Beating The Dead Horse Of Bipartisanship

Here I go again trying to defend the concept of true bipartisanship and ways to achieve it. I scratch my near bald head, watch the political shenanigans in amazement and am at a loss for words to describe the avalanche of governance garbage that is filling the space of our daily lives. "How can this be happening?" I ask. And then I answer, "It's so obvious. Why can't we get this right and move on?

An article, by David Frum,"How to Build an Autocracy", in the March 2017 issue of The Atlantic is enlightening and caught my attention when it talked about the power of Fox News to the typical Republican member of Congress and its ability boost or crush a Member's popularity with their constituency. That power has recently been increased big time with the recent Presidential endorsements.

E.G. 1/24/17 Tweet: "Congratulations to @FoxNews for being number one in inauguration ratings. They were many times higher than FAKE NEWS @CNN - public is smart!" And about his recent CIA speech, Trump said, "That speech was a home run. That speech, if you look at Fox, OK, I'll mention you -- we see what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches." He told ABC's David Muir, "Turn on Fox and see how it [CIA speech] was covered."

The end point of the discussion was that "oversight of Trump by the Republican congressional majority will very likely be cautious, conditional, and limited." This is a screaming red flag on the breakdown of governance and the Constitutional system of checks and balances that is supposed to protect us from an over zealous Executive branch.

The article rightly points out that, "As politics has become polarized, Congress has increasingly become a check only on presidents of the opposite party. Recent presidents enjoying a same-party majority in Congress—Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010, George W. Bush from 2003 through 2006—usually got their way."

Also discussed in the article is the incredible power of social media. Frum, in a hypothetical projection envisions, "social media circulate ever-wilder rumors. Some people believe them; others don’t. It’s hard work to ascertain what is true." Additionally, we have all been treated to the barrage of tweets from our new President and his self-proclaimed ability to speak truthfully and directly to the "people" and bypass the filter (i.e. fact checker) of the "mainstream media" which his Administration calls the "opposition party” which should "keep its mouth shut."

We must also not forget the enormous power that goes with the Presidency, i.e. control of all agencies including the FBI and CIA and other intelligence bodies. That power could be misused as it has been in the past to "harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders, and to collect evidence using illegal methods."

So, the Founders, in all their brilliance (and they were unbelievably brilliant) did not foresee the power of Fox News, social media and the high tech capabilities of intelligence gathering by those with nefarious or malicious intent. These factors have and could have a profound disruptive influence on the system of checks and balance they wove into the Constitution to keep the Executive branch in check.

Now back to the dead horse -- bipartisanship. By not engaging in true bipartisanship in governing, Congress relinquishes a considerable portion of its power over the Executive branch. True bipartisanship is not easy, and as I have said in previous posts, it runs counter to the DNA of most politicians, but it is the key to restoring Congress as the strongest branch of government as the Founders intended. It is also the key to ending gridlock, making Congress functional again, and elevating its approval ratings in the eyes of the public.

True bipartisanship begins with a basic recognition that you cannot govern an equally, ideologically divided nation with all of the power on one side. It is a recipe for disaster which is exactly what we have now under the existing power distribution scheme. It is why Congressional approval ratings generally range between 10%-20%. It is why Congress, by demonstrating its gross incompetence, has ceded nearly all of its power to the Executive branch. While Republicans currently have the power, my position and argument applies to both parties, no matter who has the power at any given time. Both parties share equally in their responsibility for Congressional gridlock.

As I have tried to explain in previous postings, true bipartisanship beginning with shared power in the committee and subcommittees system of the House and Senate could completely alter the legislative process dynamics, reduce the incentive for gridlock games and political posturing, maximize and focus staff resources and blunt the affect of excessive lobbying and financial influence.

[See: Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To & 

Bipartisanship: How The GOP Could Heal A Divided Nation]

As atypical as the concept of shared power in Congress is, it is not without precedent. The House and Senate Ethics Committees operate and function with the concept of shared power where there is equal party membership on the committees and the staff is nonpartisan and prohibited from engaging in any partisan political activity by Congressional rules.

Imagine legislative proposals for immigration reform, infrastructure development, health care and a host of other critical issues arriving on the House or Senate floor after being developed through a shared power committee structure.

The process would force bipartisanship at the beginning of the process. Imagine, at the subcommittee level where Members with specific knowledge of the subject matter from both sides of aisle each present their proposals for addressing the issue. They would most likely be markedly different. They would have to argue and debate, have hearings with experts and testimony equally from both sides, utilize unbiased staff resources to investigate and develop suggestions and finally craft a compromise. The process would be somewhat like the Conference Committee process where competing differences between House and Senate bills are resolved; however, it would be much more thorough, comprehensive and nonpartisan.

The compromise would have to achieve a majority vote of the subcommittee and move on to the full committee where it would again be debated, subjected to hearings, further scrutiny and finally a majority vote of the full committee.

As the legislation reached the House or Senate floor there would still be plenty of opportunity for dissent, as it is unlikely that proposal would achieve unanimous consent. Amendments and debate on those amendments would be expected and more conventional political maneuvering would likely occur where the majority party would obviously have the upper hand. However, legislation developed through this process would be much more credible and would have true bipartisan roots and support from Members from both sides with skin in the game.

Similarly, as with legislative development, the idea of shared committee power with nonpartisan staff would vastly improve the other major responsibility of Congress – Executive branch oversight. No longer would oversight be limited to just presidents and agencies of the opposite party; partisan witch hunts and character assassinations would likely be eliminated and effective review of agency programs, budgets and actions would be more normalized.

As indicated above, true bipartisanship would not be easy and is counter to the excessively polarized and partisan political environment that exists inside the Beltway. But, if Congress does not change its ways we are doomed with gridlock, ever increasing Executive branch power and the frightening future predicted in David Frum's article, "How to Build an Autocracy."

If Congress does not change its own ways (which is highly unlikely), the now completely scattered public pressure from interest groups and public demonstrations should be coordinated and focused on what I have called the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction – the broken committee and subcommittee process.

Friday, February 10, 2017

Congressional Job Approval

PPP (D)

Approve 16, Disapprove 68

Disapprove +52

Democracy & Government: Some Advice From The Founders

A Collection Of Relevant Quotes From John Adams

John Adams

(October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) John Adams was an American patriot who served as the second President of the United States(1797–1801) and the first Vice President (1789–97). He was a lawyer, diplomat, statesman, political theorist, and, as a Founding Father, a leader of the movement for American independence from Great Britain. His son, John Quincy Adams served as the 6th President of the U.S.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

. . .

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

. . .

“Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

. . .

“Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.”

. . .

“Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”

. . .

“While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago.”

. . .

“Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws.”

. . .

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

. . .

“I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth.”

. . .

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

###

Congress Could Be Functional; If It Wanted To

·         November 11, 2015: Congress' approval rating drops to 11 percent - CBS News

·         August 18, 2016: Poll: Americans' approval of Congress up to 18 percent, still historically low

·         October 12, 2016: Ahead of Elections, U.S. Congress Approval at 18% 

·         January 15, 2017: 15.3% Average Congressional Job Approval (11/16/16 - 1/15/17)

 

I’ve been searching for the Achilles' heel, the linchpin of Congressional dysfunction -- the one thing, that if you could fix it – Congress would function better. There are so many individual things that contribute to Congressional dysfunction that result in gridlock and the body’s historically low approval ratings.

Some of the obvious are: intensive partisanship; lobbying and moneyed influencing; gerrymandering; excessive use of the silent filibuster in the Senate; the so-called Hastert rule in the House; riders & unrelated amendments tacked onto bills; Senatorial “holds” that allow any Senator to stall legislation; and many House and Senate arcane rules and procedures that are used to gum-up the works of the legislative process.

One not so obvious mechanism of gridlock that is currently embedded in the foundation of the legislative process is the House and Senate committee system. This system, which gives overriding power to the majority party, is rarely discussed or challenged and is completely self imposed by operating procedures of the House and Senate. There is no Constitutional or legal requirement for the process.

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.

If you do any research on how government works you will quickly be informed that the committee, and even further the subcommittee, level is where the legislative process begins. As I pointed out in a previous post, the committee and subcommittee level is where specific legislative language is developed, staff research is done, experts are consulted, hearings and public meetings are held, witnesses and interest groups testify and votes are taken to move things forward. This is where lobbyists and interest groups have their greatest influence because they are dealing with fewer legislators that they must win over to their point of view. Also, Congressional committees perform the critically important function of oversight of Executive branch agencies and actions.

Obviously, the committees and subcommittees are where the power structure of Congress begins. The leaders of these bodies have enormous power to control and manage legislative development. One thing that you rarely hear about is the details of how these bodies are structured and how they operate. It is here, at this very basic level of the legislative and governing process where one, so inclined, could begin to repair Congressional gridlock.

Party leaders generally determine the total size of committees and the ratio of majority to minority members on each of them. House committees vary from 10 to 61 members, with an average of about 40. Senate committees are smaller, varying from 6 to 28; most have between 16 and 20. Members of both parties serve on each committee, with the majority party having more seats.

For example, the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee is currently chaired by Representative Fred Upton (R-MI). The Committee includes 31 Republican members and 23 Democratic members. There are six separate subcommittees. A typical subcommittee, the Environment & Economy Subcommittee is chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL). The Subcommittee includes 12 Republican members and 8 Democratic members.

Thus, all environmental issues (legislation and oversight) that are considered in the House of Representatives begin their journey first in the Subcommittee and then the full Committee and are completely controlled by the Chairmen of these bodies and all matters are decided where the majority party has a significant voting advantage.

