More Hints of a Dysfunctional Federal Government, (Part 1) 7-29-2010

 [I have 9 pages of manuscript under this title. Therefore, I am splitting it into two parts. It amy actually be a continuation of Why so long? What else did I have to do sitting in the Indianapolis Volunteers of America halfway house? Sleep? sch 2/22/23.]

 Reading the July 29, 2010 New York Times, I ran across “For Budget Chief, Not All Farewells Are Fond.” This was about the departure of White House budget director Peter R Orszag. This paragraph piqued my interest:

Somewhere along the way toward Congress, however, Mr. Obama seems to have decided that the problem, at least where reducing the cost of government is concerned, is Congress itself. There is a sense that the legislative process just isn't set up towork, either because of the severe partianship in both chamgers or because of rules that make it easy for a minority party - in this case, the Republicans - to sabotage legislation.

The Framers of our Constitution designed a federal government that could govern without excess of efficiency. They did not see making the trains run on time as a federal duty. Those thinking such efficiency is needed in our federal government need look up Benito Mussolini and think on his career. 

But they did want a government that could govern. I think my mood cannot be so different from that outside of my jail: the government is barely governing anything, but is hiding this fact behind the inertia of its size.  Go read Federalist 2, which includes this about government:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

One could read all The Federalist Papers as supporting why government is a good thing. I would pick out Federalist 9 and Federalist 11 for particular attention.

But let us return to the paragraph from The New York Times. Is severe partisanship a bad thing? I correlate severe partisanship with factions. Madison wrote about faction in Federalist 10:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected....

As I feel the severe partisanship is Madison's dreaded faction, then the Constitution's design no longer has the capability for dealing with this danger. After all, does this not sound like our modern federal government:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

We should require reading Federalist 10 in our high schools.

I also see in Federalist 10 what The New York Times's sabotaging of legislation. I assume the rules alluded to includes the Senate's filibuster rule. Wherein the minority can kill Madison's “regular vote.” The time has come to kill the filibuster – regardless of the party in power.

 sch

[And this seems even more accurate now. Continued in More Hints of a Dysfunctional Federal Government, (Part 2) 7-29-2010. sch 2/20/23.]