Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate’s Intransigence Should Prompt Repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment
Flopping Aces ^ | 02-20-12 | Leo Shishmanian

Posted on 02/20/2012 1:03:56 PM PST by Starman417

As of today, it has been 1,028 days since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget.

That's about 20 dog years.

Imagine if you were employed in a business where one of your duties was to plan an annual budget for each upcoming year and you just decided you weren't going to do it.  And 1,028 days later, you still had not done it.  Assuming your employer hadn't already canned, assuredly you would lose your job after such a long failure.  If you are a Democratic Senator, however, you not only keep your job because a majority of the people still vote for you, you get greater influence and power.

To give you an idea of how long 1,028 days is, let's look at some historical events. Since the Senate last passed a budget on April 29, 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV campaigned for 20 months, was reelected to the Senate and has served more than a year since his reelection. The entire Lewis and Clark expedition in the Pacific Northwest took 862 days. John F. Kennedy served 1,036 days as president before he was assassinated, only 10 more days than the Senate's current budget failure. The Korean War lasted 1,128 days until the armistice ceased active hostilities.

If ever there was a time for Congress to address the fiscal federal government crisis, this is it. And yet the Senate continues its intransigence even going so far as to say the Budget Control Act passed last year to deal with the debt ceiling is enough. That's like saying it is just as acceptable for you to increase unilaterally and without any analysis your annual household budget expenditures and borrow the extra money to pay for the increase, as it is for you to actually review your income and expenditures and craft a budget based on the numbers. That might work for a year or so, but 1,028 days is far too long especially given our national debt and deficit crises, the increasingly risk to our nation's credit rating and currency valuation, and the stagnant economy.

One big reason why we see this is most senators know their constituents will never vote them out. Do you think of senators like Reid, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Durbin, Murray, and Mikulski fear losing their seats?  They and their liberal brethren might as well have life-time appointments given their constituencies.  Before you point out Senator Scott Brown, R-MA taking over for Ted Kennedy, he is a rare exception who had to wait until Kennedy died--after Kennedy served in the Senate for several decades. And Brown has turned out to be a Massachusetts moderate who will doubtless face a serious election challenge from the left.  So the Senate will continue not doing its job and liberals will continue to accuse Republicans of leading a "do nothing Congress."

Now that's chutzpah.

I have little confidence that Reid and his cronies will act with any degree of fiscal responsibility. Given President Obama's sorry excuse for a budget proposal--not to mention his penchant for profligate spending--I have no confidence in him either. Frankly, I also don't have much confidence in Republican House and Senate members either, outside of the few who are truly committed to cutting spending, lowering taxes and reducing the size and scope of the federal government.  Meanwhile, our state and local governments are stretched increasingly thinner as the federal government takes more money, mandates more restrictions and curtails people's freedoms.  What is largely missing from the federal government's current operating structure is a designated place at the table for the state governments to have their interests considered in the process of national governing and budgeting.

(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: budget; obama; reid; senate

1 posted on 02/20/2012 1:04:11 PM PST by Starman417
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Actually, most of the Progessive Erea amendments, except for maybe one...


2 posted on 02/20/2012 1:09:06 PM PST by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Read some nasty letters to the editor of the Las vegas Review today concerning how Reids kid got his current gub mint lackey job that others had better qualifications for.
Surprise surprise.
The Vegas Mobs best friend EVER.


3 posted on 02/20/2012 1:12:34 PM PST by Joe Boucher ((FUBO) Hey Mitt, F-you too pal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Democrats know their limitations, and passing a budget is one of them.


4 posted on 02/20/2012 1:14:13 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

And making Senators LESS accountable to the people, and MORE accountable to the powers that be - will make them....

a) more likely to pass laws the people favor
b) more likely to pass laws entrenched interests favor

??????


5 posted on 02/20/2012 1:14:42 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

April 8th, 1913 was the beginning of the decline of our Republic...


6 posted on 02/20/2012 1:15:04 PM PST by Russ (Repeal the 17th amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

FR Needs New Servers
Please Donate Toward The Purchase And Keep FR Up And Running!


Click The Servers To Donate

7 posted on 02/20/2012 1:16:28 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
As of today, it has been 1,028 days since the U.S. Senate last passed a budget.

ONLY BECAUSE OF REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTERS!

Oh wait. Budgets can't be filibustered, by law.

Never mind.

8 posted on 02/20/2012 1:18:01 PM PST by denydenydeny (The more a system is all about equality in theory the more it's an aristocracy in practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Boucher
To clarify the reference for non-Vegans:

"The fiasco continued when the replacement process for the city attorney (of Henderson, Nevada) was rigged so Harry Reid's son would qualify for the job. Josh Reid got the job -- and a big pay raise to boot. "

Las Vegas Review Journal

9 posted on 02/20/2012 1:25:19 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

For a second there I thought you were that Lew guy from the White Hut.


