Friday, November 16, 2018

Democrats Propose New House Rules

Democrats Propose New House Rules

[Editor's Note: I have no connection or relationship with the organization No Labels or with the Problem Solvers caucus. This post is simply meant to provide a benchmark on what's happening in D.C. regarding proposed rule changes attempting to make the U.S. House more functional.]


The Washington Post obtained a copy of House Democratic leadership’s plan to reform the rules in Congress. It’s called “New Congress New Rules” and it's touted as a plan that would “restore Congress for the people.” The bipartisan Congressional reform group No Labels say they read the proposals and stated, “It’s a start, but it doesn’t come close to addressing the root causes of the current gridlock and partisanship in Washington.” Instead, No Labels is supporting another set of rule changes released on July 25, 2018 (see release), by the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of 48 House members, in their Break the Gridlock reform package which is designed to make the legislative process more transparent, efficient, and bipartisan. 

The following is the Executive Summary of the Democrat’s proposal, followed by a link to the complete draft and an overview of the No Labels campaign known as The Speaker Project.

New Congress – New Rules
DRAFT RULES PROPOSALS

Executive Summary

During the 115th Congress, the Republican Majority set the record for the most closed Congress in our nation’s history. By shutting down regular order, the legislative process, and the voices of a majority of Members and the people they represent, the GOP has abdicated its duties. Furthermore, we are in the midst of an Administration that has flaunted its conflicts of interest and a Republican Congress that has turned a blind eye to its constitutional duty to investigate and conduct oversight. Our Democratic rules package will take a strong first step in tackling many of the pressing issues facing our nation.

I.                   RESTORE THE PEOPLE’S VOICE Our rules package will restore the American people’s voice by emphasizing our Democratic priorities, protecting middle class taxpayers, establishing Member Day hearings so all Members can publicly present their ideas to committees, and strengthening congressional representation.


II.                RESTORE THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS This proposal will create a more accommodating process for ideas to be considered. The proposal restores regular order, provides Members more time to read bills, establishes a select committee to improve the operation of Congress, modernizes the discharge petition, and reforms the motion to vacate the chair.
III.             RESTORE OVERSIGHT & ETHICS The legislative branch can reassert itself as a coequal branch of government, restore ethics, and hold the federal government accountable. The Democratic rules package will include reforms that amend the rules to protect whistleblowers, strengthen investigative powers, and prevent conflicts of interest.

IV.             RESTORE BUDGET RULES Since Republicans took control of the House, we have continuously seen them use fuzzy math to justify their lopsided priorities of enriching corporations and the wealthy at the expense of low- and middle-income Americans. Through this rules package we can return to fiscal sanity by eliminating dynamic scoring, eliminating CUTGO, restoring the Gephardt Rule, and ending the public lands giveaway.

V.                RESTORE INCLUSION & DIVERSITY This Democratic rules package emphasizes diversity and provides an opportunity for all Americans to be included in this institution. We will accomplish these goals by creating an independent diversity office, amending the rules to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and ensuring Members and staff are permitted religious expression.

No Labels is encouraging interested persons to send message directly to leadership indicating that they fail to directly address the Problem Solvers most meaningful ideas. "It’s just not enough to make real change." Persons may comment by posting on the Facebook page of incoming House Rules Committee Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA).

No Labels is proposing a campaign known as The Speaker Project suggesting that on the first day of the new Congress, January 2019, members elect a new House speaker and adopt a package of rules to guide House procedures for the next two years.

They indicate that this is the moment when No Labels and the Problem Solvers Caucus could have more leverage than at any time in our history. Because the Speaker nominee needs majority support (218 votes) to get the job, a small group of united members has significant power. These members could commit that they will not vote for any speaker nominee who does not support the Break The Gridlock reform package. If this group of reformers hangs together, a speaker nominee will have to meet their demands to get the necessary 218 votes to be elected.

Access the complete Democrat proposal (click here).

