Why voters are holding Congress in deep contempt
Why voters are holding Congress in deep contempt
By Edward Luce
Published: August 4 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 4 2006 03:00
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Political observers in the US for months have been fixated on George W. Bush's abysmal approval ratings. But compared to the public's view of Capitol Hill, which goes into recess tomorrow with its reputation at rock bottom, Mr Bush could almost be described as popular.
With recent approval ratings of just 23 per cent (compared with 36 per cent for President Bush) America's 109th Congress is held in greater contempt by voters than at any time since modern polling began. With reason, some have dubbed it the "Do Nothing Congress" in an echo of the enduring moniker that Harry S. Truman bestowed on the 80th Congress in 1948.
But that label might miss the larger point. Although it is on course to have met for fewer days than any recent predecessor, this Congress might better be described as "The Broken Branch" - after a recent book by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, two non-partisan veteran observers of Capitol Hill. Their view is that America's legislative branch has all but abdicated its constitutional role of acting as a check on the power of the executive. The key trend driving the dissolution of Capitol Hill's oversight role is the rise and rise of a visceral form of partisanship.
The Senate is today expected to vote on one of the most notorious bills to come before lawmakers. The bill, which combines the first increase in the US minimum wage since 1996 with massive tax relief for estates bequeathing multimillion-dollar inheritances, is a classic example of the intense partisanship that now prevails.
To persuade enough opposition Democrats to support the virtual repeal of the "death tax", which will cost the US Treasury an estimated $753bn (£399bn) in the decade after it comes into effect, Republicans sweetened the pill with a long-denied increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
Republicans in the House of Representatives also sugared the bill with tax breaks for key Democratic constituencies, including a tax subsidy for the timber sector and one for America's ailing mining industry - both of which are targeted at specific lawmakers. Whether or not it is enacted today, observers on the right and the left have already thrown their hands up in despair over what is seen as cavalier treatment of critical issues.
There are two further benchmarks to show how low the Congress has fallen. First, it is now practically impossible to defeat most sitting candidates. Of the 435 House seats, only 20 or so (less than five per cent) are considered genuinely "competitive" for this November's mid-term elections. Because of gerrymandering, in which districts are contorted into ever more peculiar shapes to give demographic advantage to the incumbent, opposition challenges are becoming ever more quixotic.
The incumbency advantage means that the real electoral contest more often takes place in the primary race to select the candidate for the incumbent party within each district, which gives a huge advantage to activists, who tend to be more extreme than the electorate at large. The rise of gerrymandering explains why Republicans have become so much more conservative and Democrats so much more liberal in the past decade or two.
Second, the resulting growth in partisanship has encouraged US lawmakers to behave more like their counterparts in the Westminster parliamentary system, where party discipline prevails. But while strict party control of elected representatives might make sense in a parliamentary system, it undercuts America's traditional separation of powers. Instead of pronouncing on key issues facing America today, such as energy security, climate change, the war in Iraq and immigration, this Congress has agreed to disagree (along partisan lines) on the vital issues and has achieved virtually nothing of statutory consequence.
Perhaps the biggest item on which this Congress has failed to achieve anything meaningful - despite pledges to do so - is the problem of so-called "earmarks" in bills and the influence of the notorious "K Street" lobby groups on Capitol Hill. Instead, this Congress has broken all records for adding "pork" - targeted subsidies that benefit specific lawmakers - to appropriations bills.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a large spending bill on highways because it contained 150 earmarks (clauses with pork) - a scandalous number by the standards of that time. Last year Mr Bush failed to veto an even larger highways bill that had 5,000 earmarks.
On this issue at least, bipartisanship prevails. Is it any surprise the American public is so disillusioned?
The writer is the FT's Washington bureau chief
By Edward Luce
Published: August 4 2006 03:00 | Last updated: August 4 2006 03:00
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Political observers in the US for months have been fixated on George W. Bush's abysmal approval ratings. But compared to the public's view of Capitol Hill, which goes into recess tomorrow with its reputation at rock bottom, Mr Bush could almost be described as popular.
With recent approval ratings of just 23 per cent (compared with 36 per cent for President Bush) America's 109th Congress is held in greater contempt by voters than at any time since modern polling began. With reason, some have dubbed it the "Do Nothing Congress" in an echo of the enduring moniker that Harry S. Truman bestowed on the 80th Congress in 1948.
But that label might miss the larger point. Although it is on course to have met for fewer days than any recent predecessor, this Congress might better be described as "The Broken Branch" - after a recent book by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, two non-partisan veteran observers of Capitol Hill. Their view is that America's legislative branch has all but abdicated its constitutional role of acting as a check on the power of the executive. The key trend driving the dissolution of Capitol Hill's oversight role is the rise and rise of a visceral form of partisanship.
The Senate is today expected to vote on one of the most notorious bills to come before lawmakers. The bill, which combines the first increase in the US minimum wage since 1996 with massive tax relief for estates bequeathing multimillion-dollar inheritances, is a classic example of the intense partisanship that now prevails.
To persuade enough opposition Democrats to support the virtual repeal of the "death tax", which will cost the US Treasury an estimated $753bn (£399bn) in the decade after it comes into effect, Republicans sweetened the pill with a long-denied increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
Republicans in the House of Representatives also sugared the bill with tax breaks for key Democratic constituencies, including a tax subsidy for the timber sector and one for America's ailing mining industry - both of which are targeted at specific lawmakers. Whether or not it is enacted today, observers on the right and the left have already thrown their hands up in despair over what is seen as cavalier treatment of critical issues.
There are two further benchmarks to show how low the Congress has fallen. First, it is now practically impossible to defeat most sitting candidates. Of the 435 House seats, only 20 or so (less than five per cent) are considered genuinely "competitive" for this November's mid-term elections. Because of gerrymandering, in which districts are contorted into ever more peculiar shapes to give demographic advantage to the incumbent, opposition challenges are becoming ever more quixotic.
The incumbency advantage means that the real electoral contest more often takes place in the primary race to select the candidate for the incumbent party within each district, which gives a huge advantage to activists, who tend to be more extreme than the electorate at large. The rise of gerrymandering explains why Republicans have become so much more conservative and Democrats so much more liberal in the past decade or two.
Second, the resulting growth in partisanship has encouraged US lawmakers to behave more like their counterparts in the Westminster parliamentary system, where party discipline prevails. But while strict party control of elected representatives might make sense in a parliamentary system, it undercuts America's traditional separation of powers. Instead of pronouncing on key issues facing America today, such as energy security, climate change, the war in Iraq and immigration, this Congress has agreed to disagree (along partisan lines) on the vital issues and has achieved virtually nothing of statutory consequence.
Perhaps the biggest item on which this Congress has failed to achieve anything meaningful - despite pledges to do so - is the problem of so-called "earmarks" in bills and the influence of the notorious "K Street" lobby groups on Capitol Hill. Instead, this Congress has broken all records for adding "pork" - targeted subsidies that benefit specific lawmakers - to appropriations bills.
In 1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a large spending bill on highways because it contained 150 earmarks (clauses with pork) - a scandalous number by the standards of that time. Last year Mr Bush failed to veto an even larger highways bill that had 5,000 earmarks.
On this issue at least, bipartisanship prevails. Is it any surprise the American public is so disillusioned?
The writer is the FT's Washington bureau chief
posted by Carlos T Mock at 10:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home