U.S. Politics, 16

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

For anyone who cares, more discussion of my favorite 2012 GOP (possible) contender, Mitch Daniels:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2010/12/10/the_mitch_daniels_dilemma/page/full/

Read elsewhere that he's going to make a decision/announcement by May at the latest.

[Altherion]

I can't believe he's still trying to ram theough legislation. Talk about forgetting "elections have consequenses".

They do have consequences -- that's why Obama and the Republicans made a deal. The Republicans got exactly what they wanted with the tax cuts and estate tax and Obama got START (which was overwhelmingly supported by something like 72%), the repeal of DADT (which the military wanted) and two thirds of the 9/11 bill. None of these would have been possible without the support of Republicans in the Senate.

[Kelli Fury]

Do we really need ANYONE campaigning from this May until November of 2012? This is getting fucking ridiculous.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Do we really need ANYONE campaigning from this May until November of 2012? This is getting fucking ridiculous.

Just as a frame of reference, Obama declared himself a candidate in February 2007.

The problems is that supporters start aligning, and experienced campaign types start getting hired, etc. Most of the first few months aren't spend campaigning, but rather just putting an organization together.

FWIW, I don't think Daniels will run. His statement was that "the people pushing for him to run deserve some kind of answer", but that he won't do so unless his family supports it and he thinks it won't interfere with him running the state. I hope he'll run, but I doubt it. Which leaves me at a complete loss regarding who I might support, because the Palin/Romney/Huckabee/Gingrich possibilities make me want to puke.

[Kelli Fury]

oh I know he did, and that was considered a LATE announcement for that primary field. I just think this is really, really stupid how we basically take a month or two off from campaigning now before starting the next one.

[MinDonner]

So, can someone explain this Lame Duck thing to an ignorant furriner? The politicians have already lost their seats but they're allowed to keep making policy for several months afterwards, is that it? And if so, um, why?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

So, can someone explain this Lame Duck thing to an ignorant furriner? The politicians have already lost their seats but they're allowed to keep making policy for several months afterwards, is that it? And if so, um, why?

You nailed it. They get to keep making policy because governments don't change over instantly here. They keep going until their terms expire and the new guy/gals are sworn into office.

[MinDonner]

That didn't answer the Why part. It seems to open the system up to all kinds of abuse.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

That didn't answer the Why part. It seems to open the system up to all kinds of abuse.

Because our representational system dates from a time of farmers from a very widespread geographical area picking one of their own and then riding an ox-cart or something over the mountains until they finally reach the capital. Not one clique of courtiers that reside in the capital replacing a different clique of courtiers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Why, because they can under the existing system. It's interesting because I've seen the advantages of the looser formal structure that an informal constitution and a parlementary system allows. Governments have greater freedom in making changes and unmaking changes they don't like.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That didn't answer the Why part. It seems to open the system up to all kinds of abuse.

My guess is that the "why" is sort of an unintended consequence. I don't think the framers of the Constitution anticipate full-time legislators. They just figured that not much would happen between the election and the new guys taking their seats. Or maybe they assumed there would be a certain amount of respect for the system that would dissuage legislators for using that power except for emergencies.

Guess they were just naive.

[Jon Sprunk]

Why are you assuming that everyone who receives money from the government is a "worker"? I suspect the real battle will be between those who are net recipients of government income, and those who are paying the bills. And those "paying the bills" aren't just the so-called "ruling class".

yes, I can see how you would believe that. I did, too, once upon a time. (Please forgive me. I was young and easily impressionable.)

I'm simply prognosticating that if the Progressives cannot fix the way this country does business (let's face it, the GOP and their right-wing allies are never going to lift a finger to make life better for 98% of the population), then things will become more and more ugly. Unemployment will rise, the wealth gap between upper-class and everyone else will widen, and those left behind will become increasingly frustrated. It's funny. Some folks on the right like to yammer about revolution and "second amendment solutions", but that power has always resided with the left. Progressives are always the engine behind real change, either from inside the system, or out.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

yes, I can see how you would believe that. I did, too, once upon a time. (Please forgive me. I was young and easily impressionable.)

