Question - what do you guys think of this?

[calimary]

I posted this elsewhere - the value of putting a new idea out there that might shake up a few of the insurrectionists in Congress:

WHAT IF... we started agitating for REMOVING Congress's jurisdiction over the budget?

Even if it doesn't go anywhere - just the very IDEA that this is out there being brought up, being discussed, being considered, to challenge their very authority to be in charge of the national budget?

Yeah, I know, "Congress appropriates the money..." blah-blah-blah... Well, what if we start questioning THAT? The bedrock of their power - what if IT comes under scrutiny?

After all, haven't they proven beyond ANY doubt by now that they are too reckless, hyper-partisan, and irresponsible to be entrusted with a job this important? WHY should they be allowed to keep it?

When your kid crashes the car, or drives drunk, or runs up a bunch of speeding tickets, what would you do as a responsible parent? TAKE THE FUCKING KEYS AWAY and ground the little fucker and deny him/her driving privileges - PERIOD. Correct? One thing you do NOT do is say - "oh, okay... well, try not to do that again, sweetheart... " !!!!!!

I think maybe we ought to start spreading this. Wonder what the bad guys would do if they thought there was a growing drum-beat of discussion about ending Congress's authority over the budget? They're not used to being questioned. They're not used to having the "sanctity" of their authority questioned. But look, THEY are questioning ANYTHING they damn well feel like questioning. So why don't we start doing that, too? Aimed directly at THEM and THEIR authority?

Thoughts?

[calimary]

1. Kicking - I'd love some feedback!

Thank you in advance!

[Wounded Bear]

2. Would require a Constitutional amendment....

non-starter, I'm afraid. And I don't really want to. After all, the Dems will be in charge of the House some day.

[calimary]

4. The only problem with that is - that's the logic Harry Reid used to avoid making any changes

in the filibuster rules in the Senate.

I think it should be a non-partisan commission that handles this.

Heck, let's at least start the discussion! I'm interested in the psy-ops of this, too. They're swaggering around with this Congressional authority they have that they all assume is untouchable. What if we start picking at it? They've done that with all our sacred cows after all. They've disrespected this President as NO ONE ever would, to ANY president before this. They're looking to fuck with a debt limit that nobody's wanted to do before - but with them it's All-Bets-Are-Off. Why aren't we allowed to fuck with the parts of the system that provides them with the aces in the deck? Or at least rattle their cages about it? They're pretty secure in this. Then let's start chipping away at it.

[Bandit]

14. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the filibuster, however it is very plainly stated

in the Constitution that Congress controls the purse strings..

[Xyzse]

3. I can't quite agree with that, since I think it is good to have a check on the Presidency.

However, I agree that Congress is dysfunctional, and I would support Obama in regards to invoking the 14th Amendment section 4. This is because, this is only in regards to our debts of services rendered.

I will reference this guy's post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023807031

Which has the article with an interview with an old Republican who mentions this:

So what is the most likely ending to this?

Just based on intuition, I tend to think it’ll go on until sometime close to the default date, 17th of October. Because the government shutdown is a bad thing, but a default puts us into uncharted territory. When you screw around with the full faith and credit of the United States government, that’s serious. And I think did a horrible job in 2011 taking the invocation of the 14th Amendment off the table. The 14th Amendment states that the United States will pay its debt. This is an exigent circumstance, and he can do it. Just tell the Treasury to keep rolling over the T-bills. And he’s in his second term; what can they do to him?

I'd say, do it Obama. I suggest doing it a few days before the 17th.

[IrishAyes]

6. President Obama might've said he has ''no intention" of doing so. That doesn't mean "I won't."

When and if he does, you can count on the TP's trying to impeach him for it. While I wouldn't wish that ordeal on anyone, especially him, I imagine he's considered that probability and would be willing to face it should the occasion arise, in order to save the nation. Besides, if anything killed the GOP deader than a door nail, impeaching the man who gave the country national health care would come as close as anything.

[Xyzse]

10. I agree with you.

See?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3814913

In truth even if Obama says he has no intention on doing so, he might still be forced to due to defaulting in debt is illegal and unconstitutional.

[IrishAyes]

16. Besides, 'have no intention' is still a hair's breadth short of 'I won't.'

And as you say, regardless of any negative statements, if circumstances leave him no choice, he has to do what's best. Damn the torpedos, full steam ahead!

[oldhippie]

5. How about we start questioning the need for .....

.. a Congress at all? As long as we are going to start changing the basic structure of our government and removing powers and authorities we don't like from the Constitution, why not just do away with the Congress? Just have a President that is elected by the people directly, who will be the people's representative, and maybe a Court that can put a little bit of a check on his authority. The President then can determine spending and tax rates by himself. It would certainly be a lot cheaper and more efficient

[IrishAyes]

7. It would also be a sure recipie for disaster. You're not thinking this through.

[oldhippie]

8. Well, you just made a couple of statements. Got anything .....

.... to back them up?

[IrishAyes]

15. Plenty, but I don't feel like sharing this evening. It's been a lonnnnng day.

Perhaps another time. Meanwhile, best of luck finding the argument or debate you're after.

[oldhippie]

17. OK ........

I just put that out there as an extension of the OP's idea of changing the Constitution to remove power of the purse from the Congress. As long as we're gonna mess with the Constitution, why not get rid of all those other pesky inconvenient parts we don't like. I was, of course, being facetious.

I hope you have a relaxing evening. I'm on my second glass of cabernet.

[IrishAyes]

19. Pour me one, would you, please?

[cynatnite]

9. Look down the road...

If you take away congress' authority, where should it go? Who should pull those strings?

This is a republican congress. If down the road a dem congress is in power, would you still want the purse strings out of their hands?

Anything that we're willing to do because of the repubs, we have to keep in mind that someday it will apply to Dems.

[tillikum]

18. thats my thought too.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. I like it.

[DireStrike]

13. A non-partisan commission appointed by whom?

Even if your idea went all the way, the D/R party leadership would decide who to appoint for this thing.

I'm sorry but that's undermining the very foundation of democracy. We would just have an unelected, unaccountable body of wonks making policy by fiat.


A better proposal is simply to have a revolution. Or abolish congress completely as mentioned upthread. Both solutions are terrifying and risk-filled. You have to choose between the current system and slow decay, or a longshot at a better future.

I think any radical change today would be extremely bad. The left is on life support in this country. We would wind up a fascist theocracy or a (legitimized) corporate state.