It's not that the debt ceiling negotiations should be knowledge for the public right from the beginning, but it seems like the negotiators will come up with a plan behind closed doors giving Congress only two days to look it over and vote. These days the thing to do is ram important legislation through without allowing legislators the opportunity to see a bill and fully analyze its repercussions.
How many times do we see legislators being put in the position of voting on something that they don't really fully understand? A prime example of this happened with health care. Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin expressed his views during a phone interview with the Weekly Standard. In the interview, Senator Johnson said, "You reporters have more detail on what's happening here in Washington on these debt ceiling talks than rank and file members of Congress."
Then there is also the pressure of the economy tanking if Congress does not act by the August 2nd deadline. If Congress does not increase the debt ceiling, experts say that this is the worst possible thing for the economy. We could see the stock market and the dollar fall as faith in the U.S. economy is shaken.
Senator Johnson thinks that it would be better to hit the debt ceiling, and hold tough on the issues. There are many who disagree with this position. If Senator Johnson is right about reporters knowing more about the negotiations going on over the debt ceiling increase, something needs to change.
Playing political games with this country's important issues is one of the things that people were tired of when the last presidential election was held. Voters wanted change then, and still want to see a change in Washington. Not this same old political game where no one wins, especially the American people.
Photo credit: kconnors from morguefile.com
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 20
Democrats are the party of the people dependent on government or the entitlement party, they will look weak to their base if they reduce any entitlement spending.
I think about this often, how there is not enough time or thought and especially debate devoted to the very complex problems Congress is dealing with. How is it possible anyone still thinks the number of representatives, a plan initiated 200 years ago, is sufficient to address a country of 300 million. The Health Care Bill alone would be enough to try and chew through without the wars, and the budget, burgeoning technology issues, and the byzantine legal questions involving states rights and civil rights, lawsuits and counter lawsuits, implementing additional wars in the middle east while trying to end one and trudge through the middle of another.
I think it is clear we need more bodies handling the workload. I know what you are thinking, please God, no more politicians. It may be that a lot of the paralysis in Washington is due to members of Congress not understanding fully what they are voting on and how after implementation, it might work. It is safer to vote no, than to say yes, but not really understand what you are saying yes to.
There are those taking advantage of the inability of lawmakers not only to understand what they are voting on, but to convey to their constituents what it is and how it will work. Those people are the ones who oversimplify spread lies and twist the facts. Rebuttals are complicated and most people are not willing to sit still and listen to the full explanation.
I think we need to have at least a Congress to address domestic policy and a separate Congress to address Foreign policy. Something has to change, legislators need more time to thoroughly debate and perhaps even be quizzed on what they know about bills in question. LOL
What corporation in the world would run the way we run the country. As a corporation grows more managers are recruited to handle the load. It would be insane for a company that had 150 million customers in 1955, to think it could effectively manage double the customer base in 2011 with the same number of managers.
Yes, I know the representation is adjusted to compensate for population growth. That isn't enough. The problems go beyond simple numbers and involve complicated proposals. Government needs to be trimmed down as well. The larger the animal the slower it moves. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has authored a bill to first eliminate duplicate departments and second disband sectors still in place that have lived beyond their purpose.
It seems the Congress used to be the dog, but now it is the tail and government is the dog, in charge of leading the Congress instead of the other way around.
There are also the issues of Bill-bloat, and brinksmanship.
Even people who couldn't pass the first quiz on Government, know that these are poor methods of governing.
Ultimately, these problems are an outgrow of The Two Party System; in 2 respects.
First, The Two Party System has become a defacto monopoly, and has long since displayed yet anew the drawbacks that prompt us to limit & break up monopolies, in other spheres.
Second, The Two Party System is under attack, feels the heat, and is taking measures to secure its interests and diminish the competition.
America will experience dramatic changes, when The Two Party Era begins to recede into history.
Are you in favor of abolishing the current government? If so, could it be, in your opinion, executed utilizing the provisions outlined in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence? I have been pushing for this move but as usual am considered having no credibility.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with [inherent and] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Thank You,
The Declaration of Independence isn't part of our actual Law. It is used mainly to help 'inform' our understanding of the Constitution, since it was written within the same time-frame & conditions, and by the same people, as the Constitution itself.
To "abolish" the "current government" implies (to me) a legal process. The "provisions" under which such a legal process might happen, would need to be drawn from legal documents, such as the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is an important document, but it lacks legal standing.
As far as getting rid of the current government ... yeah, I think in broad terms that will probably happen. But more because 'We live in exciting times', than due to any self-identifying 'reform effort'.
The times we are living in will affect 'us' ... and changes will also be required of the government, too.
I expect to see important changes. The world, and the community of nations, is now in the midst of an historic transition. If we stand still like a doe in the headlights, we will be run over. Despite our foibles, we have more on the ball than that.