There are many problems with Congress today, with gridlock being one of them. Read this post and tell me if you agree with any of the author's solutions to making Congress work. Or, better yet, do you have any better ideas?
Three simple ways to make Congress work
I feel as torn between two opinions, on one side, congress is slow and inefficient, but on the other hand, its slowness can prove to be a valuable barrier against factions/interest groups. Since congress often moves at a slow pace, this will slow I.G.s from gaining too much power too rapidly. Since there are no threats to the nation by a slow congress, I am on the fence with a slow congress.
ReplyDeleteEric Yang
Per 3
I think to a certain extent the difference of opinions is healthy for the government. There needs to be balance and a difference of ideas so that it’s not all just narrow minded groups that aren't forced to look at the opposition. From what I have gathered so far in class and the debate over the Affordable Care Act, I do wonder if it would be constitutional for the government to fine Congress if they do not pass a bill on time, although I believe there is a a good basis of an idea presented. Filibuster does need reform because it seems like a ridiculous way to prolong the process of bills and I think there needs to be immediate restrictions on that, whether it be a set time without question or an agreeable time between the senators participating. The Up or Down vote solution seems reasonable and a timely way to make sure there are not major delays in appointing nominees. As much as people want the sides to get along so there can be work done, there will not be pressure for them to do so unless the people put that upon them. The citizens of The United States need to force the issue so they have no choice but to oblige to what their constitutes demand.
ReplyDeletePr.2
DeleteThe fact that much needed reform in Congress has become a headlining issue is a little unsettling. Congress members are elected to represent the people and enact legislation in a timely manner in order to do so. Passing a law is purposely a lengthy process to ensure that it is effective and beneficial to our country and that our liberty is protected, so bipartisanship and occasional gridlock is expected. However, it seems as if MOC has taken it upon themselves to purposely stall this process. Although there is a need for reform to speed up the process of passing appropriation bills, i do not believe "No budget, No pay" or in other words completely denying them of a paycheck, is the way to go, as it will only allow the possibility of carelessly passing laws in order to secure a $174,000 salary by the end of the year however, i certainly would support cutting wages of those congressmen in representation of a "late fee".
ReplyDeleteNow when it comes to the act of filibuster, i am in total agreeance with the author. This is a quite sinister tactic that effectively prevents legislation from being passed and invoking cloture doesn't seem to be taking place all that often. I believe there should in fact be a mandatory time limit on these debates to ensure that gridlock is reduced and bills can efficiently move forward in the law process.
I believe that the Up or Down solution proposed in the article is a great start in efforts to prevent the blocking of nominees. There really is no other way to create a speedy and efficient process other than implementing deadlines.
I think we can all agree that reform is easier said than done but if the people want change, the people have to demand it.
-Auntneshia howard
p.2
I agree with the author of this article on the idea that Congress needs to be reformed due to its unproductiveness in passing bills in a timely manner. The fact that there is even talk on the idea of Congress reform, means that it needs reform. I think the idea of "No Budget, No Pay" would probably help speed up the process due to the Congressmen having more of an incentive to work faster, but it also would be wrong and unfair to take away from a congressman's salary if the member of Congress is not even in the committee for the bill that was not passed in a timely manner. Next, I think the idea of filibusters is a waste of time and neeeeeeeeeeeds to be reformed especially if timing is an issue in Congress. Overall, it seems to be that Congress is not coming to a compromise on certain issues and is taking advantage of the system in order to not get anything done. If Members of Congress from separate parties could work out their issues out by making compromises and make better use of their time, then Congress would be able to get more done efficiently.
ReplyDeletePeyton Geyser
Period 3
Although it is okay for Congress to take their time if they are actually making important decisions, it isn't alright to become lethargic in their duties as congressmen. I believe that the "No Budget, No Pay" idea is a good enough motivation for Congress to be on time with passing budgets. Members of Congress should not be getting comfortable in their seats and should not be taking advantage of the system just because there is no consequence for their actions. Efficient timing and planning should be characteristics that Congress views as critical in order for the people to trust their government in knowing that they are effectively leading this country. Also the fact that congressmen are overusing filibusters just to keep the opposite party from passing legislation shows that Congress is more worried about party then actually getting work done. There should definitely be some sort of limit or restriction on the debates in order to ensure that no time is being wasted.
ReplyDeleteJoanne Park
Period 2
I agree with the authors ideas and solutions to making congress work more efficiently. Currently, members of congress seem to be taking advantage of their status and power. However, I believe it is necessary for members of congress to work cautiously which does take time. The authors proposition of "No Budget, No Pay" is a good motivator since the members of congress would have something to fight and work for. I also believe the authors proposal of an up or down vote within 90 days is beneficial to solve the gridlock problem because it would help the people who want to serve their country move from the sidelines to a seat in congress. Altogether, I believe the author made good proposals, some of which should be put into play in hopes of making congress seem more in unison and efficient.
