Resurrecting Democracy

Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth

Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth

                        Robert A. Levine

The Democrats seem to be letting a great chance go by. They have too many candidates trying for the presidential nomination and there is not a strong unified message that is being presented. The candidates are spread from extreme left to right of center. Donald Trump is vulnerable and can be beaten, but only if the Democrats unite and produce a message of general appeal. Many of the candidates currently have no policies that they stand behind and nothing that separates them from the great mass running for president. Ask a citizen which candidate stands for what and you’ll generally get a blank stare.

The great number of candidates is because most of them believe Trump is in trouble and can be defeated. However, some are in the race just to get exposure, able to say that they ran for president. Perhaps it will help them with a later foray or a run for a different office. There are only a few who actually have a chance of being the Democratic candidate. It’s true that it’s very early, but most of the candidates have not gotten any traction with the populace. Some of the names are completely unrecognizable by rank and file Democrats. Maybe some of the candidates believe that they’ll get a bump from their performance in the debates or frequent appearances on cable TV programs. But it’s really not worthwhile for them to keep going if they can’t catch on.  And of course, many of them have been unable to raise sufficient funds to keep them viable. Trump has out raised the entire Democratic list combined.

There is also the hope that perhaps they’ll be able to catch lightning in a bottle like Mayor Pete, emerging out of nowhere to gain recognition, support, and dollars. But Mayor Pete has a compelling story that is different than other candidates, even though it’s been his personality rather than his policies that have given him a boost. It’s not likely that other candidates will be able to duplicate his rise. Most of them seem to be going nowhere, remaining behind in the overall pack.

Bernie Sanders scored a coup going onto Fox News for a town hall, seeming to electrify the audience and getting them behind him. If nothing else, it annoyed Trump who had considered Fox his personal domain. Now it seems that Mayor Pete may follow Sanders and perhaps a few more Democrats will also. Appearing on Fox seems quite reasonable as there may be voters watching there that the Democratic candidates might be unable to reach in any other way.

And Joe Biden has to either p--- or get off the pot. He’s dragging this out much too long. Is he in or out and what’s his position on the main issues. But it’s time now for some other Democrats to start dropping out, giving the more viable candidates a chance to get their messages across. Too many cooks really create an inedible stew.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

New Recipes for Stealing Elections

New Recipes for Stealing Elections

                                    Robert A. Levine  12-5-18

We know there’s hostility between our two political parties with conflict that’s beyond the pale, but the GOP has really gone over the top in finding ways to steal elections from the Democrats. I’m not even referencing the Trump debacle where it seems more and more likely that the Russians weighed in to help Putin’s buddy Donald win the presidential election to control Washington from the Kremlin. Hopefully, the Mueller probe will reveal the full extent of the Russian involvement.

But there’s so much sneakiness on a state level by the Republicans to win or control different offices. In North Carolina’s Ninth District for example, the GOP candidate Mark Harris was initially declared the winner by 905 votes in the recent election. Subsequently, it’s been learned that voluminous numbers of absentee ballots appear to have been harvested illegally by Harris’ team who went around collecting ballots from people who had requested them. Many had not been fully filled out and the same witnesses seem to have been used to validate many ballots. The election returns were thus obviously falsified. If North Carolina does not rescind the election and order a new one, Congress itself could refuse to seat Harris because of the questions about how he was supposedly elected.

North Carolina also engineered a new way to steal power from a newly elected Democratic governor, Roy Cooper in 2016. After he was elected but before he took office, the Republican legislature removed a number of functions from the governor’s office and allotted them to the legislature. The GOP governor at that time signed the bill transferring these powers to the legislature which remained in Republican hands. At the moment, the courts are still trying to decide how to resolve this naked theft of power from the Democratic governor. This theft is also being used as a model by the Wisconsin legislature and Governor Scott Walker who lost the governor’s race to a Democrat in 2018. Prior to the new governor taking office, the legislature and Walker are trying to curb the function and power of this newly elected official and handing them to the legislature which is still controlled by Republicans.

