V. Lobbying Congress
THE POLITICAL CLIMATE
.
.... Line Item Legislation is certainly in the best interest of the nation. It would eliminate favors to lobbyists, curtail pork-barrel spending and eliminate earmarks. It would make politicians accountable to their constituents by more clearly defining their political stands. It would return power to the people, which would benefit voters. As an alternative to the current legislative procedure, or even to the Line Item Veto, Line Item Legislation would be a popular measure. But there are many in Congress who may not think so initially. This could make a potentially hostile atmosphere.
.
.... Winning support for this measure would be most successful if it appealed to Congressional self interest, and for legislators that translates into political power. But how could Line Item Legislation, which in some ways checks their power, be received as a devise to empower them?
.
.
EMPOWERMENT
.
.... Line-Item Legislation would genuinely empower legislators who were sincere in their desire to serve the country because it would allow them to vote their conscience. Legislators of principle would welcome a procedure that reviewed their principles honestly, and fairly credited them. It would also distance them from unwise measures and protect them from the unfair criticism that might stem from such measures. In time, those credentials would provide them with a solid foundation on which their political career might grow.
.
.... Furthermore, Line-Item Legislation would allow Legislators a reciprocal measure of power within the House or Senate themselves, in checking the excess of their colleagues. The would now be in a position to help 'drain the swamp'. This new power would transcend the committee room boundaries so that, in the end, every committee’s work would truly represent the whole rather than the few. This, too, would help define a Legislator’s political stands and translate into credit for his record.
.
.... If spending could be curtailed in Congress and government debts could be reduced, or if government efficiency could be improved, it could be justly claimed as the result of a legislator's prudence – for those who voted wisely enough under the Line Item Legislation procedure. It would all be a matter of record this way. This procedure would make those distinctions possible and would place credit and blame where they were separately due. In the sense of cultivating leadership, it would benefit the nation by separating the wheat from the chaff.
.
.... All of those attributes of wisdom, service, and virtue would lend support to a politician in their bid for re-election, thus tending to empower them. It’s the way it was meant to be. And beyond the immediate benefits, it would establish their credentials for higher office in the years to come. It would help to establish their motivation and consistency. Furthermore, all other Legislators would be met with the same new conditions, so in that sense their relative power within Congress would remain unchanged -- it would only be kept within the balance of reason. Potential challengers for their office would be equally accountable through Shadow Legislation, so future comparisons would tend to be more fair; and concerned, qualified candidates may be more encouraged to run because a large part of the element of the unknown has been removed.
.
.... Line Item Legislation would enhance the public confidence in Congress by providing the crucial capability for making frugal government possible and empowering the private sector.
.
.
.
.
.... Line Item Legislation is certainly in the best interest of the nation. It would eliminate favors to lobbyists, curtail pork-barrel spending and eliminate earmarks. It would make politicians accountable to their constituents by more clearly defining their political stands. It would return power to the people, which would benefit voters. As an alternative to the current legislative procedure, or even to the Line Item Veto, Line Item Legislation would be a popular measure. But there are many in Congress who may not think so initially. This could make a potentially hostile atmosphere.
.
.... Winning support for this measure would be most successful if it appealed to Congressional self interest, and for legislators that translates into political power. But how could Line Item Legislation, which in some ways checks their power, be received as a devise to empower them?
.
.
EMPOWERMENT
.
.... Line-Item Legislation would genuinely empower legislators who were sincere in their desire to serve the country because it would allow them to vote their conscience. Legislators of principle would welcome a procedure that reviewed their principles honestly, and fairly credited them. It would also distance them from unwise measures and protect them from the unfair criticism that might stem from such measures. In time, those credentials would provide them with a solid foundation on which their political career might grow.
.
.... Furthermore, Line-Item Legislation would allow Legislators a reciprocal measure of power within the House or Senate themselves, in checking the excess of their colleagues. The would now be in a position to help 'drain the swamp'. This new power would transcend the committee room boundaries so that, in the end, every committee’s work would truly represent the whole rather than the few. This, too, would help define a Legislator’s political stands and translate into credit for his record.
.
.... If spending could be curtailed in Congress and government debts could be reduced, or if government efficiency could be improved, it could be justly claimed as the result of a legislator's prudence – for those who voted wisely enough under the Line Item Legislation procedure. It would all be a matter of record this way. This procedure would make those distinctions possible and would place credit and blame where they were separately due. In the sense of cultivating leadership, it would benefit the nation by separating the wheat from the chaff.
.
