Month: April 2013

Could One Be Better Than Two?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject: Government/Federalism

I have been watching the actions of our Congress both Senate and House, since the Clinton days and have seen just how dysfunctional the institution really is, at least in the near past…….the partisanship has made the organization a non-workable endeavor……its approval rating is dismal…..its bill success rate is in the toilet…….and most of the players appear to be nothing short of clowns in a circus……..

The next question should be….how can we as a nation find a way for our legislative branch to function more efficiently?  Or is it possible at all to make it an institution worth saving?

One idea that was floated during the founding era, especially by Franklin, was a unicameral legislative system as opposed to what we have now, bicameral……

Franklin wrote Queries and Remarks Respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania to record his opposition to bicameralism.

The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club [combine] their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent [wealthy], whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to See the Signs this Paper I have been considering [the proposed Pennsylvania Constitution] affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy [superior power] in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the denomination [name] of the LOWER; and giving to this Upper a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower.

Franklin felt that every member of society should have an equal say in the legislative branch of government. He disagreed with the theory of bicameralism that favored one chamber for the wealthy and another chamber for the rest of society.  (version can be found on Yahoo Answers)……….

There are benefits to unicameralism…..can almost hear the butts slamming shut!

1. No Duplication of Work-

Law making is done through a process. If there is one house the process is followed once only. There is no repetition of the same process. So time is saved, money is saved and energy as well.

2. No Hindrance-

The people’s will is reflected in the single chamber and there is no check on progressive legislation by any reactionary or conservative second chamber. If the legislature is bicameral in nature there will be differences in the outlook of the two houses.

3. Singleness of Purpose-

When the legislature consists of only one house, singleness of purpose will be maintained. Hence, there will be no confusion in the law making process. Benjamin Franklin said: “Legislative body divided into two branches is like a carriage drawn by one horse in front and one behind pulling in opposite direction.”

4. No Divided Responsibility-

It adds to the quality and dignity of the legislators by avoiding conflict between two chambers. The single chamber is responsible for all legislative matters. There is no divided responsibility as is found in a bicameral legislature.

5. More Representative and less Expensive-

The unicameral legislature can be composed of members who are the true representatives of the people. The composition can be simple. Because it is unicameral, double expenditure for maintenance of two houses is not necessary.

The benefits sound too good to be true…….it would streamline the process and as stated it would be less expensive, something we all should aspire to in these days of looming austerity……so I return to the beginning question……Could one house be better than two?

Input please……….

They Want It All!

It is bad enough that they own industries that pollute the crap out of the planet……it is bad enough that they own a portion of the GOP……it is bad enough that they have enough cash to buy many politicians……but now they are out to control as much of the media as they possibly can……who are these masked men of which I speak?

(Newser) – Brothers Charles and David Koch, the billionaire businessmen behind Koch Industries and noted supporters of libertarian causes, are looking to buy into the newspaper business. They’re exploring a deal to acquire the Tribune Company’s eight regional newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun, the New York Times reports. Some sources say it’s an investment opportunity only, but others believe the papers could serve as a valuable platform for spreading their conservative ideas.

An attendee of multiple Koch Industries seminars said the brothers often say that “they see the conservative voice as not being well represented” in the media. A former Koch Industries adviser says their interest in the Tribune papers is purely financial, and separate from their libertarian agenda. But as the Times notes, the papers have a collective value of around $623 million, which is pocket change for these oil tycoons. “A running joke among conservatives as we watched the GOP establishment spend $500 million on ineffectual TV ads is ‘Why don’t you just buy NBC?'” said a libertarian campaigner. “It’s good the Kochs are talking about fighting fire with a little fire.”

Thanx to Citizen’s United these guys get to buy an election…..but to make it a easier path to total control they need the media to help male their case…..slowly but slowly these guys are gaining total control of the message…..my question is where will they go with this.?  Will there be a stopping point?

Please inject your thoughts on this.

Here We Go With Immigration

Back in January I predicted that immigration would be a hot button issue in 2013….so far I am doing pretty well with my predictions overall….we have an immigration reform bill that is making the rounds in DC…..but will it be anything like the impotent gun background check?

(Newser) – The Senate’s immigration reform bill could make sweeping changes for some 11 million undocumented workers, but not all its measures are so expansive. In fact, a number of senators have inserted legislation that offers a special boost to their home states, the Wall Street Journal reports. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a major home for meat production, reportedly added a provision for up to 20,000 extra visas for meat cutters and trimmers—even though a labor union says the industry has plenty of eligible workers already.

“The way we view this is it’s an earmark for meat and poultry and we strongly, strongly oppose it,” says a union rep. Meanwhile, New York’s Chuck Schumer added 10,500 visas for high-school educated Irish immigrants. That was an effort to fix a 1965 anti-bias measure that “inadvertently made it difficult for Irish immigrants to obtain visas, despite their strong cultural ties to the US,” says an aide. Elsewhere in the bill, Florida’s Marco Rubio inserted an allowance for more foreigners who can repair cruise ships; Colorado’s Michael Bennet added more leeway in hiring foreign ski instructors. The Journal has more.

As usual the bill will reflect personal interests not finding a lasting problem to the undocumented aliens that are in this country…….anything these cowards come up with will not be comprehensive but rather targeted to specifics…..which will mean there will be more that get screwed than finding a realistic fix to the problem?

Oh Crap! Another Simpson-Bowles Plan

A couple years back two dudes, Simpson and Bowles, got together with a group of guys and had a commission that was suppose to be an alternative to the bullsh*t of the budget debate…….it was a complete failure!  Even the prez who created the commission did not take any of their advice for the argument on the deficit….I other words it was a complete waste of time and energy……(go figure….a waste coming out of Washington)…….

Their first plan was a bust ….so what to do next?    How about another budget plan?

The former chairmen of President Obama’s 2010 fiscal commission, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, on Friday will release a new deficit reduction plan in the hopes of reviving a debt grand bargain this year.

The two-step plan has about $800 billion more in spending cuts than President Obama is seeking and $1.1 trillion more than Senate Democrats have proposed, while adopting roughly the same amount of new taxes from tax reform called for in Obama’s 2014 budget.

The new Bowles-Simpson plan calls for $585 billion in tax revenue from a reform process that starts by eliminating all deductions — then adds back in only those most needed — adopts a territorial tax system and maintains progressive tax rates. This is less than the $975 billion in tax increases in the Senate budget.

By their measure, the newest Bowles-Simpson plan will achieve $5.2 trillion in deficit reduction including laws enacted since 2010, compared to $4.3 trillion in reductions in the Senate-passed budget and Obama budget. Both of these calculations assume that $1.2 trillion in automatic sequester cuts are going to be turned off.

Bowles and Simpson say that their plan will bring the national debt down from 78 percent of the economy to 69 percent of gross domestic product. This compares to 70 percent for Senate Budget, 73 percent for Obama and 55 percent for the House-passed budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

The Ryan plan balances without raising taxes by cutting $4.6 trillion in spending, while keeping the $1.2 trillion sequester in place.

The vast majority of the cuts would come from Medicare. Medicaid is largely insulated, except for a plan to eliminate a tax that some states use to drive up the federal government’s share of Medicaid payments.

The new plan would expand Medicare’s means testing — charging wealthier seniors a higher premium — an area where Republicans and the White House agree.

There you have a synopsis of the ‘new’ plan…..but will it be as worthless as tits on a boar…..kinda like their first attempt?