I have decided to consolidate the discussion of my two charges that there is NOT government "of, by and for" the people in Washington DC and that Congress is dysfunctional and not able to do its job properly for the American people. I have been saying that the causes of one are also causes of the other. I am going to lump the conditions into a discussion of "what is wrong with Congress."
What are the indicia and factors about something being badly wrong with Congress?
1. Evaluating Congressional performance during the past 20 years
I have focused on Congressional performance during the past 20 years and have given Congress a grade of F. See Questions the panelist should ask and My answers to questions panelists should ask. You need to reflect on the past 20 years yourself and decide whether you believe that there appears to be sufficiently poor performance that inquiry to try to find out why is called for. I think inquiry is called for.
2. Congressional approval ratings
Here is a graph showing approval ratings of Congress (according to Gallup polling) going back forty years: Historical approval ratings. I find it hard to say how much significance can be given to approval ratings in deciding whether something is wrong with Congress.
3. Risk of power and position being used for personal benefit
Has too much power and money been accumulated and concentrated in Washington, with an attendant risk that the political class in Washington may get itself in a position to obtain undue personal benefit at the expense of the American people? This will be examined more below.
The political class in Washington is in the best position to evaluate and judge whether something is wrong with Congress (particularly the use of power and position for personal benefit), but those in the political class generally are not going to be forthcoming. Lots of books have been written by reporters, investigators and other authors who have endeavored to delve into the subject, and I think all the books paint a very damning picture that there is much wrong with Congress. Organizations such as OpenSecrets.org attest to how difficult it is to get information on a political class that is pretty relentless in trying to avoid getting caught.
4. Balancing general interests improperly affected by one sided special interest
Lawmakers are frequently confronted with a matter in which the people have general interests on opposite sides at the same time, and in which a very small group of persons have a special, one sided interest. I have discussed this in several entries. See, e.g., My American Lawmaker's Creed.
In my view, Congress should disregard the special, one-sided interest and make its decision based on balancing the general societal interests.
I believe it is pervasively the case that this is not done.
Consider how much should health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers have had in the provisions that were put in The Affordable Care Act?
Hundreds of thousands of people are employed by health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers, and some consideration can be given by Congress about whether it is doing something that would shrink the size and profitability of those companies, and whether employment for those employees will or will not be adversely affected.
Also Congress could possibly give consideration to stockholders of those companies, and whether the value of their companies will be increased or decreased by health care reform laws that are passed?
By and large, however, it would seem that Congress should be paying attention to only how the American people are going to be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. To the extent keeping health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers profitable is important for achieving cost and quality goals in the health care of Americans, that is fine for Congress to take into account how health insurance companies will be affected by a health care law that is under consideration.
Further Congress can get information from those companies about how they will be affected and how cost and quality goals may be helped or not.
The point, however, is that the companies should not decide what the provisions are, but rather lawmakers should decide, and they should not be influenced by campaign contributions and the lobbying process.
I think it would be pretty easy to conclude that health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment manufacturers had too much say.
Part of the growing problem is that, more and more, everyone has a special, one sided interest in one thing or another, everyone has predominant or exclusive focus on their particular special, one sided interest, and, for reasons to be explained, the special, one sided interests get excessively served, that becomes a central contributing factor to Congress not doing its job properly for the American people.
Defining when there is "government of, by and for" the people
It is true that the people have the right to vote in elections, more than a hundred million of them do vote in elections, the voters have choices in their voting, how they vote determines who is elected as their President, Senators and Representatives, and the laws that are passed and other governmental actions that are taken are decided by those who have been elected by the people. From this, you would want to conclude that such arrangement fairly well constitutes government "of, by and for the people."
The mere right to vote, however, is not sufficient. Two other things are required.
First, government "of, by and for" the people requires that the voters have knowledge and understanding about their lawmaker's votes, including what the lawmaker's votes are for and against and what the reasons for the lawmaker's votes are. To the extent that is hidden from voters, there is not going to be government "of, by and for" the people because the voters are without needed information for expressing their individuals wills by means of their individual votes.