Saturday, October 27, 2018

Congress Is The Core Of U.S. Political Radicalism

Congress Is The Core Of U.S. Political Radicalism

There is so much talk of what is causing the divisive nature of American politics and the extreme partisanship of the American public. What is the root cause? What causes families to separate themselves from each other? What allows enemy foreign governments to so easily manipulate our temperament? What allows our politicians and President to divide us rather than unite us? What causes the gridlock that prevents finding constructive solutions to complex problems? What causes the tribalism and polarization of our public? What allows us to question facts and truth? What allows us to distrust the news media? What allows us to undermine the basic fundamentals of our democracy and our history of the greatest nation in the world? What allows our now great advances in social media to be used against the common good? What allows us to demean and demonize various segments of our population? What allows obvious lies to be understood as truths?

Is there any common thread to all of these questions? YES! The answer is our Congress. It may seem overly simplistic to cast this blame, but it is real. Congress sets the tone for our political discourse. Congress is the mechanism that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” on our political direction.

Over the last couple of decades, at the same time as our differences as a public have sharpened about the direction of the country, we have allowed political decision making to evolve to a point where even a one vote margin may determine our direction. We have allowed the one institution that is supposed to provide a “check and balance” to devolve into a useless entity, mired in gridlock, and no longer capable of performing its critical role to develop the legislation we need or to check the actions of the other two branches of government – the Executive and Judicial.

It should be clear that we are a divided country in terms of our beliefs about our future and what needs to be done to address our problems and issues. As the past couple of decades have revealed our differences are real, they are passionate and emotional. Yet we have refused to address the fact that our political infrastructure, which may have worked in the past, is no longer capable of addressing the issues, problems and political realities of the 21st century.

How difficult is it to understand that a particular party (Democrats or Republicans), that maintains complete control of the Congress, House and/or Senate, by the very narrowest of numerical margins is not going to reflect the will of the country? How difficult is it to understand that whatever solutions derived by such a system, or action or lack of action by such a system, will be controversial or unacceptable to half or nearly half of the country?

For whatever reason we have allowed ourselves as a nation to accept the fact that this is the way we make decision – the way we govern; the way we solve problems. It is wrong. We know it is wrong. We know that it produces one-sided solutions or results. Yet, we continue on this path.

Our Founders, who created the greatest democracy in the world; what has been the gold standard of governing; warned us about the problems, they even said “evils” of political parties. At the same time they realized that parties are part of our DNA as a people.  But, somehow they trusted that we would see through the flaws and overcome the obvious. For nearly two hundred years we have managed to somehow make the system work with a respect for facts, truth, decency, moral responsibility, faith, international leadership and patriotism. We are now in a new era and faced head on with the reality that it no longer works.

The solution is obvious – the Congressional system must change if we are ever to restore our founding principles of governing and restore our image and reputation as the greatest governing democracy in the world.

The solution is recognition that governing must reflect and incorporate the views and beliefs of all of the people and not just half of the people. We can’t govern the greatest nation in the world based on the beliefs of just half of its population. We need leadership that recognizes our history and understands that governing by half of the country is not governing the nation as a whole.

I believe the public at large understands that solutions and problem solving are not one-sided and demand cooperation, compromise and decorum in leadership. Solutions and decisions must be made with recognition of facts and truth. Radicals on both sides do not understand this phenomenon. They believe that their ideas are the only ideas and they reject any sort of compromise. They seek division, perpetuate hate, misinformation, lies and even acts of violence to advance their position.

America, wake up! The Congressional system must change. One party, Democrats or Republicans, with a narrow margin of control, cannot command complete control of the decision making process of the House and/or Senate. The Constitution does not demand this; it simply says that Congress will establish its own rules. The existing rules are unacceptable and do not reflect the will of the public at large. They encourage division rather than unity. They exacerbate efforts to seek compromise and cooperation. They deny a comprehensive disclosure and investigation of the facts. And finally, they can incite rage and radical behavior among the public.

