WC > Politics
Congress
Page 1 / 2 1 - 2 Next »
Congress
09/03/2011 9:45 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 131
Posts: 466
OFFLINE
Congress returns, unpopular as well as divided

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress returns to work this coming week, divided over measures to create jobs and scorned by the nation it was elected to help lead.

After a five-week break, Republican and Democratic leaders alike promise action to try and ease the country's 9.1 percent unemployment rate and boost an economy that is barely growing. President Barack Obama goes first on Thursday night with a speech to lawmakers and a prime-time national television audience.

But there is little overlap so far in the measures that Republicans and Democrats are recommending, and the rest of the year-end congressional agenda is top-heavy with items that relate to government spending and less directly to job creation.

A new committee, comprised of lawmakers in both parties from both houses and armed with extraordinary powers, is expected to hold its first meeting this week as it begins work on a plan to make long-term deficit cuts. The panel was created as part of last month's agreement to reduce red ink and avert a government default. It faces a Nov. 23 deadline for action.

More immediately, parts of the Federal Aviation Administration will shut down on Sept. 16 unless Congress approves a measure to keep operations running. Federal money for highway construction jobs runs out two weeks later without separate legislation.
The Obama administration is seeking more money for disaster relief in the wake of Hurricane Irene, and a partial government shutdown would occur on Oct. 1 unless lawmakers enact an interim spending bill to cover most federal agencies.

With any or all of these measures, there is an opportunity for partisan gridlock or compromise, and it isn't entirely clear which an unhappy public might prefer.

In a late-August Associated Press-GfK poll, only 12 percent of those surveyed said they approved of the job Congress is doing, and 87 percent disapproved. A separate Gallup survey, taken in midmonth, found 13 percent approved and 84 percent disapproved.
"Everybody is kind of in trouble with the electorate," said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. He recently distributed an analysis that concluded the negotiating surrounding last month's agreement to avoid a default is 'an extremely significant event that is profoundly and sharply reshaping views of the economy and the federal government.

"It has led to a scary erosion in confidence in both, at a time when this steep drop in confidence can be least afforded."
But if the public was offended by the bickering before the deal, there isn't there much evidence that the compromise on the nation's borrowing limit did much, if anything, to restore confidence in Congress' ability to address economic problems.

A Fox News poll last month showed opinion was split on the compromise, with Republicans overwhelmingly opposed, independents solidly so and Democrats narrowly in favor. But even those statistics masked a deeper divide.

Based on other surveys, McInturff said, "Republicans disapprove because some didn't think we should have raised the debt ceiling at all ... and others because they believe there should have been substantially more spending cuts than what was in the debt ceiling vote."

Independents who disliked the compromise tended to say they wanted deeper deficit reductions. Democrats who disapprove did so because "they can't believe the president is negotiating doing this much with the Republicans," he said, which is a far different reason from the one GOP voters cite.

The Fox News survey showed a similar breakdown.

Republicans and Democrats offer different assessments of the state of congressional approval.

"I'm not the least bit surprised that the rating of Congress is abysmal. If we could do the work that we are supposed to be doing in a reasonable and timely way," it would improve, said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., a first-termer who is a member of the committee charged with finding $1.2 billion or more in deficit reductions.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had a somewhat different view, telling an audience in his home state: "Everyone complain all you want about Congress. You should complain plenty. But don't think the country is about to fall apart because of what's going on in Washington."

Already, the differences are evident as Obama and congressional leaders ready job creation plans.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., recently distributed a list of "Top 10 Job-Destroying Regulations" and said the Republican majority would begin voting this month to block them one by one.

Most, including one that Obama ordered scrapped Friday, deal with pollution limits for a variety of industries; two would curtail National Labor Relations Board actions opposed by business.

Separately, Cantor wrote, the House will "pursue tax relief designed to help American employers create middle-class jobs."
Obama, too, is considering tax breaks to provide businesses to hire new employees. He also is expected to call for new spending on construction projects, and to seek an extension of jobless benefits and a temporary payroll tax cut that is due to expire Dec. 31.
To offset those costs, the president is expected to challenge lawmakers on the debt-reduction committee to go beyond its minimum goal of $1.2 trillion in long-term savings.

