House of Representatives votes to adjourne

[eeyore1954]

THe House voted to adjourne until after the November elections. This leaves not a lot of time for important tax votes.

From a Wall Street Journal article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575481903960961386.html?mod=WSJ_Taxes_Taxes_2

Not since the Great Depression has Congress had so much tax work to do in so little time.

They just came back from a month not in session. Not a bad job.

And many congressional members have already missed a lot of votes in order to be campaigning.

Imagine being able to tell your employer you are going to miss half of some important meetings because you are looking for another job.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/1...ner-for-house-lawmakers-seeking-higher-office
House lawmakers seeking higher office put campaigning before voting

 

[dudalb]

And if the GOP takes over the House I do not expect this to change much....it goes on every election year no matter who is in power.

 

[Beerina]

THe House voted to adjourne until after the November elections. This leaves not a lot of time for important tax votes.

From a Wall Street Journal article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575481903960961386.html?mod=WSJ_Taxes_Taxes_2



They just came back from a month not in session. Not a bad job.

And many congressional members have already missed a lot of votes in order to be campaigning.

Imagine being able to tell your employer you are going to miss half of some important meetings because you are looking for another job.

Then I suggest "dealing with them" at the upcoming election.

 

[eeyore1954]

And if the GOP takes over the House I do not expect this to change much....it goes on every election year no matter who is in power.

I agree . I am not making this as a comment that the evil democrats voted to adjourne.

 

[dudalb]

I am seriously thinking that 2 years is simply too short for House members. they spend half their time camaiging. I am not quite sure I would support changing house terms to 4 years, but I would give it serious condiseration.

 

[Beerina]

Eh, I don't know. Two years wasn't too short way back when they had to get on a horse to travel back to their home districts. It should be easier now, with jet planes.

In any case, if the guy's good, you can re-elect him. If he's bad, you can get rid of him quickly. Extending it to 4 years buys you nothing if he's good, and leaves you stuck with him 2 extra years if he sucks. I'd trade getting rid of teh sux every 2 years over removing one single campaign season.

 

[theprestige]

I am seriously thinking that 2 years is simply too short for House members. they spend half their time camaiging. I am not quite sure I would support changing house terms to 4 years, but I would give it serious condiseration.

Better they spend their time campaigning, rather than governing. If anything, the Senate term of six years is too long.

 

[Dragoonster]

And if the GOP takes over the House I do not expect this to change much....it goes on every election year no matter who is in power.

Agreed in part. If the GOP were suffering massive dissatisfaction ratings and the perception of a scared Congressional party though, I imagine they'd make a lot more effort to at least appear as if they want to do their jobs.

99% of Democratic strength seems to be from antipathy towards Bush; and 99% of that strength has not been used. I'm voting GOP in some races simply because they can actually get things done.

 

[Almo]

The house is supposed to have quick turnover to be more responsive to the public. The senate has 6 years with only a maximum 1/3 turnover per election, so that group is better able to maintain experience.

I wouldn't change either, personally.

What I would change is president. I'd say one 6-year term for them.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I would change the House to some form of PR.

 

[Trakar]

Agreed in part. If the GOP were suffering massive dissatisfaction ratings and the perception of a scared Congressional party though, I imagine they'd make a lot more effort to at least appear as if they want to do their jobs.

Last I checked, voter dissatisfaction for the GOP was higher than for the Democrats? I didn't see them doing anything to stay in session and accomplish anything, in fact I haven't seen that any GOP house member wanted to accomplish any positive activity for the last 4 or 5 years.

99% of Democratic strength seems to be from antipathy towards Bush; and 99% of that strength has not been used. I'm voting GOP in some races simply because they can actually get things done.

cite or reference in support of any of this?

 

[Trakar]

The house is supposed to have quick turnover to be more responsive to the public. The senate has 6 years with only a maximum 1/3 turnover per election, so that group is better able to maintain experience.

I wouldn't change either, personally.

What I would change is president. I'd say one 6-year term for them.

I'd prefer term limits on congress as well.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I don't like Term Limits, but I wouldn't mind the House having 3 or 4 years instead of 2.

 

[quadraginta]

I am seriously thinking that 2 years is simply too short for House members. they spend half their time camaiging. I am not quite sure I would support changing house terms to 4 years, but I would give it serious condiseration.

Why not give 'em a few weeks vacation right before the election for campaigning, and if they need more than that let 'em use their nights and weekends?

If they miss any other time at work, then dock their pay.

 

[Dragoonster]

Last I checked, voter dissatisfaction for the GOP was higher than for the Democrats? I didn't see them doing anything to stay in session and accomplish anything, in fact I haven't seen that any GOP house member wanted to accomplish any positive activity for the last 4 or 5 years.

cite or reference in support of any of this?

I'm not going to try to quantify it; any objective observer over the past 10 years should be able to tell that the (non-majority) GOP & GOP Prez have attained more of their agenda than the (majority for awhile) DEM & DEM Prez. At least...assuming that the DEM agenda is what they say rather than what they do.

If this claim is really in contention I'll withdraw, as it seems likely "the sky is blue" is also in contention and it's difficult arguing such to the opponent's satisfaction.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not going to try to quantify it; any objective observer over the past 10 years should be able to tell that the (non-majority) GOP & GOP Prez have attained more of their agenda than the (majority for awhile) DEM & DEM Prez. At least...assuming that the DEM agenda is what they say rather than what they do.

If this claim is really in contention I'll withdraw, as it seems likely "the sky is blue" is also in contention and it's difficult arguing such to the opponent's satisfaction.

The only place it isn't in contention is in the very fringe hinterlands of the political landscape.