I have a little more time on my hands than I would like, thus I am restarting this blog. It's still "on politics, mostly." I started this blog at the peak of the Deanist movement. I'm restarting it at a time when Kerry is trying to sound like Dean on Iraq - with criticisms of its cost and even pretty hot stuff like "the wrong war at the wrong time." Let's see if this new tactic pays off.

I am pretty discouraged about the state of our democracy right now. I worry if the system of checks and balances that the Framers of the Constitution carefully put together has ceased working. The Congressional Republicans are the legislative arm of the White House. The tradition that members of Congress are beholden to their constituents, and not their party leaders, is history.

We have also never seen, in American history, the kind of parliamentary discipline that the House Republicans display. Decades ago, Congressmen only voted with their party majorities about 55% of the time. Today, Congressmen vote with their party majorities almost 90% of the time. Part of that trend is due to realignment, but it is also from more pressure by party leaders. Rebellious Congressmen can be threatened with losing committee assignments, getting money cut off, or having primary opponents.

As an example of leadership pressure, you know how the Prescription Drug Bill was passed. The Republicans kept the floor vote open for three hours in the middle of the night, literally, until they could twist enough arms to get the thing passed. Republicans who opposed the Drug Bill were threatened with all kinds of retaliation. One resistant Michigan Congressman who was retiring but who wanted his son to succeed him was offered $100,000 for his son’s campaign. House Republicans voted for Bush’s tax cuts unanimously, despite little evidence that the country wanted those tax cuts.

When a Congressman explains to DeLay that his constituents oppose a bill DeLay uses his "catch and release" policy. DeLay will have him vote last, and then let him vote against the bill if his vote isn't needed. That way, the Congressman can say to his constituents "I listened to how you opposed X, and bucked by own party. I'm sorry the bill passed anyway." Deceptively, that Congressman would have voted for the bill if he had had to. (that's escaping accountability)

There is also less debate on bills than there has ever been in the past. 56%, no exaggeration, of House legislation is considered under "emergency" rules that forbid debate over a half hour. Over 70% of House bills are considered under rules that disallow amendments, in contrast, only ~30% of bills were considered under no debate rules in 1994.

Another part of checks and balances is Congress’ ability to investigate the executive branch. This administration has committed many misdeeds, yet there have been no investigations of any of them. There has been no investigation or criticism of how Muhammad Noor Khan’s name got revealed to the press, there is no investigation of how the administration blatantly lied over the costs of the prescription drug bill, there have been no investigations of the shady dealings and accounting corporations like Halliburton are doing in Iraq. In 2002, the Bush admin took a billion dollars that had been appropriated for Afghanistan and spent it in Kuwait to prepare for the Iraq War. There has been no investigation of that, the no-bid contracts, or anything else. Bush barely consented to the 9-11 commission either and refused to testify alone or on tape before the commission.

I don't know if the Framers of the Constitution were correct in believing that "checks and balances" were necessary to prevent a tyrannical government, I think a parliamentary system has many virtues, but right now, it appears to me that our government is displaying all the problems of parliamentarism, and none of the virtues.

- posted by jsbennett70 @ 6:46 AM