"Of all the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom in today’s Washington, the most lazy, stupid, and ubiquitous is that our politics is broken. On the contrary. Our political system is working well (I make no such claims for our economy), indeed, precisely as designed — profound changes in popular will translated into law that alters the nation’s political direction.
The process has been messy, loud, disputatious, and often rancorous. So what? In the end, the system works. Exhibit A is Wisconsin. Exhibit B is Washington itself."
I often read prescriptions for "reforming" the federal structure framed by James Madison, et al., usually tending more toward popular democracy and/or the parliamentary system.
Yet our House of Representatives, with its 2-year terms, already incorporates the best feature of parliamentary democracy, government responsiveness and accountability to popular sentiment.
But, as states with term limits have learned, a revolving door of wave-riders and dilettantes is no way to run a government. Enter the Senate:
Madison in the Federalist Papers, #62, learning from the great republics of Carthage, Sparta and Rome [explained in #63] that "The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions."
Hoo, boy, did Mr. Madison get that one right. A parliamentary system would have swept a Tea Party government into power in 2010. The Senate, and its slow turnover with 6-year terms per Madison was the only thing that held it in check, since a parliamentary system would also have swept in a Chief Executive with zero inclination to exercise his veto on anything they legislated.
Opponents of "gridlock" ought to thank their stars just about now.
To federalism---the sharing of power with the states: Up in Wisconsin we are witnessing the results of states as "the laboratories of democracy.” New governor Scott Walker arguably moved too fast along Tea Party lines versus the public unions. However, his Democrat opponents---in a state that Barack Obama carried @ 56%---used Wisconsin's recall laws to put Walker's impetuousness to the electoral test, but failed to refudiate him. Something's going on in Wisconsin that the people like, or don't hate enough to halt it.
Further, in 2006 then-Gov. Mitt Romney responded the will of the Massachusettsean people to "do something" about rising healthcare costs. Hence Romneycare, which either failed or worked depending on who you ask. [Note to self: insert links here. Self: Oh, let 'em google it for themselves. Most and the best of yr gentle readers are already up on it anyway. These are smart people. And the rest don't care about facts anyway.]
Regardless, it was entirely proper for any governor of Massachusetts [the only state that voted for George McGovern in 1972] to be responsive to the will of its people, which was to seek a government solution. Hey, by some, many or most accounts, it works all over the Western World. Worth a try.
I do think the republic as planned over 200 years ago works---a combination of brilliance and sure, of luck. Our House has its thumb on the pulse of popular sentiment and new developments, a Senate to chill them down, and the states to give innovations a dry run on the smaller scale.
In that chokingly hot summer statehouse of Pennsylvania in 1787, with the doors and windows closed so no one outside could hear, Mr. Madison & The Framers done OK.
Next up: The Electoral College. Heh heh.
35 comments:
Good point on the opponents of gridlock,Tom.
I think it is especially applicable to liberals who criticize the founders because of the anti-democratic features of the Constitution and recoil in horror from the Tea Party movement. It never seems to dawn on the liberals that the founders placed the anti-democratic features of the Constitution there in order to mitigate the effects of popular movements like the Tea Party. (I write that even as a member of my local Tea Party.
--Lee
.
One of the great things about our American form of democracy is that problems are allowed to exist.
.
And, once we are presented with any problem that is tough enough not to go away, we are forced to deal with it.
.
American pragmatism lives on problems that won't go away.
.
Krautheimer is such a problem.
.
:<}
.
.
Cheers, Lee. You got it.
.
Everyone who is not totally out of it gets it, Tom. It's no great revelation. But, there's much more to it than the simple labels of conservative and liberal.
.
I'm sure we all get that as well.
.
Doing a driveby on Krauthammer is "liberal," I guess, although it shows the term no longer means "open-minded."
.
In that case, perhaps you'll explain what the term, open minded, means. From what I've seen and of all the people who claim to be one way or the other, those who claim to be conservative most certainly are the ones who are standing firm saying that compromise is an assault ont heir principles. Are not the Tea Party folks proclaimed as being conservative?
.
How can being conservative be open minded. I don't get that. Instead, I see what used to pass as open minded being called wishy washy.
.
.
"Open-minded" should include a level appreciation for what is, not just a reification of what is not.
.
Seems so to me.
.
But, seems it also includes not closing one's mind off to certain specifics. You know, like not raising taxes on those who can afford it.
.
Seems so, anyway.
.
Could it be that I am wrong once again?
.
Since returning to Clinton-era tax rates would collect only $60B out of a $1.5 trillion-dollar annual deficit, it could be fairly said that insisting on these tax increases is the ideological position, and opposing them as harmful to needed growth is the pragmatic position.
But on the whole, my less partisan point was that our structure of gov't was the only thing that held the Tea Party in check, and its opponents [clearly you] should appreciate that fact.
Tom, I don't think there is any convincing evidence that the Bush tax cuts had any positive economic impact, or that leaving them in place has had a positive impact.
Personally, I'm troubled that payroll taxes on an individuals first dollar of income are 15.4%, while the richest 400 income earners in the US (average income of > 300M) in 2007 paid an average tax of less than 17%.
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
I'd like to see tax reform that helps make the US more competitive for business and job creation. I think the debate about individual tax rates and economic impact is just partisan noise.
In any event, I think your comment on the Tea Party is spot on.
.
Oh, I appreciate that fact all right. You know I do.
.
For a truth, in my musings, it comes to me that the purposeful efforts to reduce the size of government are really all about making it weak so it will be unable to withstand the assaults of great wealth in the hands of a very few.
.
I am open minded enough to see that what is really meant by the movement for less government.
.
.
And, so, it's easy to see that the great host of Tea Party followers are being hoodwinked into believing a made up subterfuge and gives real meaning to the biblical aphorism that we are led like sheep to the slaughter day by day.
.
That's what happens to those who are led by ideologies--they are the ones with closed minds. Too bad, they do mean well. They are misguided by dirty bastids like the Koch brothers.
.
.
To be perfectly honest, I think the super wealthy billionaires should be super taxed up to 90% on annual net income over somewhere around ten million dollars.
.
If nothing else, it would take away their ability to control our government the way they are contolling it now.
.
Their lawyers are smarter than our Congress, Phil. That's a duh. The only thing that works is when tax compliance is easier and cheaper than tax avoidance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/feb/27/u2-irish-aid-group-coalition
[The Guardian is the UK's majorest left-wing newspaper, if you were wondering about the source.]
Regarding the super-rich, I noticed an editorial by Buffet this morning.
"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. [...] Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn’t refuse, nor did others"
.
I appreciate this line of discussion and thank everyone involved for their input.
.
The point of taxation and the talk of downsizing government needs to be fleshed out. Behind all of the talk about a smaller government, I think I see the real purpose as a desire to make our government so weak that it will not be able to prevail against the unscrupulous interests of the private sector's super rich. It seems that they will only be satisfied with a return to a society similar to the Middle Ages. Do you see how weak President Obama is coming to be? Do we really want a government marked by impotence?
.
Sound crazy?
.
I don't think so.
.
.
Buffett's been an Obama man, and has been doing the tax riff for awhile.
The point is, there's not enough money in soaking the rich for it to be such an ideological battleground.
[See math above.]
“I’m all for gridlock except when I can’t get my way” - Anonymous Senator
In any case, 90%, Phil? What ever happened to the principle that proportionality was fair and disproportionality was unjust? Of course, a proportional tax is commonly known as a "flat tax."
Perhaps we need to return to a property qualification for voting ... hmmm ... well, perhaps not. But there is still something to worry about if the majority can dispose of the wealth and lives of a minority.
.
In any case, 90%, Phil? What ever happened to the principle that proportionality was fair and disproportionality was unjust?
.
It's not a matter of what's fair any more now, is it, Jason?
.
This is a democracy, right? So, the minority has its rights but the majority rules. Problem has been that the majority has not recognized the problem that is looming.
.
The problem has to do with the cry for a smaller government, that is, a government so weak that some billionaire can set up what will amount to a monarchy--that which the Declaration of Independence was all about. The dirty bastids are coming back to life just like something out of Bram Stroker.
.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&va=dracula+%22bram+stoker%22
.
Bram Stoker.
Most of us aren't into the class warfare thing---we don't hate the rich, we don't envy the rich, we don't think the rich make the rest of us poorer.
I'm not really into this because it has nothing to do with the original post, but as for numbers, etc., there's 2 sides to every story.
http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/warren-buffetts-fiscal-innumeracy/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2011/08/15/the-real-reason-warren-buffetts-taxes-are-low/
There was a worry about undue influence in government. It wasn't addressed by abolishing the rich but by abolishing the institutions that could be corrupted by the rich. The federal bank, for example, was seen a problem prone to corruption (as it was in England according to the Whig Opposition that inspired our Founders). From Jefferson on it was a constant worry until Andrew Jackson got rid of it.
John Adams also worried about a potential for an aristocracy. This is one reason he favored a bi-cameral legislature. He assume there would be an aristocracy and it should be checked by the assembly.
Thus, the checks-and-balances that we were originally taking about is still the topic ... I hope.
.
It's not a matter of hating the rich, Tom.
.
Did you think the Founding Fathers hated the rich? I don't think they did. In fact some of them were quite rich. And, I certainly do not hate the rich. But, at a certain point, wealth goes beyong just being rich. Pretty soon, they get to thinking Romans 13 was written just for them. Why would anyone want to be a billionaire?
.
It was a matter of the tyrant. And, we've got some would be tyants trying to take our government away from us. And, so far, they're doing a pretty good job. Looks like they've got you bamboozled into thinking the they don't have any ulterior motivers. For us to believe that would be naive on our part.
.
Vigilance, my friend, vigilance.
.
History isn't worth anything if we don't learn from it.
.
I'm not big on the "corporations!" conspiracy. Sorry.
.
At 3% interest, a billion dollars brings in $30,000,000.00 dollars a year in earnings. But, that kind of money gets invested for much higher profit than 3%. If it's 20 billion dollars, the earnings in super safe investments will bring in $600,000,000.00 per year.
.
That's money sucked right out of the economy.
.
At a ninety percent tax rate, 20 billion would still provides 60 million dollars in earnings. Even after taxes of 540 million.
.
The problem is more about oligarchy than it is anything else.
.
For crying out loud!
.
Conspiracies, conshmirachies.
.
With that kind of money, the oligarch can afford his or her own military.
.
.
What is it that you thought the DOI was written against? Some conspiracy?
.
.
Why would you think there's a conspiracy, Tom?
.
It's more likely that the oligarchs will begin fighting against each other.
.
"The Clash of The Titans"
.
I cdan hardly wait.
.
Perhaps we need another Andrew Jackson. He abolished the central bank and payed off the federal debt for the 1st and last time in American history. No bank, no debt, no corruption.
Of course in those days the federal government was just that--federal. He didn't abolish state banking monopolies nor corruption on the state level. But if we had a Jackson that did all that in the spirit of the 14th amendment ...
.
The Founding Fathers gave us an excellent system of government with which We the People have great ability to control our own destiny.
.
The dominating media has pretty much bolocksed things up for us and continues to do so.
.
Yes, if the press had hounded Barack Obama as much as they already have Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry, we wouldn't be in this mess.
And by that, I actually mean Hillary would be president. The GOP was a lost cause in '08, and McCain only made it worse.
;-O
.
if the press had hounded Barack Obama as much as they already have Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry, we wouldn't be in this mess.
.
I see what you mean about not being BIG on conspiracies.
.
RE: Andrew Jackson:
"By the next spring, just as Jackson left the White House, the longest contraction in American history -- six years -- had begun. As one Wall Streeter put it, 'The fortunes we have heard so much about in the days of speculation, have melted like the snows before an April sun.' Federal revenues fell by half that year and the national debt was back, this time for good."
His policies in the short run, including neglect of infrastructure and the Indian removal policy and the stealing of their valuable lands, led to some short-term success but longer-term misery.
I don't see it that way, jrb.
Larry Schweikart, a financial historian and moderate critic of Jackson, talks about Jackson’s Bank War. As I noted Jackson only removed monopoly banking on the federal level. Schweikart points out that in Jackson's beloved south, the strangle hold on monopoly banking continued on the state level with continued corruption. He generally fails to mentioned that a New York Jacksonian-inspired libertarian labor group (dubbed Loco Focos) succeeded in establishing open entry into banking and laying the ground work for the finance capital of the world.
Since Jackson Bank policy had little effect on most of the country (banks continued to be monopolies on the state level and the Biddle’s Second Bank became a state-chartered bank) it might seem odd to attribute the cause of the subsequent depression to such a change. Indeed, Schweikart says “Peter Temin and Richard Timberlake, writing more recently, have shown that the BUS's operations were too small to affect the economy” [1]. Schweikart believes it had more to do with European economic policies. Let remember the we were economically modest compared to the massive economies of Europe just as Canada today can’t avoid the business cycle created by its southern neighbor. I'm not completely convinced. Corrupt banks led to land-speculation just as we've recently seen in the housing bubble. It had to burst.
[1] http://eh.net/book_reviews/second-bank-united-states-and-ohio-1803-1860-collision-interests
As for Jackson’s Indian policy I’ve written on that before here:
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2008/06/jacksons-indian-policy.html
and recommend:
http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/jackson/essays/biography/4
My main point was that Jackson’s attack on the Second Bank, as an institution of corruption, was classic Old Whig analysis that the Founders knew from the British “Country”/Commonwealthmen/Oppositional writings. Jackson even talks about the “South Sea Bubble” and the Bank of England. He was still in the tradition of the Democratic-Republican Party tradition of Jefferson. Corrupt government-sponsored monopolies (aka crony capitalism) was still a concern in national politics. Rothbard also writes on this topic.
Ooooh, a little past the Founding, but tasty stuff, Jason, and not irrelevant to the current crisis atall atall. You also know I have a soft spot for Rothbard.
Larry Schweikert, though, JP? Even though he's a university prof [Dayton], as the author of "A Patriot's History of the United States," "America's Victories," and esp "48 Liberal Lies About American History," he's on, you know, the spitlist.
;-)
And I must say, not unfairly. Had an historian wrote 48 Conservative Lies [like Zinn pretty much did], I'm like, give us Wikipedia.
LOL. Schweikert's popular books, while enjoyable (I read some of the Patriot's History) should not distract from his research specialty. To bad Rothbard isn't alive to debate him. I'd love to know more about those economic issues but ... as I hope is evident ... I prefer to think about ethical and political principles.
Post a Comment