Why Congress Can’t Reform Itself, or Act Effectively

September 11, 2008

Congress should be able to address our major problems but they can’t, Why?

There are two Reasons

The First and most important because  it is not readily apparent to most people is

The Tragedy of the Commons –see Wikipedia for a detailed expanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons

The simple explanation for this cause is that we have one national U.S. neighborhood  hog trough and slop or money  in that trough is limited to what we can tax our of Americans and how much other countries will lend us.  We all send our hogs consisting of lobbists and individuals with contacts to insure that we get our share of the slop from that trough. Since we want our hogs to prosper it makes sense for each of us as individuals to send as many hogs to the trough as we can muster.  The more money we have the more hogs we can buy and send to get more than our share from the trough.

Unfortunately there are limits to the slop (money) Americans have in taxable income  and other Nations look at the ever increasing hogs at the trough and decide that the entire slop trough is not going to continue to feed the increasing number of hogs so they threaten to cut off the slop (money) they they have been providing.

Result: The infinite number  of pigs at the trough start to die off because only the biggest hogs can get enough slop.  This is the Tragedy of the Commons situation of our Congress — and there is one more detail that our founding fathers could not anticipate when they wrote our Constitution.  Members of Congress fixed with their rules  it so that  incoming hogs (members) go the bottom of the seniority list (side of the trough) and they never let them get to the trough unless they play the system as the older members (hogs) are doing.  So we voters (theoretical owners of the hogs) keep sending our senior hogs back to the trough because only the senior members and those who play the system get to the front of the trough  have a chance at the slop (money). The end result of this failure of our Founding Fathers design  is that we keep sending the same corrupted hogs back to the trough

The end result of the Congressional systemis that what the Founding Fathers intended– that competing interests in Congress would make the system rational and result in actions that “were for the good of the nation” do not occur.  As individual special interests we keep adding lobbyists (hogs) and money in a rational decision to further our interests.

The Devil in Special Interests

Pogo a famous comic Strip character of several years ago once used the line “We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us”. Few concepts more easily explain the reason that the problem of Special Interests persists in Congress. Our Education system performs poorly but reform is stalled because of Teachers Unions whose money goes to preserving yesterdays educational interests. The great mass of retired people are represented by AARP and the Organization of AARP has interests in preserving it’s power and perogatives which may not be the interests in National wellbeing. States send back to Congress, not those who have an interest in representing the nation, but people who bring home the bacon –otherwise known as “earmarks”.

The problems of “Special Interests “are endemic to the system and changing and improving the systems is in the hands of the corrupt Congress itself. So the question is how to remove the solution from the hands of Congress and enable honest people to serve in Congress and remain honest.

An interesting aspect of the problems with Congress is that while Congress as a body is held in very low regard Congress persons representing States and Regions are in general appreciated by their constituents — special interests and “earmarks”.

Congress Persons are caught in a [Catch 22] Improving the functions of Congress means that we must address the issue that makes Congress so ineffective, We send some good and honest people to Congress but to remain there and be effective they must enter a pact with the devils of moneyed “Special Interests” which, more often than not, want laws and money that are not in the best interest of the country.

Spurn these Special interests, spurn your collegues, and you are cut out of ability to exercise power. Worse, for those who have been in politics over time this corrupt play becomes the norm. Corrupt your principles a few times and a previously honest man become corrupt. Catch 22, play fair with the Country– you lose. Don’t go along with a Special Interest Corrupted Major Party and you are out. We must find a way to release them from this corrupt bondage.

Earmarks are an excellent example of this process.

The Devil Creeps in With Lobbying

Special Interest Groups

Take a look at the blog on the Washington Post “Special Interests”
Lobbying

Lobbying is legal under “the right to petition” but the devil of money connected with lobbying has increasingly corrupted Congress persons in recent years making it difficult for effective and national interest legislation.

We Can Change It

See Strategy  in Issuewiki.us which this paragraph references

The question for this site and for the longer range objective of this site is how to use the “National Issue Convention” to both relieve the pressure on Congress Persons to do things that are not right for the country and add pressure to insure that they do what is best.

The alliance of the site with the interests of honest Journalism and Sortition selected representatives are key to this effort.

Outreach: General Comments on Starting

September 9, 2008

Some major concepts of Issue of Issuewiki.us.

The quality and success of issuewiki.us  will depend on getting reasonably balanced writers to address issues and issue areas of merit.

-bylines will be attached for the editors of Issue Areas and Issues so the writer’s name will eventually be known.  The Mediawiki system allows for comments to come back to those who overwatch a page so it is not difficult to write back to them on the system–the system doesn’t divulge your email .  Don’t put your email in your byline.  It will be harvested by the spam-generators and your spam will increase.

-Only know people of known quality will be invited to the work the wiki and they will be authorized primarily to work issue areas they have requested and have some interest in “fair representation and fair presentation”

-All contributors may write email and letters to correspondents and columnists who have demonstrated they believe in the concept of “fair representation and fair presentation” basically part of  an elevated Journalist”s creed.  Send Publius@issuewiki.us a note when you get positive responses and Publius will send them a sign-on and password.  As we move out of the startup stage those of you who migrate to “steward” or “sysop” status will be able to sign them up directly.

-We still need a Issuewiki.us webmaster and editors experienced with wikipedia.  Keep looking for friends who might be able to assist.