ReplyDeleteI like how the author compared the congressmen to gangs, it made me laugh and also a good comparison. But I do agree with the article that there needs to be reform. Instead of actually attempting to get something done our congressman bicker and fight one another knowing that there wont be any consequences for doing so. There also needs to be a way to limit or prevent filibusters from happening, as MOC's not only waste time that could be spent passing a bill or discussing other important matters, but also taxpayer money, even if senators reading Dr.Seuss in front of the entire Senate is pretty funny. But at the same time, its a good thing that Congress doesn't act immediately on all issues, as acting before thinking is worse than doing nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteJett Colot
Period 3
I agree with the author that Congress needs reform. However, I feel that the author's proposals only attempt to solve the issue of Congress' dysfunction. The article said that there is now hyper-partisanism in Congress, but proposes nothing to fix it. I believe we should find the root of the hyper-partisanism and fix that. Something in modern times has caused in increase in partisanism. Although it is impossible to find the root cause of this partisanship increase, I have a few ways we can get Congress moving again.
ReplyDelete1. Require that districts be drawn in a way that prevents gerrymandering.
2. As a result, more of the representatives will be flushed out and the new ones elected will be more inclined to compromise with the other party in order to get stuff done.
Imposing regulation on the drawing of districts will be tough since those in Congress will not want to pass it. In addition to this, there is no guarantee that redrawing lines will cause different people to be elected as turnout is very low and most people don't bother to research the candidates. In conclusion, I believe that Congress has become increasingly partisan. However, the proposals the author made can only do so much.
Daniel Salib :)
DeletePeriod 2
I do agree with the author that something should be done about congress and that nothing will happen unless we force it upon them. One of the author's ideas was for there to be filibuster reform. I strongly agree with this idea because I find it ridiculous that a senator can go up and talk about whatever they want for however they like. The part that I feel the strongest opposition against is the fact that it can be off topic. I find it to be such a huge waste of time when there can be an actual informative speech. While I do think that it is important that congress does not make hasty decisions as for balancing the budget, but 1000 days is too long. In order to solve this problem, there must be an incentive for the two parties to work together just like the author's idea to hold back the salary of congress until they can pass a budget plan, but I highly doubt that congress would do that to themselves. The only reasonable thing I can see as how to get them to work together is threaten to not reelect them if they are going to be very stubborn. This is the beauty of the legislative branch. If the people do not like the congress person, only they can change it by electing a new house member. The people hold the key.
ReplyDeleteEthan Groenow
Period 3
I agree with the author in that there needs to be reform. Congressmen fight knowing there will be no consequences. I agree that "No Budget, No Pay" is a good motivation for Congress to be on time with passing budgets. However, its slowness can prove to be a valuable barrier against interest groups. Since congress almost always moves at a slow pace, this will slow I.G.s from gaining power rapidly.
ReplyDeleteKatelynn DeVille p.2
I believe that the writer of the article provides a reasonable argument and good examples on how to fix the issue he is concerned with. Based off of the information he provides us in the article the congress of today seems lackluster and unviable. I think that the propositions he made to help fix the issue are fairly reasonable ideas. The “No Budget, No Pay” makes sense because if members of Congress aren’t going to do the work they are expected to they shouldn’t receive the amount of pay that they do. The “Filibuster Reform” is also a reasonable proposal as the statistics show its abuse over the past few years and it is completely ridiculous that our representatives of this “great” nation are reading Green Eggs and Ham and spending 24 hours and 18 minutes rambling during committees where we need to get stuff done.
ReplyDelete-Joey Verdugo P.3
The solutions proposed by the author are reasonable, considering they would promote the efficiency in government we've been looking for. I do like the sound of "No Budget, No Pay," because it would create an incentive for congressmen to manage their time and prioritize passing budgets. Some may argue that taking away a congressman's paycheck due to their failure to pass a budget may be unfair. However just like any other job, workers are expected to perform the tasks given to them with accuracy and efficiency, so why should we treat congressmen differently? I also agree with having filibuster reform because it is unreasonable for members of congress to be able to stall for as long as they want. The duration of speeches should be limited, because dragging out speeches has become a frequent and unnecessary habit. This prolongs government action even further, and habits like these must be ceased.
ReplyDeleteAnnelise Lee
Period 2
I agree with the author congressional change because nothing is getting down. I do agree with No budget no pay because there are no consequences for the MOC not passing laws and blocking leg. from ever being recieved by filibustering. Which is also being used for granted wasting time and not doing what is best for the people. As for yes or no vote in 90 days think that that it my not be enough time for certain bills and if we have yea or nay in 90 days would have complications.
ReplyDeleteMaddison Cannon
P.3
I see the author's point of view where a divided government would probably cause issues and dilemmas that would prevent Congress from doing it's job successfully. However I see the side that a difference of opinion is beneficial to Congress because it forces them to not have tunnel vision on issues and look at all other opposing views. I agree with the author that there needs to be reform but the issue at hand is that there is no specific way to ensure riddance of all the problems we face. I think that the solutions that are suggested by the author are a good start. I particularly encourage the "No Budget, No Pay" proposal because in today's society, unlike in the past, a congressman is now considered a serious job and career. Therefore like any other job you are expected to complete the work given to you before you are paid. Without this incentive Congressmen may just be wasting time not putting their jobs first because they know that their deadlines don’t actually matter. I also encourage the filibuster reform because having speeches that last hours on end is unproductive especially when they are talking about issues that don’t even pertain to anything of importance. America needs to get stuff done but instead congressmen are reading children's books? Seems a little ridiculous to me.
