In their defense, it's not unreasonable to recognize that the opposite complaint is also valid: Why in the world would you elect a senator who *leaves* for six years to go do whatever he wants without checking in with you? Of course, this assumes that the time back in the district is actually about being in touch with your constituents, rather than fellating your donors.
Somewhere in the middle, there's balance. My opinion is that the congress should have a once a year intensive lawmaking session of, say, three months. During that time, it's nose to the grindstone in DC. Debates on important issues should be televised at prime time. Outside of that, one week a month ought to cut it to deal with day to day stuff.
That would leave the executive with both much greater lattitude in the day to day operation of the country, and much greater accountability given that congress would be in the role of "making laws" that he had to execute, rather than dancing around on the details of that execution.
Certainly there's something to be said for making sure that legislators have time to check in with their constituents; it would be very easy, if the legislative session were full-time year-round, to lose track--especially for constituencies that are farther away. (Being a rep/senator from Alaska or Hawaii must really suck in terms of travel time.)
For that matter, there are libertarians who would say that it's a good thing that we don't get all the government that we pay for (i.e., that they're not making laws 50 weeks a year).
What you're proposing, though, would really give the Congress a different role than it currently has. Their purpose is not just to pass laws, but also to confirm candidates for high-level appointments, conduct investigations, and in general to provide "advice [sic] and consent". Plus, with the current situation, Congressional aides end up making a lot of the decisions for their employers, because they're the ones whose full-time job is to stay in touch with the issues. I think that having Congress in session for only 3 months of the year would give too much power to the executive--a problem that we already have, made worse. (Do you think we'd be better off right now if Bush had had _more_ latitude?)
To me, a schedule that was more like 3 weeks in DC, one week at home (or otherwise traveling) would make more sense. I could even imagine 1 week in DC and 3 weeks elsewhere (although I think that's overdoing it) but in any case I think that at-least-monthly sessions of several days in a row would be an improvement.
I think that the critical factor would be to give congress dedicated time when they're in the same place working with each other, rather than posing for the cameras. Pose at home, work in Washington. The constant back and forth makes legislating another part of campaigning rather than the other way around.
It seems not unreasonable to batch up nominations. I mean, really ... if the executive had one chance per year to get a real official appointed ... he might take it more seriously.
I think that the critical factor would be to give congress dedicated time when they're in the same place working with each other, rather than posing for the cameras. Pose at home, work in Washington. The constant back and forth makes legislating another part of campaigning rather than the other way around.
There will inevitably be posing in Washington, because that's where you can pose with your colleagues.
It seems not unreasonable to batch up nominations. I mean, really ... if the executive had one chance per year to get a real official appointed ... he might take it more seriously.
If we assume that those positions must be filled, then the governmental apparatus will insist that they get filled one way or another. Bush has had a penchant for "recess appointments" to avoid losing confirmation battles. If we lump all the nomination hearings together, I'd guess that that practice would become considerably more common.
(One could reasonably ask whether a confirmation process is really necessary for most of these positions; maybe a better idea would be to make it easier to get them chucked out. I kind of feel that the President ought to be able to pick his own staff...but OTOH, his staff members (the cabinet, e.g.) have an awful lot of power. *sigh*...)
In their defense, it's not unreasonable to recognize that the opposite complaint is also valid: Why in the world would you elect a senator who *leaves* for six years to go do whatever he wants without checking in with you? Of course, this assumes that the time back in the district is actually about being in touch with your constituents, rather than fellating your donors.
Somewhere in the middle, there's balance. My opinion is that the congress should have a once a year intensive lawmaking session of, say, three months. During that time, it's nose to the grindstone in DC. Debates on important issues should be televised at prime time. Outside of that, one week a month ought to cut it to deal with day to day stuff.
That would leave the executive with both much greater lattitude in the day to day operation of the country, and much greater accountability given that congress would be in the role of "making laws" that he had to execute, rather than dancing around on the details of that execution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recess
Somewhere in the middle, there's balance. My opinion is that the congress should have a once a year intensive lawmaking session of, say, three months. During that time, it's nose to the grindstone in DC. Debates on important issues should be televised at prime time. Outside of that, one week a month ought to cut it to deal with day to day stuff.
That would leave the executive with both much greater lattitude in the day to day operation of the country, and much greater accountability given that congress would be in the role of "making laws" that he had to execute, rather than dancing around on the details of that execution.
Re: Recess
For that matter, there are libertarians who would say that it's a good thing that we don't get all the government that we pay for (i.e., that they're not making laws 50 weeks a year).
What you're proposing, though, would really give the Congress a different role than it currently has. Their purpose is not just to pass laws, but also to confirm candidates for high-level appointments, conduct investigations, and in general to provide "advice [sic] and consent". Plus, with the current situation, Congressional aides end up making a lot of the decisions for their employers, because they're the ones whose full-time job is to stay in touch with the issues. I think that having Congress in session for only 3 months of the year would give too much power to the executive--a problem that we already have, made worse. (Do you think we'd be better off right now if Bush had had _more_ latitude?)
To me, a schedule that was more like 3 weeks in DC, one week at home (or otherwise traveling) would make more sense. I could even imagine 1 week in DC and 3 weeks elsewhere (although I think that's overdoing it) but in any case I think that at-least-monthly sessions of several days in a row would be an improvement.
Re: Recess
It seems not unreasonable to batch up nominations. I mean, really ... if the executive had one chance per year to get a real official appointed ... he might take it more seriously.
Re: Recess
There will inevitably be posing in Washington, because that's where you can pose with your colleagues.
It seems not unreasonable to batch up nominations. I mean, really ... if the executive had one chance per year to get a real official appointed ... he might take it more seriously.
If we assume that those positions must be filled, then the governmental apparatus will insist that they get filled one way or another. Bush has had a penchant for "recess appointments" to avoid losing confirmation battles. If we lump all the nomination hearings together, I'd guess that that practice would become considerably more common.
(One could reasonably ask whether a confirmation process is really necessary for most of these positions; maybe a better idea would be to make it easier to get them chucked out. I kind of feel that the President ought to be able to pick his own staff...but OTOH, his staff members (the cabinet, e.g.) have an awful lot of power. *sigh*...)
Recess
Somewhere in the middle, there's balance. My opinion is that the congress should have a once a year intensive lawmaking session of, say, three months. During that time, it's nose to the grindstone in DC. Debates on important issues should be televised at prime time. Outside of that, one week a month ought to cut it to deal with day to day stuff.
That would leave the executive with both much greater lattitude in the day to day operation of the country, and much greater accountability given that congress would be in the role of "making laws" that he had to execute, rather than dancing around on the details of that execution.