Government "of, by and for the people" also requires that the voters have meaningful participation in deciding who the candidates on the ballot are. To the extent a very small group of voters (say 1%) decides who the candidates are, and the rest of the voters (say 99%) have essentially zero say in whose names will appear on the ballot, there is substantial risk there is not government "of, by and for" the people because of the limitations on their choices.
There is no black and white as to whether there is or is not government "of, by and for" the people, and it is a matter of degree. The question for debate is how far away the country is from government "of, by and for" the people. To get a sense of that entails inquiring into factual realities that cause or contribute to a departure from the ideal and how extreme those realities are.
What are the realities that undermine it?
The chief factual reality is how the amounts spent on election campaigns have escalated and how candidates and would be candidates are grossly dependent on a very small group of funders in order to be or become a viable candidate.
A couple of things should be mentioned. While average voters may make campaign contributions that in the aggregate are a significant amount, this tends to happen late in the election cycle, whereas the critical time for establishing candidate viability is earlier in time, and that is when the small group of significant funders effectuates its determination of which candidates are viable on the ballot.
There are great power and riches to be had in Washington, and the human desire for those affects what goes on various ways that are adverse to having government "of, by and for" the people. These include a willingness to do the bidding of funders and give them preferential access in order to get needed funding. Top down control by those above over those below is sought, developed, and practiced, in order to secure and augment the position, power and riches of those above. This reduces attention being paid to the "people" one is elected to serve.
There is an enormous lack of transparency that keeps voters outrageously in the dark about what goes on in Washington, and this is exploited to preserve and augment personal riches and power of the elite in Washington.
You can find many books in your library which investigate the problem of the money monster in politics. problem.
I urge every voter to read Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's short book Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress And How To End It (copied and pasted in this blog at the foregoing link) and watch his 18 minute companion video that is here.
Among other things, Professor Lessig tries to go into detail about Presidential campaigns requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct, and campaigns for US Senate and House of Representatives seats running into the millions and tens of millions of dollars, the smallness of the donor class that funds them, fund raising is being a continuous activity that goes on for prior to the average voter making a decision among his voting choices, and how the donor class effectively decides which candidates are viable (have any chance of winning), and the average voter plays virtually no role in the deciding who will be the candidates that are viable (have any chance of winning)
A concrete example
Here is a concrete case in point to think about. The biggest, most important legislation in 50 years was probably The Affordable Health Care Act. To what extent does it pass the test of manifesting government "of, by, and for the people?"
First, government "of, by and for" the people requires that the voters have knowledge and understanding about their lawmaker's votes, including what the lawmaker's votes are for and against and what the reasons for the lawmaker's votes are. To the extent that is hidden from voters, there is not going to be government "of, by and for" the people because the voters are without needed information for expressing their individuals wills by means of their individual votes.
Government "of, by and for the people" also requires that the voters have meaningful participation in deciding who the candidates on the ballot are. To the extent a very small group of voters (say 1%) decides who the candidates are, and the rest of the voters (say 99%) have essentially zero say in whose names will appear on the ballot, there is substantial risk there is not government "of, by and for" the people because of the limitations on their choices.
There is no black and white as to whether there is or is not government "of, by and for" the people, and it is a matter of degree. The question for debate is how far away the country is from government "of, by and for" the people. To get a sense of that entails inquiring into factual realities that cause or contribute to a departure from the ideal and how extreme those realities are.
What are the realities that undermine it?
The chief factual reality is how the amounts spent on election campaigns have escalated and how candidates and would be candidates are grossly dependent on a very small group of funders in order to be or become a viable candidate.
A couple of things should be mentioned. While average voters may make campaign contributions that in the aggregate are a significant amount, this tends to happen late in the election cycle, whereas the critical time for establishing candidate viability is earlier in time, and that is when the small group of significant funders effectuates its determination of which candidates are viable on the ballot.