The panel marks the latest and possibly the last attempt of the year to forge a sweeping agreement that can cut trillions from future deficits. Congress must approve $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts to block across-the-board spending cuts that both sides say they would like to avoid.

There are expressions of optimism, but so far, none of outright success.

Reid put the prospects of a compromise at 50-50.

Toomey said he was "cautiously optimistic."

"We know how difficult this task is going to be, and I am heartened by the strong encouragement I have gotten from my constituents and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle," Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Friday in a written statement. "We'll begin by identifying those areas where we have common ground, and we are ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5huDQRzMoR8CNhPlhQ8kruWEEcJHQ?docId=198515de5eca4870a156adcf6100b1d9

So is there any way past the partisan bickering, or is there even anything the politicians can do to at this stage restore public confidence/trust in them? What will it mean at the next elections of the approval rating still stands at around 12%, will it be a case of the public saying  "throw the bums out" on both sides, or saying "a plague on both your houses" and staying away from the ballot box?
Quote   
09/03/2011 10:26 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE
Most people have historically just blamed all the legislatures except the ones they are actually eligible to vote for.  Some will get voted out, but I don't think there will be a huge change after 2012.
Quote   
09/05/2011 12:22 pm

Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
OFFLINE
i think our problems are just too big for a divided government to efficiently tackle. even "working together" just means sloppy legislation with too many goodies tied on. and the left and the right are so divided in this country right now, that there's little common ground to be found. particularly as campaign season kicks into full gear.
................
Whatever's Clever
Quote   
09/06/2011 5:02 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 131
Posts: 466
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
i think our problems are just too big for a divided government to efficiently tackle. even "working together" just means sloppy legislation with too many goodies tied on. and the left and the right are so divided in this country right now, that there's little common ground to be found. particularly as campaign season kicks into full gear.



So what is the solution then? And don't say "the republicans take over the house, senate and white house", as first off that defeats the purpose of the whole "checks and balances" thing. Also, say the reps sweep the board in the next elections, all that will happen is the dems will do what the reps did before the 2010 elections and block/obstruct everything they can. We'll see as much of a stalemate as we have now, and then in the next elections the other side will win because the ruling party will have been seen to not get anything real done, and they'll try to reverse as much as possible of what actually got done, like is happening now .  

Quote   
09/06/2011 2:35 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
A good start would be to give the president the line-item veto.  Like Dod mentioned earlier, Congress' national past time is to add on goodies to a bill, knowing that if it gets vetoed, that can be used against the president.  So, a bill that might be good for creating jobs would be ok.  But then someone attached a rider onto it like...legalizing illegal aliens for example.  Well, what happens if the president signs that?  What happens if he doesnt?  He needs a line item veto so he can veto the garbage and pass good legislation.

Another thing that would help is term limits for Congress.  No more professional politicians.  2 terms for senate, maybe 3 or 4 for the House.  If we had this, then people would know their time in office would be limited and maybe focus more on doing a good job to help the nation and less on accumulating power for themselves.

Get rid of lobbyists...completely.  And have a balanced budget amendment.  Course none of this will ever happen, so we're stuck.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
09/06/2011 8:41 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE
Strange, so far I've liked what I've heard from the last two posts (minus the BBA).
Quote   
09/07/2011 12:30 am

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
09/07/2011 5:29 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 131
Posts: 466
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.



Because if they actually had to balance the budget they'd have to start getting serious about making cuts and getting more revenue. The main issue there is NIMBYism: everyone in congress is for cuts so long as someone else is getting cut, but they'll start screaming about it and blocking it if the cuts will affect the people that vote for them in their own district. It'd also mean no more pork barrel projects, which again are the main way that politicians bribe the voters to elect them.  
Quote   
09/07/2011 4:26 pm

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.