Voter ID laws have also been used in a number of Republican controlled states to disenfranchise Democratic minority voters. This tactic undoubtedly helped Governor Rick Scott beat Democrat Bill Nelson in the Senate race in Florida and also elected Ron DeSantis as governor. (Before Scott was elected governor of Florida, he had been CEO of Columbia/HCA Health Care which defrauded Medicare of $1.7 billion. He should have gone to prison instead of being elected governor and senator from Florida.)

One of the most disgusting thefts occurred in the Georgia governor’s race in 2018. Republican Brian Kemp, who was Georgia’s Secretary of State responsible for managing elections, was the GOP’s candidate for governor and refused to step down from his position before the election. In other words, he was managing an election in which he himself was running, denying there was any conflict of interest. Prior to the election, Kemp purged tens of thousands of voters from the rolls because they had not voted in the previous election. He also delayed registering 53,000 voters without notifying them. Both the purged group and the unregistered group were overwhelmingly black and in all likelihood would have supported Kemp’s opponent, Stacy Abrams, a Democrat who was also black. The vote totals were very close, below 2 percent. Chalk up another stolen election to the Republicans.

And of course there is the continuing problem with gerrymandering which gives Republicans extra seats in Congress and the state legislatures that they should not have received considering the vote totals in different states. This is legalized robbery in its most blatant form with judges reluctant to address it.

Actually, many of the problems with voting rights and stolen elections can be traced back to the conservative Supreme Court which suspended important clauses of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 2013. The Court said they were no longer necessary because there was no evidence of persistent bias prohibiting minorities from voting and that federal monitoring of the states that had impeded civil rights could be stopped. What world were the conservative Supreme Court Justices living in? As soon as the Court ruled, states controlled by biased Republicans passed various rules that suppressed voting by minorities and stole elections. Democracy in action.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

What's Next

What Next?

            Robert A. Levine  11-7-18

It was an ambivalent Election Day for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats flipped House but lost ground in Senate and certainly did not have a mandate. Republicans won governorships in Ohio, Florida, and Georgia, three important states for 2020 and future gerrymandering. The winners were deep Trumpers and Cordray’s loss for Ohio governor after all he had done to protect the little guys as head of the Consumer Protection Agency under Obama was a bad defeat.  Trump can look at the elections as a win for him as his candidates won in most of the places he chose to hold rallies- Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana, Florida.

So where does America go from here. With Congress split, the Democrats holding the House and the GOP controlling the Senate, does that mean more bipartisanship or more gridlock. Will the two parties be able to work together or will there be more conflict?  Some of the answers lie with the House leadership. If the Democrats start off by concentrating on policy initiatives, they may be able to get something done with the help of Republicans. If they start off with investigations of the Trump administration, conflict with Trump and the GOP is inevitable. This is not to say that investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election should not occur. But policy moves should come first.

The country is in dire need of infrastructure repair and replacement, from highways, bridges and tunnels, to trains and mass transit. The roads are so congested in so many areas that valuable time is being wasted by people commuting to and from work. And bridges, highways, tunnels, water systems, and sewers are crumbling, many of them built over a century ago and never repaired or modernized. Lead and other toxins are contaminating many water systems besides Flint. Not enough effort is being made to find them and fix them.

And our mass transit systems are a disaster. While China, Japan, and Europe have superfast trains to transport their citizens all around their countries and to commute into and between their cities, America’s trains and subways are hundred year old relics that are constantly breaking down. If the money the federal government lost on the recent tax cut had been used for infrastructure updating, it would have been of much greater economic value to the nation. The time lost in travel and commuting could have been used for much more productive purposes.

Climate change and the use of fossil fuels must also be addressed though it may be difficult with President Trump in the driver's seat. Perhaps he could be made to see the benefit of a carbon tax, or a trade off can be made for some other issue he favors. However, it is done, it must be done.

Health care is another area that demands repair. Not only must care for pre-existing conditions be guaranteed, but care must be made more affordable for everyone. While the price of medications should be made reasonable, physicians should not be paid on the basis of the volume of patients seen or the number of procedures performed. This provides physicians with the wrong incentives and drives costs up.

