Our country’s Congress–especially the Senate–is incredibly broken. The disproportionate power of the minority in the Senate, the amount of money it takes to run for office, the overwhelming power of lobbyists, and just good, old-fashioned corruption have been slowly ruining our country. Good policy reform in this country has been made impossible because of how terrible our political system has become. What this country needs is government reform before we can ever truly get good policy solutions to problems like health care, immigration, global warming, or financial regulation.
There are many sweeping governmental reforms I would like to see. Ending the “plurality (instead of majority) wins” rule in electoral races, campaign finance reform, repealing the electoral college for presidential race, etc. . . . Achieving these reforms will be a long term multi-front effort. There are several smaller reforms that would dramatically improve our government that I think are much more achievable in the short term. They are listed with the easiest ideas first:
1. All bills must also be written in plain English.
The Senate Finance Committee has a tradition of writing every bill in understandable, plain English, then converting it to legislative language right before the committee vote. Every committee in Congress should copy this tradition by having every bill published in a plain language and legislative language version without in discrepancy in meaning. (Full disclosure: I believe Ezra Klein was the first person I heard suggest this idea, and I think it is fabulous.)
Democrats have made a point of publishing bills 72 hours before the vote, but what good is there in making a bill public if only one in every hundred thousand Americans can understand it. Having a plain language version of the bill would help greatly expand the pool of people who understand pending legislation. It would benefit congressional members not on the specific committee, journalists, and regular Americans who might care passionately about a subject. It could also help quickly stop nonsense rumors like “death panels.”
Big companies with high paid lobbyists already understand complex legislative language in a bill, having a copy of the bill written in plain English would put journalists and grassroots activists on a slightly more even footing. No law is needed to make this reform. Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid could effectively implement it tomorrow, and I would like to see it made part of a promise for even greater transparency in the 112th Congress. (Maybe a consolation prize from Obama for breaking his promise on transparency in the health care negotiations.)
2. Expand the size of congressional staffs and increase their pay.
If you are concerned that lobbyists run Washington, part of the problem is that there is almost no one else in the city capable of doing the job. Congressional offices are woefully understaffed, and most of that staff is woefully underpaid. Congressional staffer make very little money and work very long hours. The result is a huge turnover, with many of the most skilled and knowledgeable leaving to become lobbyists.
While most people who work in Congressional offices are very intelligent, dedicated, young individuals, that is the part of the problem. They are young individuals. If we want Congressional staffers, instead of professional lobbyists, writing bills to help the public, we need a large group of well-paid, seasoned staffers capable of doing the job. You will only get that by paying staffers a much better wage and reducing their overall workload by increasing the number of congressional aides. If larger, better-paid congressional staffs were able to stop a single boondoggle like the F-22 from happening, it would be a massive return on investment.
3. Ending the filibuster and restoring Constitutional order to the Senate.
The Filibuster is a terrible, undemocratic, and anti-Constitutional idea. The Senate should pass laws with a simple majority vote like the Constitution clearly states. The filibuster was not originally part of the Senate, and the rules governing cloture have changed repeatedly over the years. Given the incredible level of abuse recently, it is not a question of if, but when it will be reformed. It has already brought the Senate to a complete crawl, and after the 2010 election, it will potentially completely shut down legislating in this country. Many people probably think the Senate rules simply can’t be changed, but after a few years of true and complete shutdown, I can easily picture the tide turning against the filibuster.
I would prefer to see the filibuster completely eliminated, but a reform where the number of votes needed for cloture went down by one vote every day would also work. If that system of reform is adopted, you also need to eliminate the ability to filibuster procedural motions. Three cloture votes and roughly a week spent getting a bill passed that had a final vote of 97-0 is the definition of broken government.
These three changes alone would go a long way toward fixing what is wrong with our government, and pave the way for true progressive policy reform. Ideally, a real effort will be made to try to get these three reforms adopted before or soon after the 2010 election.



71 Comments







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
#3 might happen if, as you suggest, the government is paralyzed, literally shut down, by filibustering–and the pressure from outside DC becomes immense. Otherwise, forget it.
I agree that the system is broken and is no longer working the way our founding fathers intended. In fact, I think your first two points are spot on and would add that in regards to #1, think that the lawmakers should be required to actually read any bill that is put forth. This would hopefully keep them more honest and get rid of some of the unrelated and disingenuous trailers that get added o most bills.
