R2K: Obama More Popular Than Either Party in NH

I think it's hard to remember (4.00 / 2)

after W got so far in the toilet, but in general Presidents are more popular than Congress in the modern era. The main reason is that Congress' gridlock makes them seem small and petty and ineffective, even to people that support their agenda.

We really have to rethink Congress. It's great at getting us into wars -- they can cut through that gridlock like butter. They are incapable of architecting new policy however without a series of high profile pork-barrel hostage takings.

The Senate was formed to resemble the House of Lords as closely as possible and that's what it currently does. What I think we need to do is imitate Britain in this respect, which unlike us reconsidered the value of having a flock of peacocks take legislation hostage, and rewrote the rules:

Most legislation may be introduced in either House, but, mostly it is introduced in the House of Commons.

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has some power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.

In March 2006, it was reported that, among other reforms, the Government are considering removing the ability of the Lords to delay legislation that arises as a result of manifesto commitments, and reducing their ability to delay other legislation to a period of 60 days.

This sort of thing would be, on the whole, a good rewrite. The Senate could still slow down hotheaded legislation, but would be limited to delaying it for a specified period of time.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Mon Feb 08, 2010 at 20:21:30 PM CST

I'm beginning to think that bi-partisanship is for Obama what the (0.00 / 0)

blue dress was for Republicans--something to tantalize the press and provide a sop to Republicans while the real action goes on elsewhere.
Since none of the health insurance reforms were going to take effect right away anyway, when the bills are passed is not that significant.  The federal bureaucracy has to gear up.  The Department of Justice, for example, has to beef up the fraud and civil rights divisions, as they are doing.  If Medicare and Medicaid fraud are to be rooted out as they need to be, that's important.  You can't root out medical equipment scams without lawyers and prosecutors.  You can't audit medical transport providers without staff.
(An acquaintance reported the other day that the ambulance ride for a child that's getting surgery and chemo for cancer treatment in separate hospitals, across the street from each other in Boston, cost $4000 for each of the two transfers that were needed.  She thinks having insurance is great).

---

by: hannah @ Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:20:09 AM CST