Is this the worst US congress ever?

[Bubba1]

Could be. We're talking near record low approval ratings. the bipartisan "Super committee" seemed destined to fail on agreeing how to cut $1.2 Billion in spending,
Congress' idiotic game of Brinkmanship between political parties over the debt ceiling (which was even more dumb when you consider they were arguing about money already spent) resulted in the downgrading of the US Debt., Congress came thisclose to shutting down the government this past spring because of their unwillingness to work together. It's not one party, it's both.

I;m trying to think of any previous Congress that has been this bad, but none come to mind. Thoughts?

[telcoman]

I agree and you are correct. This is the worst congress in my lifetime.
The answer is Grover Norquest.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/19252 ... tax-pledge.

In my opinion all who signed it should be voted out of office in the next election. They are not working for the American People. They are working for a lobbyist.


Telcoman

[bigbadberry3]

Need term limits now.

[IBCoupe]

Term limits aren't the answer - just gives lobbyists even more sway over Congresscritters.

[bigbadberry3]

Term limits aren't the answer - just gives lobbyists even more sway over Congresscritters.

Can you elaborate? Lobbyists would have to spend much more for power I would think.

[IBCoupe]

Not necessarily. A Senator looking at a job for possibly 20 years might not leap at the chance to suck industry teat right off the bat. If need be, that opportunity will likely present itself again, and he can choose to stand for principle now. A Senator looking at a job for a grand total of two or four or six years realizes that another window to take advantage of a unique financial opportunity might not present itself before he's forced out of a job.

On the one hand, you're handed a Congressperson who's going to be in Washington, D.C. for a few years. On the other hand, you've got a lobbyist who will never leave. If you have a prayer's chance at getting someone in D.C. who'll fight for your interests, why would you cripple them?

As the fictional President Bartlet explained:

I get nervous around laws that fundamentally assume that Americans can't be trusted. We better have mandatory sentencing, because judges can't be trusted to disperse even-handed justice.... We better have term limits, 'cause voters can't be trusted to recognize corruption. Oh, and by the way... when the playing field is level and the process is fair and open, it turns out we have term limits: They're called elections.

[Cold_Zero]

And here is the problem. With some 80% of Americans that were polled think that Congress is broken, yet some 70% of Incumbents were re-elected in the last Congressional Election cycle. So.....Congress is broken, just not in my district.

Personally, I think if you cut the amount of power that the Federal Government has amassed you will get rid of the problem of Congress people being in the pocket lobbyists. When Congress or the Federal Government has the ability to Make or Break your company, you will always have industry groups, corporations; companies hiring lobbyists to make sure their interests are protected. This has only been exacerbated in the past 15 years with the Federal Government being in the business of lending and giving away money. I think a lot of these functions can be sent back to the states to run.
It use to be that Student Lending was a function of the State Agencies and their loans were ultimately Guaranteed by the Department of Education by a huge pot of money that were collected in Insurance Fees for each of the State Agencies. Things ran well with the Department of Education assuming their role as a regulator of the industry. Everyone was on equal ground, the schools, borrower, the lenders and the servicers having to answer to the State Agencies and the Department of Education. The Clinton Administration passed into law creating Direct Lending in 1993 and then in 2010 thanks to the Obama Administration and the Congress the Federal Government is pretty much the sole lender for Student Loans. This system was touted as being favorable to the students but in actuality is heavily geared towards making money for the schools. The government took over the industry in 17 years and if they were given another 5 years they would ‘transform’ the industry again by giving away money to go to college. So where is the rub? Where is the power? As a part of the student lending provisions of HCERA 2010, all small and middle tier lenders have been purged from Student Lending. Only the top 4 remain to service the FSA’s massive portfolio. Competition in the industry has been eradicated and Congress has setup a system where by lobbying is the main function to protect these top 4 companies’ interest.

[IBCoupe]

And here is the problem. With some 80% of Americans that were polled think that Congress is broken, yet some 70% of Incumbents were re-elected in the last Congressional Election cycle. So.....Congress is broken, just not in my district.

