Looming Government Shutdown (again)

I'm hesitant to ask, because I don't know how this works. Is it safe to assume that the way Congress holds a budget hostage over personal agendas is not the way this system was designed, but is expected behavior?

Is it it possible that Congress could meet to specifically work out a budget, and nothing else? Or, because the budget is what controls all the money for all programs, that discussion is inevitably held up?

Of course the layman will say Congress should budget for required programs with available funds, then when there is no more money, stop. Sorry, no more programs. I assume it is more nuanced than that.

If budget discussions are intended to be the budget without battling over pet programs, could the president conceivably do anything to enforce the correct behavoir, along the lines of more swamp draining?

It seems to me that if party members have to attach something they want to another bill, or hold the budget hostage to get what they want, that whatever the make-up bill is cannot stand alone and should not be discussed until it can.

I've been listening to ex-CIA guy Mike Baker whenever he is on the Joe Rogan podcast (currently four appearances before and after Trump in office) and he has a few times mentioned term limits. Term limits is often tossed around, and almost as often seen as a good idea. He expanded that idea to explain that if you are a corporate lobbyist, and you know that the guy you want to influence is going to be in office for the next 30 years, then you put a lot of effort and money into getting that guy to do what you want. Alternatively, if the person you want to try and influence only has a maximum of two terms, your potential to bribe or otherwise influence each person diminishes significantly. Lobbyists will still find a way, but they'll have to do something else. So with that idea, throwing a hard limit on budgets seems like it'd be more effective with other factors, like term limits in place.

Also, cutting pay isn't always effective, especially for rich people. I don't know how realistic jail time is, or being permanently removed from office, but I was under the impression that if congress people don't do their job, then those could be on the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

Make the liberals actually filibuster. Make them own it.
Right now, they just take a poll to see if they have 60 votes, and if not, they just carry on attending cocktail parties.
Take an actual vote on the floor for cloture, and if they don't have 60 votes, make them continue discussion on the floor.
Call for a vote every day, multiple times per day, and let the liberals own the delay.

---

Yeah. But that would take actual republican leadership. The current republican senate "leadership" is too busy "reaching across the aisle" giving handjobs to democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Term limits is often tossed around, and almost as often seen as a good idea. He expanded that idea to explain that if you are a corporate lobbyist, and you know that the guy you want to influence is going to be in office for the next 30 years, then you put a lot of effort and money into getting that guy to do what you want. Alternatively, if the person you want to try and influence only has a maximum of two terms, your potential to bribe or otherwise influence each person diminishes significantly.

---

The problem with term limits in Congress is that you end up swapping one problem for another. For example, if Congressman Jones is halfway through his 2nd term and knows he can't run again, why should he care about what his constituents want? He can basically say "screw you, people who elected, me, and screw you, party that supported me, I'm going to do what I want and since I'm term limited anyway, whatcha gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what."

Also, with term limits, congressmen have a strong incentive to "set themselves up" for their post-congress service. Especially after their last election who are they going to listen to - the people who voted them into office (who they now couldn't care less about since they don't have the chance to win another term) or the big lobbyist who says "if you support my bill, we can guarantee a seat on the Board of Directors and a cushy salary?

Re-elections at least have the benefit of forcing the politicians to stay accountable to the citizens who elected them.

Quote:

---

Lobbyists will still find a way, but they'll have to do something else. So with that idea, throwing a hard limit on budgets seems like it'd be more effective with other factors, like term limits in place.

---

Who do you think those "lobbyists" will be? Most of them will be term-limited congressmen who get hired by big $$ interests after their term in Congress.

I think having term limits would change the type of person running as well. Perhaps not drastically, but maybe enough. Restricting the amount allowed to campaign could be another tool as well. We're getting into a bigger topic now though.

Good thought provoking posts today on this subject. Too bad these idiots in power don't have a clue.

One of the problems with term limits is that it transitions the power to the unelected bureaucrats because a significant portion of the Congress is learning their jobs for the first 2 years and they rely on staffers and bureaucrats to guide them on all but their truly hot-button topics. Add to that, the Congressmen know they will only have time and attention to hit a couple major items before they are out and term limits actually end up undermining the intended form of government. The way to really do term limits IAW the Founders' vision is to implement it at the ballot box but that requires knowledgeable voters like we had 200 years ago.

Funding or spending limits was just a way for the Democrats and their media allies to try to solidify their advantage of free publicity and spin. If Joe Schmoe believes in Candidate $hmoo enough to sink a million dollars into him/her then Joe should do it. It doesn't matter if that million dollars is all Joe has or just 1% of his fortune, he's walking the talk. Joe Six Pack surely isn't going to sink that kind of money into any candidate when his math boils down to how many beers he could buy with that donation.

I prefer sunlight laws that require candidates come clean with their funding sources and quid pro quo donations with criminal penalties attached if they don't reveal donations in a timely manner (like Clinton taking foreign money n 1992 and 1996). The criminal penalties could even include remedies like forcing a new election when pertinent facts are delayed in reporting.

Why should it cost more than $1 million to get your point across to the piblic?