Although House and Senate rules provide some concessions to the minority party, the bottom line is that they have no real control over the agenda, all actions are controlled by the majority party; they are provided less budget and staff resources, witness testimony is always lopsided in favor of the majority, and most importantly they are out-voted and out-maneuvered on all differing positions.

In the search for the Achilles' heel of gridlock, this is where we must ask the question: If the country is divided 50-50 along political ideologies why do we give complete legislative and oversight control to the so-called “majority” party?

In the most recent election, Republicans won majority control of the membership in House and Senate and likewise won Executive branch control through the Electoral College. But, to understand gridlock you have to look at and recognize the ideological split of the country. The best measure of that is the recent popular vote where 48.2% of the population voted for Clinton, 46.1% voted for Trump and 5.7% voted for others. For discussion purposes, call it a 50-50 split at best.

It’s not rocket science to understand that if you have a 50-50 ideological split of the population and you are addressing almost any major issue like climate change, immigration reform, jobs, equality, gun violence, health care, family planning, minimum wage, infrastructure, etc.; or, if you are providing oversight of Executive branch agencies, you’re going to have immediate and intense gridlock if only one party controls the complete agenda of activities.

While Republicans control the House by 241-194 and the Senate 52-48, wouldn’t it make sense, considering the political divide of the country, if the committees and subcommittees had an equal number of Republican and Democratic members and a shared power arrangement? This would immediately force bipartisanship and would result in much higher quality legislation and oversight at the start of the process. Legislation that made it to the House and Senate floor under this process would likely pass with overwhelming margins from both sides. Likewise, oversight activities would be much more meaningful and likely result in constructive changes and improvements in agency programs, budgets and actions, rather than witch hunts and political theater.

Under a system of shared committee power, much of the incentive for gridlock, political posturing and what I call “gridlock games” (arcane rules and procedures that are used as political tricks by both majority and minority parties) would be lost.

Another major advantage of a shared power arrangement would be the allocation and utilization of staff resources. In 2000, House committees had an average of 68 staff and Senate committees an average of 46. Under the existing system the majority party gets the largest number of staff resources and staff are biased and aligned with their party leadership.

Staff resources are critical and their main job is to assist with writing, researching, analyzing, amending, and recommending measures to their committee leadership. Most staff and resources are controlled by the majority party members of a committee, although a portion must be shared with minority party members.

If unbiased staff resources were focused on various issues the process would likely move more quickly and much less time would be spent on opposition research and counterproductive activities. Lobbyist and interest groups would not be able to simply focus their efforts on party or a few key legislators, but would have to make more reasoned and compromising proposals that would be acceptable to staff and a majority of committee members.

Many political insiders that have observed or participated in the modern day committee process may say this idea of shared power is simply impractical, too contentious and flies In the face of current political norms. But, before we dismiss the idea, it’s important to take a historical look at the evolution of the committee process.

In the document, An Overview of the Development of U.S. Congressional Committees, by Michael Welsh it is noted that, “. . .it is useful to remember that Congress originally had no standing committees. Its legislative business was conducted either by temporary select committees, or by referrals to cabinet departments like Treasury, War and State, and was largely directed by the budding political parties of the era. Congress, however, soon discovered that it needed its own institutions -- permanent committees – to effectively craft legislation, properly oversee the Executive Branch and assert its standing as the first branch of government. . .

“. . . before 1846, (when the majority and minority party members agreed to use lists of committee members cleared by party caucuses). Majority party leaders often could not control committees. Indeed it has been estimated that between 1819 and 1832 a fifth of Senate committees were controlled by the minority party; and that one-fourth were chaired by minority party members.”

Additionally, before we dismiss the idea of shared committee power we need to take a careful look at the two existing committees in Congress that already operate under a shared power arrangement – the House and Senate Ethics Committees.

The Committee on Ethics is unique in the House of Representatives. Consistent with the duty to carry out its advisory and enforcement responsibilities in an impartial manner, the Committee is the only standing committee of the House of Representatives with its membership divided evenly by party.

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 is possible to envision that rules and procedures for a shared power committee and subcommittee arrangement could be devised using concepts contained in the House and Senate Ethics Committees’ rules and those governing Conference Committee procedures where differing issues are resolved.

In conclusion, Congress, which is now controlled by the Republican Party, can continue to govern under a philosophy that half of the population does not exists or it can choose another path. It can continue to proceed under the illusion that it has a mandate to ignore the hopes and desires of half of the population or it can choose another path. It can continue to perpetuate Washington gridlock and further divide the country or it can choose another path. It can continue to diminish its power and respect as a major branch of government or it can choose another path.

A simple change of course could reap huge benefits to a country that is deeply divided and begging for new direction.