New Congress may have old look after election

Comments (21)
fromthecenter wrote:

I’m not sure what needs to be done, the congress has done nothing the last two years and they all get relected? Personally, I’d like to see term limits for all politicians.

Nov 03, 2012 3:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
hariknaidu wrote:

Contrary to your predictions and whatnots, Nov 6 will produce a majority of +65 Dem Senators and GOP House will be either reduced to single digits or replaced by a thin Dem margin plurality.

Obama will win by 335+ electoral majority which translates into a possible House turnover and Peolosi’s return to Speaker.

Nov 03, 2012 5:16am EDT  --  Report as abuse
minutemanII wrote:

Scholars of Congress generally regard the current version as one of least productive – and most destructive – in modern history.

Traditionally, of one fails to perform their job as expected, they get fired…why are these yokels still holding theirs, getting paid to do nothing? And as for the Super Congress, they’ve accomplished zero, when I thought their job was to tackle and resolve issues that the “regular Congress” couldn’t manage. Worthless and ineffective, and
“most destructive in modern history” should be a wake-up call for
all of us. Vote them out of existance…we don’t need them.

Nov 03, 2012 5:57am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Jim_Dandy wrote:

Yes, I miss Madame Pelosi’s, “we’ll just have to pass it to see what’s in it.” Both parties are full of losers or is that hosers.

Nov 03, 2012 6:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JimONeill wrote:

I have seen the enemy and he is us. We do this to ourselves when we keep electing a dysfunctional Congress.

Smaller government is not always better government as we have seen when Sandy hit the Northeast. There are things worth paying taxes for and FEMA is one of them, so long as FEMA has good leadership.

The Tea Party is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Why these people may get reelected is byond belief. They are part of the reason that legislation has been constipated for two years. Plenty of bills are introduced but few new laws come out. As a citizen, this is a frustration for me.

Nov 03, 2012 7:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse

This is a reflection of the dementia gripping the voting
public. People are “fed up” with Congress but vote for the
same people all over again. The people don’t get it. They’re
grinding axes and are destroying themselves in the
process.

Nov 03, 2012 7:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
joe10082 wrote:

Its a mystery that so many of our career politicians will survive this election. They have done nothing to contribute to the stability of this nation in the last decade, and past precedent says that they will do noting but bicker in the future. America deserves so much better representation than what we now have. The blind are leading the blind. The future of America is darker for their continuing presence in Congress. May God save America!Our only hope.

Nov 03, 2012 7:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse

The truth is that either President Obama or Romney will not have the mandate or Majorities that President Obama enjoyed and squandered when he first took office. The House will be Republican controlled and neither party will have a super majority in the Senate. The appointment of Supreme court judges will be important. What will be most important is getting the Fiscal health of the country restored. I am hoping that Romney is elected and serves one term. Then we start replacing everyone else that has served more than one term until the voice of the people is what the Government hears Loud and Clear.

Nov 03, 2012 8:17am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JimONeill wrote:

DennisVictor223: I share your frustration but do not agree that Obama squandered his majority. He inherited a mess when he assumed office. The global economy was going over a cliff and we were involved in two wars. In spite of that, he managed to get Obamacare passed and there is a lot of good in that law.

I believe that the Democrats lost control of the House because of the poor economy and not because of what Obama did. No president can turn an economy around. The economy does not work that way.

Nov 03, 2012 9:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse

To DennisVictor233: Obama did not have a majority in reality.
There are conservative Democrats that vote against “their” party.
It would be interesting to know what the “voice of the people”
are thinking in your judgement.

Nov 03, 2012 9:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Stickystones wrote:

DennisVictor is absolutely right and term limits are the best solution. I don’t know what hariknaidu is smoking, but it must be good stuff! If Romney has a majority in the house & senate for only two years of his presidency; and we didn’t see a signficant improvement in the economy – then I’ll vote against him in the next election. Blaming Bush or Republicans for Obama’s lack of action is delusional.

Nov 03, 2012 10:51am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rich_F wrote:

both parties are full of failures. their ideologies are so far apart that no progress can be made. now all we have is vitriol, demagoguery and finger pointing to cover up for failed leadership in all 3 branches of government. throw all incumbents out even if the baby goes out with the bathwater at least you get rid of the majority of it which is pond scum.

Nov 03, 2012 11:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
JimONeill wrote:

Rich_F: Stop giving pond scum a bad name.

Nov 03, 2012 11:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
totherepublic wrote:

Expect nothing that is what you get, of them and yourselves. Raise your standards as a people-quit living like a buch of scum sucking maggots-and Congress will follow your example. It is not what you know or say that defines a culture it is what you do and accomplish as indiviuals that sets that standard. Congress is a represention of US and our society. What we as a people have to offer as leaders. When we look at DC we are looking in the mirror. Own it!

Nov 03, 2012 1:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Progression wrote:

@hariknaidu

What are you smoking? Were you around in 2010? The Republicans took 60+ seats in the house. Were you are in 2012? Scott Walker held off the Democrats in a recall bid, in a “Democrat” state. Why did this happen? Obama is a polarizing President, and he has motivated his enemies, as he calls half of America. If Obama wins it will be by less than 30 electoral votes. There is no way he wins by 335 electoral votes, that is preposterous.

Nov 03, 2012 1:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

We have the lowest approval ratings for Congress in modern times, and yet, the status quo may continue unchanged. Why? Because when Americans disapprove of Congress, the thinking is, “the whole collective body is a disaster, but MY GUY is doing a good job, so I’m going to vote to re-elect HIM.”