There are great power and riches to be had in Washington, and the human desire for those affects what goes on various ways that are adverse to having government "of, by and for" the people. These include a willingness to do the bidding of funders and give them preferential access in order to get needed funding. Top down control by those above over those below is sought, developed, and practiced, in order to secure and augment the position, power and riches of those above. This reduces attention being paid to the "people" one is elected to serve.
There is an enormous lack of transparency that keeps voters outrageously in the dark about what goes on in Washington, and this is exploited to preserve and augment personal riches and power of the elite in Washington.
You can find many books in your library which investigate the problem of the money monster in politics. problem.
I urge every voter to read Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's short book Lesterland: The Corruption of Congress And How To End It (copied and pasted in this blog at the foregoing link) and watch his 18 minute companion video that is here.
Among other things, Professor Lessig tries to go into detail about Presidential campaigns requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct, and campaigns for US Senate and House of Representatives seats running into the millions and tens of millions of dollars, the smallness of the donor class that funds them, fund raising is being a continuous activity that goes on for prior to the average voter making a decision among his voting choices, and how the donor class effectively decides which candidates are viable (have any chance of winning), and the average voter plays virtually no role in the deciding who will be the candidates that are viable (have any chance of winning)
A concrete example
Here is a concrete case in point to think about. The biggest, most important legislation in 50 years was probably The Affordable Health Care Act. To what extent does it pass the test of manifesting government "of, by, and for the people?"
Let's focus on health insurance companies. How much should the profitability of health insurance companies have counted in the Congressional decision making process about health care reform?
To be sure, tens of thousands of people are employed by health insurance companies, and some consideration can be given by Congress about whether it is doing something that would shrink the size and profitability of health insurance companies, and whether employment for those employees will or will not be adversely affected.
By the same token, how much consideration should have been given by Congress to stockholders of health insurance companies, and whether the value of their companies will be increased or decreased by health care reform laws that are passed? Some consideration might be legitimately given by Congress to what would happen to the value of the stock of stockholders in health insurance companies.
By and large, my view is that Congress should be paying attention to only how the American people are going to be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. To the extent keeping health insurance companies big and profitable is important for achieving cost and quality goals in the health care of Americans, that is fine for Congress to take into account how health insurance companies will be affected by a health care law that is under consideration.
By the same token, how much consideration should have been given by Congress to stockholders of health insurance companies, and whether the value of their companies will be increased or decreased by health care reform laws that are passed? Some consideration might be legitimately given by Congress to what would happen to the value of the stock of stockholders in health insurance companies.
By and large, my view is that Congress should be paying attention to only how the American people are going to be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. To the extent keeping health insurance companies big and profitable is important for achieving cost and quality goals in the health care of Americans, that is fine for Congress to take into account how health insurance companies will be affected by a health care law that is under consideration.
Let's say hypothetically that a persuasive case was made to Congress that cost and quality goals would be best served if health insurance should be limited to "catastrophic" type coverage only, and routine health care should be handled outside of the health insurance model, with the result that health insurance companies would experience a substantial reduction in their business size.
In government "of, by and for" the people, every Congressman should be able to say openly and honestly to the health insurance companies and to all the lawmaker's constituents to the effect of, "yes, the health insurance companies employ tens of thousands of people, and those employees and the stockholders are very desirous that Congressional action on healthcare reform not reduce the size and profitability of health insurance companies; however, the paramount interests to be served are how the American people will be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. I have concluded that those objectives will be best served by health insurance being channeled into "catastrophic" type coverage only, and routine health care should be handled outside of the health insurance model. This is going to have the result that health insurance companies will experience a substantial reduction in their business size and the number of employees will be reduced."