Having congressman read bills in full legislative langauge with all its “amend section 1342 (B) of the 1984 farmstead act to add “and tree” after a line 7.” is kinda meaningless.
Now if bills were written in plain langauge even health care would only be like 150 pages. That makes a lot more sense to read.
Maybe we could consider getting some of us retired people to staff Congressionals. We don’t have the energy we used to have, but we make up for it in experience.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
I am all for making bills more understandable. However, I’m not sure it is such an easy thing to implement. Part of the reason bills are so complicated to begin with is because of issues arising from judicial and administrative interpretation. If the plain language version is going to be subject to judicial oversight, then lawyers will need to craft it and it won’t be understandable. Perhaps it would be possible to put it provisions saying the plain language version is a non-enforceable summary and not the basis of judicial interpretation (in the same way that titles of sections in bills are not a basis for interpretation).
Even if this problem were circumvented, I think it could be quite burdensome to produce a well crafted plain language version of a bill. Bills generally are very self-referential (see section 5.5d, except for exclusions in 1.25b), a few paragraphs might be the only really relevant part in a 20 page section, and without a good roadmap, the bill can be very hard to understand. Professors, law students, and text book companies spend lots of time and money trying to create succinct and clear explanations of bills—I’m not confident Senator staff could do so without trouble.
Right now, even after bills are enacted, a readable version of the bill is never produced. I think it would be more important to start that practice first. The vast majority of citizens, journalists, bloggers, etc. don’t really have a good way to figure out what is in say the stimulus bill or any other piece of legislation.
(Of course, if plain English versions are already being produced, maybe the best solution is for staffers to begin unofficially leaking those versions. Then the Senate is not bound by the document and doesn’t need to be so careful in its crafting, but people actually interested in finding out what is in the bill would have an avenue to do so).
In any case, I don’t think plain language would solve the problem of “death panels.” Complex legislation even in plain English can be manipulated and misconstrued. Beyond that, I don’t think even matters if a section in the bill is referenced with allegations of death panels. These days, lies don’t even need to be cloaked in the truth.
There are so many congressional and electoral reforms needed. How about getting rid of the procedural filibuster and making it so you actually have to filibuster instead of just threatening? And how about expanding initiative and referenda rights, and making elections have integrity, and alternative voting systems, and getting rid of gerrymandering, and public financing, and…
Real reform of the government’s practices will not happen until we have a true multi-party democracy. I don’t understand why, if single-party rule made the USSR so un-democratic and eeevvvil, suddenly having a meager two parties that are often practically indistinguishable suddenly makes us so noble and free. We need to have enough functioning national political parties that the dominant handful of special interest groups that buy out the existing parties and officials simply cannot buy out all the parties and officials.
Then we can talk about reforming the government’s practices. But until then, if, for example, the plain English reads: “We are going to pass a law which is only a massive gift to the health insurance and pharmaceutical cartels and that screws the working public. If the working public doesn’t like it, they can vote for the other party that will do the same thing even maybe worse.” then there really isn’t much point to the plain English.
I would like to see several, maybe five, years between working as a congressional staffer and being a lobbyist.
You might have to change your name..)
Then they should have to take a test on the bill. If they fail, no voting.
Wow, does THAT list lack ambition. How about
1) Public financing of campaigns. All members of Congress will receive public financing for re-election campaigns equal to the amount allocated to their party-endorsed challengers from any party polling more than 5% in the prior election. The amount financed will be determined two years prior to every election cycle by a bipartisan campaign committee made up of freshman, junior, and senior members of Congress, and including an equal number of members of the public selected from a volunteer pool.
2) Five Year Prohibition on Lobbying. No member of Congress or congressional aide or staff person may work for a lobbying firm or any organization represented in Congress by a lobbying agency for five years before or after leaving office.
3) Actual Filibuster Required. Filibusters must be conducted in person by elected Congresspeople, and all such filibusters will be broadcast on CSPAN in their entirety.
I mean, come on, if you’re not going to get what you wish for, you may as well wish for the stars.
One more thing on the “Plain English” piece.
As a header, and not changed when converted into legislative language, they ought to state their “legislative intent” outright on any bill or amendment.
This would make later adjudication much more simple for Courts of all levels. There are so many cases that “ping pong” based on legislative intent, that to out right state it, would be a real cost and time saver in litigation.
Jon said “small reforms” and “easiest first.” These that he mentioned can be done in the “regular order” in the applicable body without a whole lotta fuss.
Your # 1 and 2 are full-on bi-cameral legislation.
And to your #3 Jon says “abolish.”
The Senate Finance Committee has done this for years. The official legislative language version is the actual law, but the plain langauge version must in effect say exactly what the bill says in legal talk.
How about this for reform? ANYONE ELECTED (supposedly) has to take a written exam on the constitution and pass it at 85% or they have to go back to classes and cannot sit or vote in congress until they pass. How many of those millionaires corporate whores could pass without their lobby telling them the answer?
The plain language change would not require a law. Pelosi or even individual committee chairs could choose to just start the tradition. Expanding staff is the hardest because that would need to be a law, but changing the filibuster would technically be “easy” since it only needs 50 votes at the start of the next congress in the Senate.
I agree wholeheartedly with 2. and 3., but I wonder how you would enforce 1. Ezra isn’t so good at thinking about enforcement, as his embrace of the Senate bill should demonstrate. I do like the idea though. Better yet, why not write the bills in plain English, with footnotes citing law and legal concepts, where necessary?
Right. I thought I was agreeing with you.
Albatross’s post at 12, which my #14 is a reponse, wanted three things.
I responded that your suggestions were possible under “regular order” including #3, and Albatross’s asks 1 and 2 required full-on both chamber legislation; Public Finance and Prohibition on lobbying.
Hand counted paper ballots would help.
Thats HAVA – the Help America Vote Act, and needs both houses to change.
Jon’s talking about things they can do under their own sets of rules, without changing actual law.
That’s the point; they can do things much better and more efficiently if they just adopted better rules about doing their jobs. The laws they would make are a different matter.
If larger, better-paid congressional staffs were able to stop a single boondoggle like the F-22 from happening, it would be a massive return on investment.
There has been a tremendous disparity between the power of the executive branch and the Congress to investigate and analyze how bills have or will be implemented. Simple legislative autonomy should necessitate bigger staffs.
I want a pony in congress in 2010.
We could name it “National Velvet”
We should also pass some version of the New Columbia Act – statehood for DC. It is bigger then Wyoming, and has no representation at all.
All those small states which are overrepresented are white, and minorities tend to be in huge states – where you need to be a millionaire to run for office. And we end up with people like Feinstein.
I would love to see conservatives filibuster voting rights for blacks – we’ll see what that does for turnout in NC, MO, PA
I was just thinking how much we’ve missed Nero’s respect for legislatures.
Turns out the horse’s name is The Piebald, or The Pie. The girl’s name is Velvet.
Did Nero bring a pony to the Roman Senate?
That was Caligula’s horse I believe. Incitatus if I recall correctly.
RIGHT! Pie! I was just thinking of the movie.
Hah, how funny. The Kos people would LOVE a pony named “Pie”!
You have an amazing memory.
They should have to become victims of their own bills. Perhaps then we’d see something decent that is good for the country as a whole instead of the corporate whores taking everything we have.
I’m impressed, officially.
sorry
He appointed his horse to be a Senator, or so legend has it.
Edit: As others have pointed out, that was Caligula. Maybe Rome should have had fewer batshit insane emperors.
I have a shit memory. I’m usually good at horse names though. I remember tons of horses. Why I didn’t remember “Pie” I have no idea. I’ll blame it on Liz and Roddie.
4. Ending Senate Holds
5. Put ALL deliberations on C-SPAN
6. Put ALL legislation on the web a week before the vote so the American people can find out what’s in it.
Yes, according to this you’re right. Silly moi.
Hey don’t apologize! I’m SOO looking forward to your debate with Nate, btw.
Why not a dog and a pony? Oh, wait.
5. There this thing called the internet. Who needs cspan? Just webcast.
‘Expand the size of congressional staffs and increase their pay.”
this is a bad idea unless the ‘revolving door’ is closed first..
Better yet, why not write the bills in plain English, with footnotes citing law and legal concepts, where necessary?
I’ll add that there’s a danger in having two different simultaneous versions of the same document. Almost inevitably, there will be one that’s wrong, and in this context, the one that is “wrong”, regardless of the legislature’s intent, is not the one that most people will understand.
I like those ideas, especially the third one. I’m tired of secret gov’t.
That door already operates freely, with the additional disadvantage that the staffs are overworked, and in all likelihood, frustrated. That provides even more motivation to head through it to the dark side.
I sort of agree and disagree.
Where there’s clear intent, a court cannot err. Where there is unclear intent, a court can err, when it comes down to an intent question.