Also, whomever we elect to the White House, we have a tendency to vote in the opposition party to the House or Senate, or both chambers. Call it a latent, general belief in Checks and Balances, which is how this republic is designed to operate, ie, slowly, stubbornly, but steadily and hopefully effectively.

Problem is, that even in the vernacular, “compromise” has come to denote something negative or bad, as in, “the integrity of the bridge was ‘compromised’ by the extreme weather”.

But while this Union was designed on Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers, one of the pillars for its successful and effective functioning is, and has been, the act of COMPROMISE!

As far as the uncompromising Tea Party goes, well, they hate only what they perceive as “Big Government”. They like big government just fine when it helps them out, or is to their advantage, just like most Republicans. It’s only bad when it helps someone else.

Nov 03, 2012 2:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

@Sylvan- Unfortunately, cable operators are not considered “public airways”, and are therefore not subject to the same rules as broadcasters under the FCC.

Thus, Fox, CNN, MSNBC and others can do junk journalism and pretend to be reporting news when they are really blatantly editorializing and pontificating, or spewing outright propaganda, and have scores of entertainers posing as pundits or analysts.

For cable “news” outlets, it is perhaps way past time to change the rules, and make them more in line with same rules of fairness and objectivity that, in theory though not always in practice, the broadcast journalism networks have to abide by. The changes are way past due, in my opinion.

Nov 03, 2012 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
StephenIngman wrote:

I am an Australian who has long had an interest in America and its wonderful people. I am thus on the outside, looking in and seeing a different perspective to its political difficulties. I have read many comments such as the above and am amazed that nobody questions the system. To me all the actors in your system are playing the role assigned to them by the Constitution. The US system was set up to mirror the roles of the UK in the 18th century. The president is an elected king. There is even a line of succession that parallels a monarchical line of succession, “the king is dead, long live the king”.

The chief problem I see is that there are three bodies, each on different electoral cycles and which each have effective power of veto, and in the Senate a 60% majority is required, so big questions are rarely resolved. Obamacare got through Congress due to a rare confluence of all three bodies being on the same side.

In Australia there are two effective bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Governor General has to approve legislation but is a rubber stamp. There are often conflicts between the two houses, but in the end difficult economic questions usually get resolved. With any change to economic policy there will always be winners and losers, and the losers will scream very loud indeed. If they are big vested interests they can influence politics via attack ads, etc.

In the UK there is only one effective body. The Lords and the Queen are rubber stamps. Whatever the virtue of the recent UK austerity measures, they would not have got through the US system, and probably not through the Australian one either.
My recommendation would be to either abolish the Senate, or make the President a ceremonial office only, thus he/she would be a modern king/queen.

On the plus side, the Supreme Court has stepped into the breach and created rulings on abortion and civil rights that would normally be the prerogative of elected officials but which your political system could not resolve. Another plus is that your politicians are more likely to cross the floor than ours are.

Finally a radical thought. If both our countries abolished political parties we would remove the adversarial attack dog nature of politics and create consensus building on each issue. Also our Parliament/Congress would be closer to the world in which they were created.

Nov 03, 2012 10:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

StevenIngman says- “The US system was set up to mirror the roles of the UK in the 18th century. The president is an elected king.”

Kings are not elected. You have no idea of what you’re talking about, Steven.

Sure, we set it all up. We sent letters across the north Atlantic to the British, saying, “Um, look, we’ll take the leadership role in the world, um, as soon as you British are ready to relinquish it.”

No problem.

Nov 03, 2012 12:18am EDT  --  Report as abuse
StephenIngman wrote:

ZenGalacticore, I quite appreciate that the president is not an actual king. The model the Founding Fathers had for the US system of government was that of 18th century England, so they installed some features of it. In the same time the UK has evolved from George III who had real power to the Queen who has none.

Similarly Australia adopted some features of the US system as we are also a federation of states. Our federation is 112 years old and our constitution is also getting out of date.

I think the US overdid the checks and balances so that governing the country is very difficult. This is my central point. I believe that the root cause of, for instance the inability to manage state debt, is the system rather than the specific politicians or parties. Once a government is elected it should be able to govern and tread on a few toes if necessary. No one seems to own the US economy or have full power over it, problems are the fault of one or both of the other two arms of government.

Thus I think that the US debt problem will only be fixed when the deeper government structural problem is fixed. A minimal start would be changing the 60% majority needed in the Senate to 50% by removing the filibuster.

Another example is putting a price on carbon to tackle climate change. Australia introduced a carbon tax this year. This was bitterly opposed by the opposition who mounted a blistering scare campaign. It only very narrowly got through parliament, but became law nonetheless. China starts trialling an emissions trading scheme in seven cities next year with a view to rolling it out across the country in 2015. Europe has had a trading scheme for years. California starts a trading scheme next year. Although the US is more affected by climate change than most, it can’t get its act together. The US policy in this area is doubly important because it provides leadership by example to many other countries, so actions by the US will have a multiplier affect beyond its own actions.

Nov 04, 2012 1:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Patriot_70 wrote:

Bill Nelson doesn’t stand a snowballs chance south of the Down Under, and with 6 other democrats retiring and the absolutely FURIOUS attitude towards democrats this year, my guess is that the Senate will lose about 20 of the 33 contested seats.

But only if Republicans get out and vote!

Nov 04, 2012 11:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.