The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Make Congress Work
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10615
Page 1 of 4

Author:  Amanar [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Make Congress Work

I'm interested to see what kind of opinion you guys have on this.

Quote:
No Labels: Make Congress Work
No Labels is a group of Republicans, Democrats and Independents who want our country to work again. Our dozen proposals to Make Congress Work! mostly don't require new laws or new spending, and they don't favor any party or particular cause. These are simple, straightforward proposals to break gridlock, promote constructive discussion and reduce polarization in Congress. They can mostly be adopted all at once when the next Congress convenes in January 2015.

12 Ways to Make Congress Work

1. No Budget, No Pay
If Congress can't pass a budget and all annual spending bills on time, members of Congress should not get paid.

2. Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments
All presidential nominations should be confirmed or rejected within 90 days of the nomination.

3. Fix the Filibuster
Require real (not virtual) filibusters and end filibusters on motions to proceed.

4. Empower the Sensible Majority
Allow a bipartisan majority of members to override a leader or committee chair’s refusal to bring a bill to the floor.

5. Make Members Come to Work
Make Congress work on coordinated schedules with three five-day work weeks a month in DC and one week in their home district.

6. Question Time for the President
Provide a monthly forum for members of Congress to ask the president questions to force leaders to debate one another and defend their ideas.

7. Fiscal Report to Congress: Hear it. Read it. Sign it.
A nonpartisan leader should deliver an annual, televised fiscal update in-person to a joint session of Congress to ensure everyone is working off the same facts.

8. No Pledge but the Oath of Office
Members should make no pledge but the pledge of allegiance and their formal oath of office.

9. Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings
The House and Senate should institute monthly, off-the-record and bipartisan gatherings to get members talking across party lines.

10. Bipartisan Seating
At all joint meetings or sessions of Congress, each member should be seated next to at least one member of the other party.

11. Bipartisan Leadership Committee
Congressional party leaders should form a bipartisan congressional leadership committee to discuss legislative agendas and substantive solutions.

12. No Negative Campaigns Against Incumbents
Incumbents from one party should not conduct negative campaigns against sitting members of the opposing party.


The organization itself is supported by a group of 80+ Congressmen (with roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats from what I can tell). The website has more detailed explanations of all these points and the reasoning behind them, if you're curious.

I think it's a good idea to try to tackle some of the underlying causes of partisanship in Congress. One good example is the proposal for a 5 day work-week. Supposedly, before the mid-90s most Senators/Representatives moved their families to DC and lived there, at least while Congress was in session. This left a lot more room for social interaction with their colleagues, and friendships across party lines were a lot more common as a result. Nowadays the norm is for Senators to fly in on Monday night, go to meetings Tuesday-Thursday, and then fly back home on Friday. It's a lot easier to be a dick to your colleagues when you don't have to interact with them at social functions and are only around them for three days a week (and sitting on the opposite side of the room).

I know some of you think gridlock in Congress is good, and for a while I've been tempted by that idea. But I'm not so sure it's working well for us anymore as things get worse and worse. Ideally we'd rid ourselves of the two-party system, but given that that's unlikely to happen anytime soon, I'd rather they at least work together like adults.

Author:  Midgen [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

All of those changes would be terrific.

The problem is, the people who would have to make those changes probably aren't terribly thrilled about the idea of putting those restrictions on themselves.

Author:  Khross [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

I agree, completely, with Item #1 on that list. That's a fantastic idea; we should make payroll in Congress performance based. I do wonder how we would enforce this. The rest of the list is probably not a good idea.

Author:  Hopwin [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

All bad.

Author:  Xequecal [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

In my opinion, all #1 does is skew Congress even more towards "special interests." Most members of Congress are already filthy rich and don't need their (comparatively) tiny salaries, and all this will due is incentivize more corruption to replace the lost income. On top of that, it makes it even harder for an average person who isn't already a multimillionaire to make it into Congress, because now it doesn't provide guaranteed income.

The "issues" of executive pay and government functionary pay are such minor issues if they are issues at all that there's no reason for us to waste so much time arguing about them.

Author:  Lenas [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

I think it all sounds great.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

#1 1 and #12 are childish, and in the case of #1 petty, and #12 pointless.

The other suggestions have varying degrees of merit.

Author:  TheRiov [ Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

5 is unreasonable. Often committee members are dispatched to the field as part of their duties.
12 is absurd.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

Congress is working as intended. It is the scope of the federal government that is broken.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk

Author:  Talya [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:11 am ]
Post subject: 

#6 is interesting.

One advantage of parliamentary politics is that the Prime Minister must participate in the constant debate known in Canadian politics as "Question Period." This is because the Prime Minister is not the head of state; in actual function he is more akin to your Congressional "Majority leader" -- the actual head of state is the Queen, figurehead though she may be. Still, the point here is that while their actual jobs may be different, our PM ends up performing the same role as your president with regard to "leadership," and he is just as subject to the daily grind of parliament as any other house member. This usually means that the PM has to be able to support their position better -- they don't get to dictate it from a public address without debate. Everything they say can be questioned and they need to be able to argue it clearly and logically, and the public sees if they can't.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:38 am ]
Post subject: 

I'm on board, but there's perhaps some first amendment issues with #8 and #12, and some practicality issues with #5, #10, and #11.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

1. No Budget, No Pay
Nope - will just encourage them to live off campaign contributions and cushy current jobs for family and cushy future jobs for themselves. Instead make the pay 3 million a year and deduct 250k everytime they vote yes on anything.