The recent tax cut should also be reduced and redirected so that the middle classes are the main beneficiaries instead of the ultra wealthy. And punishment of the high tax blue states must be changed to reflect residents real income after state and municipal taxes. Property tax deductions can be argued either way. A DACA deal must also be made to protect those poor kids and young adults who are in limbo.

The Mueller investigation should be completed and protected to see the role Russian actors played in the 2016 election and if any Americans were complicit. And Trump’s tax returns should be made transparent as has been the tradition for American presidential candidates for decades. He may yell and scream about it but many Americans have been wondering what it is he has been hiding.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Democracy In Decline

Democracy In Decline

                        Robert A. Levine  11-1-18

In addition to the horrific episodes that have occurred in America recently to tarnish our democracy, the democratic process appears to be in decline around the world. Under the aegis of Donald Trump, Americans have seen the murder of two black people shot by a white racist because they were black, explosive devices mailed to a number of Democratic officials by a crazed Trump supporter, and the killing of eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue while they were praying by a white supremacist shouting “all Jews must die.” None of these episodes resulted in phone calls by the president to the targets or families, or Trump halting his campaigning for a few days, carrying on as if nothing had happened. He did not disavow being a nationalist (white), claiming that George Soros might have paid the Central American migrants in the Mexican caravan to invade America, sent more troops to the border to halt this invasion of mostly women and children, did not reunite all the children who had been separated from their parents previously on Trump’s orders,  and said that he was ending birthright citizenship which is guaranteed in the Constitution and beyond a president’s powers to end.

Besides the turmoil in America’s democracy Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing white supremacist has just been elected as president of Brazil, saying that the police will have orders to kill criminals on sight and left-wing opponents will be killed or deported. Brazil was the world’s fourth largest democracy with a population estimated at over 208 million. Venezuela under Ortega has been a dictatorship for well over a decade, with Maduro following Chavez and the nation in chaos.

Sri Lanka is in the midst of a constitutional crisis with the president firing the prime minister who has a majority in parliament and bringing back a corrupt former prime minister who is close to China. The president had previously supported the prime minister he fired.

Germany, the bedrock of stability in Europe has just seen Angela Merkel, the prime minister give up her position as head of the Christian Democratic Party and will step down from her office with the next election. This is happening during the period that England is due to leave the European Union because of Brexit and the future of the confederation is uncertain. Also during this period, the new populist government of Italy is in conflict with the E.U. over spending limits, unwilling to adhere to previously agreed upon restrictions. In Germany, the AFD, a neo-Nazi party appears to be slowly gaining strength while the centrist parties are shedding members.

Eastern and Central Europe are also straying from the path of democracy. Hungary under Victor Orban has turned into what he calls an “illiberal democracy” but is really an autocratic state. Poland is also turning autocratic, ignoring all the aid they received from the E.U. when Poland was democratic.

India, the largest democracy in the world, is under the control of a right-wing Hindu party led by Prime Minister Modi who is becoming increasingly autocratic. A multi-ethnic country, India is now dominated by Hindu ideology, with vigilante killings of those who disregard sacred Hindu theologic ideas such as killing cows or eating beef.

Pakistan, a supposed democracy and the arch-enemy of India, is really controlled by the military that allows Muslim extremists to flout secular laws. The Talaban is also allowed free rein to cross into Afghanistan and fight the government and American forces, before returning to sanctuary in Pakistan.

The Philippines has turned into a dictatorship under President Dutarte who has exhorted law enforcement to kill all drug dealers and drug users extra-judicially. Dutarte’s enemies are also being killed or winding up in prison. He claims to have killed a number of drug users himself.

Turkey, once the hope for democracy in the Middle East, has become an autocratic state under the aegis of President Erdogan who rules with an iron hand. A populist and Islamist, his main support is from the rural uneducated population who voted him into office.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Tunisia is the only state that could generously be called a democracy. And most of Africa is under autocratic rule.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and Fukuyama declared the end of history, most political scientists believed that liberal democracy was going to be the default governing system for the world. Instead, democracy is now in decline virtually everywhere. And leadership from America to reverse the situation is completely absent.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

When Will The End Be In Sight?

