4:26 pm
Decriminalize dueling.
++++++++++++++++++
Hell yeah. It worked great for Aaron Burr. not so great for Alexander Hamilton though……..
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
4:32 pm
“We already have TERM LIMITS, they’re called elections.”
The preceding statement has been rated FALSE on the Truth-O-Meter. Here is a definition of the term found on Wiki:
“A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a officeholder may serve in a particular elected office. When term limits are found in presidential and semi-presidential systems they act as a method to curb the potential for monopoly, where a leader effectively becomes “president for life”. Sometimes, there is an absolute limit on the number of terms a officeholder can serve, while, in other cases, the restrictions are merely on the number of consecutive terms.”
Li'l Aynie
August 28th, 2012
4:32 pm
Exactly right, Jay! Our government structure is ill-suited to strong political parties; political parties are not even recognized in the Constitution.
With strong, contentious political parties, a parliamentary form of government is needed to get anything done.
The best solution is to weaken the political parties by electing independents. Now, will some please step forward!
Morality?
August 28th, 2012
4:32 pm
Congress has BECOME dysfunctional? No! You don’t mean it! You mean that happened just recently and they were fine before then? Congress is composed of Dems (rule the Senate) and Repubs (rule the House). You can’t have the insane running the asylum. TERM LIMITS!
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
4:34 pm
“Are we related to Both of what? (You should use spell check)”
Dang, Oscar…please tell me you didn’t do that. Please tell me that was a failed attempt at humor.
Jay
August 28th, 2012
4:35 pm
Obama backed away from Bowles-Simpson only after congressional Republicans on the commission, led by Paul Ryan, had voted to kill it, denying it the 14 votes it needed to become official.
If Obama had embraced it at that point, he would have been on record as supporting the tax hikes in Bowles-SImpson, but with nothing to show for it in return from the Republicans. You can imagine how that would be playing in campaign commercials.
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
4:35 pm
Fred — “And since you choose to do nothing but attempt to pick fights with me I’d prefer you not address me any more.”
I didn’t address *you* in the first place. *You* leapt in to respond to a post in which I replied to *someone else.*
“I have zero desire to change my behavior just for you and your all of a sudden tender little fee fees.”
I assure you, my feelings aren’t at all tender. Then again, it’s not necessary to leap in, respond when you weren’t being addressed in the first place and be a Richard about things. I calmly pointed out twice that you were being peevish and snippy, and you’ve only doubled down on it. Furthermore, you’re getting personal and insulting, whereas I’ve done no such thing to you.
“I am the same as I ever was. If you don;’t like it, tough. You don’t pay my salary, you don’t pay my bills, you don’t do my laundry and you don’t sleep with me.”
Once again, *I* didn’t address *you* in the first place.
“So quit trying to dictate how I act.”
I didn’t *tell* you how to act in any of my posts. I simply said that if you couldn’t be polite, then I’d prefer that you didn’t do me any favors.
“I’m doing quite well as it is and have been for the last 49 years.”
I don’t know what your problem is today, but I suspect it’s got nothing to do with this blog. Be that as it may, I certainly hope you reach a satisfactory resolution. If you do, then perhaps you’ll stop being such a Richard.
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
4:36 pm
Towncrier
Kamchak raises a valid point. Instead of making a law that makes the decision for you, how hard is it to vote for the person that doesn’t have the (I) sitting next to their name?
One option requires the very people you want to remove from office to voluntarily give up their grip on power. The other one uses the power of the voter to make the decision for them. Which one do you think is more likely to happen?
Morality?
August 28th, 2012
4:36 pm
TERM LIMITS are for those that don’t have the will to vote out to rascals.
josef
August 28th, 2012
4:36 pm
CRIER
I’m not sure I follow that related to Booth one…why would simply stating what you see clearly as the reality of the time and place make you a relative of Booth?
