Senate’s Intransigence Should Prompt Repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.