When Will The End Be In Sight?

            Robert A. Levine

Is the end finally in sight? Aren't you tired of politics dominating our lives. We are approaching the finish line of the 2018 election marathon, with the winners still to be determined. Though the results are enormously important, a new election marathon that will finish in 2020 starts immediately after the 2018 race is over. It has reached a point where the competition and electioneering never stops. Is it any wonder that the voting turnout is consistently low? How do you keep citizens’ interest in politics at a constant pitch with warnings of Armageddon if this candidate wins and a nasty depression if his or her opponent triumphs. It’s too much for most Americans to take seriously and keep abreast of what’s happening in Washington and the state capitals. And what will happen if so and so is elected to office.

Our election system would be so much better if the campaigns for office did not start until six months before Election Day, consolidating the political process. Voters would be able to pay much more attention to the candidates and their policies than with our current non-stop campaigns. If other democracies can do it, why can’t we? Of course, that would be a problem for our cable networks that try and get viewers addicted to politics and continuously stir up the political pot. They build the tension that captures viewers’ brains. And the newspapers and other media outlets are compliant in keeping the focus on the future elections.

Of course, the political parties are also guilty, demonizing their opponents with tales of the disasters that await the country if these other people are elected. It is all a ploy to pull in more money from party supporters and those who believe the stories told. To save America from the bad guys, the parties must be strong, each party needing the other as a realistic enemy. But enough citizens accept the tales of disaster to contribute money and watch the political cable networks, replacing Survivor and the game shows.

But the politicizing of our lives is not good for America. Tribalism is increased along with the antagonism between groups, making it more difficult for the parties to compromise and govern effectively. Even if a policy is good, you don’t want to support the other guys who will get credit for it. Politics 24/7 also makes it more difficult to bring people together, denigrating our common heritage and principles. The question is how do we change the pattern when so many people and organizations have an interest in keeping politics at the forefront of our lives, day in and day out. They are content with the continuous electioneering, campaigning, and politicizing the world. Democracy needs a savior, a middle-of-the-roader, who will deemphasize politics, compromise on issues, and have Americans work together for our common good. But where will such a person be found and how will he or she ever get elected?

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

When Will The End Be In Sight?

When Will The End Be In Sight?

            Robert A. Levine

Is the end finally in sight? Aren't you tired of politics dominating our lives. We are approaching the finish line of the 2018 election marathon, with the winners still to be determined. Though the results are enormously important, a new election marathon that will finish in 2020 starts immediately after the 2018 race is over. It has reached a point where the competition and electioneering never stops. Is it any wonder that the voting turnout is consistently low? How do you keep citizens’ interest in politics at a constant pitch with warnings of Armageddon if this candidate wins and a nasty depression if his or her opponent triumphs. It’s too much for most Americans to take seriously and keep abreast of what’s happening in Washington and the state capitals. And what will happen if so and so is elected to office.

Our election system would be so much better if the campaigns for office did not start until six months before Election Day, consolidating the political process. Voters would be able to pay much more attention to the candidates and their policies than with our current non-stop campaigns. If other democracies can do it, why can’t we? Of course, that would be a problem for our cable networks that try and get viewers addicted to politics and continuously stir up the political pot. They build the tension that captures viewers’ brains. And the newspapers and other media outlets are compliant in keeping the focus on the future elections.

Of course, the political parties are also guilty, demonizing their opponents with tales of the disasters that await the country if these other people are elected. It is all a ploy to pull in more money from party supporters and those who believe the stories told. To save America from the bad guys, the parties must be strong, each party needing the other as a realistic enemy. But enough citizens accept the tales of disaster to contribute money and watch the political cable networks, replacing Survivor and the game shows.

But the politicizing of our lives is not good for America. Tribalism is increased along with the antagonism between groups, making it more difficult for the parties to compromise and govern effectively. Even if a policy is good, you don’t want to support the other guys who will get credit for it. Politics 24/7 also makes it more difficult to bring people together, denigrating our common heritage and principles. The question is how do we change the pattern when so many people and organizations have an interest in keeping politics at the forefront of our lives, day in and day out. They are content with the continuous electioneering, campaigning, and politicizing the world. Democracy needs a savior, a middle-of-the-roader, who will deemphasize politics, compromise on issues, and have Americans work together for our common good. But where will such a person be found and how will he or she ever get elected?

