|
Responsibility #8
(written prior to July 1992)
To the People of the United States of America:
In this essay we will continue the discussion of reforms of the Congress and the Presidency.
In Responsibility #6, it was recommended that the States be responsible for the control and payment (with a few exceptions) of the expenses of Congressional representation. The exceptions would be certain overhead and common use costs, not appropriate to allocation among the members of Congress. These would continue to be appropriated and paid federally. However the States in concert should be granted oversight control, with the independent General Accounting Office serving the audit function. Many of these overhead and common use costs should be studied at the outset as to the purpose they serve, and as candidates for cost reductions and efficiency improvements.
It is evident that there is a great need to reduce the size of and facilities for the Congressional bureaucracy. Note the following quotes from a newspaper editorial of August 1991:
".... senior members of the House and Senate .... introduce[d] reform legislation .... to look at abolishing many of Congress' 302 committees and subcommittees, and reducing staff, which has shot up from 2,000 to 12,000 since World War II."
"Congress is creaking along with work methods that aren't suited to the times."
".... the sprouting of subcommittees and staff and the ensuing turf battles have produced institutional gridlock."
".... the last time Congress undertook a broad revision of its organization and operations was in 1946."
"The average senator .... sits on 12 committees and subcommittees, some of which have overlapping jurisdictions."
"A flood of bills clogs the legislative process. In the last Congress, 6,973 bills were introduced. Fortunately, only 3 percent passed. Adding to the problem, however, is congressional bloat: bills are on average five times longer today than they were in 1970."
Read further extracts from a newspaper editorial of June 1991:
"The total number of Congressional workers today stands at 37,388, more than the population of 11 state capitals."
"The staff payroll, a substantial part of the more than $2.5 billion budgeted this year to run Congress, includes cooks, beauticians, barbers, travel agents, fitness instructors, mail carriers, physicians and pharmacists."
".... the increased funding and bigger staffs have facilitated an explosion in campaign mailings."
"If Congress can't resist its own self-indulgent spending spree, it can't possibly be disciplined enough to trim federal deficits or wasteful government programs."
How many unproductive committee and subcommittee memberships were undertaken; how many trash basket bills were drafted and submitted; how many extraneous speeches were prepared and delivered on the floors; how many unspoken speeches were prepared for printing in the Congressional Record; purely for the purpose of the Congressman to report to his constituency that he is of great importance? How much of his staff is justified by these unnecessary actions? Each of these areas should be subjected to an independent audit toward reforming Congressional practices.
In the interest of liberty and justice for all, the aristocratic practice of exempting the Congress (and the Presidency) from laws applied to other citizens must be guillotined. Our leaders have seen fit to exempt themselves and their offices from laws or federal policies such as: Americans With Disabilities Act, use of illegal drugs, discrimination, sexual harassment, minimum wages, overtime, workplace health and safety, collective bargaining, freedom of information, conflict of interest, check kiting, city parking ordinances, etc. The Congress should be required to survey existing laws and amend all those having such exemptions.
The nomination and confirmation of judges and justices for our federal courts have been occasions for generating disdain and lack of respect for our Presidents and Senators. The federal court system (especially the Supreme Court) is intended to serve only the purposes of justice. To achieve these ends it is designed to be non-political. Checks and balances were established by our founding fathers to insure that this intent would not be subverted. However they left in the hands of the President the privilege of nomination, and in the hands of the Senate the power to confirm.
Many times in our history, and particularly in the last 55 years, Presidents have abused their nomination responsibility. They have sought to negate or bypass the checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government, with an eye to causing the federal courts to support their political views and agendas.
In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt attempted to expand the Supreme Court, to counteract the Court's decisions to declare unconstitutional portions of his New Deal. Since World War II, several Democratic administrations have sought to stack the Court with liberals. More recent Republican administrations have striven to replace them with conservatives.
Some appointments appeared to be political payoffs for services rendered to a political party or administration. Others appeared to be toward gaining reelection support, for the President and his party, of political blocs by nominating members of a particular minority or sex. Seldom (if ever) has it been evident that the President adhered to the principle of selecting
the best qualified.
The Senate in the execution of its confirmation responsibility has been just as reprehensible. The confirmation process nearly always deteriorates into political vying of Democratic versus Republican parties, Congress against President, conservative opposed to liberal. The public has been the source of much of this misapplication of constitutional function. Special interest groups have sought to force the Senate to discredit any nominee who might have opinions that conflict with their objectives. A notable example is the abortion controversy. The confirmation hearings and floor debates prove to be nauseating circuses of reelection speeches.
It is time that we admit that major improvements must be made to the federal judiciary system. These will be discussed in later essays on the Supreme Court. For now let us propose changes to preclude the miserable performance in the nomination and confirmation process. The nomination function should be taken from the President and placed in the hands of the Judiciary, with a reemphasis on best qualified, but with latitude for balance. The Senate confirmation hearings should be chaired by a Supreme Court Justice to enforce a non-political process.
Publius IV
|