10 posted on 02/20/2012 1:27:15 PM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: research99

Josh Reid was sworn in Tuesday as Henderson city attorney.

Reid will be paid a salary of $190,000, not including benefits. The pay range for the job is $127,000 to $199,000 a year.

Reid was appointed to the post on Nov. 29 by the City Council. He was chosen over former interim City Attorney Christine Guerci-Nyhus, who was the one other finalist for the position.

Reid thanked the council, as well as Guerci-Nyhus for her work in the city attorney’s office.

“I’d like to thank the City Council for this opportunity to serve in the city of Henderson,” Reid said. “We have a really dedicated group of individuals.”

Reid replaces former City Attorney Elizabeth Quillin, who resigned in August after a DUI arrest.

Las Vegas Sun, January 3, 2012


11 posted on 02/20/2012 1:27:51 PM PST by research99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

And another Freeper who thinks he’s smarter than the Founding Fathers opens his yap.


12 posted on 02/20/2012 1:31:30 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Starman417
Do you think of senators like Reid, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Durbin, Murray, and Mikulski fear losing their seats? They and their liberal brethren might as well have life-time appointments given their constituencies.

Another reason to insist on TERM LIMITS! Make 'em have to keep digging up more candidates who now know that there is a dead end, that they won't be enriched and treated like royalty forever.

13 posted on 02/20/2012 1:40:29 PM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

If you don’t have a formal budget, you can’t be punished for not sticking to the budget. Not passing a budget is the Senate’s way of getting unlimited spending, government elite approved.


14 posted on 02/20/2012 1:54:52 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Russ
Yes indeed, 1913 was a very bad year for the Republic.
Popular election of Senators.
The creation of the Federal reserve.
15 posted on 02/20/2012 2:06:50 PM PST by guardian_of_liberty (We must bind the Government with the Chains of the Constitution...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

Why not go all the way and just get 38 states together to tell the President, Congress and the Supreme Court to just go jump into a lake?

That group supercedes anything else, period.

We the return of states rights and have the feds work for them, not the other way around.


16 posted on 02/20/2012 2:26:18 PM PST by bestintxas (Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Ensconced in Washington is untouchable. Repealing the 17th would make them more accountable to locals not less IMO. By appointment of the State would make elections of local officials all the more important. It’s how the Representative Republic form of government differs from the current form of Democracy. The US House was intended to be elected by the population, with shorter terms, thus ensuring that body would represent the current whims of the country. Hence the reason it is empowered to be the body that generates appropriation bills. The Senate was designed to house the elder statesmen of a State that had proven their wisdom and leadership, so as to act as the State’s voice in the Federal legislature. Plus general election of Federal Senators ensures that special interest money trumps political positions. That is one of the reasons why the status quo seems to be the goal of either parties “candidates” I believe.


17 posted on 02/20/2012 2:39:26 PM PST by Kudsman (Without light there exists no shadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman
A Republic is dependent upon popularly elected representatives - it is not anti-Republic to have them. While it is certainly an anti-Democratic feature to have elected officials CHOOSING who will fill an office - it is not at all an essential feature of a Republic.

Special interest monies will certainly trump political positions when Senators are appointed rather than elected - without even the clarifying tonic of electoral input.

The reason money for campaigns is how campaigns are won or lost and how politicians are bought and sold is because the majority of American voters are highly influenced by 30 second advertisements.

The same sort of scumbags will get elected using the same scummy tactics playing the same scummy game - except now those scum will directly appoint Senators (in “smokey back rooms”) rather than having the issue decided by the electorate.

There is, as you allude to, little support either among the political class, or among the citizenry - for repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Based upon the recent conviction of Blagojevich - I don't think it is going to be gathering much steam either.

Recall if you will how Governor Blagojevich took his important duty to appoint a Senator for the people of his State..... I paraphrase.... “This F*cking Plum falls in my F*cking lap - and I am supposed to GIVE IT AWAY? NO F*cking way!”.

A Senatorial seat is a “plum” and very very few currently in government are going to give it away when they can charge as much as the market will bear.

Bought and paid for Senators right out the gate instead of those compromised due to the necessity of money for advertisements in campaigns is not exactly an improvement, IMHO.

18 posted on 02/20/2012 2:59:13 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

The big problem with this budget issue....a real joke I know, is Americans can’t wrap their minds around the concept of a budget for the federal gubmint.

Most Americans don’t even know the federal gubmint operates with no budget and hasn’t for a couple of years.

The media doesn’t cover it and the Blue Blood elected GOP don’t really want to go there either. Might muss head hairs and cause rifts with friends across the aisle.