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Why Are Political Tribalism and Irrational Behavior Flourishing?

Why Are Tribalism and Irrational Behavior Flourishing?

                        Robert A. Levine

Tribalism, nationalism and populism have exploded over the last several decades. The most important reason for this may be the need for people to belong to a group, often giving them a feeling of superiority to others. In their belonging, they often vote with their group, disregarding facts or ignorant of who stands for what in the contests. Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University believes that most voters are irrational rather than ignorant when they make their choices in the voting booth, examining this concept in his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter. Voters have systemic biases that move policies in certain directions. They may also be more impressionable than expected, accepting false or skewed information as valid without analysis because they are pleased by the way a candidate sounds, looks, or dresses, or because their group supports this candidate. Indeed, voters’ beliefs may not emerge coherently from the facts due to irrationality, from ignorance, a lack of interest or ignoring evidence.

The idea that humans are irrational in their decisions has come from many sources, reinforced by the behavioral psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Twersky. Though their work was applied particularly to economics, it is true in the way people make all their choices, including political ones. Everyone has biases that influence decisions. Emotions and past experiences may play a role. In picking candidates to support, the wording of slogans may strike emotional chords, eliciting positive or negative reactions. A study at University College London suggests that rational behavior may depend on ability to override automatic emotional reactions to stimuli and not a complete absence of emotions. Can citizens with more knowledge about politics and government act more rationally than others when voting?

That our decisions are rational has also been challenged by Steven Sloman and Philip Fernback in their book The Knowledge Illusion. They believe that human beings seldom think for themselves, instead tending to think in groups. Because existence is becoming more complex with knowledge in many areas expanding geometrically, men and women are unable to master the flood of information and depend on experts to explain the universe and how things work. In addition to scientific data, facts regarding politics, economics, technology, and what is happening in the world come from sources other than our own experiences. And many of our beliefs are molded by the groups of which we are a part instead of our own thought processes. Even scientific facts may not change people’s ideas of reality, as we have seen with global warming.

Illustrating this mind set, avid partisans are bound to political tribal cultures that have specific world-views and provide information for their adherents, making it unnecessary for individuals to gather their own data on different issues and candidates. These cultures stamp their supporters with defined identities, making it difficult for tribal members to adopt contrasting ideas or switch political parties. And each tribe gets its news from designated sources, with major differences in how matters are interpreted. Many people vote for a particular party’s candidates because their family, friends and neighbors also back that party. In certain regions of the country, voting for a party’s candidates verge on automatic, without second thoughts.

Large proportions of GOP and Democratic tribal cultures adhere to rigid social beliefs in opposition to each other, such as on abortion, same sex marriage, and gun control. Because of these differences, they demonize each other and have trouble communicating and compromising on other issues. Tribal members’ economic interests may not motivate them to vote for candidates as much as stances on social issues. There are some who see the nation’s elections as a cultural civil war, with white rural Christian America fighting against urban diversity and demographic changes. Tribal cultures may have different viewpoints on morality and virtuous conduct, believing themselves morally superior to opposing tribes. In fact, differing convictions may be seen as immoral, leading to disdain and hatred for other tribes, prompting social separation, in-group loyalty and an unwillingness to work with opponents. This problem escalates when morality is conceived in absolute terms. Political tribal adherence has grown over the years, substituting for other groups that have faded, but once provided a sense of community and belonging. These included unions, churches, clubs, lodges, VFWs, and so forth. Many were remnants of an old-time America that is now mostly gone. Instead, Americans are left with belonging to political tribes which are as divisive as much as inclusive.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Kavanaugh Chronicles

The Kavanaugh Chronicles

                        Robert A. Levine  10-3-18

There wasn’t enough chaos in Washington or throughout the country, so President Trump decided to choose Bret Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. He looked like a justice to Trump, big, tough, and masculine, which are apparently the characteristics the president most admires in those he selects for his top positions. However, these same characteristics flourished during Kavanaugh’s teenage years and in his twenties, causing him to drink excessively and likely sexually abuse women. Coming from an affluent, successful family, and attending a private school and then Yale, Kavanaugh felt entitled to behave as he wished, and if people didn’t like it they could screw themselves.