ReplyDeleteChristina Dang
Period 3
You would think 122k over the national median income would be enough incentives to actually do your job, but apparently not. A "No Budget, No Pay" will force congressmen to actually attempt passing them. However, on the other hand, it can cause congressmen to quickly glance over budgets. They will prioritize getting it done rather than perfecting it. This can cause inadequate budgets to be passed solely to be passed in time so that the congress men can get his full pay check. Adjusting the rules of filibusters can help get more things done. It is not effective of a congressmen can just go to the podium and talk about whatever he wants for however long he wants. Changing the rules to only allow them to talk about the issue at hand will get more things done.
ReplyDeleteSophia Landaverde
Period 3
In my opinion, the author did make some good points; however, there are some things I think should be different. Like with the "No Budget, No Pay," I think it should "No Legislation, No Pay." In the real world, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid, plain and simple. That's how it should be in Congress as well, and I'm sticking to it. The second one, "Filibuster Reform," I think the filibusters should be only reverent to the legislation. Last one, the "Up or Down Vote in 90 Days," I completely agree with. If these changes were to be implemented into the Congressional system, the Congress would work faster and harder from motivation and reform.
ReplyDeleteBlake Perchez
Period 3
"We can't just hope and pray for a miraculous political awakening. There's not going to be some spontaneous cultural change in Congress. It's got to be forced." said by Sen. Joe Lieberman. This is what needs to happen today. We as Americans get mad about Congress yet we do nothing and just watch as Congress does what they want. I will admit, there have been good things that have come out over the years, but it's obvious that reform needs to happen. It won't happen over night sadly, but it can start with us putting pressure on the Congress and showing how serious we are about making America a better place. I agree with all of the resolutions stated in the article. "No Budget, No Pay" shows the force that might just give Congress a determination it has lost over the years, Filibuster Reform says it all with how it has become something of a routine , and Up or Down Vote in 90 Days gives enough pressure for the members of Congress to just vote instead of just going for a procedural maneuver. I would like to see the rest of these resolutions, but for now I agree with this author on their point that Congress needs a reform and it needs to start today.
ReplyDelete~Emma Kuhn
Period 3
The article seems to point out a few reasonable changes to congress' manner of addressing problems. However, no matter how ambitious an idea is, or how perfect it may seem, the idea still needs to be passed through the body to which it is directly supporting. In a way, one is asking to reform a "System [that] is broken" through itself. The author's plans are reasonable and would most definitely inspire some quicker decision making, but the act of change will take too long and be abnormally difficult because it is asking the broken system to make it less broken, similar to a computer fixing its own coding errors. One could argue that if we gathered enough support, the federal government would HAVE to listen to us; however, even if they did listen and did attempt to change the system for the better, the change would not come quickly and, in some cases, would result in amendments to the Constitution that could potentially take years of Congressional terms. Moreover, the parties in charge would have to limit their own power and merge their ideas to a point where they agree on many issues, destroying the image of bipartisanship and removing the competition from politics. In short, the ideas are fantastic and realistic, but not practical in the sense that Congress would not approve a bill/amendment altering its own functions because of tradition and inability for it to agree in the first place.
ReplyDelete-Christopher Hamilton, Period 2
I agree with the author that congress needs to be pressured into creating some sort of reform. Many methods used today by congress men such as filibustering are just ridiculous and a waste of time. All the time that they are wasting on blocking another party could be put to better use like actually learning what the people want. Clearly, these strategies are affecting the relationship between the members of congress, creating a divided government where there is no compromise and where the party’s interest is more important than the people’s interest.
ReplyDeleteAlejandra C. P.2
It is really sad that our Congress is so dysfunctional that they can barely get anything done. I agree with the author that there needs to be a lot of changes made and the members of Congress need to be pressured and held responsible to make those changes. I honestly find it really sad that we would even need to take these measures to get our Congress to work the way it should. Shouldn't they WANT to do what's best for the ENTIRE country, and not just themselves? I do however, believe that there are those that want to make a change and help make Congress better. The sad thing is that the voices of those people may never be heard. That is, if the American people don't do anything to help. It is our responsibility to help fight for the changes we want to see in our government. Sitting around being angry and complaining about how broken our system is won't fix it or even help make it a little bit better.
ReplyDelete-Sonya Sexton p.3
Although there are benefits of Congress moving at a slow pace, reforms have to be made to speed up our legislative process. Laws have to be made that will stop gerrymandering and allow for competitive Congressional elections. Without certainty for getting reelected, Congressmen will have more incentive to get things done.