I'm simply prognosticating that if the Progressives cannot fix the way this country does business (let's face it, the GOP and their right-wing allies are never going to lift a finger to make life better for 98% of the population)

Are you assuming that the GOP only constitutes 2% of the electorate?

then things will become more and more ugly. Unemployment will rise, the wealth gap between upper-class and everyone else will widen, and those left behind will become increasingly frustrated. It's funny. Some folks on the right like to yammer about revolution and "second amendment solutions", but that power has always resided with the left. Progressives are always the engine behind real change, either from inside the system, or out.

It might come to that IF the country moves in the direction of the government being considered the general provider. In that case, rebelling against the government makes some sense. But as long as the country remains one where the private sector is still the primary course of wealth, rebelling against the government is kind of like kicking your dog because your spouse boned the mailman.

[Spring Bass]

Because our representational system dates from a time of farmers from a very widespread geographical area picking one of their own and then riding an ox-cart or something over the mountains until they finally reach the capital. Not one clique of courtiers that reside in the capital replacing a different clique of courtiers.

That's probably the biggest part of it. The Constitution was written in a period where land transit was pretty onerous and time-consuming. Sea travel was somewhat faster, but more vulnerable to the elements.

[ants]

You could debate that characterization about pensions, because earned or not, it is still the governments that are paying those benefits. But the point is that those folks who receive government entitlements other than pensions are going to be battling the government pensioners for the limited government funds that exist. And both of those groups tend to be Democratic constituencies.

Its not just government, its also companies. When you do a job, on agreed benefits, then it is not a benefit. It is part of your contract. It is only an "entitlement" because a contract was agreed to. The difference is that all those other "entitlements" you refer to are a decision of current tax payers to pay out - pensions earned are based on legal contracts that were agreed by both parties.

Obviously state pensions are different, but the discussion was in the context of pensions provided to employees of a state institution.

How is it not an "issue" for the pensioners if the money does not exist to pay those pensions? And if you look at the actuarial obligations of a lot of state/local government pension plans, that money simply does not exist.

I agree its an issue. And I will even go further and say that their is a bunch of baby boomers who have been happy to screw everyone else by using Social Security to pay for other things, not fund pensions, and then pay low taxes. And it will probably cause problems in the future (I hope some taxes on pensioners come in, heavy death duties to reflect the years they screwed our generations).

But ignoring that element, they are far more "secure" since they have a written contractual obligation. Although I'll freely admit I don't fully understand your bankruptcy laws. It would be interesting to see if a government can go into bankruptcy, or be treated like a company and go into receivership and pensions paid by selling off government assets.

Why are you assuming that everyone who receives money from the government is a "worker"? I suspect the real battle will be between those who are net recipients of government income, and those who are paying the bills. And those "paying the bills" aren't just the so-called "ruling class".

Could you please make it clearer when you're responding to two different people? That response makes it look like I wrote all three parts, not just the first two.

[ants]

Well, Reid himself was reelected, and he'll still be majority leader, so there weren't a lot of consequences for him personally. It's slimy that politicians are only willing to cast certain votes when they know voters can't judge them on those votes, but then, politicians being slimy isn't exactly news.

The argument is that they intentionally ducked controversial votes before the election, because they didn't want the voters to make a informed decision based on those votes. If legislators are going to vote on something controversial, then they should be willing to be judged by the voters for those votes.

Running for election while keeping secret one's position on matters of public import, and only casting key votes after you've been reelected, is slimy.

Yagathai,

It seems like legislators who are leaving due to electoral defeat are giving the finger to their constituants. That said they certianly have the power and authority to do that until their replacements are sworn into office.

Its also possible that this is the only time the politicians vote to their conscience. We all know there are plenty of circumstances where politicians (of all affiliations) take short term or populist decisions to encourage re-election, at the sacrifice of the good of the nation (whichever nation it happens to be), or what is truly good for it. Maybe this session you're seeing what the politicians actually believe is good legislation, but they don't think they can normally do.

