Let's Outsource Congress!

[Mephisto]

Isn't that a great idea? Imagine the money we'd save if we just outsourced Congress to the country with the lowest bid. "But how would we preserve the very values our country is based upon if people in India, or Indonesia or Togo dictate our laws," you might ask. The answer is simple, we wouldn't have to.

Congress has become nothing more than a glutted slug of rich old people who draw off the government as readily as any "welfare queen" at a far greater cost to American taxpayers. They are they type of people who wouldn't hesitate to vote themselves a raise while insisting that the minimum wage remain unchanged for over a decade. The majority of Congressmen could likely survive quite comfortably on the rewards they reap from their "professional" connections alone.

"But they must do some good?" you insist. Maybe, but likely not. If you'll consider the fact that Americans were once considered the "good guys" in the world; and would never stoop to chipping away at the civil rights people in America (not just the citizens) have boasted about throughout our short history, whereas now our Congress makes a bold and dramatic gesture in banning the torture of detainees only to have the President issue a signing statement reserving his right to ignore the law.

Same thing goes for our "inalienable" right to privacy with the NSA wiretaps and the recent financial records snafu, all done in the name of the Bush administration's golden calf - national security.

In the name of national security President Bush has chosen to ignore 750 statutes passed by Congress. "But other Presidents have also issued signing statements," the apologists will inevitably say. They usually neglect to mention that Bush has issued more signing statements than any other President and that signing statements issued by other administrations rarely questioned the Constitution.

So, back to my original assertion - let's outsource Congress! We don't need them anyway - all they do is give themselves raises and pass stupid laws that project a favorable image to the world. Our President, in all his wisdom knows what we Americans NEED to keep us safe from terrorists and since Congress with their occasionally nit-picky humanitarian concerns only get in his way, and at great cost to the already beleagered American taxpayer, we should just put their jobs on the chopping block.

Hell, we could even outsource their jobs to Iraq or Palestine or Afghanistan in a goodwill gesture (as empty as any other, but they wouldn't know it). Imagine telling Hamas they could govern American politics (of course, they wouldn't really be in any more control than our current Congress, but give them some limos and some hookers and they'll "feel" like Congressmen).

Imagine how easy it would be to contact your Congressmen. Simply dial 1-800-YOURSTATE and you'd immediately be in touch with your representative. Cool, huh?

 

[slingblade]

Congress has become nothing more than a glutted slug of rich old people who draw off the government as readily as any "welfare queen" at a far greater cost to American taxpayers. They are they type of people who wouldn't hesitate to vote themselves a raise while insisting that the minimum wage remain unchanged for over a decade. The majority of Congressmen could likely survive quite comfortably on the rewards they reap from their "professional" connections alone.

As I recall, these folks used to be thought of as "public servants," and I've always wondered why the servants earn far more than much of the public they serve.

Seems to me they should be earning no more than the least among us, really.

I always thought one of the original main ideas behind "America" was that the rulers ought not be "glutted slugs of rich old people."

Yeah, well. It was a nice idea, but someone should have told those founder-dudes it couldn't happen.

ETA: if the job didn't pay so well, I'd think we'd have more folks who were doing it for unselfish, actual-desire-to-serve-the-public reasons.

 

[Grammatron]

No.

 

[Luke T.]

In the name of national security President Bush has chosen to ignore 750 statutes passed by Congress.

False. Many signing statements are nothing more than, in effect, "Hey, guys, good job! Love your work."

Others are statements in which he has chosen to ignore parts of bills. I don't know of any where he said he will ignore an entire statute.

"But other Presidents have also issued signing statements," the apologists will inevitably say. They usually neglect to mention that Bush has issued more signing statements than any other President and that signing statements issued by other administrations rarely questioned the Constitution.

And yet the bush-bashers will neglect to check to see if the amount of legislation written by Congress since 9/11 has also risen accordingly, or to see if any of Bush's objections are valid. Don't forget, these are the guys who wrote the freaking Patriot Act (ETA: or at least couldn't sign it fast enough). If they are willing to trample on the common man's rights, what makes you think they didn't trample on the executive branch as well?

 

[slingblade]

No.

Sigh.

 

[Luke T.]

Example of one of the infamous signing statements here.

In its entirety:

Earlier today I signed into law H. R. 4685, the Accountability for Tax Dollars Act. I was pleased to sign this legislation, and I thank Congressman Pat Toomey for his hard work on this bill.

The American people deserve an efficient government. Requiring agencies to provide accurate financial information helps ensure their accountability.

 

[Luke T.]

A signing statement in which the President states an objection here.

I have today signed into law H.R. 2121, the "Russian Democracy Act of 2002." This Act seeks to promote democracy, the rule of law, and an independent media in the Russian Federation.

Section 3(b) of the Act purports to establish U.S. policy towards Russia. My approval of the Act does not constitute my adoption of the statements of policy in section 3(b) as U.S. foreign policy. Given the Constitution's commitment to the presidency of the authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory, giving them the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Valid objection, or not?

ETA: A similar foreign policy objection here.

 

[Luke T.]

Another one:

few provisions of the Act raise constitutional concerns.

The method of appointment of the board of trustees of the fellowship program prescribed in section 4404 of the Act is inconsistent with the requirements of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. I am prepared to work with the Congress to enact legislation to cure this constitutional defect before the effective date of the program.

Sections 6027 and 6028 of the Act establish and continue multi-member regional authorities to implement development programs. Serious doubts arise concerning the constitutionality of these regional authorities because the members are likely Federal officers for purposes of the Appointments Clause, but many of the members are not appointed in the manner required by that Clause. Again, I am prepared to work with the Congress to enact legislation that will cure this constitutional shortcoming by establishing the role of the members as advisory only, or by providing for appointment of all the members in accordance with the Appointments Clause.

Valid? Was this objection worked out with Congress?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020513-5.html

 

[Luke T.]

Just for fun, I went here and counted the number of bills handled by the 108th Congress. I had the search function list 500 bills per page.

There were 12 pages.

Then I picked the 104th Congress.

8 pages.

Totally unofficial and only semi-scientific, but that looks like a 50 percent increase to me.

 

[Luke T.]

107th Congress, 12 pages.

106th Congress, 12 pages.

105th Congress, 9 pages.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

As I recall, these folks used to be thought of as "public servants," and I've always wondered why the servants earn far more than much of the public they serve.

Seems to me they should be earning no more than the least among us, really.

I always thought one of the original main ideas behind "America" was that the rulers ought not be "glutted slugs of rich old people."

Yeah, well. It was a nice idea, but someone should have told those founder-dudes it couldn't happen.

ETA: if the job didn't pay so well, I'd think we'd have more folks who were doing it for unselfish, actual-desire-to-serve-the-public reasons.

To be fair, they ought to be paid a reasonable wage. A senator who is doing their job has a huge responsability, spends long hours reading and meeting, and that sort of job in the private sector pays a fairly large amount. If the job paid very little, we'd have even more independantly weathly people involved.

 

[slingblade]

To be fair, they ought to be paid a reasonable wage. A senator who is doing their job has a huge responsability, spends long hours reading and meeting, and that sort of job in the private sector pays a fairly large amount. If the job paid very little, we'd have even more independantly weathly people involved.

Oh.....okay. Dang it.

 

[Luke T.]

By Cooper's count, George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

(ETA: Link.)

So more than one "constitutional objection" per signing statement. Okay.

Take a look at the signing statement in Post #8 again. How many "constitutional objections" would you say are in there. Looks like at least three to me.

This one has scads of 'em.

ETA: I forgot to add the point I was making, which is that although there may be three objections in the first example, they are all really the same objection.

It's nice someone took all the trouble to count them. What isn't so nice is that they don't comment on whether the objections are valid. I would urge caution before labeling Bush as a "criminal" who has chosen to break 750 laws.

Fortunately for all of us, the American Bar Association is looking into it.

 

[dsm]

We need a constitutional amendment to add "None of the Above" to any and all votes!

 

[Dcdrac]

i thought congress was already outsourced to the lobbying firms?

 

[roger]

Not to mention the need to maintain a second house in an expensive city, fly frequently from your home district to DC, etc. There are plenty of stories of junior members ganging together in Bachelor pads to keep expenses down.

I don't post that in a spirit of crying for their lot; they make 165K a year, and the job has it's perks, to say the least. But I can't begrudge paying that to somebody looking after my interests in government when we'll pay a friggin Java programmer nearly the same wage.

 

[Luke T.]

Not to mention the need to maintain a second house in an expensive city, fly frequently from your home district to DC, etc. There are plenty of stories of junior members ganging together in Bachelor pads to keep expenses down.

I don't post that in a spirit of crying for their lot; they make 165K a year, and the job has it's perks, to say the least. But I can't begrudge paying that to somebody looking after my interests in government when we'll pay a friggin Java programmer nearly the same wage.

What about the guy who makes your fries? You think he doesn't have expenses? I'll be sympathetic to a Congressman's need for a goddam freaking second house when he is sympathetic to a working man's need for a pair of shoes.

 

[dsm]

It's nice someone took all the trouble to count them. What isn't so nice is that they don't comment on whether the objections are valid. I would urge caution before labeling Bush as a "criminal" who has chosen to break 750 laws.

Whether the objections are valid or invalid is not the issue. The question has become "who can object to the objections?"

Senate panel denounces Bush for exploiting "signing statements"

 

[Apollyon]

So Congress would be located next to a call center in Bangladesh?

No thanks.

I always thought that the best way to choose members of Congress would be to have a Congressional lottery. People would have to qualify to be among those available to be selected by taking a battery of tests to prove their political knowledge, have a background check to make sure they aren't felons, as well as some psyche evals to ensure they were sane. As a selection by chance, it should provide a great representative cross-section of people in America and anyone with the basic political skills could potentially be selected for a post.

That removes all the money and special interests involved in getting a candidate into office and prevents any sort of "good ol' boy network" from entrenching itself. Although there's no voting involved, to me it seems a more democratic process than that which we have now.

 

[Luke T.]

People don't seek office for the money. And they spend other people's money to get there.