Just my opinion, but one of the greatest flaws of our nation and its hagiology of certain “great” men is that we want to claim they have no flaws and made no errors. It is, imauo, naive and a dangerous habit…we keep repeating the same mistakes over and over…
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
4:37 pm
A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a officeholder may serve in a particular elected office.
Again — the power to TERM LIMIT the incumbents Chambliss and Isakson is already within your power. All you have to do is vote against these two incumbents in the general election.
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
4:38 pm
Bernie — “Joe Hussein Mama @ 3:44 pm – tell that to the Miners’ Wife and KIDS when they are told ” I am sorry darling and Kids its SPAM again! MY Check was short a days wages so that I may show my MANDATORY support of “THE MAGIC UNDERWEAR GUY” who wants to be President! I hope you all will understand!”
Both of my grandfathers were UMWA coal miners and I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for anyone who mines for a living. I’m certainly willing to hear more information about what happened, but you’re going to have to calm down first.
“Joe, even you cannot with a straight face defend such a DASTARDLY Act!”
I wasn’t aware that I *defended* it at all.
“Lets be honest and GET REAL!”
Let’s. You can start by calming down and becoming more coherent, please.
John Ellison
August 28th, 2012
4:38 pm
Term limits for everyone is the answer. Career politicians are worse than worthless.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
4:39 pm
“Obama backed away from Bowles-Simpson, only after congressional Republicans on the commission, led by Paul Ryan, had voted to kill it, denying it the 14 votes it needed to become official.”
For a different perspective, see this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/314266/brief-thoughts-ryan-and-bowles-simpson-reihan-salam
Jay
August 28th, 2012
4:39 pm
Fifteen states, including California, have term limits on the books. None of them has experienced the magical powers attributed to term limits by many here.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
4:39 pm
Towncrier
Why the need for the law? We as the electorate have that power now. Granted, we fail miserably at it, but we have the power today.
Are you exercising that power here in GA or the state that you live in?
JamVet
August 28th, 2012
4:41 pm
Jay, excellent synopsis.
rags, writing that the government started getting smaller in 1980 is proof of just how delusional that ostensibly educated people in America are.
The best solution is to weaken the political parties by electing independents. Now, will some please step forward!
Amen!
And here is one outstanding option…
http://www.voterocky.org/
josef
August 28th, 2012
4:41 pm
He ne ha…
Ha! Well, short sale maybe, Bead Counter, but then, SOME folks waited for the fire sale over to Mac’s place…
Proud to be me
August 28th, 2012
4:42 pm
Society is the blame for why Congress is dysfunctional . . society is dysfunctional.
Oscar
August 28th, 2012
4:42 pm
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
4:34 pm
——————
It was humor. Failed, well, humor is in the eye of the beholder.
Have to go now. Images of fat Fred and his orange shirt keep filling my head.
Fred: Ate breakfast at Hickory House this morning. If I see a large man in an orange shirt, big read, Asian woman and ten year old there one day I will wave.
Just Saying..
August 28th, 2012
4:42 pm
Invite Kyle to post his stirring Newt defense
HERE:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________…
Paul
August 28th, 2012
4:43 pm
Jay’s 4:35
Another mystery solved.
Thanks, Jay.
I’m looking forward to the VP debates – asking Ryan “how are you going to balance the budget with no tax hike? In how many years?” and then having the moderator stay on it and stay on it for specifics.
Morality?
August 28th, 2012
4:43 pm
Congress – works this way – I’m going to keep my crook because I agree with his/her B.S. – you should vote out the rest. A Politician is a professional LIAR. If he/her says anything you like they are lying to get your vote. TERM LIMITS limit the power of liars.
Fred ™
August 28th, 2012
4:45 pm
Both of my grandfathers were UMWA coal miners and I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for anyone who mines for a living. I’m certainly willing to hear more information about what happened, but you’re going to have to calm down first.
There ya go trying to control others behavior again.
Oh and this is a BLOG. If you want a private conversation, call him or get a room.