.... All of those attributes of wisdom, service, and virtue would lend support to a politician in their bid for re-election, thus tending to empower them. It’s the way it was meant to be. And beyond the immediate benefits, it would establish their credentials for higher office in the years to come. It would help to establish their motivation and consistency. Furthermore, all other Legislators would be met with the same new conditions, so in that sense their relative power within Congress would remain unchanged -- it would only be kept within the balance of reason. Potential challengers for their office would be equally accountable through Shadow Legislation, so future comparisons would tend to be more fair; and concerned, qualified candidates may be more encouraged to run because a large part of the element of the unknown has been removed.
.
.... Line Item Legislation would enhance the public confidence in Congress by providing the crucial capability for making frugal government possible and empowering the private sector.
.
.
THE BALANCE OF POWER
.
.... There is one more positive reason for Legislators to adopt Line Item Legislation– though for them, it stems from a negative premise. Simply put, if the Line Item Veto is destined to come and change is unavoidable, then Line-Item Legislation would be a preferable alternative.
.
.... Although Line-Item Legislation could give the President a de-facto Line-Item Veto under the 'Executive Pption', this would only be given to him at Congressional discretion, and even when it was granted, Congress itself would have the first chance at this process through their own line-item review. Through this procedure they could keep their own political house in order and deprive the President of the political victory of doing it for them. They would, instead, be making him more accountable to themselves and the people.
.
.... If Congress keeps its own house in order through line item majorities, those majorities would serve the further purpose of establishing each item as ‘popular.’ Since each item would be guaranteed 51% support or more, even to be sent to the President, it would make his veto a much more ponderous political decision. (And under the rules of the Constitution, he must explain every veto he gives.)
.
.... Therefore, under the Line Item Legislation, 'Legislative option', no additional power would be granted to the President; and even if the balance was modified by the 'Executive option', it would be counter-balanced by the greater accountability that option requires. As such, Line Item Legislation would still produce no real shift in the separation of powers equation and would certainly be preferable to Legislators for that reason. (And for that reason, too, it would be a more prudent course for the nation in terms of political theory and principle, than the line item veto would be).
.
.... The points just described are positive reasons why Congress should adopt the Line Item Legislation procedure. A Legislator who is faced with this rationale but does not support the measure would have a difficult time defending their objections to a free society. Their only real motives would be that they wish to retain the power of pork barrel spending, or they fear to let their true political colors show, whatever cosmetic reasons would be given to disguise it.
.
.
..
.... There is one more positive reason for Legislators to adopt Line Item Legislation– though for them, it stems from a negative premise. Simply put, if the Line Item Veto is destined to come and change is unavoidable, then Line-Item Legislation would be a preferable alternative.
.
.... Although Line-Item Legislation could give the President a de-facto Line-Item Veto under the 'Executive Pption', this would only be given to him at Congressional discretion, and even when it was granted, Congress itself would have the first chance at this process through their own line-item review. Through this procedure they could keep their own political house in order and deprive the President of the political victory of doing it for them. They would, instead, be making him more accountable to themselves and the people.
.
.... If Congress keeps its own house in order through line item majorities, those majorities would serve the further purpose of establishing each item as ‘popular.’ Since each item would be guaranteed 51% support or more, even to be sent to the President, it would make his veto a much more ponderous political decision. (And under the rules of the Constitution, he must explain every veto he gives.)
.
.... Therefore, under the Line Item Legislation, 'Legislative option', no additional power would be granted to the President; and even if the balance was modified by the 'Executive option', it would be counter-balanced by the greater accountability that option requires. As such, Line Item Legislation would still produce no real shift in the separation of powers equation and would certainly be preferable to Legislators for that reason. (And for that reason, too, it would be a more prudent course for the nation in terms of political theory and principle, than the line item veto would be).
.
.... The points just described are positive reasons why Congress should adopt the Line Item Legislation procedure. A Legislator who is faced with this rationale but does not support the measure would have a difficult time defending their objections to a free society. Their only real motives would be that they wish to retain the power of pork barrel spending, or they fear to let their true political colors show, whatever cosmetic reasons would be given to disguise it.
.
.
THE COLD POINT
.
.... Besides the positive reasons for adopting Line-Item Legislation, there are reasons of negative virtue which could also appeal to a Legislator’s self-interest, though they turn on a much harder point: that the powers of political office are irrelevant to them if they are not the ones elected to carry them out. This remark requires a context, and the context is the status quo vs. the proposal:
.
.... Whatever benefits Line Item Legislation may bring, the current procedure has had its own advantages in the eyes of many Legislators. It has provided a comfortable power base over the years. Why should they risk something that is working for them? The answer must be that there is something to lose if they do not adopt Line Item Legislation; that they will hurt themselves politically and lose their next election if they don’t, or else their party will not win enough of a majority for clear power. This argument, plus the positive arguments, will combine to produce the consensus needed for adoption.
.
.... Of necessity, exploring negative virtues will translate into party politics. This will not be lost on the Legislators themselves so it is merely prudence to understand the implications and prepare for them.
