Do Away With The U.S. Senate – It’s Well Past Time
For years Americans have had to put up with a do nothing Congress containing a significant membership primarily focused on re-election and feeling entitled to line its pockets or reward its friends with taxpayer money. To apply this point of view to both houses of Congress is part of the American culture. So one can ask the question: “Why is it necessary to have two do nothing houses at the Federal level?”
Most people have an aversion to duplication and waste and wish to get all the efficiency they can out of their government under the solemn belief in equal representation. And yet these same people don’t think about or notice the travesty to this belief system know as the U.S. Senate.
The U.S. Senate was created by the founding fathers as a compromise to smaller members of the thirteen colonies. These colonies were concerned about possible excessive influence by larger colonies. Today as a result of this compromise we have a situation in the “upper house” where South Dakota is represented equally with California. Based on population California (30 million) should have 10 senators and South Dakota (1 million), akin to the situation with the Florida Democratic delegation, should have no more than 1/3 of a Senator.
This would be fine if the U.S. Senate had no power to legislate, only was ceremonial, and had no public budget. This version of the U.S. Senate would be closer to the English House of Lords. If there is a need for harrumphing, sash wearing, ribbon cutting, and vacuous rhetoric then the side show that is the House of Lords could be duplicated here as the Senate. The real heavy legislative lifting could then be invested with the House of Representatives as is the case with the English House of Commons. The House could easily take on those constitutionally mandated “advise and consent” duties (such as ratifying treaties) now assigned to the Senate.
Like any true bureaucracy the U.S. Senate has grown into a bloated evil twin of the U.S. House of Representatives. And this is in spite of being ¼ the size of the House. In cases large (matching committees) and small (matching cafeterias) the U.S. Senate matches and often exceeds the House in waste and duplication. The Senate can’t even get the cafeteria (civil service – bad food - loses money) right while the House does much better (privatized – better food – makes money).
Having two houses causes numerous coordination problems such as conference committees created to reconcile different versions of bills. These committees often meet in secret, and are unaccountable for their actions. Downsizing Congress would also free up billions of taxpayer dollars because the size and number of pork barrel projects would significantly decrease.
Americans have seldom elected Senators to the Presidency and when they have, those individuals usually have other more compelling experience. One only needs to look at the current candidates to see how little attention is focused on Senatorial experience. McCain, as was the case with John F. Kennedy, will win or lose based on his military experience and, like Obama, how well he articulates his vision for America not on what he did in the Senate. That’s because nobody cares. The American public innately knows that Senators are generally out of touch with them as they stand for election less frequently. And they also note there is seldom anything of significance happening in the Senate that isn’t at the same time being duplicated by the House. So they look elsewhere in the candidate’s background for inspiration when a Senator runs for President.
Lets follow the lead of unicameral Nebraska which somehow manages to function with only with one legislative house. And it’s nonpartisan to boot. Hillary Clinton and her acolytes did not go far enough. Rather than calling for the elimination of the Electoral College we should make it much more representative of America by reducing its size by 101 (don’t forget Washington DC) members. But then Hillary would have to run for some other office.
Most people have an aversion to duplication and waste and wish to get all the efficiency they can out of their government under the solemn belief in equal representation. And yet these same people don’t think about or notice the travesty to this belief system know as the U.S. Senate.
The U.S. Senate was created by the founding fathers as a compromise to smaller members of the thirteen colonies. These colonies were concerned about possible excessive influence by larger colonies. Today as a result of this compromise we have a situation in the “upper house” where South Dakota is represented equally with California. Based on population California (30 million) should have 10 senators and South Dakota (1 million), akin to the situation with the Florida Democratic delegation, should have no more than 1/3 of a Senator.
This would be fine if the U.S. Senate had no power to legislate, only was ceremonial, and had no public budget. This version of the U.S. Senate would be closer to the English House of Lords. If there is a need for harrumphing, sash wearing, ribbon cutting, and vacuous rhetoric then the side show that is the House of Lords could be duplicated here as the Senate. The real heavy legislative lifting could then be invested with the House of Representatives as is the case with the English House of Commons. The House could easily take on those constitutionally mandated “advise and consent” duties (such as ratifying treaties) now assigned to the Senate.
Like any true bureaucracy the U.S. Senate has grown into a bloated evil twin of the U.S. House of Representatives. And this is in spite of being ¼ the size of the House. In cases large (matching committees) and small (matching cafeterias) the U.S. Senate matches and often exceeds the House in waste and duplication. The Senate can’t even get the cafeteria (civil service – bad food - loses money) right while the House does much better (privatized – better food – makes money).
Having two houses causes numerous coordination problems such as conference committees created to reconcile different versions of bills. These committees often meet in secret, and are unaccountable for their actions. Downsizing Congress would also free up billions of taxpayer dollars because the size and number of pork barrel projects would significantly decrease.
Americans have seldom elected Senators to the Presidency and when they have, those individuals usually have other more compelling experience. One only needs to look at the current candidates to see how little attention is focused on Senatorial experience. McCain, as was the case with John F. Kennedy, will win or lose based on his military experience and, like Obama, how well he articulates his vision for America not on what he did in the Senate. That’s because nobody cares. The American public innately knows that Senators are generally out of touch with them as they stand for election less frequently. And they also note there is seldom anything of significance happening in the Senate that isn’t at the same time being duplicated by the House. So they look elsewhere in the candidate’s background for inspiration when a Senator runs for President.
Lets follow the lead of unicameral Nebraska which somehow manages to function with only with one legislative house. And it’s nonpartisan to boot. Hillary Clinton and her acolytes did not go far enough. Rather than calling for the elimination of the Electoral College we should make it much more representative of America by reducing its size by 101 (don’t forget Washington DC) members. But then Hillary would have to run for some other office.
posted by tovarich at 9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home