Congress can change its rules. Congress can develop a new system of “shared power” that reflects the will of the public and provides a new direction of leadership for our country.

We need to focus the criticism of our current governmental dysfunction, tribalism and radicalism where it belongs – Congress. We are much better than this and can change our course to a governing structure that can again be the model for governing that democracies of the world can respect and emulate.

I have written extensively about the concept of “Shared Legislative Power” (SLP). The underpinnings include: a strict adherence to a revised “regular order” process with bills and decisions moving through subcommittees and committees with equally balanced party representation, expert testimony, public input and with co-chairs and non-biased staff. This process is currently utilized by the House and Senate Ethics Committees and has been used, with success, by the Federal and individual state governments on rare occasions when the membership was divided equally. Following evolution through this revised regular order process, bills and decision, would proceed to the Floor for votes of the full membership, unencumbered by arcane rules that are designed to arbitrarily control and limit what bills and decisions are considered.

Admittedly, many procedural details would need to be addressed and it would involve a “game changing” revision to the existing legislative procedures in the House and Senate. Critics argue that it would result in complete gridlock; however, the limited experience in the past has proven otherwise with startling positive results involving cooperation, compromise, true bipartisanship, camaraderie and goodwill among members.

·                     Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings (https://goo.gl/Qczn7a) September  3, 2018
·                     Ethics & The Way Congress Operates (https://goo.gl/wpSdXk) June 4, 2018)
·                     SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party" (https://goo.gl/GSLfgh) May 21, 2018)
·                     Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship(https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017
·                     Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017 
·                     Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017
·                     Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017
·                     Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation(goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry

#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP


#DEMS

Monday, September 3, 2018

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

Slow Learners: Save Democracy; Heed The Warnings

A long time ago, while I was purchasing a fifth of Southern Comfort, I had a convenience store attendant tell me I was a "slow learner" after I told him I was celebrating my third marriage. Yeah, I'll have to admit it did take me three times and about 25 years to finally get it right, so I guess the guy was accurate with his quick-witted comment.

But, hey, my cognitive abilities are like genius level compared to those of Republican and Democratic political leaders throughout the 200-plus years of the American democracy. Yes, I know it wasn't always Republicans and Democrats, but let's just keep it simple for now.

Despite all that this country has accomplished over the years, we still can't seem to get this governing thing on an even keel. It all boils down to this Party stuff -- 2 parties mostly -- Republicans and Democrats. We could be so much better, accomplish so much more and build an even greater country.

There's nothing in the Constitution about Parties. In fact, the Founders and early leaders specifically warned us of how evil they are and told us not to let them take hold. 

Way back, 238 years ago, John Adams, the man who would become our second President, warned in a letter to Jonathan Jackson on October 2, 1780:

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our constitution." [Note: Not the U.S. Constitution, which did not exist then, but the principles, that constituted us as a nation and a people.] 

Fifteen years later, President George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, July 27, 1795, warned:

"Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it. This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented. But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for."

Then again, with an uncanny eye far into the future, Washington detailed his concerns in his farewell address to the then fledgling country on September 19, 1796: 

". . .I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. . ."

Twelve years later, following the turn of the century, Thomas Jefferson, indicated to James Monroe, in March 1808:

"You will soon find that so inveterate is the rancor of party spirit among us, that nothing ought to be credited but what we hear with our own ears. If you are less on your guard than we are here, at this moment, the designs of the mischief-makers will not fail to be accomplished, and brethren and friends will be made strangers and enemies to each other."

There were many other similar warnings back in the day from our esteemed forefathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and others throughout the years. Dwight D. Eisenhower, issued a rather ominous warning in a speech on March 6, 1956: 

"
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."

So, we were warned way back when and we have been warned more recently about the dangers of political parties, their divisive nature and their potential negative effects on good government. With all the warnings, why didn't we learn? Despite the warnings from early governmental leaders, and without any direction from the Constitution itself Party politics took off immediately. Over the years they have become entrenched within our government and intricately woven into the fabric of American politics. As Washington said, "This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.”

It would seem that Party politics is so engrained in our governmental system that we wouldn't know how to operate without it, and perhaps wouldn't want to. But even so, shouldn't we be mindful of the underpinnings of all those warnings? They were made originally by the Founders in good faith and with reason. It seems we may have lost sight of why the warnings were issued in the first place.

·         a division of the republic 
·         confused truth and false representation
·         difficulty in knowing where to seek truth
·         turbulence of human passions in party disputes
·         victory more than truth is the prize
·         geographical discriminations 
·         alternate domination of one faction over another
·         the spirit of revenge
·         common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party
·         the rancor of party spirit among us
·         brethren and friends made strangers and enemies to each other
·         potential for conspiracy to seize power

Unfortunately all of these insights and warnings are a growing part of American political party politics. We have agonized for decades over Congressional gridlock, the increasing tribal partisanship and the failure to deal with the pressing issues of the day -- health care; immigration; racial & ethnic equality; infrastructure; climate change; education; gun control; trade; cyber security; international affairs and much more.

Why can't our political leaders heed the centuries-old warnings and understand that the system they're working in is designed for failure? The unfettered lust for power and greed must end. Instead of making it better they're making it worse with increased partisan divide. Abuse of the filibuster; gridlock gimmicks like the Hastert "rule" (majority of the majority rule); and the increasing trend of avoiding the committee process ("regular order") in favor of limited input, leadership-developed legislative proposals.

And the warnings continue; this time from one of the last great statesmen and patriots of our time, Senator John McCain, in his own personal farewell to Americans and the country, read by his spokesman, Rick Davis on August 27, 2018:

“We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. We weaken it when we hide behind walls, rather than tear them down, when we doubt the power of our ideals, rather than trust them to be the great force for change they have always been.

“We are three-hundred-and-twenty-five million opinionated, vociferous individuals. We argue and compete and sometimes even vilify each other in our raucous public debates. But we have always had so much more in common with each other than in disagreement. If only we remember that and give each other the benefit of the presumption that we all love our country we will get through these challenging times. We will come through them stronger than before. We always do. . .

“Do not despair of our present difficulties but believe always in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here. Americans never quit. We never surrender. We never hide from history. We make history.”

Most recently, on September 1, 2018, former Senator Joe Liberman, delivering a eulogy at John McCain's funeral said John's deciding vote, 
which defeated an ill-conceived health care bill was:

"not really against that bill but against the mindless partisanship that has taken control of both our political parties and our government and produced totally one sided responses to complicated national problems like health care. And of course he was right."

On the same day, former President Barack Obama delivering his eulogy for McCain, highlighted that:

"John believed in honest argument and hearing our views. He understood that if we get in the habit of bending the truth to suit political expediency or party orthodoxy, our democracy will not work."

So again we are warned. It is important to emphasize what Obama said about "bending the truth "; "political expediency"; and "party orthodoxy". If this practice, which has become increasingly and distrubingly the new normal is not changed -- "Democracy Will Not Work."

As a country, as a people, as political parties and as a government we have sunk to a pitiful, shameful and disgraceful level; and we are ever so close to permanently breaking our democracy. We have “thumbed our noses” at the thoughtful patriots of our past and present.

And yet the problems are obvious and the solution is clear. All we need to do is have the will to change; the will to do better; the will to make a correction in our dangerous path; the will to heed the warnings of our forefathers and the will to listen to most Americans who are pleading for Congress to end the dysfunction and do a better job of governing.

We simply need to end, once and for all, the political theory and practice that allows one party, which ever is the "majority" at any given point in time, to completely control the legislative actions of the House and Senate. It is absurd to allow this practice to continue when it is known at the start that the results will be disastrous.

We continue to attempt to solve highly complex societal and economic issues with one-sided legislative solutions put forth by the Party in power, which reflects the ideas and concepts of roughly one-half of the population, and attempt to pass them with the very narrowest of margins. Fortunately, for lack of one vote an ill-conceived healh care bill was not passed. A tax cut bill, affecting millions, with many flaws was passed with a 51-48 vote. 

Critical judicial and executive appointments are made by the Party in power at the time, generally based on political orientation, rather than qualifications of skills, integrity and experience. 

The critical function of executive office oversight is either overlooked completely or obsessively scrutinized depending on which Party is in "power."

If we are going to continue to operate with a two-party political system, with the expectation that our democracy will survive, we must end the practice that Party in power, however narrow the margins, completely controls the critical functions of Congress -- legislation, appropriations, appointment, executive oversight, treaties, commerce, and international affairs.

I have continuously put forward the concept of shared legislative power (SLP) and have explained how it might work and offered examples of where it has worked with great success. 

I'm sure there are other ideas and proposals that might attempt to achieve similar results. The point is that we can't continue going down the same path. We must heed the warnings and change the way we operate and act if we are to save the democracy.

Joe Biden, former Vice President and Senate colleague of John McCain, and a statesman in his own right, captured the spirit we need moving forward in the opening line of his eulogy when he said:

“My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democrat. And I loved John McCain."


For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:




###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry

#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Monday, June 4, 2018

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

Ethics & The Way Congress Operates

The U.S. House & Senate Committees on Ethics, are unique. They are the only standing committees whose membership is evenly divided between each political party no matter which party is in control. 

Also, unlike other committees, the day-to-day work of the Committees on Ethics is conducted by a staff that is nonpartisan by rule. 

For example, the House Ethics Committee rules provide that: “The staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .” The Senate Ethics Committee rules contain similar provisions.


It would seem reasonable to assume that Congressional members instituted the equal party membership and nonpartisan staff requirements because they wanted the "ethics" decisions to be above reproach, infallible, and uncontested politically -- truly "country over party" decisions.

That's not a bad operation model for decision making overall; particularly in today's highly charged, tribalistic political environment.

What if we applied this operational model to all Congressional committees? There's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. Congress is free to establish its own rules of operation and that's what has lead to the current system of total Party control, gridlock, dysfunction and bad or no decisions on critically important issues.

In a country where the public is, for all practical purposes, divided between two ideological perspectives, how much sense does it make to continue to formulate policy and make decisions based on only one perspective? One-sided solutions to complex problems don't work and only result in more divisive gridlock and dysfunction and perpetuate revenge politics when party power changes. How can this be good for the economy and business which require consistency and predictability to enable planning and investment in the future.

One-sided decision making in marriage results in divorce. One-sided decision making by Congress results in political chaos which neuters the most significant branch of U.S. government.

Shouldn't Congress be making laws and providing Executive branch oversight based on truth and a common set of facts if it is to have any credibility and respect by the general public? Isn't that what most Americans want?

The operational model presented by the House and Senate Ethics Committees applied to the nearly 200 committees and subcommittees in Congress could lead to vastly improved political decisions that could earn the respect of the American public. Bills, reports or oversight reviews that eventually advanced to the Floor of the Chambers would have been subjected to extensive, unbiased, bipartisan investigation, research and input resulting in many vested agreements and compromises along the way. 

Arriving on the Floor such bills and decisions would have a core group of Republican and Democratic members that would argue and support the final decisions for passage because of their vested interests. It seems possible that such bipartisan support could actually overcome some of the artificially imposed impediments that currently block movement on many decision such as the so-called "Hastert Rule" (majority of the majority) in the House and the filibuster and "holds" in the Senate.

Critics of altering the committee process may claim it will result in deadlock and stalemate, yet one must ask, what has the current process resulted in? In actuality, the process has been tested at the Federal and State levels with surprising and even amazing success (See my blog post: https://goo.gl/RgdtDz). It must also be noted that the House and Senate Ethics Committees have an operational history extending over decades.

Consider these statements, for example, from Republican and Democratic legislators who actually participated in a shared power legislative environment in Michigan: 

John Gernaat (R-Cadillac) – “Shared power will go down in history as an example of how people on both sides can work together to get things done.” 

Ilona Varga (D-Detroit) – “Both sides had to compromise. I feel the people got the best two years of representation in the over eight years I have been there.”

Michael J. Griffin (D-Jackson) – “…people of goodwill and determination can put public policy ahead of partisan consideration. . . Students of government, civics, political science, et cetera, can learn a great deal from this experience.”

Carl F. Gnodtke (R-Sawyer) – “I have often thought it worked well enough that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring equal numbers from both parties be elected to serve in the House.” 

(See many more legislator comments in my blog post https://goo.gl/RgdtDz) 

Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare) to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative realities and fake facts. Under a shared legislative power (SLP) arrangement, eventually a few good members who put country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test of time.

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party" (https://goo.gl/GSLfgh) May 21, 2018)
Shared Committee Power And The Ambience of Bipartisanship (https://goo.gl/RgdtDz), March 22, 2017
Shared Committee Power: How Crazy Is It? (https://goo.gl/wvpIUG), March 14, 2017  
Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017
Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017
Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation (goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###

#BetterGovmt

#PartyOverCountry
#CountryOverParty

#ReformCongress

#Congress

#GOP

#DEMS

Monday, May 21, 2018

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

SLP: The Only Hope For "Country Over Party"

I used to write about “Shared Legislative Power” (SLP) as an innovative concept and an alternative idea to address the issues around gridlock within government and Congress specifically. I will summarize the SLP concept and provide further insight below.

There was a time when Congress was civil enough and functional enough to work across the aisle. Today, as a country, we have moved beyond that point. In today's highly charged, tribal politics environment, I now believe that SLP, which would force saner minds to work together to solve problems, is one of the few viable options to save the very democratic underpinnings of our Democracy. It is my belief that we are dangerously close to slipping into a near autocratic state mostly because of the complete failure of Congress to function in its critically important oversight and lawmaking duties.

From my perspective political and Congressional decorum began to seriously deteriorate with the contentious election of George W. Bush over Al Gore. It accelerated rapidly following the election of Barak Obama with the immediate Republican strategy hatched the night of the Obama inauguration when top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington. From that point on, through the “Birther” debacle, the Presidential campaign of 2016 and the first year of the Trump Presidency American politics have reached a new low.

It is also important to note that this breakdown in political decorum corresponds closely with the development of the Internet, cable news, email, social media and the way Americans communicate and interact with each other and receive information.

The Tillerson Challenge

I’m not a fan of Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO and U.S. Secretary of State. But, no matter what you think of him, what your politics are, or whether you think he was sincere in his remarks, Mr. Tillerson released some powerful words and thoughts at this year’s (May 2018) commencement exercises at the Virginia Military Institute. He said in part:

“As I reflect upon the state of our American democracy, I observe a growing crisis in ethics and integrity. . .

"An essential tenant of a free society, a free people, is access to the truth. A government structure and a societal understanding that freedom to seek the truth is the very essence of freedom itself. [Quoting from the Bible at John 8:32]. You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

“It is only by fierce defense of the truth and a common set of facts, that we create the conditions for a democratic, free society comprised of richly diverse people, that those free people can explore and fin[d] solutions to the very challenges confronting a complex society of free people. If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no long[er] grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom.

“This is the life of non-democratic societies, filled with people who are not free to seek the truth. We know them well. Societies in Russia, China, Iran, North Korea. You can complete the list.

“A responsibility of every American citizen to each other is to preserve and protect our freedom by recognizing what truth is and is not, what a fact is and is not, and begin by holding ourselves accountable to truthfulness, and demand our pursuit of America's future be fact-based -- not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes made in shallow promises, but with a clear-eyed view of the facts as they are guided by the truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges.

It is also that foundational commitment to truth and facts that binds us to other democratic, like-minded nations, that we Americans will always deal with them from the same set of truths and facts and it is truth that says to our adversaries, 'we say what we mean and we mean what we say.' When we as people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may see[m] the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. . ."

Dangerous Decision-making

Tillerson’s remarks strike at the heart of the issues surrounding sound decision making today – i.e. basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . . truth that will set us free to seek solutions to our most daunting challenges. . . not based on wishful thinking, not hoped-for outcomes.”

Tillerson’s words identify the problems and set the goal that most of us would aspire to, but ask yourself if you can see our existing governmental and political systems being capable of producing such results – real solutions to our most daunting challenges and the major issues of our time.

We have three branches of government, all involved in major decision making and none of them really produce results based on truth and a common set of facts. The judicial branch comes the closest, but the use of competing “expert” witnesses that can be bought and sold can leave judges and juries confused and unsure. Usually the truth and facts win out and of course, decisions can be appealed and argued through multiple levels of our overall court and legal system.

The Executive Branch, led by a President, of course professes to make decisions based on truth and facts, but they are one-sided. The President, elected by the states, with input from the people, is generally thought to represent the will of the country at a particular point in time. But, the decision making by the President is one-sided based on Party agenda, specific ideas, philosophies, beliefs, etc. Decisions or actions by the Executive Office should be thought of as one side of a legal argument with the President representing the ideas put forth by the states, people and Party that elected him/her. Obviously, there is always another side.

Finally, we must look at Congress, the House and the Senate, truly elected directly by the people and with a significant responsibility to make laws and provide oversight of the Executive branch. We must ask the same questions regarding Congressional decisions – are they based on truth and a common set of facts? Being objective and disregarding which Party is in control of either or both Congressional chambers, I have a hard time believing that very many people could actually claim that Congressional decisions are based on truth and a common set of facts?

While most would agree that Congressional decisions are not based on truth and a common set of facts, we have to think about the Tillerson challenge and ask ourselves why is this true? Shouldn’t we be ashamed? If Congress is making laws and providing Executive branch oversight based on something less than truth and a common set of facts how can it expect the general public to have any respect for its decisions or authority.

The fact is there is very little respect. Current Congressional rules and procedures are actually designed to distort truth and facts to fit a particular party agenda or philosophy of whoever is in control at the time. The Parties leaderships, over time, have manipulated the rules and procedures of Congress to give the Party in control, no matter how narrow the margin, complete control over the Executive branch oversight and the development of “solutions to our most daunting challenges” -- all based on a one-sided assessment of truth and facts. Somewhat like a court proceeding with only one side represented by legal counsel.

The existing system provides no viable power to the minority to challenge the facts and data of decisions other than blocking tactics such as leaking media counter information to increase exposure or utilizing misguided legislative rules and procedures to encourage delay and gridlock which only perpetuates revenge politics when party power changes. The minority party is basically prohibited from participating in the proposal development and presenting competing data, facts and information. Even when such information is presented it can be summarily dismissed.

To the contrary, legislators and their partisan staff, spend much of their time implementing strategies to oppose competing arguments – e.g. finding experts with opposing points of view; discrediting counter positions; defaming other legislators; leaking false or discrediting media reports.

We have lost the art of critical thinking, debate and compromise in problem solving. Congress has started making decisions based on lies and fake (sometime called alternative) facts that go unchecked or challenged.

There are those that argue that the other side is so wrong and so off base that there can be no compromise or working together to solve problems. But if we truly adopt that position we should divide up the country and move to our respective corners and operate under our own philosophies and beliefs – not a very realistic alternative. There will always be a significant “other side.” As Americans we must find a way to work together, live together, and make decisions together.

Why should we continue down the path of gridlock in addressing and solving the major problems of our time or continuing to propose one-sided solution to complex problems that will be overturned in the next change of political power? Not to mention the fact that our inability to make consistent, long term decisions based on truth and common facts has seriously weakened our international reputation, standing and credibility.

As the U.S. dawdles in its self-made chaos of leadership and failure in decision making, our international competitors and allies are hastening their advancement in economic development, technology, and infrastructure in the vacuum we leave behind.