ReplyDeleteMostofa Ahmed
Period 2
I don't agree with the author's first proposal as it unfair that we are punishing members of congress for not being able to pass a budget. In fact, this may even hinder the state of our country because it would just make them come up with incompetent budget plans because all they want to do is get their $$$. I do agree with the filibuster reform as it just seems pathetic that the members of the Senate are taking advantage of their speaking time just to selfishly further delay legislation. I also agree with author's third proposal as it fairly punishes and pressures congress to work together to "advise and consent". If they don't come to any conclusions, then it allows the government to do their job instead of delaying it. I feel like the biggest problem in our country is that the average citizen just doesn't care enough to realize or do anything about what is happening in Washington. Ultimately, we are the people who most effectively pressure MOC's to do their job/make reform. There just isn't enough pressure from citizens to effectively make changes.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lee
Per. 3
I do agree with this author on this article because sitting around and complaining how our system is broke in our government is broke will do us no good unless we actually act on it and do something about it. It has been a good while since any budget resolutions and the idea with not paying congress for this would put down pressure on them to do so.
ReplyDelete-Christian Gonzales p.2
Its True. There are so many people in our country that are unhappy with the way our Congress works but the majority of them don't care enough to propose new solutions. I agree with these three factors that could improve our dysfunctional government but the only way to get any of them considered are if there are enough citizen to propose them and if Congress become less like "members of rival gangs". I think that the "No Budget No Pay" could benefit us by passing a budget on time and filibustering will allow legislative to proceed. And the Up or Down vote could allow more nominees before even being blocked. However, in no way, shape or form, will cititzens understand how these proposals would benefit us until they care, in other words, until they as are more involved in government.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Cabrera
P.3
I agree with part of the authors claims. First of all the filibuster reform is a good thing as congressmen should not be allowed to waste everybody's time just to benefit their own needs. I also agree that congress should have some incentive to get things done the right way although there pay should not be taken away for not finishing a budget plan. Interest groups are not gaining full control so they must be doing something right although reform in some areas is obviously necessary.
ReplyDeleteMichael Sewell
Period 3
I agree with the article that there are some changes that need to be made, but I disagree with some of his proposals/reforms. I disagree with the "No Budget, No Pay" reform because it's not fair for congressmen to take be punished for not being able to pass a budget. However, I do agree with the other two reforms because with the filibuster reform, I don't think congressmen should be allowed to waste other people's time just so they can delay legislation. I also agree with Up or Down Vote in 90 days because it would allow things to happen in a timely manner.
ReplyDeleteMadhumitha Pudukottai
Period 2
Making Congress work is a very complex subject. These '3 simple ways' to make Congress work don't even begin to scratch the surface on what it takes to reform Congress and to be honest, reads like a Buzzfeed article. Congress, as a representative body of the American people, acts as a microcosm of the ideals of Americans. Because the members of Congress are the most radical of their respective wings, the Congressional body as a whole encompasses the entire range of ideals from all walks of American life which is not a bad thing at all. The problem here is that the range of American Ideals is as huge as it gets due to America being the most varied nation on the planet. Members of Congress in their more saturated forms show how these ideals clash. People look at Congress and they might feel disoriented thinking about how could such ideologically stalwart individuals work together. It is simply because the American people themselves are a collection of narrow minded individuals. This is the fundamental problem that has always been at the root of Congress, its far more than just rules about how long people can speak. Because this is what Congress is built on there is no way that any rule reform can be made to Congress that will not be made as a compromise rather than a progression. Take for instance the first "solution" suggested here. The no budget no pay program thinks that the entire body of Congress will work together if you threaten their pockets. While it is just in the external sphere to punish the entirety of Congress for not passing a budget. What about that one moderate in Congress that wanted to pass a budget? Why does he have to be punished because the rest of the socialists and laissez-faire capitalists can't come into an agreement? Anyone who has ever played League of Legends knows that an "if we don't come together, we all die" ultimatum doesn't always mean we all come together. Now take the second proposal given by the article. The proposal would try to reform the practice of Filibuster and cloture. I find this to be the worst of the propositions as it takes the effect of withholding the speech of the minority party as collateral damage. As it stands the call for cloture on the filibuster is a 2/3 vote. This means that instead of a majority vote being needed for anything to pass the Senate. 2/3 of the people MUST agree on the bill before it passes. And while they must contemplate on this they are being talked to death by the opposition of the bill. If a 2/3 of the senate cannot vote on a bill after having heard literally all and more than they could have heard about it, then that bill should not come to pass. Minimizing Filibuster comes at the cost of losing the ability to talk a Bill to death but talking a bill to death is not necessarily a bad thing. I'd like to go to bed so i'll conclude this by saying that the American Congressional system(and the entire American government as a whole) has been built on multiple misunderstandings about Human nature and the ability of humans to work together for common sense progression. If it were likened to programming, the american political system is built on spaghetti code and any minor fixes people attempt must be careful not to unleash multiple bugs.
ReplyDeleteJason G
period 2
The author makes reasonable suggestions, and although they seem great in and of themselves, what is the actual possibility that any of these pieces of legislation would be passed?