In government "of, by and for" the people, every Congressman should be able to say openly and honestly to the health insurance companies and to all the lawmaker's constituents to the effect of, "yes, the health insurance companies employ tens of thousands of people, and those employees and the stockholders are very desirous that Congressional action on healthcare reform not reduce the size and profitability of health insurance companies; however, the paramount interests to be served are how the American people will be affected in the cost and quality of their healthcare. I have concluded that those objectives will be best served by health insurance being channeled into "catastrophic" type coverage only, and routine health care should be handled outside of the health insurance model. This is going to have the result that health insurance companies will experience a substantial reduction in their business size and the number of employees will be reduced."
That ideal, however, is not the way things work in Washington. I believe the "money in politics" monster prevents such openness and honesty by the lawmakers and prevents them from making decisions that they can in good conscience defend as carrying out government "of, by and for" the people.
For a further example, go to this entry: An example of what's wrong
What do the experts say?
The real experts on this subject are the political class in Washington. If I am wrong in what I describe above related to health insurance companies, let Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus tell the voters I am wrong.
The political class in Washington deplores the harsh realities of campaigns costing so much money and of the associated fund raising from the donor class. Are they only deploring that the fundraising takes too much time away from the Senators and Representatives in their doing their jobs for the American people in Congress, and, except for the loss of that time, Congress is functioning just fine in providing government "of, by and for" the people? Or do they kniow that it is far more than that, and that the fundraising is one embodiment of the money monster in politics that has destroyed government "of, by and for" the people? I have tried to ask Senators Shelby and Sessions and Representative Bachus those questions, but they are not anwering.
What do the other candidates think?
[Temporary note to readers: I am organizing and editing. I have separate entries, one relative to there NOT being government "of, by and for" the people, and the other about the dysfunctional Congress problem. The entries may ultimately get consolidated. I am doing other editing on the two entries.]
How does the money monster make Congress dysfunctional?
There is much power and riches are to be had in Washington DC, and how great the desire for power and riches is for the many people who go to Washington DC to have and keep power and riches. These include lawmakers, lobbyists, and leaders of "special interest" organizations. This is not a universal judgment of the people in Washington DC, but the aggregate of all the desire for power and riches, and doing what is needed to preserve and increase the same, is a significant factor that contributes to preventing the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people and to the dysfunctionaliy of Congress (as will be elaborated below)..
A further harsh reality is the extent of seeking and having "top down" control in order to build, preserve and further enhance one's personal power and riches. This means much more falling into line with the wishes of those above one, and much less attunement to making government "of, by and for" the people.
Mention should also be made of the intense symbiotic relationship between the political class and the donor class. A harsh reality is the extent to which there is largely one political class (including both Republicans and Democrats) and one donor class, and there is intense rivalry within, and sometimes a resort to coercive tools, in the domain of the two classes. Those in the donor class are intent on winding up on the side of election winners, and those in the political class are intent on getting donors lined up with them, and if a donor does not line up, there is a threat of subsequent retribution against the donor. This symbiotic relationship contributes to undermining the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people.
While the political class gets their needed funding from the donor class, those in the political class still need to get votes to win and stay in office. To do this, it helps to keep the voters on their side riled up and angry, which leads to turning every issue into a life and death "us against them" matter. In short, divisiveness is beneficial to the political class. This impairs Congress in working together and in reaching compromises that government "of, by and for" the people is properly capable of.
The "us against them" mentality is also useful to the political class in eliciting booster donations from average voters on top of the funding from the donor class that the politicians mainly rely on.
The harsh realities contain a risk of the political class and their lobbyist cohorts and others growing their own role and importance and having more power and riches, to the detriment of the people which government is supposed to be of, by and for. Take, as an example, complexity versus simplicity of laws. From the point of view of the people, simpler laws might be better, but, from the point of view of lawmakers, lobbyists and others in DC, complex laws can be much better for their own personal interests. The more complexity there is in the law, the greater the lawmakers' ability to obtain political contributions, and the more opportunity there is for lobbyists to collect fees for lobbying about inrticacies in complex laws. The same can be said about the scope and reach of laws. Laws with less scope and less intrusiveness may be pretty good for the people, but lawmakers, lobbyists and others can personally benefit from laws having greater scope and reach.