Unfortunately, his feelings of entitlement and unconstrained anger emerged during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and on national television, showing the world that he did not have what is known as a ‘judicial temperament.’ In a position on the Supreme Court, this would be dangerous, but it is also unseemly and alarming to have someone with this quality on the Court of Appeals, or on any court. A stolid individual in control of his or her emotions is needed to judge other people.

Of course, Trump loved Kavanaugh’s display of yelling and rage, believing that his base would also love the show of male dominance when confronting women who do not accept male superiority. The pent-up anger in Trump’s white male base about their loss of patriarchy was also revealed by Senator Lindsey Graham in an unexpected outburst on the Judicial Committee against the Democrats. (Graham may be auditioning for a post as Attorney General to do Trump’s bidding.)

Though Mitch McConnell wanted to move ahead with Kavanaugh’s confirmation and ram it through the Senate, Jeff Flake’s insistence on having further investigation by the FBI forced a week’s delay in the vote. However, Trump’s direction to the FBI has apparently limited its ‘inquiry’ and many potential witnesses are not being interviewed, possibly including Dr. Blasey-Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Trump was obviously fearful that an extensive investigation by the FBI might have found information that validated Blasey-Ford’s story or revealed holes in Kavanaugh’s tale, particularly involving his excessive drinking. That would have shown him to have lied to the Judicial Committee and would have likely ended his chances of confirmation. Interestingly, polls have shown that even if Blasey-Ford’s recollection was correct or that Kavanaugh had lied to the Judicial Committee, a majority of Republicans still wanted him to be confirmed and to have a seat on the Supreme Court.

In this day of tribal politics, character appears not to count for anything. Partisans want judges and government officials who agree with their ideological bent, and whether they are liars, thieves or ax murderers does not seem to matter. Having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court whether or not his transgressions occurred, and whether he lied about them, and whether his temperament is inappropriate for a judge, are all being dismissed by conservatives. The only thing that counts is that he brings a five to four conservative majority to the Supreme Court and is young enough to remain on the Court for decades.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congressional Inefficiency

Congressional Inefficiency

                        Robert A. Levine

Though this week America is focused on John McCain’s death, and is otherwise mesmerized by Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Manafort, regular life in Washington goes on. The government’s lack of accomplishment under Trump falls squarely on the shoulder of a barely functioning Congress. Given that the last several sessions of Congress have been among the least productive in history, efficiency and Congress are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. The 112th Congress in 2011 and 2012 passed a total of 284 laws, the 113th Congress from 2013 and 2014 296 laws, the 114^th Congress 329 laws in 2015-2016. The first year of Trump’s White House sojourn with the GOP controlling Congress has been even worse with only 123 laws enacted. This compares with 600-800 laws per session twenty to forty years earlier.

All bills dealing with appropriations or revenue are supposed to originate in the House. Confirmations of cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and treaties are within the province of the Senate through the Constitution’s “advice and consent” provisions. The House is able to indict or impeach federal officials by a majority vote while the Senate has the power to try all impeachments and remove officeholders by a two thirds vote. The growth of Congressional inefficiency and Congress’s inability to enact new laws is directly related to partisanship and the unwillingness of those with extreme ideologies to compromise.

            Another critical factor undermining efficiency is the two year election cycle for the House. Every day Congress is in session, members of both parties use ‘call time’ to solicit funds from potential donors over the phone. In addition, they attend fundraisers in the capital or in their districts. The quest for money never stops. An orientation session for freshman by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee anticipated a nine to ten hour working day for House members. Four hours were to be spent in ‘call time’ and an additional hour for ‘strategic outreach’ devoted to press contact and fundraisers. Another hour was set aside to ‘recharge,’ with three to four hours allotted for the real work of a lawmaker: hearings, discussions, votes on legislation and resolutions, and meetings with constituents. If the latter are potential donors, more time may be required to spend with them.

            Since the Senate has a six year election cycle, there is less pressure in terms of constant fundraising. Legislating, hearings, interacting with other senators, occasional trips back home to make appearances before constituents, and some fundraising are part of a Senator’s schedule.  But as an election approaches, everything changes. According to former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Dasche, during the last two years of a senator’s term, two thirds of every day is spent raising money. Daschle noted Senators had to collect an average of $10,000 for every day of the six years they were in office to come up with the amount spent in most Senate contests. In both House and Senate, fundraising competes with the work of legislating, frustrating lawmakers who want to do a decent job.

The structure of Congress and practices with historical resonance also play a role in inefficiency. Bills may be introduced in either body of Congress and those ratified in the Senate or House go to the other branch. This usually results in some changes in wording or substance. Amendments not connected may also be attached to the original bill, hoping to obtain quick passage of something unrelated. If there are great differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill, it may go to a conference committee of the two branches to work out the differences. Assuming the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader believe the changes will result in passage, the bill then returns to each body of Congress for votes of approval.

Even if a bill has majority support in the House, if there is Republican control, a GOP Speaker may keep it from coming to the floor for a vote because of the ‘Hastert Rule.’ Formulated by Speaker Hastert in the mid-1990s, it requires a majority of the majority (the Republican caucus) to pass a bill before it can go to the floor. This means that even if Democrats and a minority of Republicans support a bill, it cannot be voted upon because consideration will not be allowed. The Speaker has significant power and may also not permit bills to reach the floor if he or she opposes them. On the other hand, bills or resolutions may be rushed through the House if the Speaker favors them.

Usually, there is a lengthy process bills follow in the House before coming to the floor. A subcommittee of a standing committee with jurisdiction holds hearings, interviewing witnesses and possibly experts in the field. Sometimes jurisdiction over a measure is divided between two committees that may hold separate hearings. If the leader of the subcommittee and a majority of its members approve of a bill, it will be sent on to the full committee. Then further hearings may or may not take place before the full committee votes on the bill. Before or after a vote, the Chairman may keep the legislation bottled up in the committee if there are aspects he or she does not like. Special rules on legislation may be generated by the House Rules Committee, (controlled by the majority), when major bills are to be considered.

The Rules Committee may also bring up bills for deliberation pending before Standing Committees, though this is rarely done. Thirty days after a measure has been referred to a committee, a motion to discharge it and bring it to the House floor can occur with approval of 218 members. Filing a discharge petition, or threatening to do so, may hasten committee action on a bill, but it is unlikely to get to the floor over the objection of the Committee Chairman. The Speaker of the House is also responsible for recognizing members, allowing them to speak, and ruling on points of order (which are rarely appealed). Because of the number of Representatives, time allocated to debate a measure is generally limited.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs a majority of its hundred members to be in session. Because the Constitution mandated two senators from each state, senators from the twenty-six least populous states with 18 percent of the nation’s citizens can decide legislation. Gerrymandering also allows House members representing a minority of citizens to control the legislative process. Unfortunately, these are among a number of flaws in the Constitution that conservatives are unwilling to change.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congressional Inefficiency

Congressional Inefficiency

                        Robert A. Levine

Though this week America is focused on John McCain’s death, and is otherwise mesmerized by Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Manafort, regular life in Washington goes on. The government’s lack of accomplishment under Trump falls squarely on the shoulder of a barely functioning Congress. Given that the last several sessions of Congress have been among the least productive in history, efficiency and Congress are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. The 112th Congress in 2011 and 2012 passed a total of 284 laws, the 113th Congress from 2013 and 2014 296 laws, the 114^th Congress 329 laws in 2015-2016. The first year of Trump’s White House sojourn with the GOP controlling Congress has been even worse with only 123 laws enacted. This compares with 600-800 laws per session twenty to forty years earlier.

All bills dealing with appropriations or revenue are supposed to originate in the House. Confirmations of cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and treaties are within the province of the Senate through the Constitution’s “advice and consent” provisions. The House is able to indict or impeach federal officials by a majority vote while the Senate has the power to try all impeachments and remove officeholders by a two thirds vote. The growth of Congressional inefficiency and Congress’s inability to enact new laws is directly related to partisanship and the unwillingness of those with extreme ideologies to compromise.

            Another critical factor undermining efficiency is the two year election cycle for the House. Every day Congress is in session, members of both parties use ‘call time’ to solicit funds from potential donors over the phone. In addition, they attend fundraisers in the capital or in their districts. The quest for money never stops. An orientation session for freshman by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee anticipated a nine to ten hour working day for House members. Four hours were to be spent in ‘call time’ and an additional hour for ‘strategic outreach’ devoted to press contact and fundraisers. Another hour was set aside to ‘recharge,’ with three to four hours allotted for the real work of a lawmaker: hearings, discussions, votes on legislation and resolutions, and meetings with constituents. If the latter are potential donors, more time may be required to spend with them.

            Since the Senate has a six year election cycle, there is less pressure in terms of constant fundraising. Legislating, hearings, interacting with other senators, occasional trips back home to make appearances before constituents, and some fundraising are part of a Senator’s schedule.  But as an election approaches, everything changes. According to former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Dasche, during the last two years of a senator’s term, two thirds of every day is spent raising money. Daschle noted Senators had to collect an average of $10,000 for every day of the six years they were in office to come up with the amount spent in most Senate contests. In both House and Senate, fundraising competes with the work of legislating, frustrating lawmakers who want to do a decent job.

The structure of Congress and practices with historical resonance also play a role in inefficiency. Bills may be introduced in either body of Congress and those ratified in the Senate or House go to the other branch. This usually results in some changes in wording or substance. Amendments not connected may also be attached to the original bill, hoping to obtain quick passage of something unrelated. If there are great differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill, it may go to a conference committee of the two branches to work out the differences. Assuming the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader believe the changes will result in passage, the bill then returns to each body of Congress for votes of approval.

Even if a bill has majority support in the House, if there is Republican control, a GOP Speaker may keep it from coming to the floor for a vote because of the ‘Hastert Rule.’ Formulated by Speaker Hastert in the mid-1990s, it requires a majority of the majority (the Republican caucus) to pass a bill before it can go to the floor. This means that even if Democrats and a minority of Republicans support a bill, it cannot be voted upon because consideration will not be allowed. The Speaker has significant power and may also not permit bills to reach the floor if he or she opposes them. On the other hand, bills or resolutions may be rushed through the House if the Speaker favors them.

Usually, there is a lengthy process bills follow in the House before coming to the floor. A subcommittee of a standing committee with jurisdiction holds hearings, interviewing witnesses and possibly experts in the field. Sometimes jurisdiction over a measure is divided between two committees that may hold separate hearings. If the leader of the subcommittee and a majority of its members approve of a bill, it will be sent on to the full committee. Then further hearings may or may not take place before the full committee votes on the bill. Before or after a vote, the Chairman may keep the legislation bottled up in the committee if there are aspects he or she does not like. Special rules on legislation may be generated by the House Rules Committee, (controlled by the majority), when major bills are to be considered.

The Rules Committee may also bring up bills for deliberation pending before Standing Committees, though this is rarely done. Thirty days after a measure has been referred to a committee, a motion to discharge it and bring it to the House floor can occur with approval of 218 members. Filing a discharge petition, or threatening to do so, may hasten committee action on a bill, but it is unlikely to get to the floor over the objection of the Committee Chairman. The Speaker of the House is also responsible for recognizing members, allowing them to speak, and ruling on points of order (which are rarely appealed). Because of the number of Representatives, time allocated to debate a measure is generally limited.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs a majority of its hundred members to be in session. Because the Constitution mandated two senators from each state, senators from the twenty-six least populous states with 18 percent of the nation’s citizens can decide legislation. Gerrymandering also allows House members representing a minority of citizens to control the legislative process. Unfortunately, these are among a number of flaws in the Constitution that conservatives are unwilling to change.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com