Take the rest of your condescending post to me and ram it up your ass. All I did was ask a simple question which you STILL haven’t answered. Where did you get your original info from? How ANYONE can take that as snippy I haven’t a clue but you did. Oh well.
Morality?
August 28th, 2012
4:45 pm
I have never met a politician that could pass a lie detector test. Obama ain’t got no plan to save America (quoting Samuel L. Jackson in Ebony Magazine).
Morality?
August 28th, 2012
4:48 pm
Fred Fred Fred – calm down – don’t let these pip squeaks get to you or you will get (gulp!!!) banned.
willydoit?
August 28th, 2012
4:48 pm
“Why Congress has become so dysfunctional, discredited”
Uneducated voters
josef
August 28th, 2012
4:48 pm
He ne ha
On a more serious line…what’s your take on Tecumseh? (Ssshh, I’ll not tell the missus!)
Morality?
August 28th, 2012
4:49 pm
MODIFY THIS! Gone for the day but like a roach under the door I will return.
Simple Truths
August 28th, 2012
4:50 pm
“California has term limits. How’s that working for ‘em?”
Jay, California has high taxes. How’s that working for ‘em?
Soothsayer
August 28th, 2012
4:53 pm
Great article, Jay!
Not mentioned is the overpowering influence talk radio has had on the rabidification of the Right in the country.
The banging drum of talk radio is hate, anger, discontent, polarization, and most of all — intractability. All or nothing. No hope of meeting half way.
So, then, what is left is a Congress whose main function is to prevent the other side from doing anything that might be used a political capital.
josef
August 28th, 2012
4:53 pm
Term limits of the Costa Rican model seem to work pretty well…
DBCOOPER
August 28th, 2012
4:55 pm
“The last time I was here in April of 2009 … the Democrats were in control and the congressional (approval) rating was 40 percent. Do you remember that?”
We actually didn’t, and when a reader asked us to fact-check it, we did. (She repeated the claim later in the interview.)
We looked in the polling archive of RealClearPolitics.com and found four relevant polls during the month of April 2009. The approval ratings raged from a low of 26 percent approval to a high of 38 percent approval, for an average of just under 32 percent. So neither the average for April nor any individual poll within that month reached 40 percent, making Pelosi’s statement incorrect
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
4:55 pm
“Kamchak raises a valid point. Instead of making a law that makes the decision for you, how hard is it to vote for the person that doesn’t have the (I) sitting next to their name?”
First off, he claimed we already have term limits for those in Congress. By definition, this is a false assertion. He should rather say we have a pseudo or quasi kind of term limit that we can voluntarily impose as voters.
The problem with Kamchak’s (it is not really his, of course) argument is that it relies upon an either-or fallacy. I had this debate with him the other night and I will only address it once here. I believe it is important for those in Congress to be term limited. I also believe it is important to safeguard certain social and fiscal values. If these principles come into conflict (as would be the case if I had to choose between re-electing someone who was a conservative as opposed to someone who was not to limit the term of the former), then I must choose between these principles. That happens in life. It happens in SCOTUS rulings (when one right is given precedence over another). If the other candidate is also a conservative (like a Zell Miller), then maybe I can do both things.
“One option requires the very people you want to remove from office to voluntarily give up their grip on power. The other one uses the power of the voter to make the decision for them. Which one do you think is more likely to happen?”
I am not a fatalist. I should think it wouldn’t be that hard in the Information age to set up a website and get a ground roots movement going. BTW, you did not indicate whether or not you are in favor of codified term limits.
Old Goober
August 28th, 2012
4:57 pm
OK, here’s the story of the Ohio miners and their required attendance at a Romney rally:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%20miners%20forced%20to%20attend%20romney%20rally&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cleveland.com%2Fopen%2Findex.ssf%2F2012%2F08%2Fcoal_miners_lost_pay_when_mitt.html&ei=2C89UMCvCoSE8QSNzICgDA&usg=AFQjCNFdqPU2CIzfQGSXPhG0rcnuh3W0iQ
All versions I’ve read make some points clear:
1. The mine owner declared that the mine would be closed on the day of the rally and that no one would be paid.
2. There was no possibility of working and earning a day’s pay on the day of the rally.
3. The miners asserted that ownership made it clear they were to attend the rally and that there would be a sign-in sheet there.