.
.... Besides the positive reasons for adopting Line-Item Legislation, there are reasons of negative virtue which could also appeal to a Legislator’s self-interest, though they turn on a much harder point: that the powers of political office are irrelevant to them if they are not the ones elected to carry them out. This remark requires a context, and the context is the status quo vs. the proposal:
.
.... Whatever benefits Line Item Legislation may bring, the current procedure has had its own advantages in the eyes of many Legislators. It has provided a comfortable power base over the years. Why should they risk something that is working for them? The answer must be that there is something to lose if they do not adopt Line Item Legislation; that they will hurt themselves politically and lose their next election if they don’t, or else their party will not win enough of a majority for clear power. This argument, plus the positive arguments, will combine to produce the consensus needed for adoption.
.
.... Of necessity, exploring negative virtues will translate into party politics. This will not be lost on the Legislators themselves so it is merely prudence to understand the implications and prepare for them.
.
THE MAJORITY ADVANTAGE
.
.... To understand party politics in Congress begins with the power structure itself. Since ‘Each house may determine the Rules for its Proceedings,’ the majority party has always set the rules, which provides them with a special basis of power. It also allows them to control all Congressional proceedings, to populate every committee with a one-to-one-plus-one majority, and to include their own party members as each committee’s chairman. Thus, when they vote on a party line, they are playing by their own rules and they’ll control the outcome every time. This is the procedure that works for them and they have little incentive for wanting to change it.
.
.... The minority party, by contrast, has no special position in committees. No chairmen. No majorities. This translates into much less political power for them. This understanding is crucial in making Line-Item Legislation a reality, because only the majority party can change the rules. Thus, the minority party is far more likely to endorse Line Item Legislation as a pledge to the voters, in return for restoring them to power. However, the election in 2012 may bring a quite different story:
.
.... At the time of this writing, the 2010 mid-term elections are looming. The projections are that the minority party, the Republicans, may actually regain both houses, but just barely. And if not, the Democrats will barely hold on to them. It may also be that one party will control each house, each by the slimmest margin. This will leave each of them especially vulnerable to the initiatives of the other in 2012.
.
.... The party that is in the minority has the best case: for adopting Line Item Legislation: "If you make us the majority party, we will institute it, since only the majority party can set the rules." But if the two parties are so close in numbers, this endorsement could go either way. It might even become a mutual endorsement, to take a weapon from the hand of their opponents. That's politics. And remember that the party which advocates Line Item Legislation will also be seen as its Congressional defender. This could entrench their majority for years to come.
.
.... To understand party politics in Congress begins with the power structure itself. Since ‘Each house may determine the Rules for its Proceedings,’ the majority party has always set the rules, which provides them with a special basis of power. It also allows them to control all Congressional proceedings, to populate every committee with a one-to-one-plus-one majority, and to include their own party members as each committee’s chairman. Thus, when they vote on a party line, they are playing by their own rules and they’ll control the outcome every time. This is the procedure that works for them and they have little incentive for wanting to change it.
.
.... The minority party, by contrast, has no special position in committees. No chairmen. No majorities. This translates into much less political power for them. This understanding is crucial in making Line-Item Legislation a reality, because only the majority party can change the rules. Thus, the minority party is far more likely to endorse Line Item Legislation as a pledge to the voters, in return for restoring them to power. However, the election in 2012 may bring a quite different story:
.
.... At the time of this writing, the 2010 mid-term elections are looming. The projections are that the minority party, the Republicans, may actually regain both houses, but just barely. And if not, the Democrats will barely hold on to them. It may also be that one party will control each house, each by the slimmest margin. This will leave each of them especially vulnerable to the initiatives of the other in 2012.
.
.... The party that is in the minority has the best case: for adopting Line Item Legislation: "If you make us the majority party, we will institute it, since only the majority party can set the rules." But if the two parties are so close in numbers, this endorsement could go either way. It might even become a mutual endorsement, to take a weapon from the hand of their opponents. That's politics. And remember that the party which advocates Line Item Legislation will also be seen as its Congressional defender. This could entrench their majority for years to come.
.
.... As the election draws near, a ‘demo’ version of the system should be released online for the public to explore. If this can be done in a user-friendly manner, with a professional look and an interesting tutorial, the party that introduces it would achieve a popularity akin to the release of a new 'political video game', and their voice would be amplified in a timely, influential manner.
.... As the election draws near, a ‘demo’ version of the system should be released online for the public to explore. If this can be done in a user-friendly manner, with a professional look and an interesting tutorial, the party that introduces it would achieve a popularity akin to the release of a new 'political video game', and their voice would be amplified in a timely, influential manner.
.
To read the next section on Background - Line-Item Legislation, click here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home