I do agree that congress seems to be the root of government problems. No matter who the president is, they tend to come off as completely obstructionist. Nothing can get accomplished because every congressman has pet issues that s/he wants to force into every god-forsaken bill. I`m not sure I`d be in favor of giving more power to the executive branch, though. The selling point of a checks and balances system is that we never risk totalitarianism. However, I would be in favor of limiting the three branches of government`s means of negating each other. Nothing gets done because everyone has the power to cancel everyone else out. I think the bar to get an action passed needs to be lower, and the bar to get an action rejected needs to be raised.
The current system promotes inaction, and the biggest problem with inaction is that nothing gets done. We hire government officials to act on our behalf. They don`t act, they can`t act, and when they do, it`s rarely on our behalf. We need to remove the need for deal making between elected officials. If bill A could get passed without Congressman X letting Congressman Y put in pet project B in the footnotes, which of course will only be accepted if Congressman Z can put in pet project C, well, I think we`d be much better off. Individual congressmen need more power to pass, and less power to negate. Same with the president.
MattTurpin2/25/2009 7:29 PM
Making limitless possibilities much more limited.