Argue as you will. Them’s the facts.
RB from Gwinnett
August 28th, 2012
4:58 pm
Any other readers read this pile of manure disguised as an opinion column just waiting for the “it’s the republicans fault” conclusion from Jay? Geez….
I wonder if the writers at the national enquirer tell AJC writer jokes….
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
4:59 pm
Fred — “There ya go trying to control others behavior again.”
Not at all. He can reply how he likes. But if he’s going to be shrill about it, I don’t plan to continue talking about it with him.
“Oh and this is a BLOG. If you want a private conversation, call him or get a room.”
There ya go trying to control others behavior again. (laughing, pointing)
“Take the rest of your condescending post to me and ram it up your ass.”
If either of us posted in a condescending manner, it was you. I haven’t insulted you, I haven’t gotten personal, I haven’t directed your behavior or told you what to do. Yet you’ve done all of the above, and here you are *again,* leaping in and responding to a post I aimed at someone else.
For someone who doesn’t want to be responded to, you’re certainly doing all you can to attract attention.
“All I did was ask a simple question which you STILL haven’t answered.”
And you were a Richard about it, which I quite clearly said in response to your reply. I give nice when I get nice. And usually, I give snippy when I receive it, but I’m making an exception for you today; I’m trying to remain calm and polite despite your repeated rude and intemperate replies.
“Where did you get your original info from? How ANYONE can take that as snippy I haven’t a clue but you did. Oh well.”
When I replied to you, I quite clearly said ‘(p)erhaps you didn’t mean it to come across that way, but your response seemed quite peevish and snippy.’
If you’re not going to respond to that and you’re instead going to double down on what you were doing in the first place, don’t look for me to be particularly compliant to questions or requests you make of me.
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
5:01 pm
Old Goober — thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:01 pm
oldfart
“Decriminalize dueling.”
I’m for it and I’m not trying to be funny.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:02 pm
josef 4:48
Anybody in his position who went against upbringing, tradition and society in opposing torture is a good guy in my book.
Dunwoody Granny
August 28th, 2012
5:02 pm
Middle of the Road @ 4:17:
I think the best answer is for everyone to avoid voting for anyone with (Inc) after their name for the next 4-6 elections.
I believe the current dysfunction is a temporary affair, a cycle in the great arc of history. But it feeds on itself because everyone who comes into Congress learns how to act from those who have been waging this all-or-nothing warfare for the past 30 years or so. They’ve gotten far too good at little parliamentary tricks to do any actual legislating.
I don’t see term limits as a longterm solution because people who know they’re lame ducks have even less incentive to do our business and even more incentive for self-dealing and vote-selling.
But let’s have a quiet little citizens’ rebellion. Stop voting for incumbents. For the next several elections — until we’ve had a complete turnover — fire anyone who’s currently in office, even if you think they’re good. It’s especially important to do this on the state level, because it’s the state legislatures that gerrymander voting districts to make them ever “safer” for incumbents.
Eventually we can weed out even the veteran game-players. And eventually perhaps candidates will get the message that they report to their districts, not to their parties or lobbyists. Then we can begin to vote them in a second time. And they’ll get out of this extreme cycle and get back to simple ordinary dysfunction.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:03 pm
TC
Are you personally using your power to limit terms at this time or just talking about it?
I’d venture to say that if this state went blue you would not like it too much, hence you do not exactly the opposite of what you have the power to do today.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
5:03 pm
1. The mine owner declared that the mine would be closed on the day of the rally and that no one would be paid.
Okay, not sure how union contracts were negotiated with the owners about this but I can understand this.
2. There was no possibility of working and earning a day’s pay on the day of the rally.
See above.
3. The miners asserted that ownership made it clear they were to attend the rally and that there would be a sign-in sheet there.
Owners can FOAD. My time off is mine, not theirs. They wanna tell me what to do, show me the $$.
Brosephus™
August 28th, 2012
5:04 pm
I am not a fatalist. I should think it wouldn’t be that hard in the Information age to set up a website and get a ground roots movement going.
You’re suggesting as such when we have a significant block of voters who choose to go by information being fed to them as opposed to researching things themselves. I think it would be impossible to do such a thing now.
As a prime example, I give you the Tea Party Movement as Exhibit A. Originally stated as a grassroots effort to control government spending, it has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. You may not be a fatalist, but I am undoubtedly a realist.
BTW, you did not indicate whether or not you are in favor of codified term limits.
Codified term limits?? Nothing more than what we already have on the Executive Office. I have no qualms about voting for the person who doesn’t have the (I) sitting to the right of their name. The only incumbent I’ve voted for since 2000 is my departing County Commission Chair. Other than her, I have purposefully voted against the incumbent, and if there is not one, I have voted against the incumbent party.
I choose to walk the walk instead of simply talking the talk. That’s just me though.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:05 pm
do exactly
not, do not exactly
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:05 pm
crier,
I will sign it it.
They abused the system and collapsed the economy.
Some are retiring in disgrace so lets make sure we purge them all.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:05 pm
“Fifteen states, including California, have term limits on the books. None of them has experienced the magical powers attributed to term limits by many here.”
Your first statement sounds factual but the second is kind of hyperbolic and disputable.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:06 pm
Only one it.
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:06 pm
PAUL
He was, no doubt about it, a modern and forward thinking fellow. I do wonder just how rational he was. It’s one of those “what if” parlor games of history, but I wonder how things would have turned out if his trip South had proved more to his acceptance of his political weltanschauung…
Tom Middleton
August 28th, 2012
5:07 pm
During his second term as our first president, Jay, George Washington saw the early formation of political parties in our newly formed government and became extremely distraught.
One gets the feeling that they were never meant to be a part of our system of checks and balances, and maybe Washington, more than anyone else, understood the reason why.
Like in the parliamentary system, it seems most of us are party members first, even before we have our candidates to “run as clear alternatives,” unless, of course, we’re Ron Paul supporters, in which case we have absolutely lost our minds!
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:09 pm
getalife
So, have you poled the pirogue down the bayou to higher ground? How’s it looking?
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
5:09 pm
K’Chak — “Owners can FOAD. My time off is mine, not theirs. They wanna tell me what to do, show me the $$”
Completely agree.
On point #1, was this a non-union mine? If so, then the miners might not have had job protections. But I still can’t see making them attend if they weren’t getting paid.
JamVet
August 28th, 2012
5:10 pm
…rabidification of the Right…
Sooth, I LOVE that creative wordsmithery.
Almost sounds like something overheard in a Jewish temple!
To wit, the rubes actually felt that the reason they got crushed epically in 2008 was because they weren’t rabidly right wing enough!
Fascism yesterday! Fascism Tomorrow! Fascism Forever!
JamVet
August 28th, 2012
5:11 pm
Forgive my mixed metaphors in my last.
Proud to be me
August 28th, 2012
5:11 pm
RB from Gwinnett August 28th, 2012
4:58 pm
I’m with you on that!!
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:12 pm
josef,
Going to ride this one out.
Half this storm broke off and went up your way.
Nothing yet but wind has picked up.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
August 28th, 2012
5:12 pm
Kam, I think that is the point. They were told — we’re giving you a forced day off with no pay (to hell with your paychecks) — but you are required to attend and we are watching. The latter part is all “unofficial” official policy which will likely be denied. But history has shown that these situations occur way to often and are not more likely as union power to stop corporate management abuse wanes. And of course to the conned, unless there is a video, it did not happen and if there is a video, well it probably still didn’t happen cause its out of context, don’t ya know.
The balance of the “Force” has been lost and now favors the dark side….
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:13 pm
“Codified term limits?? Nothing more than what we already have on the Executive Office. I have no qualms about voting for the person who doesn’t have the (I) sitting to the right of their name. The only incumbent I’ve voted for since 2000 is my departing County Commission Chair. Other than her, I have purposefully voted against the incumbent, and if there is not one, I have voted against the incumbent party.”
I must say, I cannot understand why someone who has “purposefully voted against the incumbent” would be against legal term limits. To me, that’s like saying I own and operate a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon, but I am against any laws requiring a minimum amount of fuel efficiency.
“I choose to walk the walk instead of simply talking the talk. That’s just me though.”
Is that a snark? For someone who harps on finding a middle road, you seen strangely opposed to something I should imagine almost all people would agree. Or am I mistaken? Is it a liberal position to oppose legal term limits? You guys tell me. If so, I would be amazed. Please provide a rationale.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:13 pm
josef
Off the top of my head, I’d guess it would be delaying the inevitable. The white man was too duplicitous, too motivated by greed for resources… plus it was a great clash of incompatible civilizations in the same space.
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:14 pm
getalife
Most of our folks have opted to ride it out, too…
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
August 28th, 2012
5:14 pm
The result, however, is a system in which two things are true: 1) With no compromise, change can now occur only when one party holds absolute dominance and 2) The pursuit of absolute dominance is hopeless, particularly in a country as evenly divided as this one.
Hmmm, back in the 70’s and 80’s many people voted for checks and balances, democratic pres, conservative congress and senate. The opposite of progress is congress. Yet somehow, probably through the government dumb down of the education system, we now have a majority that think government is wonderful, problem solving, an entity designed to make our lives easy and wonderful. Check the national debt and failed government programs like social security (trust fund??).
They’ve pi$$ed away the lock box in self serving re-election vote buying scheme. But somehow it’s going to fix itself. Presumably by electing liberals….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
5:15 pm
On point #1, was this a non-union mine?
I dunno, my assumption is that coal mining is a heavily unionized industry. If that is a non union mine then the company is well within it’s rights to not pay.
And of course if it’s a non union mine, they can also find any small infraction at work to fire those not attending a political rally.
These kind of abuses are exactly why unions formed in the first place.
getalife
August 28th, 2012
5:17 pm
josef,
Hurricane parties.
Jay
August 28th, 2012
5:17 pm
If it’s disputable, Crier, dispute it.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
August 28th, 2012
5:17 pm
boy, I need typing help today.
to=too and not=now
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:17 pm
TC
So you exercise term limits now, right?
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:17 pm
“Are you personally using your power to limit terms at this time or just talking about it? ”
Are you not reading my posts where I explain my position or are you just trying to be contrarian?
Jay
August 28th, 2012
5:18 pm
You can start with the biggest state in the bunch, California, and explain how term limits have significantly improved the performance of its legislature.
We’ll wait…
Jefferson
August 28th, 2012
5:18 pm
Parties are UNIONS.
On the miner deal, there are bowling balls and there are bowling pins. Not a lot of upward mobility.
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
5:18 pm
It appears that the mine in question — the Century Mine near Beallsville, OH — is non-union.
http://news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/568444/Powhatan-Mine-Could-Be-Replaced-by-Century.html?nav=515
Keep Up the Good Fight!
August 28th, 2012
5:18 pm
To me, that’s like saying I own and operate a car that gets 40 miles to a gallon, but I am against any laws requiring a minimum amount of fuel efficiency
I thought that was a regular position of the conned.
TaxPayer
August 28th, 2012
5:19 pm
If we continue on our current path, the unelected party–the anarchists–may just end up winning.
Either that or the Koch Boys and Sheldon Adelson will buy up the bankrupt country for pennies on the dollar. I’m sure that would make the Republicans happy.
Jay
August 28th, 2012
5:19 pm
Here, let me help:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/21/local/la-me-cap-term-limits-20110721
” “California’s term limits have not created an environment in which citizen legislators temporarily serve in the state Capitol and then return to the private sector,” the reports says. Rather, “professional legislators…continue to seek careers in other government positions — a form of political musical chairs for governmental office.”
“Indeed,” the report continues, “politicians are now moving faster and faster to the music.”
And, mixing metaphors, it adds, “Most termed-out legislators do not beat their political spears into plowshares and return to the civilian sector….Term limits…have converted the state Legislature into a ‘farm team’ of potential candidates for other public offices.”
Jefferson
August 28th, 2012
5:20 pm
After 2000-2008 how can anyone call the GOP conservatives ?
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:21 pm
TC
I’m just asking a yes or no question. If I missed that, which post was it.
Jay
August 28th, 2012
5:22 pm
Or maybe you’d like this study, out of Arizona, which concludes:
“Contrary to the hopes of term limit supporters, the reform has not filled legislative chambers with citizen legislators with little or no political ambition who are willing to return to their private lives after a few years of service. The legislature is attractive to career politicians. According to survey data, most Arizona legislators plan to run for another office sometime in their career and only a few plan to retire following their current legislative service (Table 7). As Table 8 indicates, 27 of the 37 term-limited legislators, over 70 percent of them, attempted to continue their political careers in an uninterrupted fashion by immediately getting elected to the other house or to some other office. Sixteen of the 27 who ran for office, 59 percent, were successful (three term-limited legislators lost to another term-limited legislator). Term limited legislators, in short, have demonstrated a strong desire to stay in an elected environment and, by and large, have been able to do so. When it comes to elective offices, Arizona, like Oklahoma, has a good “opportunity structure” — a governing system that provides a generous number of positions on the local as well as state level for those seeking elective office. (Note 5)
Under term limits, many legislators regularly explore ways staying in legislative office, for example, by the feasibility of switching from one house to the other, and are tempted to take advantage of opportunities for other positions as soon as they appear. Many spend much time preparing their next move, a preoccupation that some interviewees felt distracts them from their duties as legislators. In a broad perspective the term limit law has succeeded not so much in pushing legislators out of politics as it has in prompting them to move to the other house or to seek other elected positions.”
lovelyliz
August 28th, 2012
5:23 pm
For those unfamiliar with the procedures, a senator can stop progress on any bill by speaking on and on and on on any topic they choose, unless 60 Senators vote to invoke cloture, there by ending the endless ramble. The first instance of cloture being used was to end a filibuster of the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles by isolationists in 1919. Following that, there were only 3 instances of cloture until 1960.
We are now in the 111th session of Congress, and it appears that a new record will be set once again. To date, there have been 76 motions filed to end filibusters, resulting in 40 votes on cloture, and 40 instances of it being invoked. If we project these numbers to the end of the 111th session of the US Senate, that would result in a record number of cloture invocations, and near record levels of motions along with actual votes.
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:23 pm
PAUL
” too motivated by greed for resources… plus it was a great clash of incompatible civilizations in the same space.”
I think the former holds true, but not the second. It is my thesis that the “incompatible civilizations” in the Southeast had actually homogenized into a single civilization and the process was by that time a conflict of national interests within that civilization, the conflict motivated by the former. This is, to me, backed up by the fact that the Removals did not target the “racial” or “ethnic” Indians and mixed bloods, but the Indian “nations,” i.e. the political units. It was much the same greed which you see with, say, the Russians and the Mordvinians…
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:24 pm
“You can start with the biggest state in the bunch, California, and explain how term limits have significantly improved the performance of its legislature.
We’ll wait…”
The response is in the first five seconds…
http://tinyurl.com/9oftncp
josef
August 28th, 2012
5:25 pm
getalife
Hurricane parties…that’s a good thing…glad to hear it…
Jay
August 28th, 2012
5:26 pm
As to that coal-miners story, you gotta love this:
“(Murray Energy Chief Financial Officer Rob) Moore told Blomquist that managers “communicated to our workforce that the attendance at the Romney event was mandatory, but no one was forced to attend.” He said the company did not penalize no-shows.
“Attendance is mandatory, but no one was forced to attend.” Where’s Eric Blair when we need him?
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:27 pm
getalife
Don’t down too many hurricanes. That could bring about a miserable tomorrow
Joe Hussein Mama
August 28th, 2012
5:28 pm
Jay — ““Attendance is mandatory, but no one was forced to attend.” Where’s Eric Blair when we need him?”
Presence is absence. Requirements are optional. Wages are charity. Fnord.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
August 28th, 2012
5:28 pm
I’m just asking a yes or no question. If I missed that, which post was it.
They BOTH suck
The gist of the conversation I had about this the other night goes like this:
He really, really, really is in favor of term limits, but will move the goalposts when it comes to his elected official, then teh ghey marriage thingie becomes most important.
Paul
August 28th, 2012
5:28 pm
josef
By ‘incompatible civilizations’ I meant white and Indian. From what I remember, each time an agreement was forged, the white people found a reason to invalidate the agreement and move the natives out. So the incompatibility to which I was referring was one willing to entertain a long-term coexistence and the other willing to entertain coexistence…. until some other reason to abrogate and move the others came into play.
Holes in that?
ld
August 28th, 2012
5:29 pm
“strut and prance” … and ENRICH THEMSELVES.
CJ
August 28th, 2012
5:29 pm
“Attendance is mandatory, but no one was forced to attend.” Where’s Eric Blair when we need him?
It’s also worth mentioning that these guys were required to miss work to attend this event, without pay.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
August 28th, 2012
5:30 pm
It seems like Jay would prefer an activist dictator at the federal to get things done, rather than the European model or current U.S. government. I would prefer the feds out of anything but infrastructure and national defense, and let things be handled at the state level. It would invoke competition between the states. If your state sucks for jobs or overtaxation on business, flee to a more “friendly state” like what’s happening in California and Illinois.
dbm
August 28th, 2012
5:30 pm
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:13 pm
There is a big, important difference between thinking something is good to do and thinking government should force people to do it, although the issues you mention may not be the best examples of this.
Jay
August 28th, 2012
5:30 pm
It’s unAmerican, remember, to use union dues to support a political cause, but it’s just fine and dandy to force union members themselves to do so.
Towncrier
August 28th, 2012
5:31 pm
“If it’s disputable, Crier, dispute it.”
Might I suggest you do a google search on “term limits” and other keywords like “state”, “efficacy” and so on. But, to partly respond to your challenge, here is some food for thought:
“The literature on term limits has burgeoned in recent years. This paper looks at both the empirical and normative studies, exploring how the term-limit debate is confounded by both fact and value disagreements. We identify four schools of thought with respect to the desirability of term limits and conclude that, because people start from different normative perspectives, findings about term-limit effects can be interpreted in very different ways. Reviewing the literature on electoral impacts, we discovered that term limits have increased turnover most noticeably in the more professionalized legislatures. The length of term limitations and the types of legislatures that adopt them are critical explanatory variables. The implications for the internal workings of legislatures and the balance of power are less well documented by scholars, but there is a great deal of testimony from legislators and lobbyists that term limits have changed their operations in important ways.”
from: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.163
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:34 pm
Kam
I’m with you. It was very evident that he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
He can talk about a law all he wants, but he can do it now.
Problem is that if he does it now, he knows it will take away votes from the Republican candidate. His semantics and two step were not anywhere close to being as good as he convinced himself they were.
They BOTH suck
August 28th, 2012
5:35 pm
TC
So you can be counted on to vote against your Congressmen as well as Isakson and Chambliss, correct?
No need to wait for any laws to be passed; just do it