What might be slimy is people who are listening to all the information making decisions on popularity over the good of the nation.

[ants]

"Government" is a tool that can magnify the power of individuals, making us capable of doing things we would not be capable of doing if we were restricted to acting as individuals. But that can be a blessing or a curse, depending upon whether we use that increased power wisely or not.

For my part, I think we have been using the government to live beyond our means as individuals, voting ourselves economic benefits greater than the total wealth we have produced as individuals. We've convinced ourselves that "the government" can provide us with things without really having to pay for them. More benefits, without the taxes to pay for them. The mechanism of government has enabled us to live more irresponsibly than we would have as individuals, and I think that is destructive in the longer term, as we are beginning to find out.

I think the fiscal crises we're going to be facing in the next 10-20 years at the state, local, and federal level are overdue. We're finally going to be forced to make those hard choices, and quit living behind the diffusion of responsibility enabled by government. Since I think those problems are better handled sooner rather than later, I'm pleased that an accounting is finally going to be had.

I would point out the current crisis has shown that this is kind of bunkus. If you seriously think individuals don't live beyond their means, you don't appear to have been paying attention.

[Altherion]

My guess is that the "why" is sort of an unintended consequence. I don't think the framers of the Constitution anticipate full-time legislators. They just figured that not much would happen between the election and the new guys taking their seats.

This is not the case. Between election day being traditionally in November and the Constitution as originally written saying:

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

the Founders practically guaranteed a lame duck session of Congress and I doubt they didn't see the actions of the lame ducks coming given that there was controversy after the very first contested transition (see Marbury vs. Madison; George Washington doesn't count). Even when the 20th Amendment changed the inauguration dates to January 3rd for Congress and January 20th for the Presidency, it shortened the lame duck period, but did not eliminate it (this was in 1933 so it no longer required a month to travel to Washington D.C.).

"Why?" they chose to do this is an interesting question. Initially it was certainly because of travel (new Congressmen actually took office in March), but why they didn't get rid of the lame duck period when they changed it? I guess they wanted to leave some time for the outgoing officials to get their affairs in order and do whatever it is they wanted to do.

[Shryke]

I can't believe that almost 2 months after the election, and like a week after passing the last of a bunch of bills, that NOW is apparently when we all become suddenly, spontaneously outraged. Just really fucking ridiculous to see some people suddenly getting worked up about stuff passing during the lame duck session long after it's been done.

It's also doubly ridiculous considering almost all of what's been passed is the exact same stuff that they were trying to pass before the election. So it's not like this shit came outta nowhere after the results came in. And that makes the talk of "ramming legislation through because they lost the election" really dumb considering the people who's votes changed are those that came out ahead in the election.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

I can't believe that almost 2 months after the election, and like a week after passing the last of a bunch of bills, that NOW is apparently when we all become suddenly, spontaneously outraged. Just really fucking ridiculous to see some people suddenly getting worked up about stuff passing during the lame duck session long after it's been done.

It's also doubly ridiculous considering almost all of what's been passed is the exact same stuff that they were trying to pass before the election. So it's not like this shit came outta nowhere after the results came in. And that makes the talk of "ramming legislation through because they lost the election" really dumb considering the people who's votes changed are those that came out ahead in the election.

"Outraged" is certainly the wrong word to apply. I'm not "outraged". It's simply interesting to me to see how much legislation has been passed largely by men and women who are about to be replaced and who are not going to have to worry about public reaction to the bills they've passed in this lame duck session of Congress. This is not to say I don't support any of the bills they've passed. The repeal of DADT is certainly a good thing in my opinion. I just think passing them after loosing their bids for re-election is troubling at best. As I said before it's not like they don't have the authority to do what they've done. It's perfectly within their power as legislators to pass these bills. It just seems like thumbing their noses at the people who've chosen to remove them from office to pass the bills after losing their respective elections.