ReplyDeleteThere is little possibility that any of these would be approved, due partly to the fact that the "system is broken", but also because a large portion of the people in Congress are in tune to their own pursuits (re-election, interests groups, party allegience, etc) as well as their constituents.
I agree with the proposed fillibuster reform and the up/down vote in 90 days reform; however the only way to actually get these into effect would to get enough people to be upset by it. The only way to make change at this scale is to make enough noise until someone comes over and sees what you're yelling about, until they start yelling and everyone's yellling and it's like a parliament meeting but actualy productive.
Otherwise, a parallel I would draw here is to the politics in the Star Wars series, where the Galactic Republic fell because their Senate and political system as a whole became so corrupt, so broken, and so incapable of action, that the entire republic toppled over. I don't think the US is there just yet, but if the people can become educated enough to pressure their senators and representatives so that they can't vote against these amendments or sacrifice their office seat, then we can prevent such a thing from happening. Otherwise the fictional tale that Star Wars is would come into realization, and that wouldn't really be fun.
Well I mean it would be, because of all the technology, but not the whole republic falling apart and democracy dying with thunderous applause.
That would be bad.
Bad juju.
Gavin DeGuzman
Period 2
I, like the majority agrees with the author of our congress is becoming really dysfunctional and that it's not as productive as it was before. Also, doesn't receive the most attention and I truly believe that the public and every day people should start to care as much as choosing a President for this nation. The reason we have a Congress is for our benefit to feel protected and feel our freedom is well represented. But now since it doesn't grab much of our attention, give the vibe to the congress to do whatever they feel like it. Anyway the author has created some ideas of how we can fix the congress putting it back in place and them a good position. All of the three had appealed to me but as the others i believe the "No Budget, No pay" would actually to do some cleaning up. Why? Well because it can be motivation for the members of congress to get there gear together and actually do some work. The "Filibuster Reform" is appealing because it will put a stop to the filibuster of some taking advantage causing the dis functioning. Lastly the "Up or Down Vote in 90 days" again the whole gear together to be able to keep their position. I again agree to the author's opinion and it's idea of strategy to help recover the actual purpose of congress.
ReplyDeleteHilary Velasquez p.2
I personally enjoy how seemingly "dysfunctional" our congress is. With lovely part polarization, our government is seeming to mirror sports. We have our two teams that compete to try to get their way. They use dirty tactics such as gerrymandering to favor a team and filibustering in order to stall legislature just as in sports. Athletes use steroids and deflate footballs (sorry Brady) to get advantages and some may disagree with these methods but many feel these things add excitement and if you're upset because your team is losing its your fault for rooting for the detroit lions or the loosing party.
ReplyDeleteparty*
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author in all of his proposals because they all benefit in making our government less dysfunctional. The "No Budget, No Pay" reform is definitely something that would help get budgets passed faster and congressmen would be more motivated to pass a budget rather than having the mindset that they will get paid anyway. The only downside to this reform though, is that congressmen may rush to pass a budget just so they can get paid. The filibuster reform is simply a must. Congressmen shouldn't be bale to waster other people's time and should just get to the point and get their word out. The reform should include a limited time a congressman can speak for so that everybody can get an equal time of sharing what they have to say. I agree with the Up or Down Vote in 90 days because it also just saves everyone's time and motivates the congressmen to keep moving forward. Overall, the main thing the author stated that I agree with is the fact that nothing will change quick enough unless the citizens get more involved. Citizens need to care enough to propose new solutions for our government instead of going with the flow and waiting for change.
ReplyDeleteCynthia Mora
Per. 3
As taken from the textbook, members of congress are significantly more extreme with their political ideology than the average citizen, therefore causing this ridiculous hyper-partisan gridlock. I feel as though a good way to move congress towards a more moderate atmosphere, which would better represent the country as a whole, is the "No budget, No pay" reform.
ReplyDeleteThis is a logical tactic to push congressmen to work with one another and accomplish things more quickly. And it's not like they'll starve to death with their 174,000 annual salary just nicked off a bit.
Mikayla Connell
period 2
Like most i agree with the author. Its become less productive and very "dysfunctional". I personally like the idea of "No Budget, No Pay". I dont think its too harsh as a consequence. I see it as giving the congressmen a reason to work harder and get it done quicker.
ReplyDeleteAnani Sandoval per.2
I do agree with the author with his idea that congress should receive some reforms but only to a certain extent. It is agreeable that our congress is slow moving and often frustrating but this is also a defense against the possible negative outcomes of it moving fast. The proposals that the author proposes would be effective although they would be hard to pass since they would have to be passed by the very body that is being affected. The first idea that the author offers seems good, but implementing in a “larger” manner could be more fruitful. The filibuster reform is good idea since it a practice that halts congress through a rather ridiculous means although it is totally constitutional. The up or down vote reform is reasonable enough to be a good option.
