Your Lousy Congress

[babylonsister]

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/7/24/155034/173

Your Lousy Congress

by BooMan
Sat Jul 24th, 2010 at 03:50:34 PM EST


The headline kind of threw me. I thought the Senate not caring for change was a reference to the difficulty in getting the Senate to pass any legislation. But, once I read the article, I realized that the change the Senate doesn't like is change in personnel. They don't like to see old senators go and new senators arrive. That must be because they are all such great friends and enjoy each other's company so much. I swear these people just don't get it. The Senate is an elitist institution by design. It was supposed to be even more elitist than it is now that the senators are directly elected. They're supposed to be grown-ups. They're supposed to leave the political bickering to the House. They're supposed to be above talking-points and the news cycle. But they're not living up to their mission.

Having our own House of Lords without the titles was always a dubious idea. Most people think we live in a democracy, and most of those who don't, think we should. Some people see the virtue in having 100 elites who can thwart the will of the electorate in their greater wisdom, but I don't know anyone who thinks our current Senate is any wiser than the House. It's just less representative and operates under bizarre rules than allow the minority to have veto power over procedure. The institution stinks and it's getting in the way of progress.

The fact that it can't be fixed is one of the most frustrating things in our political culture. To see all these senators whining about their lack of job security is galling. Try making it a place worth serving. How would that be?

Article referenced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/us/politics/24memo.html?_r=1&hp
Change Comes to a Place That Doesn’t Care for It

snip//

Some lawmakers believe the shifting membership of the Senate has contributed to the rising partisanship, since it reduces the number of long-term, across-the-aisle relationships that can lead to consensus and compromise. Mr. Kennedy, of course, was a master deal maker, and both he and Mr. Byrd had the kind of stature that could sometimes untangle Senate knots.

Others think some of the storied Senate civility has disappeared, citing the recently broken impasse over the unemployment pay as an example. With Mr. Byrd’s death at the end of June, Democrats found themselves one vote short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Though they knew defeat was inevitable, Republicans were not about to budge, forcing Democrats to wait until Mr. Goodwin was appointed and sworn in to break the logjam.

“Maybe I am over-romanticizing,” said Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat elected in 2008, “but from what I have heard about the Senate in the past when comity reigned, somebody on the Republican side, after Senator Byrd’s death, would have voted the way Senator Byrd would have.”

more...

[unkachuck]

1. "The institution stinks and it's getting in the way of progress."

....ain't that the truth....

[patrice]

2. Senators from sparsely populated states are equal to those from densely populated ones.

Somebody tell me again why we need a senate, please.

[tavalon]

3. Because we have oligarchy stitched into a genetic makeup?

Even more likely, the men who created our country weren't able to think as far outside the box as we could have wished them to in hindsight. They did an amazing job, true, but in the end, they were only a small ocean away from the Royals.

I don't know how we could make it happen, but I do think it's high time we convened another Constitutional Convention.

[onethatcares]

4. at least they didn't not vote themselves a pay raise this year

they decided it was better to just leave it at 174,000 and change.

Doesn't that make ya feel great? And they get some unreal vacation time, too.