It was interesting to read what Glen Warchol relates today about the first anniverarly of the Texas FLDS raid. Glen gives us the statistics one year later and it is almost identical to what what known weeks before any of the children were returned to their homes. I hope we don’t see such a massive injustice being carried out by the police again – but we probably will even if the FLDS are not the target.
Federalist Papers 62 and 63 begin examining the Senate, just as the House has been examined in recent papers. I was quickly surprised to find this gem:
So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. (emphasis added)
The notion that the larger states might dislike equal representation has become reality among some citizens of larger states.
I also found proof of how different our political system is now than it was in 1888:
The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the representatives. (emphasis added)
I would challenge anyone to show me an example of any of our states that regularly replaces one third of its representatives – let alone one half – either at the state level or in their federal delegation each election cycle. Sadly, our increased stability has not decreased the downside of the instability is was to replace:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood{or} if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated . . .
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY. (emphasis added)
Federalist 63 suggests:
the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.
It is interesting to note that the Senate has come closer to being "a tyrannical aristocracy" since it began to be elected by the people directly than it ever was under the indirect model. Additionally, the change to direct elections of senators leads us to change the following statement:
Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large.
That statement would now read:
Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large.
Sadly we appear to be in the advances stages of the corruption of the people. (Although I admit that the Senate does not appear to be the cause of the corruption, nor was it necessarily propagated in that order.) Nor does the prescribed remedy appear very promising right now:
if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the people on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles.
Federalist 62 also included this statement (which should probably be engraved on the office wall of every national elected official):
It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.
Regardless of what political agenda is being pushed I hate to see people speak or perpetuate half truths. I try very hard not to do that myself. Today I would like to tell the story of two half truths.
The second half truth is the declaration by President Obama that he intends to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. His declaration is coupled with him reminding us of a half truth that President Bush put forward throughout his presidency – namely the fact that his military expenditures were largely left out of the regular budgeting process – relying instead on supplemental appropriations to cover the large gaps in funding the massive military missions. This declaration is made as an attempt to hide the fact that he is proposing record deficits for his entire term and there is nothing to suggest that he will ever propose anything approaching a balanced budget even if he serves two full terms.
In response to Obama’s half-truth many Republicans are perpetuating the first half-truth by sharing the following graph (or some similar variation):
If we were to admit the full truth the graph would look more like this graph (which I created based on the best information I could find online without excessive research):
Looking at the complete picture we see that the Bush fiscal record is 1) incomplete and 2) abused the budgetary process to obscure the financial cost of our military engagements. We also see another myth being put forward, that the extraordinary 2009 budget is attributed to Obama. The truth is that Obama took office 7 months into FY2009 and the bulk of that budget was spent by the Bush administration. On the other side, we see that Obama inflated the FY2009 budget by including the appropriations that Bush would have acquired through supplemental appropriations and by frontloading some of his new priorities so that he could claim to cut the deficit in half while running deficits that are larger than anything seen during the Bush administration.
I am convinced that any good goal has as much chance of succeeding while acknowledging the full truth than it has when only presenting half the truth. am also convinced that while both parties have been outrageously fiscally irresponsible the democratic party is even more bold about pretending that we can put that fiscal responsibility on the shoulders of generations unborn.
As much as it may be fashionable to blame congress for many of our problems I think it is fair to take an unbiased look at how congress functions. As I began to do so I realized that no matter how numerous my complaints about the legislation we hear about and the legislative process itself I am pleased to realize that Congress is working as designed by the founders.
I’m reminded of an old joke:
If "pro" is the opposite of "con" then Congress must be the opposite of progress.
It turns out that the major thing that Congress does as designed is to slow down the process of law-making. Obviously we have seen recent exceptions such as the ever-popular bailouts and the patriot act where Congress acted faster than it was meant to act, but the fact that such legislation is so shoddy is proof of why the House and Senate are intended to be deliberative bodies.
What I was very happy to realize was that while I may complain when Congress takes a decent proposal from the executive branch and strips it down (or gums it up) to a barely palatable law, it also takes poor proposals from the executive branch and dilutes them up until they are marginally less toxic. So while we may complain that nothing can come through Congress clean, we should also recognize the flip-side of that truth – that bad legislation is never as potent as it would be without congressional intervention.
I know that the founders envisioned a Congress that would, through their deliberation, pass good proposals with little alteration while preventing or significantly improving poor proposals. That is the ideal for which we should continuie to strive, but at least we can approciate the fact that even a poor congress has some beneficial value to the people.
Federalist Papers 59, 60, and 61 discuss the power of Congress to regulate the elections of members of Congress. This power is meant to be exercised by the individual states while allowing the federal government to make some blanket provisions to ensure some uniformity within the union. Some people worried that Congress might be able to make some rules which would favor some people over others with respect to the ability to be elected as a member of Congress. I found it very interesting that Hamilton stated:
the circumstance which will be likely to have the greatest influence in the matter, will be the dissimilar modes of constituting the several component parts of the government. The House of Representatives being to be elected immediately by the people, the Senate by the State legislatures, the President by electors chosen for that purpose by the people
Since then we have changed so that Senators are elected immediately by the people and there are growing numbers of people calling for a direct election for the president. As I have always argued on that topic, the establishment of an electoral college was made for reasons very different from an inability to counts the votes of all the people of the nation.