ReplyDelete-Peter Sandhu
P.2
I agree with the author that Congress certainly needs reform. However, I also believe it is important for Congress to work slowly because we shouldn’t risk rushing through bills when they are not well thought out. The “No Budget, No Pay” system is nonsensical because it would force Congress to make rash decisions for the benefit of Congressmen to receive their pay. Same goes for the “Up or Down Vote in 90 Days”. Implementing a time limit on decisions will not solve a problem faster, rather it will create an even bigger problem in the future. I definitely agree with the Filibuster Reform. It is crazy to believe that people can speak about a bill for so long; it is unproductive and inefficient. All it does is stall the process; restrictions need to be put into place. One should use their time to get their point across, not to delay a decision.
ReplyDeleteThere will be no easy or fast solution; changes will be hard and will take some time.
Rhiannon Mergaert
Period 2
I do agree with the author that we need a reform with the congress. In the congress it is pretty hard to reason together, so the author made some good points how to fix it. The filibuster reform makes sense to make them stop talking so long that their bladders hurt, but I understand why congressmen do that because they want to be their as long as possible so the people can stay and listen to the problem: it is still too long for people to comprehend so the filibuster reform seems good. The no budget, no pay also is good, if the congressmen do not do their job, no pay, but then again, if they do not take it slow and consider, argue, etc., it can cause a problem and lead to many things. In other words, the simple ways of fixing the congress are good, but we should consider the other side too and what are the consequences. We need to make the Congress not too slow for our liking, but not too fast that could make horrible things in the end.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Napitupulu
per. 3
I agree with the author in the sense that our congress is seemingly dysfunctional and that changes need to be made in order to speed up the legislation process. However, I do not agree with the author's first proposal of the "No Budget, No Pay" seeing that it is unfair to hold their salary 'hostage.' With that being said, I do feel as though the filibuster reform would be beneficial because it wouldn't allow congress to delay the legislation process and the "Up or Down Vote in 90 Days" would require congress to vote yes or no within those 90 days and get things done in a timely fashion.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Gutierrez P.2
i agree with the author. congress being divided is really slowing things down or not letting things get through at all. our congress is designed as such that only one party gets what they want out of laws when maybe what another party wants might be the best fro the country. i just wish there was a better way for the two parties to work together to get things done quicker and without forming any large factions that could over throw any certain party. it makes me feel better to know that there was an effort to try to fix our government. it shows us citizens that they know the system we have now is bogus and needs reform. i also agree with adrianna p. 3. if the congress men arent doign their jobs why should they continue to be paid regularly? its like a student who does no work and fails every test but still comes out of the class with an A. its not fair to the people that work hard and who deserve it. we do need to consider what could happen if we psuh things into changing to fast. many people dont like change and everyone reacts to it differently. so i say slowly but steadliy and gradually.
ReplyDeletetazari per. 3
I agree with the authors proposal to fixing our congress. No government can work cohesively if one part is completely do functional. The "no budget, no pay" reform is a great idea and it could benefit us greatly by kind of lighting a fire under their butts.All of the Reforms are a good idea and could be great for our government.
ReplyDeleteChloe Ennis P3
I believe that "we, the people" of the United States aren't exactly satisfied with the lack of productivity in our legislative branch. However, as may others have pointed out, as of right now, nobody will do anything about it. More people are needed to make a splash in the water. Enough people have to be upset about problems in Congress and unfortunately for those who actually do care about this issue, people do not have the time nor the interest to propose ideas to undergo a congressional reform. As a whole body, Americans are ridiculously uninformed and blatantly uninterested. With this being said, these ideas that are proposed by the author seem somewhat reasonable, but not at all likely.
ReplyDeleteJordana Cruz
Period 3
I think all proposals in this article are very reasonable. The one thing I think is a little far fetched is the whole "if we all work together and call our local congressmen enough the whole situation can be remedied," attitude that is projected towards the end of the article. Congress isn't hollywood blockbuster, things take time for things to happen, and there isn't always a happy ending. Congress has a lot of working parts, and with all the problems it faces, most of the time things don't work out. All three of the proposals in this article are a good start towards helping congress run smoothly.
ReplyDeleteJustin Acuna P.2
I didn't think I would agree with the article at first, considering our discussion of how our slow moving government prevents factions from getting instant gratification of what they want, but many of these ideas are actually very good ones, and would get Congress moving. These ideas are all fine and dandy, however, let's be realistic here . . . the reform of the system to galvanize it to make decisions happen quicker and put more pressure on Congress simply won't happen (in the near future as I see it). Why? Because the same group of people that the legislation would limit, are the legislators themselves. I just don't see Congressmen willingly reforming a system that would withhold their own pay from themselves if a budget wasn't passed. So, if reforms like these will ever come into effect, the mindset of the average Congressman will have to change to become more willing to compromise with the other party's members. But by the time we get Congressmen who are more open minded about passing this legislation, we won't exactly be needing the legislation anymore. This is because the problem has been fixed and now we have diplomatic Congressmen in Washington
ReplyDelete-Nick Knowles P.2
While I don't have a personal solution to bring to the table, I highly admire the thought process of the author. I do think a good place to start is prevention of pay until a budget is set, in turn creating an incentive that is successful.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that our Congress has become a "us VS them" system as opposed to a duo of teams working together for the country's best interest. It's time congress set aside party interest enough to begin talking about what should be done. This is not to say that I disapprove of the the bipartisan system as a whole, but rather there are pieces of the puzzle that need fixing. As the author goes on to say, " After all, no party, person or organization has a monopoly on good ideas." In simpler terms good ideas can come from both sides of the political spectrum and that is something we should all agree on.