Publius

How to start a page on Issuewiki.us

September 8, 2008
  1. Click on the A-Z issue menu on the left.
  2. Go down to an Issue area that interests you.
  3. If no Issue Area is there  that interests you then create one.
  4. Assuming you have been invited to participate and have a sign-on and password Click on edit on the side next to the area you want to add an issue area
  5. To creat and issue area insert in alphabetical order based on the words after Issue Area the following  Notional Issue area with brackets as shown [[Issue Area: (Problem or Issue Area name)]]  Note finish with two brackets.
  6. Go to the bottom of the page and click on “Save”  you should now be able to see the new Issue Area in “Red” colored print.  Click on that Issue Area that you have initiated and it will take you to a new page where you can edit you new Issue Area
  7. Insert {{Issue_Area}} and save. Review the page and you will see that the format for Issue Area has been inserted in the Page you created.
  8. Create the issues you think are important by creating them the same way you created the Issue Area.  Edit the page and replace the blank issues with an issue in the following format.
  9. [[Issue: (Name of the Issue area like "Congress", followed by the issue ending with a question mark followed by two brackets]]  now the new issue name your created should look something like this [[Issue: Congress, Congress is incompetent?]]
  10. Save what you have created.
  11. Now click on the red colored Issue  and a new page will come up that you can edit.
  12. Insert in the edit  part the following  {{subst:Pro_Con}} and then save.  After you save you will see that the format for a new page has been inserted for your redrafting or editing in the Issue Name that you established.
  13. Start working the format and if you need help google “Debates” and go to many of the resources on your issue area.

How we broke Constititutional Limites of the Federal Government

February 2, 2010
The Independent Constitutionalists Movement
and the State Sovereignty Issue

Protesting is essential because if we are going to change the steady corruption of Congress and our Government we need to be sure we have the facts on what has carried us to this point.

One of the better more lucid sources on why and how The Federal Government has encroached on state powers over the years and even more rapidly with the current administration: check The Irony of Democracy Chapter 14

The important words are “Necessary and Proper Clause”, “General Welfare Clause”

December 20, 2009

The Tragedy of the Commons
Time to make an effort explaining why Congress is so Dysfunctional

Tragedy of the commons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Tragedy of the Commons)
Jump to: navigation, search

Clearing rainforest for agriculture in southern Mexico.

The tragedy of the commons refers to a dilemma described in an influential article by that name written by Garrett Hardin and first published in the journal Science in 1968.[1] The article describes a situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long-term interest for this to happen.[2]

Central to Hardin’s article is an example (first sketched in an 1833 pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd), of a hypothetical and simplified situation based on medieval land tenure in Europe, of herders sharing a common parcel of land, on which they are each entitled to let their cows graze. In Hardin’s example, it is in each herder’s interest to put the next (and succeeding) cows he acquires onto the land, even if the carrying capacity of the common is exceeded and it is temporarily or permanently damaged for all as a result. The herder receives all of the benefits from an additional cow, while the damage to the common is shared by the entire group. If all herders make this individually rational economic decision, the common will be depleted or even destroyed to the detriment of all.

A similar dilemma of the commons had previously been discussed by agrarian reformers since the 18th century.[3] Hardin’s predecessors used the alleged tragedy, as well as a variety of examples from the Greek Classics, to justify the enclosure movement. Radkau sees Garrett Hardin’s writings as having a different aim in that Hardin asks for a strict management of common goods via increased government involvement or/and international regulation bodies.[3]

Hardin’s work has been criticised on the grounds of historical inaccuracy, and for failing to distinguish between common property and open access resources. Subsequent work by Elinor Ostrom and others suggest that using Hardin’s work to argue for privatization of resources is an “overstatement” of the case. Nonetheless, Ostrom recognizes that there are real problems, and even limited situations where the tragedy of the common applies to real-world resource management. [4] While the implications of Hardin’s essay are broadly defined, a central point of his essay was that adding offspring to the human population was a freedom, and that in order to prevent the degradation of the earth and its ability to support human existence, humanity needed to cede the freedom to reproduce.[1]

Time to make an effort on why Congress is so Dysfunctional

A book that should be written

November 21, 2009

How to get the Drones and Crooks out of Congress

Corruption?

July 30, 2009

Where to, Mr Fundraiser? | Democracy in America | Economist.com

Where to, Mr Fundraiser?

Posted by:
The Economist | NEW YORK

Categories:
Foreign policy

RAISE a pile of cash for the right candidate, and you, too, can be an ambassador. Harper’s reports on the continuing, and indefensible, grubbiness of America’s selection of top diplomats. It seems that the price tag might even have gone up quite a bit under Barack Obama, fundraising phenomenon that he was. I should add that I get the White House e-mails about every ambassadorial nominee, and quite a few come from the State Department, with many from the private sector having relevant international experience. But too many don’t. Angela Merkel even objected to the ambassador slated for Germany. Embarassing.

An ambassadorship is hugely prestigious. You get a great house, a great job, and a comfy clime or a friendly culture (at least the fundraisers, who go to places like Belgium and Switzerland, do; Burkina Faso and Tajikistan will be staffed by State Department lifers). People (at least in America) can formally call you “ambassador” for the rest of your life. It’s worth a lot. But should it really be for sale? This is one place where The Economist can’t get behind the free market.

* Share
o Del.icio.us
o Digg
o Facebook
o Reddit
o more?
* Permalink

Revision of Chapter 6 The Art of Reform and Rebellion

June 10, 2009

Draft Chapter Six should be published on issuu.com next week.
Chapter Title is Wrong Assumptions and Poor Questions

Todays Most Importan Issue Dysfunctional Congress

October 5, 2008

Without a doubt the most important issue on issuewiki.us is the dysfunctional Congress and how we go about correcting  it with a yearly National Issue Conference.

Shorter Template:Pro_ConS

October 5, 2008

Drafted a shorter Pro Con format under Template:Pro_Con to make it easier to get out an initial issue description without some much excess space.

Still grinding away on initial drafts for the  the Major and Priority issues.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.