Is Debate Dead?

The Constitution is, in my mind, rather simple in its description of the duties on the President of the United States: aside from nominating persons for government service and Commanding Chiefly (armed forces), taking "Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and addressing Congess on the State of the Union, the only job he swears to fulfill is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Treaties and pardons are options.

The connections between Congressional service (with partisan idealogies) and later Presidential tenure have warped the distinction of the separate branches of government. I do not claim to understand much of what Washington or Jefferson or Adams advocated. I do not know how much they fell into party lines. I would rather think well of them. Still, the past two administration have taken an active role in the origination, support, drafting, and momentum of laws, and, in the later administration, the injection of politics into Justice nominee Kagan, which are outside of its prerogative.

Most noticeable of late has been ObamaCare regulation, which have highlighted state kickbacks and a very aggressive White House in the process, and of course Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination preparation (more like thick make-up liberally applied). Presidential intrusion into Congressional rights due to situations "too important" to wait for bipartisan debate is not new, but the Supreme Court prep is. Past preparation for nominees have been conducted by the Justice Department, yet Kagan has has weeks of grooming by administration officials. This is most worrisome, for the Supreme Court has been considered a place from which party politics should be far removed.

Benevolent or no, the blending of separate branches destroys American safeguards against what the Country was founded for- freedom from despotism and monarchy. Vying for power, Republicans will do likewise, seeking to choke out an opposing voice (as did Democrats to pass Health Care Reform). Debate is for those who cannot win the House and Senate. I fear the bloom of our Constitution will be the first casualty, and at the hands of party weeds.

(Sources are the NYPost http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/final_reform_push_0pwRMzHMNshlHQZg8LWmcJ and NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127095542)

Prinicples- either Right or Left

Discontent amongst American voters has risen in the past year and a half over government spending, continuance of war, ObamaCare, the handling of the oil spill, etc. Gallup polls show that weekly approval ratings of the current administration have slipped in all voter groups, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, since July of 2009. This decline is at the least 8% (Republicans) and at the most 20% (Independents). A vast swing in the Independent voters is most alarming for political forecasts this November- they came out in majority and voted President Obama and other Democrats in, and now seem ready to apply the boot to their backsides in three months.

Input "town hall" into a YouTube search and you will find over 244,000 results. Politicians have used the Town Hall format to receive concern from constituents and to enlighten the masses on what is being done for the people. Now media attention has turned of late to the rising dissatisfaction from the attendees of these meetings. Many of the most viewed videos have been of rather confrontational episodes, and have been viewed over a millions times to date. Over the most controversial issues these politicians have been unable to even answer questions, let alone answer them well. While left-leaning congressmen are among the hardest hit, those on the right have come under heat as well.

In November and further on in two years, voter fallout may swing the balance of legislative and executive branches to the right, but will that improve the situation? Republican candidates and incumbents have begun to take hold on the dissuasion in the populace, yet if their platforms are empty rhetoric (as I am very afraid that it will be), to what party will voters turn to? If both parties remain fixed in a power struggle, Americans may turn to other means to reclaim their government. How I do not know, be it a third party or otherwise, but unless principles return to Washington within eight years, voters may lose the last vestige of confidence in representation and the Republic idea may begin to fail.

(Information for this post was derived from the Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/141131/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Down-Among-Independents.aspx and from the Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355403205238916.html?KEYWORDS=town+hall )

Open Houses (Part One)

On a slightly lighter note (politics has begun to interest me far too much), I want to write about the kinds of things that I see all around. I work as a technician for a pest control company in Arizona. There have been a few general categories I can place a family into, of which I will write. I have a more intimate view of a person's house than most will ever have, opening sink cabinents and going inside closets. From a large pool of homes, I begin to group people and look into their motivations.

There are the Keepers. They cannot get rid of anything, and seem to want to display everything. While not inherently messy, they leave sentinels from the past in every nook and cranny. They treasure the past.

There are the Droppers. Slippery fingers with everything they touch, this grouping is characterized by pointless objects, often past food items partially consumed, in perhaps its final resting place on the floors. I believe that for many of these, they have little interest in things above the trivial and the quick to satisfy.

There are the Animalers. In these abodes, the pets rules, often by sheer numbers. Their food is often littered on floors and around back patios. Charity seems to motivate them, yet I wonder that (in the extreme cases at least) charity may take over their lives. Cleanliness and sanity both leave more and more with each half dozen animals sheltered.

To be continued...

Terms Limits in Congress

West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd died while in office at the age of 92. Some great milestones were reached for him: longest on a Senate committee, longest serving Senator and oldest Senator. He is most well-remembered for one thing in particular: his great love for pork. The committee that he spent the most time on was the Senate Appropriations Committee, serving over half a century there. (This committee, which is the largest of such, determines what projects and states are to receive funding and by what amount.)

His legacy is large: from 1991 to the present, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) have noted almost $4 billion "earmarked" by Senator Byrd, which means that almost $210 million were secured each year for projects for his constituents (note that while this money is often tacked onto committee bills, this is not universal. Many earmarks are from funds already to be distributed and the allocations are "carved out" of this amount).

For those thinking that this must be an extreme example of the species senatus americanus, the conservative watch group above only awarded Byrd its highest monthly "honor" (for most disgraceful earmarking) four times and its yearly "honor" once. His reputation for pork-spending comes as he has been around long enough for all the WV buildings with his name on it to catch some attention. Now, the Committee was established for purposes to separate funds for government agencies annually, and to do so is admirable. I fear that those who serve for a great deal of time in these (or any) government positions misuse the responsibility they have sworn to honor.

As my father and I were discussing during dinner, as we often do, he brought up the idea of short Congressional tenures, lasting two terms if they are approved of by their constituents. I agree with the suggestion. This would limit time for earmarking, behind-doors wrangling and, I would hope, get rid of the idea of the Senate as a retirement home of lawmakers. With little time for positive good, they may strive more fervently to be recognized as a benefit to their people.

Note the 22nd amendment to the Constitution, only ratified in 1951, which fixes a limit of two to the terms which a President may serve. Before that, only Washington's precedent served as a guide for presidents. To set a limit on Congressional terms by the Constitution would not violate precedent- but it would never be passed by the Congress themselves.

(Information gathered from http://byrd.senate.gov/assets/pdf/BYRD%20RECORDS.pdf, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics) , http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/death-robert-byrd-speall-end-pork-barrel-politics/story?id=11034377&page=2, http://appropriations.senate.gov/about-jurisdiction.cfm, and http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2010/cagw-remembers-king-of-pork.html. For a defense of earmarking (not too terrible) read the Wikipedia page.)