2. Up or Down Vote on Presidential Appointments
Yes

3. Fix the Filibuster
Yes.

4. Empower the Sensible Majority
Yes - though depends on technicalities

5. Make Members Come to Work
Absolutely not. Change the minimum required in the Constitution of attending at least 1 day a year to a maximum of 1 day a year.

6. Question Time for the President
Yes

7. Fiscal Report to Congress: Hear it. Read it. Sign it.
Laughable - who would appoint the "non-partisan leader"?

8. No Pledge but the Oath of Office
Don't really care almost none of them care about and pledges they make that don't have consequences in the polls

9. Monthly Bipartisan Gatherings
They can do this already if they wish.

10. Bipartisan Seating
Random seating yes - this no

11. Bipartisan Leadership Committee
They already do this on occassion

12. No Negative Campaigns Against Incumbents
**** no. Your incumbents are dirty **** slimeballs. The fact that your choice is generall douchymcgee shouldn't prevent you from hearing about how horriffic the incumbent shitheadjones is. This is the dumbest **** I've ever heard of by anything trying to be taken seriously in politics.

Author:  Amanar [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm not a big fan of #1 (no budget, no pay) myself, mainly for the reasons Xeq outlined. But it's already been implemented to a limited degree earlier this year as part of one of the budget resolutions.

I don't really agree with #8 and #12 either, since it's more of a freedom of speech issue and it's unenforceable. #12 might be nice if it just become a social thing, and those who ran negative campaigns like that were ostracized or whatever, but I don't see that happening any time soon. But to be clear, I don't think they're talking about no negative campaigns against incumbents at all. They're specifically talking about other incumbents running negative campaigns against their colleagues. Like, John Smith, the representative from district 12, talking **** about Sally May, the representative from district 11. The two people campaigning against each-other would still be able to talk as much **** as they want.

Most of the others I support in some way or another. I think it's important to make actual structural changes to encourage both sides to work together.

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Constitutionally speaking isn't Item #1 illegal? Congress does not create the budget.

Author:  Taskiss [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

I'm still in favor of gridlock.

If an idea isn't universally desired, don't do it. My wife and I try to practice something similar ... the "it takes two yeses to make a yes but only one no to make a no" rule.

Yeah, someone can always throw the "no" card down arbitrarily, but knowing that you're also going to want your partner to go along with you on things you want prevents too much of that.

Author:  Müs [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Elmarnieh wrote:
5. Make Members Come to Work
Absolutely not. Change the minimum required in the Constitution of attending at least 1 day a year to a maximum of 1 day a year.


Wait... you don't want congresscritters to actually have to do the job they were elected to do in the place where that job happens? That makes no sense.

Author:  shuyung [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

If you start from the premise that the "job" doesn't need doing, it makes perfect sense.

Author:  Amanar [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, at the very least Congress needs to pass a budget. And approve the President's appointments. That will take longer than a day... at least a week. So let's make it a five day week while we're at it. =P

Author:  DFK! [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Hopwin wrote:
Constitutionally speaking isn't Item #1 illegal? Congress does not create the budget.


Actually, the House is the only body entitled to "originate" a budget.

Author:  Hopwin [ Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DFK! wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
Constitutionally speaking isn't Item #1 illegal? Congress does not create the budget.


Actually, the House is the only body entitled to "originate" a budget.

I thought the Executive had to create it.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Hopwin wrote:
DFK! wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
Constitutionally speaking isn't Item #1 illegal? Congress does not create the budget.


Actually, the House is the only body entitled to "originate" a budget.

I thought the Executive had to create it.


No, but the executive branch has ballooned to the point where it really needs to be heavily involved. What do you need this for, how are you going to spend this, etc.

Author:  Hopwin [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:

No, but the executive branch has ballooned to the point where it really needs to be heavily involved. What do you need this for, how are you going to spend this, etc.

Apparently you are wrong.

Quote:
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit the budget to Congress for each fiscal year which is the 12-month period beginning on October 1 and ending on September 30 of the next calendar year. The current federal budget law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires that the President submit the budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.

Author:  Diamondeye [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Make Congress Work

Proposing a budget and introducing spending bills are 2 different things.

Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Hopwin wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:

No, but the executive branch has ballooned to the point where it really needs to be heavily involved. What do you need this for, how are you going to spend this, etc.

Apparently you are wrong.

Quote:
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit the budget to Congress for each fiscal year which is the 12-month period beginning on October 1 and ending on September 30 of the next calendar year. The current federal budget law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires that the President submit the budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.


Yes, this is basically requiring the president to formally request funds and break down how he plans to spend them. Obviously, it's important for Congress to have this, or they are in the dark when the prepare the actual federal budget, which is Congress's responsibility. I assume that the president is only responsible for submitting a budget request for the executive branch.

Author:  Hopwin [ Thu Dec 05, 2013 10:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:

No, but the executive branch has ballooned to the point where it really needs to be heavily involved. What do you need this for, how are you going to spend this, etc.

Apparently you are wrong.

Quote:
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit the budget to Congress for each fiscal year which is the 12-month period beginning on October 1 and ending on September 30 of the next calendar year. The current federal budget law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires that the President submit the budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February.


Yes, this is basically requiring the president to formally request funds and break down how he plans to spend them. Obviously, it's important for Congress to have this, or they are in the dark when the prepare the actual federal budget, which is Congress's responsibility. I assume that the president is only responsible for submitting a budget request for the executive branch.

There is one Federal Budget.

Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/