It all makes me ill.


19 posted on 02/20/2012 3:16:47 PM PST by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Special interest monies will certainly trump political positions when Senators are appointed rather than elected - without even the clarifying tonic of electoral input.

Prior to the 17th amendment, the Senators were not appointed, they were elected by the state legislators.

Theoretically it would be more difficult for special interest money to be effective in all the state legislative races than in the one statewide election of a U.S. Senator.

The reason money for campaigns is how campaigns are won or lost and how politicians are bought and sold is because the majority of American voters are highly influenced by 30 second advertisements.

Although each state is different, in NH (a very large house of representatives) it is very easy for each citizen to personally meet their state representative. The Town of Brentwood has 1 rep and 3000 voters. I know the last two reps that served personally. That makes the 30 second sound bite much less effective.

The same sort of scumbags will get elected using the same scummy tactics playing the same scummy game - except now those scum will directly appoint Senators (in “smokey back rooms”) rather than having the issue decided by the electorate.

Granted both systems have had scumbags elected.

The venerable James Wilson was the only member of the Constitutional Convention that advocated for the direct election of Senators. He lost the argument by a vote of 10-1 at the convention.

The main reasoning for the election by the legislature was to appease the anti-federalists who feared that the federal government would overstep its authority if the state legislators were not represented in Congress. This has obviously occurred since 1913, but that doesn't however prove causation.

20 posted on 02/20/2012 3:57:15 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I don't recall stating that it was anti-Republic to have popular elections. You are right, they are necessary. My point is that the founders intentionally set apart the mechanisms for seating the members of each body. Appointment by state officials still results in popular elections affecting said appointment. I contend that it is much easier to air grievances and demand accountability from local officials actions than it is from an omnipotent national political party headquartered in D.C. That is the very essence of the TeaParty's appeal. When we show up enmasse at local scenes the powers at large only ignore us at their own peril. I understand your argument for direct election but respectfully disagree that it is a tonic. Why should funding from a national organization like NARAL be allowed to have any bearing on the outcome of seating a State's representative to the Federal legislature if it is not a topic we are basing local elections on? That only ensures more of an impact from the brain dead single issue voters it seems to me.

At this point I am certainly for trying a "new" approach to unseating the lifetime entrenched. I don't see how it could be worse than the current situation. Plus I base my opinion on the fact that I reside in a State with no power of recall or ballot initiative. Therefore power struggles at the state level and local level would be of paramount importance to seeking a change of a Federal Senator.

Anyway thanks for the discussion, I will continue to promote repeal to all I am in contact with as a county executive committeeman.

21 posted on 02/20/2012 3:59:34 PM PST by Kudsman (Without light there exists no shadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
And another Freeper who thinks he’s smarter than the Founding Fathers opens his yap.

Perhaps it would be better to enlighten the fellow Freeper with the arguments the Founding Fathers made in support of this method rather than yelling sit down and shut up.

22 posted on 02/20/2012 3:59:59 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Starman417

How about this, one Senator from each state, appointed by the Governor and serving at their pleasure.

Effectively they would be ambassadors of the state governments and give the states direct input into the federal legislative process. They would answer to the Governor and the Governor answers to the people of the state. No extended vacancies unlike when the state legislatures choose the Senators and deadlocked.

Also less of an incentive to load up the states with unfunded mandates, because what Governor would want to deal with the fallout from that?


23 posted on 02/20/2012 4:07:41 PM PST by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot
Perhaps it would be better to enlighten the fellow Freeper with the arguments the Founding Fathers made in support of this method

You know, the Founding Fathers already kindly did that. They actually wrote them down for us to read. All anyone, including Freepers need to do is Google up "The Federalist Papers", pour a nice glass of wine, and read.

Pretty smart fellers, them Founding Fathers.

24 posted on 02/20/2012 4:17:08 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Pretty smart fellers, them Founding Fathers.

Without a doubt, but I will quote Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College and author of the recent The Founders' Key - the Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration and the Constitution and What We Risk by Losing It.

That means all of the great questions are subject to dispute. You have to make students dispute them. By the way, the great books are full of those disputes. The lesson of Aristotle's Ethics, without any question, is that there is a right way for a man to live, and to live that way is happiness itself, whatever the exterior circumstances, and to fail to live that way is disaster. That's what he argues. But he argues that in a context in which enormous questions are opened, and have to be debated. You can't have a real understanding unless you do that. And you can't do that just because you've got a good teacher. You've got to really want to do it.

My main point is that all Americans, including Freepers need to understand how the principles of the founding apply to our situation right here right now. That job the founders necessarily left to us.

25 posted on 02/20/2012 5:52:18 PM PST by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson