Americans are pissed at their Congress. Sorry for the English but that’s an honest assessment. Then again, politics are not the most honest game in town as we all know and apart for simple folks such as Maine that came up with ludicrously simple ways of making it somewhat cleaner :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-erikson/remember-the-maine-clean-_b_4505750.html
But we can’t all be Maine or so it seems and most have difficulty even understanding who is representing them or why.
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/breaking/ci_25343427/editorial-this-special-election-weird-about-sums-it
Of course, Congress knows this and has drawn the logical conclusion that they don’t have to pretend anymore and can just say and do anything or most often nothing; it just doesn’t matter!What used to be the pride of the American Republic and the envy of other lands is now a laughing matter at best, O.K. Fine! Well, with this in mind, here are some strange ideas for a strange Congress ( Look Ma, I didn’t say stupid? ).
There are many already documented ways of instilling a bit of logic and efficiency in political bodies. In his book The Ogre, Michel Tournier had his character suggest that members of a deposed or non-reelected government be summarily executed but despite the advantages, I won’t go that far although a related idea will be found below. For instance, in some shamanic traditions, the people likely to be chosen as leaders were asked to stay at home while the tribe debated on who to choose. That would save us the unending campaigns of baby kissing and empty promises and money squandering. What’s more, once their choice was made, a group was sent to the chosen with the contingency that if he seemed to eager, the position could be refused to him. I have often said that it is my strong belief that a Statesman does not clutch for dear life to power. Washington, De Gaulle or Mandela decided to leave politics when the people still would have elected them. It is a sign of greed and the mark of professional politicians to seek perpetual tenure.
So, countering Tournier’s idea with a more humane solution ( no, not having Congress members spayed or neutered although that could work to our advantage too ), I propose that terms be non-reconductive. Yes, you heard right : a 2 year stint and out you go, buddy. The logic behind that proposal goes thus : A- If you have a limited time to act, it should drive you to more efficiency and stop laws from dying in the limbos of power that Capitol hill is on the verge of becoming? and B- If you can’t do good for your constituents in two years of hard work, what less could you do in 4, 8 or 12 or forty? Let’s face it, the Congressional motto is already known to bright Americans and they don’t particularly care for it :
Congressional Motto.
The numbers that go along that idea are proof enough of its validity. There 435 Representatives and 100 Senators on the Hill making for a combined total of 535 seats. The representatives are there for 2 years but the Senators for six; I’d recommend bringing the terms of each to an even four years. They could still be elected in separate half batches on the years following and preceding a Presidential election to decouple the powers and still offering the suffering masses known as the citizens/voters of the USA a year of respite out of every four during which it could be made illegal to talk elections? If you take that 4 years tenure and see it over an active lifetime of 60 years ( you have to be 25 to be eligible to representation and even Popes now retire by 80 years old so … ), it only comes down to 15 elections right? ( 60 divided by 4 = 15 for the arithmetically challenged ) So that with a new person every time, over a lifetime, you’d only need 535 x 15 or 8,025 people? Even if the terms are kept at 2 years ( and Senate tenures counted at that level, it only amounts to 16 050 individuals. Are you going to tell me that the United States cannot produce sixteen thousand bright folks per sixty years span? Not only is that entirely belied by the success story that is America on the world stage but if it was truly the case, we could just close Congress altogether and thus save millions? ( Idea number 2 there 😀 )
There are many advantages to this proposition. First, it would of course maximize fresh ideas. Let’s be serious for a second here, Einstein said it best : doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is insane! My solution solves that. Second, it would minimize corruption ( or special interests / privileges / lobbying as it is referred to under democratic climates ). I mean if the guy or gal is out the door by the time the bill is signed either you don’t bribe them or you suddenly have to bribe twice as many. I know the corporations’ pockets hold enough small change to adapt but that way we’d get a “heightened return” on our enslavement especially since that corr huh, lobby wealth would then be spread over more people? If that idea is not selected by the way, an alternative would be for the Congress to dress truthfully ( Idea 3 ) :
The real Mc C(ain)oy!
Nothing like a prominent NRA patch on there to accelerate the gun debate, right? Third and maybe most importantly, changing congressfolk more often overall would make the political news bulletins less boring!
One last thought about money there, maybe we should only elect unemployed blokes? ( Idea 4 ) I know that being unemployed doesn’t say much for their ability to manage government funds but then again neither do the ones we choose now if military spending of billions on dubious Lock-Mart toys and the recurring budget crisis / debacle are used as clues and unemployed folks really need the paycheck? Plus, if we only elected peeps to Congress for their ability to make cash, a Congressional Joint Session would be Warren Buffet having lunch with Bill Gates, right?
I guess that you’ll argue my proposed changes are too wide sweeping or that they’d require a rewrite of the Constitution starting at Article 1.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
And you’re probably right but then let’s forget bringing any seriousness into American politics. And let’s think of introducing smaller reforms aimed at making them funnier if not more efficient.
So idea number 5 goes thus : filibusters, the embodiment of the uselessness of the population of that magnificent building on Capitol Hill need a refresh. I hereby submit to the attention of the President that they hence be compulsorily comprised of only original material! No more reading Dr Zeuss, or the phone book of Szechuan province. Write your own endless non-sense. Barring which you would be required to sing and dance them! I’m confident that Ted Cruz doing the robot while he sings along all the repertoire of Sesame Street or the Grimm brothers would interrupt the naps of even the most senile members of the Hill Gang. ( Hill Gang is barely a joke BTW; on account of both their morals and their hatred of each other’s colors, they at times resemble the tragic Crisps vs Bloods war in L.A. more then they do a modern nation’s parliament. )
O.K. I’ll stop by now before offending the last of my readers and to make amends for “LOLling” at this revered institution, I’ll offer a very real idea for change to close on. This one comes from the biggest democracy on Earth ( Sorry China, you don’t qualify ). India is going to vote for the replacement of its lower assembly ( Lok Sabah ) in April, starting on the 7th. Both it and the Rajya Sabha ( higher house ) can put Bills up for implementation and once a law is sent to the other chamber, the recipient has 6 months to vote it down or sign it, after which a Joint Session is automatically called to resolve the matter by a simple majority. In the case of money bills, this provision goes down to 14 days and they pass immediately! What do you think of that, dear Congress? Two flocking weeks! Every darn citizen in America has to pay his or her bills within a given period, after all. Why not force yourselves to do the same with the signing of yours?
What? Too much work?
Tsssssk, Tay.
Definitive Lapse of Reason 