This subject also serves as an additional evidence of the value of having the states serve as laboratories of government. Often the various Federalist Papers discuss the virtues of the Constitution by comparing it favorably to the various state constitutions.
One final observation by Hamilton led me to an interesting if totally impractical idea:
I am inclined to think that treble the duration in office, with the condition of a total dissolution of the body at the same time, might be less formidable to liberty than one third of that duration subject to gradual and successive alterations.
Rather than advocating term limits of the form that no member may serve in office more than 12 years perhaps we would be better served to say that every 8 or 12 years all sitting members of the house may not stand for re-election – that would impede if not destroy the infusion of any improper spirit that may prevail in congress "into the new members, as they come forward in succession."
I was tempted to not closely read Federalist No. 58 because I already knew that the assumptions it contained, however accurate they may have been in the 18th century had been rendered obsolete int he 20th century. For the first 120 years of our history the size of the House was expanded as the population grew. In fact, it was expanded 10 times in those 120 years with each expansion averaging over 30 new seats.
Had that trend continued we would have a house of over 700 members today. Instead 98 years ago, in 1911, the size of the house was expanded for the last time to 435. Aside from a temporary expansion when Hawaii and Alaska became states and the potential of adding two new seats in order to give a voting seat to Washington D.C. our population has more than tripled in the last century while our House size has stagnated. It’s time for use to force Congress to do what the founders intended by augmenting the size of the House as our population increases. We should require that Congress not ignore this action in the future by adding a Constitutional amendment stipulating a maximum number of people to be represented in a congressional district. (The Founders were wise enough to stipulate a minimum in the Constitution.)
Thankfully I did choose to read the whole of Federalist 58 and I found this one caution to the idea of unchecked expansion of the size of the house:
Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.
This should not stop us from returning to the practice of expanding the size of the House in proportion to the growth of the population, but we only need look to the way that public opinion is so fickle in raging against a $165 Million bonus while standing silent in response to bailouts one thousand times as large and spending proposals (which are each another 5 times larger than the bailouts) to recognize that the caution remains true. While we are expanding the House we should not get so carried away that we dilute the power of individual representatives within the House. At least we have the Senate in place with it’s smaller size to help mitigate the potential weaknesses of a House too large. It’s time to once again have one legislative body where the representatives are connected to their constituents rather than being concceted to their chamber.
I was listening to Peter Schiff’s Wall Street Unspun for this week and he said something that cemented a change of perspective I had been considering regarding the AIG bonuses. I had been thinking about this idea of taxing the bonuses at 100% and relizing that it amounted to an ex post facto law – which is specifically forbidden in the Constitution. What Peter said was that Congress was wrong to bail AIG out in the first place and that if they hadn’t AIG would not be able to pay these bonuses now. Secondly, he said that if they had wanted to stop the bonuses they should have done so up front by making it a condition of receiving their bailout money. (He also accurately pointed out that the excuse that these bonuses should not be necessary to reatain AIG employees in this economy – few people would leave their jobs in a climate of rapidly rising unemployment and smart companies should be avoiding the employees from the division that crippled a company the size of AIG.)
Between the Constitution and the logic of Peter Schiff I realized that as much as I dislike the fact that these bonuses are being paid I cannot support Congressional action to tax them back after the bonuses have been paid and after the bailouts have been given. Simply stated, Congress is acting immorally anytime they try to change the rules after making their promises – it’s solid proof that they should not have made those promises in the first place.
Federalist No. 57 contains a statement describing the proper goals of any constitution boiled down to two simple points:
The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.
In defending the provisions in the proposed Constitution the following defense was sound in theory but two centuries of growing experience has led to a Congress that is masterful at the art of public obfuscation:
the House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed,
The members of the House are always aware of their impending re-election bids so they carefully craft the perception of what they are doing by hiding legislation and casting votes in a way that makes them look good back home even when they are working for the opposite results on some issues when the cameras are not around.
Next I find our present society perfectly captured:
what is to restrain the House of Representatives . . . above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.
(emphasis added)
The numbers in the latter part of this paper regarding the number of people electing a member of congress are almost comical today. In 1788 we might have trusted that two members of congress would feel connected and answerable to 60 Thousand constituents but there is little doubt today that one member of congress may easily feel little connection with 600 Thousand constituents (a small district).
This is a question – not a dissertation. I would like to get more perspectives and experience than I have on the question of how citizens can have the most political influence. Suggestions must be activities that all citizens can participate – in other words, holding office does nto count because if I hold an office you can’t hold that office. Things like voting in general elections, primaries, caucus meetings, or party organizing conventions as well as activities such as writing to the newspaper or your elected representative are what I aam looking for – in other words activities where my action on an issue does not take away your chances of partaking in the same activity.
I’d like to know which activities are the most effective at bringing about the changes that citizens might be seeking and why. I’ll be sharing my own experience and the input I receive in a future post.
When I listed the options yesterday for how to deal with the AIG bonuses I obviously missed one. One member of the house thought up the idea that we could tax AIG bonuses at 100 percent. The beauty of his bill is that it is written to apply to large bonuses at any company receiving TARP funds. I like the concept because it leaves private businesses (meaning those not being propped up by Uncle Sam) free from any new restrictions in compensation and id does not affect the people getting small bonuses (the ones least responsible for the problems). The biggest change I would have made to this idea would be to lower the threshold from $100,000 to $25,000 or less.