That's not a problem. That's people voting their interests. It's only a problem if those voters are being tricked, somehow. While Congress has an approval rating lower than Lupus, people don't vote for Congress. Want to make it more nuanced? Add more Congressmen. The last time we increased the number of Congressmen, we made it one representative per 216,091 Americans and disassociated the count from the population. Now it's roughly one representative per 712,643 Americans. Each politician is worth that much more.

Personally, I think if you cut the amount of power that the Federal Government has amassed you will get rid of the problem of Congress people being in the pocket lobbyists. When Congress or the Federal Government has the ability to Make or Break your company, you will always have industry groups, corporations; companies hiring lobbyists to make sure their interests are protected. This has only been exacerbated in the past 15 years with the Federal Government being in the business of lending and giving away money. I think a lot of these functions can be sent back to the states to run.

But the Federal Government isn't just going out and grabbing power for the sake of grabbing power. That's a really nice story that libertarians tell themselves, but it's just not true. They pass laws because they've been asked to or because they recognize there's a need to. The more filled in our nation gets, the more it needs a centralized source of government; even Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this. What you're seeing are probably less power grabs and more the natural ebbs and flows of a constantly growing nation. Are some laws going to be bad? Sure, but that's nothing to do with the federal government and everything to do with man.

As for your student loan gripes, I'm having trouble finding in HCERA the provisions you talk about. Might be there, but I'm really having trouble finding this bit:

As a part of the student lending provisions of HCERA 2010, all small and middle tier lenders have been purged from Student Lending. Only the top 4 remain to service the FSA’s massive portfolio.

The education-related parts of the law start on page 43:
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4872enr.txt.pdf

[Cold_Zero]

I was calling into question if Congress is really 'that broken' as we perceive. To be honest, I would suspect that a split Congress can be a good thing by preventing extremism and forcing them to work together for the common good. And I do not disagree with you on the last part of your statement. 435 Representatives for 300 million people? Pretty crazy.

I do see the benefits of having access to more local elected officials than just bumping up the number of Congress People. Can I ask? Why is it that you all are fond of citing Thomas Jefferson and sometimes Madison but leave out the whole pantheon of other Founding Fathers? Where are the other Virginians (as you can see I am very proud of my childhood state)? Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, Patrick Henry and to a lesser extent James Madison? What did they think about the consolidation of power and the likes of Alexander Hamilton’s concept of the Federal Governments responsibility? I am not suggesting a country devoid of a Federal Government, just one that lives within its Enumerated Powers.

Sorry, it is not my intent to get into a full blown discussion of Federalism vs. Anti Federalism. And I dont want to hijack Joe's discussion here. I just think that the way to fixing the problem of lobbyists having a strangle hold on Congress is not to allow it to garner any more power or control.

[IBCoupe]

I just point out Thomas Jefferson because there's a quote somewhere out there where he admits that the ideas that he and the other anti-Federalists entertained were only as good as our nation was agricultural.

[bigbadberry3]

How about we pay Congress more? No need to supplement their incomes then.

[IBCoupe]

That's not a very popular thought, but seems to be good reasoning. Congresscritters get paid what, $125k/yr? Sure, that's a lot, but if most of them are lawyers, that's less than a good job would pay right out of law school. Public service is a hit for these people.

[Cold_Zero]

A while ago, I kicked around the idea in my head of letting each individual state, through the legislature, set the pay and compensation for its Congress people and Senators.

[IBCoupe]

You'd need an Amendment for that.

[bigbadberry3]

I apologize if I seem scatter brained. I'm just spit balling ideas to try and come up with an "adjustment" for Congress that May improve their ability to be productive.

[IBCoupe]

Kill all Republicans?

[Cold_Zero]

You'd need an Amendment for that.

Oh no! Not that! j.k. You would need an Amendment for expanding the number of Representatives in the House as well. *shrug* Nothing is worth anything if you don't have to work at it.

[IBCoupe]

I bet it'd be easier to get an Amendment to outlaw abortion than it would to get an Amendment to take away Congress' power to pay itself.

[Cold_Zero]

Kill all Republicans?

Under the Equal Protection Clause would you have to kill all Democrats too? j.k. I dont think killing anyone solves this country's problems, except for Justin Bieber.