A government's ability to take on debt is essential.  That has been the case from the founding of this nation.  I think we can all agree that a government should not be accruing debt in times of economic prosperity and relative peace (rather it should be paying it off) , however in times of recession and times of war its essential that a government be able to go in debt to insure the well being of its people (in the former case, without taking on debt the government would have to slash deeply into safety nets in the very scenario they were designed for, and in the latter, how could we have defeated Hitler and the Japanese if we were constitutionally forbidden to accrue debt?).
Quote   
09/10/2011 12:42 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.



Because if they actually had to balance the budget they'd have to start getting serious about making cuts and getting more revenue. The main issue there is NIMBYism: everyone in congress is for cuts so long as someone else is getting cut, but they'll start screaming about it and blocking it if the cuts will affect the people that vote for them in their own district. It'd also mean no more pork barrel projects, which again are the main way that politicians bribe the voters to elect them.  



Absolutely.  
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
09/10/2011 12:46 pm

Senior Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.



A government's ability to take on debt is essential.  That has been the case from the founding of this nation.  I think we can all agree that a government should not be accruing debt in times of economic prosperity and relative peace (rather it should be paying it off) , however in times of recession and times of war its essential that a government be able to go in debt to insure the well being of its people (in the former case, without taking on debt the government would have to slash deeply into safety nets in the very scenario they were designed for, and in the latter, how could we have defeated Hitler and the Japanese if we were constitutionally forbidden to accrue debt?).



Hmm...perhaps the US would be less likely to go to war, which seems to be what a lot of Europe wants from us anyway.  Perhaps other countries would have to step up to the plate and bear more responsibility than they have.  Perhaps the Arab League would have been pressured to handle the Libyan situation, rather than us risking our pilots and spending tons of money to go to the aid of a people that we cant even count as our allies.
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
Quote   
09/13/2011 12:51 am

Forum Fanatic


Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.



A government's ability to take on debt is essential.  That has been the case from the founding of this nation.  I think we can all agree that a government should not be accruing debt in times of economic prosperity and relative peace (rather it should be paying it off) , however in times of recession and times of war its essential that a government be able to go in debt to insure the well being of its people (in the former case, without taking on debt the government would have to slash deeply into safety nets in the very scenario they were designed for, and in the latter, how could we have defeated Hitler and the Japanese if we were constitutionally forbidden to accrue debt?).



Not to rain on your parade, but things are never black and white. Considering this, don't you think it is possible to have a BBA that takes special circumstances debt into consideration???
Quote   
09/13/2011 5:42 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 131
Posts: 466
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Not to rain on your parade, but things are never black and white. Considering this, don't you think it is possible to have a BBA that takes special circumstances debt into consideration???



The problem with that is that if you put it in and allow special circumstances, then it's amazing how much stuff suddenly becomes a "special circumstance".....  
Quote   
09/13/2011 9:56 am

Forum Expert


Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
I dont understand why folks are against a balanced budget amendment.



A government's ability to take on debt is essential.  That has been the case from the founding of this nation.  I think we can all agree that a government should not be accruing debt in times of economic prosperity and relative peace (rather it should be paying it off) , however in times of recession and times of war its essential that a government be able to go in debt to insure the well being of its people (in the former case, without taking on debt the government would have to slash deeply into safety nets in the very scenario they were designed for, and in the latter, how could we have defeated Hitler and the Japanese if we were constitutionally forbidden to accrue debt?).



Not to rain on your parade, but things are never black and white. Considering this, don't you think it is possible to have a BBA that takes special circumstances debt into consideration???



How would one word it so that it a) will still be functional (see the last budget and dept cap increase as examples of how processes that don't require jumping through hoops to pass get abused) and b) be able to ensure that its actually able to serve its purpose (as Miles observed, everything can become an emergency) .
Quote   
09/13/2011 9:48 pm

Forum Fanatic


Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Not to rain on your parade, but things are never black and white. Considering this, don't you think it is possible to have a BBA that takes special circumstances debt into consideration???



The problem with that is that if you put it in and allow special circumstances, then it's amazing how much stuff suddenly becomes a "special circumstance".....  



Too true.
Quote   
Page 1 / 2 1 - 2 Next »
Login with Facebook to post
Preview