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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Recess
Date: 3 December 2007 16:18 (UTC)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.