Christopher Plascencia
P.2
I think the "no budget, no pay" proposal is a good idea. Congress men and women get too comfortable with things. If there's no consequences to their actions, they will take their time in doing their work. They're human. This proposal will get them to think more efficiently and get things done quicker or else they won't get their pay.
ReplyDeleteAnnette Campos period 2
I agree with "No budget, No Pay" it gives them a reason to do there job and do it well because no job is going to pay if the work is not done. I also agree with the "Up or Down Vote in 90 days" because it allows a strict time slot where there is no room for foolishness or to play unnecessary games. Just enough time to focus on the work and get it done to benefit the people's need and wants.
ReplyDeleteKourtney
Period 3
I think the arguments and the proposals the author offers are reasonable and would work if given a bit twists and turns (to say that all would work would become a logical fallacy). It is given to us unrealistically, but if we think about it, the no budget no pay would reduce unnecessary “meandering” around the budgets. But specific time to clash over the opinions to produce something that has been revised is the best natural, secure outcome, given that we reform filibusters.
ReplyDeleteChenney Kang
P. 3
I have varying opinions about the ideas presented in this article. First off, I don't think the "No budget, no pay" idea is all that bad. If congress really wants to get paid then they should be willing to do whatever means necessary. They really don't have a fair logical reason as to why they are passing budgets to ridiculously late. And if u pushed the due date back farther theyd just pass the budget months after that new date. Secondly, the filibuster reform is completely necessary because the idea of just talking for so long in order for no conclusion to be made is juvenile. If you don't have good enough evidence in their debates for why they don't want something passed and can only prevent it by filling up time then your opinion isn't really valid because theres no logical evidence to back it up. Debating is done to have your opinion be heard and hopefully have people consider your argument when voting for something. But if you KNOW your evidence is valid enough to present in such a way then why waste everyone else's time. Lastly, I do not really like the idea of automatically appointing positions if they have not been reviewed after 90 days. Yes, it would full the positions faster and avoid blocking. But, what if the nominee wasn't reviewed and they ended up not being a good person for the position. I mean i know more people would be reviewed if they were given this 90 day rule but blocking may still occur because Congress may not wish to give POTUS to appoint these positions and continue to block so every nominee really MUST be reviewed. And it should be done so in a different way instead of giving the 90 days rule.
ReplyDeleteAriana Martinez, p.2
*if you KNOW your evidence isn't valid enough to present
Delete-Ariana Martinez
In reality this problem will not be fixed soon and when it begins to grasp the attention of the people it will be a very slow process before reform takes place. With that being said, I do agree that things need to be done to make these Congress men do what they are paid to do. The “No Budget, No Pay” proposal is not a good place to start. Our Congress needs time to discuss the pro and cons of each bill to make a decision that is beneficial to the country and I fear that if Congress does not get paid in a timely manner they will make irrational decisions just to get their next pay check. These problems in the article will only and can only be fixed by the people’s anger, if this anger motivates the people to fight for reform I guarantee reform will come. Cristian Zuniga Period 2
ReplyDeleteI agree with the no Budget, No Pay proposal because is just makes sense to me. For the average everyday American, not doing you're job means not getting paid. If average Americans have to do their job, so should congress, and they should suffer the consequences if they don't.
ReplyDeleteHeath Isley
Period 2
The author is right that the slowness of our Congress has become an issue. Congress was designed to not allow decisions to be made too quickly, therefore preventing interest groups from gaining too much power; however, Congress' inefficiency has become unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteThe author is a bit extreme on some suggestions though. While the high level of partisanship in Congress is an obstacle to civil and quick decision-making, it also provides something more important: representation of views on both sides of the issues. Without partisanship, congressional decisions would be one-sided, so I don't believe that is the issue. As for his first suggestion of a way to make Congress work, the idea of "No Budget, No Pay" would certain do what it promises and get Congress to make a decision. However, by forcing Congress to make a decision on the budget as quickly as possible, we also decrease the time they spend considering it. A rushed, but on time solution can be worse than a well-thought-out, but late solution. This idea is present in his other two suggestions as well.
While a plan to make Congress make decisions faster sounds good in theory, in practice it takes away the time that may be needed to carefully consider some decisions. I do agree that something needs to be done about Congress' slowness, because it is inefficient. However, WE need to consider carefully what action we take. As much as I'd like to see changes made for the good of our country, I'd prefer these decisions to be deliberate and careful than hasty and forced.