Making Congress Work With SLP

How do we ever break the cycle of revenge politics and get back to solving problems with truth and a common set of facts? It’s unlikely that Congress is going to address this problem on its own. Somehow it has to be forced to consider alternatives by the people or some external force. This is the Great Dilemma -- the solution – SLP -- is at hand; the problem is how do we get there?

In previous posts on SLP I have suggested that the House and Senate committee system which gives overriding power to the majority party is the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction and is completely self imposed by operating procedures of the House and Senate.

The concept of SLP is simple, but it’s political and procedural impacts in Congress would be enormous. SLP simply would call for Congressional actions to follow so-called “regular order” initiated through the House and Senate Subcommittee and Committee system and ending up with a Floor vote of the entire membership.

The major difference from existing procedures is that the House and Senate committee system would be altered to include equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats on each committee with Co-chairs in charge. There are some 200 committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate – 21 major committees in each house and approximately 150 Subcommittees between the two chambers.

Two existing committees in Congress already operate under a shared power arrangement; so the concept is not unique or without procedural precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees are charged with carrying out their responsibilities in an impartial manner. Additionally, on one rare occasion the U.S. Senate operated under a shared power arrangement for several months and the Michigan state House of Representatives operated under SLP for an entire term. Both resulted in amazingly successful and surprising results.

The rules for the ethics committees require that “the staff is to be assembled and retained as a professional, nonpartisan staff. . . The staff as a whole and each individual member of the staff shall perform all official duties in a nonpartisan manner. . . No member of the staff shall engage in any partisan political activity directly affecting any congressional or presidential election. . .”

This one change would completely alter the outcomes of legislative development and oversight responsibilities and would begin to meet the Tillerson Challenge of basing decisions on “truth and a common set of facts. . .

When a bill, action or decision was approved through the Subcommittee/Committee process it would be considered as usual on the Floor of the Chamber. In the House, I would recommend that the Hastert rule be eliminated. That Republican “rule” requires that a majority of the Majority Party approve an action before it may be considered by the full House. In both Chambers, I would recommend that no riders or unrelated amendments be permitted for consideration. Members could offer and debate individual related amendments; however they would likely need some overwhelming information or evidence to support their position to obtain approval over the committee support constituency.

Additionally, there would have to be agreement that all legislation and oversight functions would strictly adhere to the subcommittee - committee process. Too often, under recent leaderships, even the existing committee process has been bypassed and replaced with a leadership proposal or some “special” legislative group proposal. Recent examples of the altered process include the GOP’s consideration of a health care bill and its consideration of its final tax cut proposal.

Assuming adherence to the committee process, I think normal House and Senate rules could apply. I would envision that the House and Senate would still be controlled by their Majority parties based on the numbers of elected members. There would likely need to be some alterations over time following experience with the new process.

The major difference would be that proposals reaching the House or Senate Floor would have survived a grueling process of research, investigation, agreed to facts and data, unbiased staff analysis, equal and fair expert testimony from all sides of the issue, media scrutiny and extensive public input and exposure. Additionally there would be a bipartisan core constituency of subcommittee and committee Members that would have previously debated the issues and agreed to acceptable compromises. This constituency would most likely have a vested interest in defending the measure against hostile amendments and seeing the action approved by the full chamber.

Sure there will be stalemates along the way, but compare that to what we have now. One-sided solutions (and even that is rare) to complex problems based on wishful thinking, shallow promises, alternative realities and fake facts. Under SLP, eventually a few good members who put country before party will step up and break the stalemate with compromised solutions that the majority on both sides can support and that will likely stand the test of time.

For further details and insights on SLP see my previous postings which include:


 
Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship
 (goo.gl/qy00fX), February 1, 2017

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To (goo.gl/JlB5zu), January 18, 2017

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation (goo.gl/yU3zjB), December 23, 2016

###
#BetterGovmt
#PartyOverCountry
#ReformCongress
#Congress
#GOP
#DEMS