It’s like a softeware user manual. The program is definitely going to work with features and bugs, and the user manual won’t pick it all up. However, a tech release can fix the manual’s error.
Just my take on it.
1 and 2 are great ideas, and would go along way to undermine and break up a lot of the lobbyist culture in Washington.
Number 3 I’m not so sure of. While I’m not exactly a fan of the intent to filibuster, getting rid of it means it will no longer be there should anyone vitally need to use it. However, there is an excellent counter-idea espoused by Aaron Zelinsky over at HP about actually USING the filibuster instead of just letting somebody say they will and then having to run around like a lame duck. I would dare say it’d be wonderful for Joe and Ben and the like to have to stand up in front of the American people and read phone books all night and NOT expect voter outrage.
One big reform that really needs to be reformed is no Congressperson or Senator can accept campaign money from any business/industry that he or she is sitting on committee. This would help reduce being payed off by the industry your overseeing.
I’m not so much worried about how the courts view it, but how the rest of us do. User’s manuals that are wrong are often out there being used long after they’ve been corrected. Meanwhile, we’ve all written our articles, and told our congressmen what we want them to do, based on incorrect information.
One thing I learned early as an engineer and a technical writer was that you never, ever, have two documents out there that define or specify the same thing. One will almost inevitably be wrong, or conflict with the other. Having one document refer to the other is how you fix that in engineering. Here, there’s no real fix that I can see.
Your contention that laws have to be written in an unintelligle way by lawyers in order that what follows from those laws can be adequately interpreted by judges is the most asinine contention ever put forth in defence of legalese jargon. Not only that but this contention shows the monumental presumption that only lawyers and judges can decipher what laws mean.
In fact the absolute opposite is the case. Lawyers and judges have no more special gift to decipher legal language than anyoneone else of normal intelligence has. Don’t presume that judges or lawyers are the filter that gives meaning to laws.
In fact I defy you to cite a single instance where a law is only given meaning by a lawyer’s enunciation so that a judge can interpret it. If you find such a case then what you have cited is a poorly crafted law, nothing else.
A lot of times, even now, that’s done through individual contributions. It would be hard to administer that sort of prohibition, I would think, even assuming courts found it constitutional.
Oh and by the way, one more thing about Legislative intent as relates to the Senate version of the bill as regards Medical Loss Ratios.
What the bill actually says is that the Provider must rebate customers in a specified scheme, IF they spend less than the 80-85%. That’s a terribly weak enforcement mechanism.
If you’re Wellpoint, why not create a “new” medical loss, and attribute a bunch of money to it?
Now, enforce that in the face of a class action suit demanding a rebate because of “unfaithful medical loss determination.”
Exactly what WAS the legislative intent? There’s a bunch of hooey on the internet, but NOTHING in the record that says Congress “intended” to limit actual MLRs.
Just saying….
That’s the game, which engineering and technical writing definitely does NOT play, but legislation does.
You’ve lost me, I’m afraid. Why is it a game, and why would anyone want to deliberately choose to have an inevitably inaccurate document that people take as being true when the alternative is to have both the verbage and elaborations of that verbage in the same document? I’m assuming, of course, that this has nothing to do with wanting to deceive people deliberately (which I suspect would be the other inevitable result).
I’m used to reading documents that refer to other documents that, in turn, refer to others, and all use at least a few obscure terms. There executive summaries and appendixes right in those documents that explain what they’re about, when such things are necessary. Staff of those executives can check that the verbage matches the summary without having to wonder if they have the right version of one or the other.
This is why I think that anyone who doesn’t think the federal government should be enforcing such a thing is completely nuts. Catching this sort of thing is going to take platoons of accountants, investigators, and lawyers. The states aren’t going to be up to that, even the big ones.
In fact, I suspect even the feds won’t be up to it, but that’s another story. If we’re stuck with trying to legislate MLRs, then we need to resources to do it.
You, friend, are operating on good faith. Good faith is a non-neccessary concept in an engineering doc or software document; the product works in this and such manner.
This is not true with the current legislation. It is not built in good faith.
Jon says “Write it in plain language” and I agree. This Senate bill should just say “Hey, Insurance Companies, your max/min Medical Loss Ratio is x/y%.”
It does NOT do that. It says “Hey, we have this scheme. Insurers must pay back to premium payers, [based on crazy schema] x many dollars IF our medical loss ratios are better/lower than 80-85%, UNLESS some commissioner says something else.”
There is no concrete result based upon performance. And that’s what you and all us citizens are looking for. It just isn’t there.
That’s why it’s all “No PO, No Mandate”.
I completely disagree with any proposition that in order to make government more efficient and democratic we should expand the staff in government, as stated in proposition “2″ above.
We should instead be looking for ways to devolve the power of Congress to the local level, which need is made abundantly apparent by the very situation we find ourselves in now. To add more staff to Congress people now, to this dysfunctional Congress would be like adding timber to a forest fire.
We should be looking for straightforward solutions like strong and readily available recall provisions of all elected officials for demonstrated incompetence or malfeasence. Further eliminating the funds from corporations that insert themselves in politics will eliminate the problem at its root. For instance if Big banks are supporting campaigns against bank regulation then withdraw your money from those big banks.
Many solutions to modify and in some cases eliminate aspects of the current political system need to be sought, and a focus on solutions that place the power in the public is most likely to succeed.
Is this a ‘dreaming’ thread?
With pony’s?
Don’t get me wrong, it’s good to dream, but fixing what’s wrong with our country?
That’s not part of these dreams . . . these dreams are, IMO, unable to be fulfilled.
These are dreams, and undoable . . . in these climes.
I dream of mass, on going, long on going, civil disobedience, boycotts, work stoppages.
Dreams of reforms from inside the system won’t fix what’s killing us, I don’t think.
However, I fully support chasing after Rahmmy/Freddie/Fannie, and now today, chasing after Geithner and AIG per Issa’s emails release. Will these bear fruit? I’m a bit skeptical, but for ONE potential component.
There comes a time in history when a sitch is presented, that makes and breaks political careers, catapaults some to new heights, and drags others to wreckage.
I believe the AIG/Fed emails are one of the rarest of rare times to come along since Watergate.
If it gains traction, Issa, Cuomo, Spitzer and many, many more will be poised to make political history and benefit from it.
Will it solve our problems with out reform of legislation and law? No.
Will it improve the chances for real reform? Absolutely.
Those are the pony’s I want . . . . that’s the change at hand that’s possible . . .
That’s the system, inside and outside the system, working its own bad ass self.
The progosphere needs to fan the flames and nurture this moment like none before.
It’s at hand, pony’s alas, are not.
It doesn’t surprise me that Ezra Klein advocated for this, because it is patently ridiculous.
If the two documents have no distinguishable difference in meaning, then there is literally no reason to have the more superfluous verbose legislatese version. They’re not literary works where style counts. Their entire purpose is supposed to be the direct and unambiguous conveyance of restrictions, requirements, and rules.
If anything we should be formalizing the drafting of legislation into concise algorithmic pseudo-code, where there ceases to be any interpretive error in meaning.
Kelly, you can’t GET it written in plain language in this clime!
It’s a dream to speak of it!
It’s not gonna happen . . . sigh.
Great intellectual banter to cast these dreams about, I guess, but they don’t serve the present reality nor do they really help IMPLEMENT change . . . they are dreams . . . we need dreams, but we need to implement pressure and FORCE change upon the system . . . ergo, Rhammy/Freddie/Fannie and he’s gone, and Issa’s emails, and Geithner’s gone, with him Bernanke fails, and Warren moves up in ranks by populist demand . . .
I’m just sayin . . .
Your first sentence says how I have felt about Ezra since he joined the forces of darkness.
He’s patently ridiculous.
And completely worthless in attributing to given who he’s shilling for, which are the PTB.
Love it that you call it out.
Wish others would, too . . . also. ;-)
Ah, so the assumption I mentioned right after that quote isn’t true, and that’s the game. OK.
What I was reacting to, I thought, was Jon’s idea that there should be two versions of the document. Just have one. Write it properly, with footnotes or explanations was what I was saying.
I have little doubt that the politicians would love to have a way to deceive and obfuscate. It seems to be all they do, sometimes. I’d like them to have less chance of doing that.
When do you think he went to the dark side? I’m starting to consider his old employer part of the dark side.
Your point is more than well taken . . . ;-)
I was speaking of his new employer, but as you say, his old employer is no sanctity of progressiveness, either.
Lesigh.
We lose them at such a young age anymore . . .
The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.
Theodore Roosevelt, Labor Day speech at Syracuse, NY, Sept 7, 1903
Bully! *G*
No, DO NOT GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER! Sheesh people, without the filibuster Robert Bork would be on the Supreme Court. ANYONE would be on the Supreme Court. ANY time the GOPers held a majority in the Senate, then ANY GOP President’s court nominee WOULD get on the Supreme Court.
There is a value to the filibuster: it is part of protecting us from a dictatorship of the majority. That said, it does need reform. It needs to quit being a mere procedural action and actually be REQUIRED to be a filibuster as originally designed. That means people literally standing on the floor of the senate jabbering until they are hoarse or collapse from exhaustion (if need be) – twice.
That’s the actual rules of REAL filibusters: each member seeking to filibuster was allowed to stand on the floor and speak until they couldn’t any longer TWICE, after which even if cloture was never obtained during the filibuster the bill (or nominee) goes to the floor for a floor vote (majority vote). ALL other senate business comes to a halt while the filibuster goes on. Thus, a filibuster PROPERLY conducted is hard and rare. It is hard on the individual senators and hard on the senate proper.
A filibuster, properly conducted, also gives time for the people to see it and respond to it, either for or against (it is holding up all other senate business). That pressure either keeps the filibuster going because of voter approval or helps get to cloture if the people are opposed.
The filibuster is desirable and a good thing. I’ll be DAMNED if I’ll let mere majority rule dictatorships fuck up MY life with reactionary laws passed by partisan senators. Fuck that. I want the last, best defense of the filibuster to be there to prevent Borks, Roberts, Alitos, Thomas’ from getting on the Supreme Court. I want the filibuster there to put a stop of monstrous laws and bad ideas. I want a REAL filibuster under the proper rules as originally designed: All senate business comes to a halt until the filibuster ends. Senators have the opportunity to speak as long as they wish on the floor…TWICE. The filibuster is either killed by cloture voting due to pressure from constituents or the filibuster goes on due to pressure from constituents. Failing cloture or reaching the TWICE limit for each filibustering member, the bill/nominee then reaches the floor for a straight up-or-down vote.
Only people who think their ideology or party will remain in power want the filibuster to go away. They so easily forget the AWFUL and MONSTROUS bills that would easily pass by mere majority dictatorship if there were NO filibuster.
The filibuster is NOT the problem, the way it is done today (since Senator Byrd DICKED IT UP years ago) is the problem. THe modern rules have made filibusters faux filibusters without any pain. There is no reason NOT to filibuster with modern (Byrd) rules because the senate keeps doing business like nothing is happening and no one actually has to DO anything to filibuster. Painless filibustering is BAD and WRONG but the filibuster in an of itself is NOT.
Alba, you’re on to something!
1) Public financing of campaigns. All members of Congress will receive public financing for re-election campaigns equal to the amount allocated to their party-endorsed challengers from any party polling more than 5% in the prior election. The amount financed will be determined two years prior to every election cycle by a bipartisan campaign committee made up of freshman, junior, and senior members of Congress, and including an equal number of members of the public selected from a volunteer pool. Pass bill to make all political TV advertising FREE. (We own the airwaves).
2) Five Year Prohibition on Lobbying. No member of Congress or congressional aide or staff person may work for a lobbying firm or any organization represented in Congress by a lobbying agency for five years before or after leaving office. Make bill retroactive for 5 years to clean out some of the blood sucking scum.
3) Actual Filibuster Required. Filibusters must be conducted in person by elected Congresspeople, and all such filibusters will be broadcast on CSPAN in their entirety.
4) Term limits for U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressman (3 terms). I am sick of looking at Charles Grassley!
5) End the Electoral College. Made sense in the horse and buggy era, but that was a while ago. Popular vote wins presidency.
6.) End Gerrymandering. Californians took away from their legislature the power to draw its own districts–a key element of nearly uninterrupted Democratic control since 1970. The task will now be handled by an eight-member commission chosen much like a jury, whose members cannot come from the political class.
what albatross @12 and praedor @67 said.
…..
if this post’s list is meant to further my disillusionment with progressive politics, all i can say is it’s working.
What is missing —–as it has been since 1776—- is gender parity in American politics.
Hold a special election in which every other man in Congress is replaced with a woman, so that each State will have 1 Male, 1 Female Senators and there will be 218 Female and 217 Male Representatives.
Term limits,
End of lobbying,
Instant Imprisonment/Confiscation of Assets For Malfeasance in Office,
Citizen Oversight of all Proposed legislation,
Public Referenda Input,
Actual Spending Amounts (Defense eg), Full Disclosure.