Sarah King
Period 2
I agree with many things this author is saying we do need reform. I understand some issues take longer to discuss and make sure they are making the right choices but once you surpass your deadline to a certain extent something needs to be done. His idea on no budget no pay is a beneficial idea I think it gives the congressman enough incentive to really settle down and get what needs to be done, done. Also filibuster reform is strongly needed time is of the essence and that is just wasting it. Many things Congress does prolongs any process and needs to be reformed.
ReplyDeleteAdriana Albanez period 2
I do agree with the author that our Congress does need reform. And in theory, the three ideas he presented seem great. But realistically, I don't think that we will see a change anytime soon. You would need to pass these ideas through Congress in order for them to be in place, and there is no way that Congress would pass a bill that withholds their pay until they pass the budget. And as average American citizens, we do not have enough incentive to take serious action to see the change occur. This gridlock in Congress is due to the huge ideological differences between the two parties and due to the fact that those in Congress tend to be either very conservative or very liberal, so I feel that the best way to make a difference would be to alter the election system (particularly the primaries) so more moderate Congressmen are elected.
ReplyDeleteDarian Kuhn
period 3
DeleteI agree with a lot of what the author says. Reform is definitely needed to prevent stalling of congressional duties such as bills or otherwise. However, there is a good chance that rushing them isn't quite the better option. If we rush they could make hasty judgments and decisions that don't coordinate with the desires of the people and wouldn't be very progressive. The " No budget, No pay" is a good example because it plays on getting things passed efficiently however, this could cause them to rush, as would the 90 day rule. I feel the filibuster reform would be more effective because that is one of the biggest examples of just stalling.
ReplyDeleteKameron Valez
P: 3
The author is totally right; our congress needs major reform and his proposed ideas were great. i especially appreciated the filibuster one, maybe because we just learned what it is, but limiting time on congressmen talks is very important because they waste so much valuable time on one subject! i believe that term limits are a good start to congressional reform as well because congressmen get comfortable in their secure incumbency and become less proactive and more indifferent on matters they would have before been more spirited about. i really liked the 90 days thing because that would use congressmen's inclination to being late on passing budgets against them!
ReplyDeletejulian narvaez p3
I find the first concept the author brings to the table specifically interesting, seeing as the idea of "No Budget, No Pay" is understandably controversial. On one side of the argument, holding congressional paychecks on the line can be a clear incentive for senators and congressmen to manage the budget. This has been a clear issue time and time again, with the Democrats offering no better solution than to raise the debt ceiling and hope for the best. However, would this sort of rule, one that seems borderline like blackmail, really solve the problem? I believe it would unfortunately result in mediocrity. Congress would be tempted to establish mediocre budget plans, or butchered solutions, in order to receive their pay. Effectively, they would pass a budget not in the country's interest, but in their own.
ReplyDelete-Julian Dela Cruz
P3
I wouldn't call the "No Budget No Pay" solution harsh. It's pretty reasonable to only receive pay if you indeed do your job. Pressure to get things done is present in any field of work so I think it should also be present with members of congress. I definitely agree with the filibuster reform because I almost laughed when I read about it in the reading a few days ago. Just the fact filibusters are a legitimate thing in congress is really embarrassing and cringeworthy, especially when you think of the lengths members of congress had to go before double-tracking existed. I'm not sure about the 90 day plan because it could result in rash decisions but letting congress take their sweet time hasn't really worked in favor of anyone either, so it could very well be the push congress needs to get to deciding on matters. Congress does need their time to take a final stance on issues but I feel like reasonable due dates for certain things would balance between rash decision-making and indecision.
ReplyDeleteDylan Riggio
Period 2
I do agree with the author and believe that Congress needs some serious reform. The amount of time Congress takes to make a decision on an issue is a problem; however , changing that might not turn out as good as most people would expect it to. We wouldn't want to rush Congress into making hasty decisions when it comes to laws that may affect our lives. Although, I do like the idea of no budget no pay. Those members of congress are being paid to do a specific job. If they're not doing their job adequately, then their pay should match that. I think it will give them much incentive to get their job done in a more timely manner as it should be done. Unfortunately, I don't see any of this taking place any time soon.
ReplyDeleteLanaya Griffin
Period 2
The "Three Simple Ways to Fix Congress" seem quite reasonable. In theory these ways would help solve a few important issues within our congress: efficacy and punctuality. However, just because something sounds like an easy way out does mean that it will actually turn out that way. It is likely that different factions will find ways around it in order to accomplish their agendas.
ReplyDeleteKayleigh McWilliams p 2
DeleteWhile the author raises real concerns as to the effectiveness and moral state of our current congress, I believe he was a tad bit extreme in his solutions and even in his initial "problems". While admittedly congressional work takes a long time to accomplish between both parties, I believe it is for the best interest. A constant sense of competition and debate between the two parties and the numerous committees can result in a better, more drawn out result. However, I do agree with the author when it comes to filibusters, they are but an abuse of the system and no longer beneficial for the country, but only for a single party's personal agenda. This stunts honest and possibly beneficial legislation from ever reaching the President, so getting rid of them outright might actually be the best solution.
ReplyDelete-Jason Plascencia
P2