Particularly deleterious consequences from the life or death, "us against them" mentality is a stalemate in which there is no compromise between the two sides, and the can gets kicked down the road for someone else to worry about.
The politicians are not going to fix this
I hope I have sufficiently delineated the harsh realities that make for government that is not "of, by and for" the people and that have resulted in a dysfunctional Congress, and I have sufficiently delineated the deleterious effects of the same, and that the combination has persuaded you that a high priority should be assigned to trying to fix these matters.
I further hope you have (or have gained) an appreciation of why the politicians are not going to act on their own, and it will take the citizens to force a meaningful change to be made. I will save for another entry discussion of making changes.
There is much power and riches are to be had in Washington DC, and how great the desire for power and riches is for the many people who go to Washington DC to have and keep power and riches. These include lawmakers, lobbyists, and leaders of "special interest" organizations. This is not a universal judgment of the people in Washington DC, but the aggregate of all the desire for power and riches, and doing what is needed to preserve and increase the same, is a significant factor that contributes to preventing the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people and to the dysfunctionaliy of Congress (as will be elaborated below)..
A further harsh reality is the extent of seeking and having "top down" control in order to build, preserve and further enhance one's personal power and riches. This means much more falling into line with the wishes of those above one, and much less attunement to making government "of, by and for" the people.
Mention should also be made of the intense symbiotic relationship between the political class and the donor class. A harsh reality is the extent to which there is largely one political class (including both Republicans and Democrats) and one donor class, and there is intense rivalry within, and sometimes a resort to coercive tools, in the domain of the two classes. Those in the donor class are intent on winding up on the side of election winners, and those in the political class are intent on getting donors lined up with them, and if a donor does not line up, there is a threat of subsequent retribution against the donor. This symbiotic relationship contributes to undermining the achievement of government "of, by and for" the people.
While the political class gets their needed funding from the donor class, those in the political class still need to get votes to win and stay in office. To do this, it helps to keep the voters on their side riled up and angry, which leads to turning every issue into a life and death "us against them" matter. In short, divisiveness is beneficial to the political class. This impairs Congress in working together and in reaching compromises that government "of, by and for" the people is properly capable of.
The "us against them" mentality is also useful to the political class in eliciting booster donations from average voters on top of the funding from the donor class that the politicians mainly rely on.
The harsh realities contain a risk of the political class and their lobbyist cohorts and others growing their own role and importance and having more power and riches, to the detriment of the people which government is supposed to be of, by and for. Take, as an example, complexity versus simplicity of laws. From the point of view of the people, simpler laws might be better, but, from the point of view of lawmakers, lobbyists and others in DC, complex laws can be much better for their own personal interests. The more complexity there is in the law, the greater the lawmakers' ability to obtain political contributions, and the more opportunity there is for lobbyists to collect fees for lobbying about inrticacies in complex laws. The same can be said about the scope and reach of laws. Laws with less scope and less intrusiveness may be pretty good for the people, but lawmakers, lobbyists and others can personally benefit from laws having greater scope and reach.
Particularly deleterious consequences from the life or death, "us against them" mentality is a stalemate in which there is no compromise between the two sides, and the can gets kicked down the road for someone else to worry about.
The politicians are not going to fix this
I hope I have sufficiently delineated the harsh realities that make for government that is not "of, by and for" the people and that have resulted in a dysfunctional Congress, and I have sufficiently delineated the deleterious effects of the same, and that the combination has persuaded you that a high priority should be assigned to trying to fix these matters.
I further hope you have (or have gained) an appreciation of why the politicians are not going to act on their own, and it will take the citizens to force a meaningful change to be made. I will save for another entry discussion of making changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment