Bend over and spread 'em

[Frong]

Oh, look, the Republicans got control of the House. Dang, now we might not get the chance to plunge even further into massive, astronomical debt and end up like Greece or Portugal or France. I was really hoping I'd get to riot in the streets over horrible, unfair government attempts to get me to be self-sufficient instead of looking for another handout.

[Nakor]

Both of which are just provocations and exaggerations, not real debate.

Can someone explain to me what control of the house even confers? Between the US version of the house, senate and how it's separate from the presidency I'm rather thoroughly confused. Is it going to end up like our minority government or something, where whenever one party tries to do something, the other one moves to block it and nothing gets done?

[TStodden]

The Republicans only control half of congress, as the Democrats (+ Independents) keep the senate. There'll be some gear-grinding at the federal level, but it may be for the best & gives the President a clear warning he's going the wrong way.


As for my state, we practically taking the time machine approach as we just re-elected a former governor that held the office for 20 years before retiring 10 years ago. The federal congress members have remained unchanged since the early 1980's... as we have no problems with them.

[Frong]

Both of which are just provocations and exaggerations, not real debate.

I know zat. I don't feel compelled to make an attempt at rational debate when the other side starts with baseless insults. That said, at least the first half of my post consisted of fact. If the US government continues to engage in massive, reckless deficit spending, as it has for much of the last decade now under both parties, and likewise continues to try and acquire even more power and influence over the free market, this country really WILL end up like France, Greece or Portugal - flat broke and in big, fat, serious trouble. We're already most of the way there, and the hardcore progressives in the Democratic party (not to mention all the progressives outside of the government, like George Soros) would just love to finish to finish the job, given the chance. They are, after all, the same breed of socialists that have overrun Europe and run most of it into the ground, not that they seem to care about that little detail. They want to turn the US into Europe regardless. Now that the Republicans have gotten control of half of Congress, those plans have hit a wall. With any luck, they die where they stand and the country turns back to the small government, capitalist principles that made it successful in the first place.

Can someone explain to me what control of the house even confers? Between the US version of the house, senate and how it's separate from the presidency I'm rather thoroughly confused. Is it going to end up like our minority government or something, where whenever one party tries to do something, the other one moves to block it and nothing gets done?

As you know, the US Congress (i.e. the legislative branch) consists of two halves, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House seats are assigned on a proportional basis to state population, so states with more people have more seats (there are 435 total). The Senate, on the other hand, only has 100 seats - two per state, regardless of population. Congress was designed this way specifically to prevent heavily populated states from dictating all the policy making.

Now, to answer your question, both houses of Congress hold equal weight in terms of legislative power, in that they both have to pass the same exact version of a bill in order for it to go to the President for ratification. If, for example, the House passes a bill but the Senate rejects it, that bill is going no further for the time being. It'll need to be revised and voted on again, and I'm pretty sure that if it gets rejected by one or both houses too many times, it gets the boot entirely and that's the end of that. Then, even if both houses do pass a bill, if there are differences between the versions they passed, those differences have to be reconciled and the revised version has to pass a vote in both houses again before it can go to the President. Yes, that's a lot of voting. Nobody ever said democracy moved quickly.

The long and short of this is that you're basically right. The Republicans, who now control the House of Reps, can block anything Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate try to do by rejecting it with their majority vote, so Obama and the Democrats will have to either compromise on a variety of issues or get nothing accomplished whatsoever. Clinton was smart enough to compromise when the Republicans got complete control of Congress during his second term, and as a result, some things got done. I'm not so sure about Obama. Based upon his actions during the past two years and his rhetoric long before that, he's too ideologically dogmatic and too egotistical to change his stripes at this point. That's just my prediction, though. We'll see what really happens soon enough.

[Nakor]

I dunno, didn't he spend the entire first year of his term trying his hardest to play nice with the republicans? I mean, he failed utterly (it seems that it was part of the republican campaign to block as much democrat action as they could), but he tried, so it's not like he's dogmatically opposed to working with the other side. Of course it depends on what the republicans ask for too. If they start demanding stuff that's just completely incompatible with the democrats (for example, don't ask don't tell) then no, there probably won't be compromise. And there's a pretty good possibility the republicans intentionally ask for things they know they won't be met half way on, because just blocking the democrats at every corner has proven effective enough campaigning so far.

It's worked out pretty well for us having the government grinding its gears like that, but there is one significant difference that might cause it to be more problematic down there: we have more than two parties. Any combination of parties that makes up a majority here can still act (although only to a limited extent if the party in power isn't in the acting majority, and the senate can still put an end to bills as they wish -- though they rarely do much of anything). It sounds like for anything to pass down there at this point it has to be two for two which is a whole lot harder.

In unrelated political news, our premier resigned yesterday. It's not really a big surprise here... after the dude used underhanded, unconstitutional tactics to instate harmonized sales tax (which, made very short, combines provincial and federal taxes into one, and applies them to a few things that they didn't affect before), he had no chance of winning an election. Even after the resignation I don't have the bc liberals much of a chance in the next election.... My problem, then, is that the NDP aren't any better. Or maybe worse. I don't even know any more.

[Frong]

I dunno, didn't he spend the entire first year of his term trying his hardest to play nice with the republicans?

No... no, he really didn't. I'm sure that's what the mass media, which spent the entire 2008 election bowing to him and kissing his boot, would like you to think, though. If you look at the policies he actually put forth, they contain quite a few things that Republicans and conservatives in general were anywhere from mildly to vehemently opposed to. To name a few:

- Annoyed them off right off the bat with a bunch of his Cabinet nominations
- Signed the $787 billion stimulus package, which ultimately failed to stimulate anything and passed without a single Republican vote, just under a month after he took office
- Lifted the ban that Bush had put in place on federal money being used for stem cell research
- Dropped the plans for the US missile shield in Poland, most likely in order to appease Russia
...and, of course...
- Started lobbying for Obamacare

Yeah, that's playing nice, all right. That's also to say nothing of his various looney appointments like Van Jones (open radical and Communist) and Anita Dunn (idolizes Mao), his dubious/boneheaded foreign relations actions (getting all friendly with Chavez, bowing to the Sauki king), or his assorted divisive remarks ("the police acted stupidly"). All of that happened in his first year, too. No need to go into his second year to prove this point. Trust me, the Republicans aren't just voting against all of Obama's positions simply as a campaign ploy - it's because nearly everything Obama stands for is diametrically opposed to what conservatives stand for. That's how far out in left field he is, not that anyone should be surprised. One look at his voting record as an Illinois and US Senator reveals as much.

But anyway, yeah, the fact that the US only has two major political parties definitely speeds things up a bit compared to Canada. If you really wanna see multiparty political wrangling, though, go to Israel. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at times that they ever even manage to form a coalition, let alone get anything done there at all.

I dunno anything about the liberals or NDP in Canada. Is choosing between them pretty much like choosing between Self-Serving Wonky Candidate #1 and Self-Serving Wonky Candidate #2?

[Nakor]

See, by playing nice I meant making concessions, not sacrificing their entire stance in favour of making the republicans happy... then they'd just be a republican government. As for stem cell research in particular, that's one of those points where I can't see eye to eye with the republicans... so many lives could potentially be saved by something that the only moral opposition to is religious. Anyway. My point is that he tried to make concessions without sacrificing his own party's stance, which is generally what one is expected to do. I suppose the problem is that the gulf between the two US parties is just too vast.

What you guys really need is a third party somewhere near the middle, or a much more serious threat of independents taking power. Basically anything that would force the two major players to either approach the middle or risk losing their power. (And no, I don't think the tea party will manage this, they're too right-wing for it to affect both sides.)

As for the BC Liberals / BC NDP, it's important first to note that the provincial parties, despite having the same names as the federal ones, are utterly separate, and often at vehement war with the federal government regardless of similar political alignments. With specific regard to the two BC parties (previously three, but Social Credit's defeat in '91 literally eliminated the party)... effectively, yes. We haven't had a good premier in ages. The vote switches whenever one or the other does something to piss off BC'ers enough that they forget what the other guys did. It's gotten to the point where around election time the green party is actually considered a serious contender for several of the seats in the House, because some regions refuse to vote for either candidate.

I think the lack of a third party, and the extreme swing of the vote is part of the problem. People were so pissed at the NDP that in the 2001 election the Liberals won every seat but three. The NDP kept two and an independent had the third. This meant the NDP did not have enough members to actually form the opposition. And we all know what happens when a party's power is totally unchecked....

The federal picture is a bit different, with four major players (NDP - Extreme left, Liberals - Supposedly left but kinda right, Conservatives - Supposedly right but kinda left, Bloc Quebecois - Quebec separatist party that won't die). The NDP there usually has too few seats to be relevant, but the last election balanced the numbers enough that an agreement with the NDP is enough for the Conservatives to get policy through. They're usually not too friendly, mind, but thankfully the NDP have at least seen fit not to put up with the alliance between the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, who were trying for a while to topple government (a second time) and force another reelection. (Whenever a "matter of confidence" -- such as a budget proposal -- fails in the house of commons, a "vote of no confidence" occurs. If it passes, the current government is dissolved, resulting in a reelection.) This was generally considered good because at that point everyone had concluded that a reelection would basically result in very similar numbers, still no majority government, and a lot of money wasted (elections being relatively expensive).

[Frong]

See, that's the thing - Obama barely attempted to make any concessions, period. Why would he have? His party had complete control of Congress, so he probably thought he could get anything he wanted passed, and sure enough, that's what repeatedly happened - entire major bills passed without a single vote of Republican support. Eventually, though, he went too far with Obamacare and caused some of his own party members (the more moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats) to revolt over the projected cost. That was really the first time Obama made any major concessions on anything, in that he quit insisting that the bill include universal government-sponsored health care. The problem was that the bill was an overblown, mutated, convoluted disaster, with or without concessions, which explains why the Democrats had to resort to all kinds of unprecedented legislative shenanigans just to get it passed. Even the very Senators who wrote the damn thing admitted afterward that they hadn't even read it in its final form before passing it. That's not exactly a sterling track record of being conciliatory, only yielding on the most insanely huge of bills and then forcing it through anyway after critics continue to complain.

The Tea Party movement may be right-wing, but it's a lot more mainstream than you'd think, considering that its core values of small government, strong national security, economic freedom, and individual liberty are all based upon the US Constitution. Isn't the Constitution as mainstream as it gets?

BTW, the whole "we're pissed at one party so we'll vote for the other one" thing that you just described happens in the US all the time, including in the general elections this past Tuesday. Voters were royally pissed at the Democrats for not only not fixing the economy, but making it worse, so they booted dozens of Democrats out of office in favor of Republicans. That normally wouldn't fix much of anything in the long run, but there was one key difference this year - the Tea Party influence. What the Tea Parties did in this year's elections was to help get a bunch of new Republican candidates nominated and elected who aren't career politicians and don't have any loyalty to the existing political establishment. As a result, voters in some states and districts had a real choice for a change. Instead of having to settle for picking the lesser of two evils between Career Politician/Windbag A and Career Politician/Windbag B, they could choose between Career Politician/Windbag A and Actual Person With Principles and Common Sense A. That's where the real problem lies - not with the lack of a third major party, but with the lack of politicians who will stand on solid principle instead of playing the political game for their own benefit. This year was a little bit different. It remains to be seen if that shift back toward politicians serving the people and not themselves will continue in 2012 or not.

Oh, and I also prefer the two-party system because the entire "vote of no confidence = j00r government asplode" phenomenon seems just plain ridiculous to me. I can't even imagine how much people in this country would hate politics if we had to put up with elections any more than we already do.

[Nakor]

Well, the last is easily enough solved by fixing the no confidence crap; it shouldn't have to be an inevitable result of having multiple parties, and isn't something that would automatically occur if, for example, the us had a third major party.

And my point about the Tea Party was merely that they aren't centrist, not that they aren't mainstream or influential. My point us that they aren't likely to drive republicans left or democrats right.

And seeing as thumb typing this while on a bus and now train is getting old fast, I'm going to cut this off here lol.

[Frong]

LOL Phone thumb get. So what exactly IS the point of the whole no confidence thing supposed to be, anyway? Where's the benefit? I don't get it.

No, I agree that the Tea Party movement isn't what you'd typically call centrist. Thing is, I don't automatically equate "more centrist" with "better". The vast majority of left-leaning policies involve huge government, because the further left somebody is, the more they view the government as the solution for everything, right? From my perspective, those policies are inherently wrong for that very reason, because I hold that government creates nothing, solves little, wastes a lot, and operates best when it safeguards citizens' basic rights and freedoms and otherwise stays out of the way. Therefore, taking conservative policies and moving them toward the center (i.e. further left) is usually the same to me as watering them down or ruining them.

Not that I agree with all conservative policy positions, mind you. I happen to side with you on the embryonic stem cell research issue, for one. If the embryos were eventually going to be discarded anyway, why not let them be of use to humanity instead? The only benefit to Bush's embryonic stem cell funding ban was that scientists ended up finding a way to derive usable stem cells from someplace other than embryos, thereby bypassing the ethical issue entirely. That might never have come about without the ban in place to force the researchers' hand, but there was no guarantee there'd be an alternative, either. I say to use both methods, personally. No point in letting a valuable resource go to waste.

[Nakor]

I expect they would have found better methods anyway, simply because the quantity would be important (and because science almost by its very nature always advances). Also, I'm not sure I'd say that the left sees the government as the solution to everything. It might depend on what "the left" you refer to of course. I really don't know what the American left (and I refer to the average people who identify with the left wing, not with the politicians) really thinks at all, or if that massive of a group of people can really be pegged down that easily. There is certainly some variety in opinion amongst right wingers after all -- the Tea Party largely exists because of disagreements there. So left-vs-right is a little vague. Or maybe a lot vague.

I think if I tried to sum up the Canadian left -- referring again to the voters and not the politicians -- it would not be so much in favour of big government in general, so much as a very specific set of things Canadians want to see in place. That might include health care, EI and education let's say, but not include fine arts grants or cultural protectionism (that is, spending great deals of money on protecting French or old places or whatever). In short, there are certain things that the left expects of the government, but the sentiment that the government should otherwise stay out of things still exists. It's merely confined to a different set of values.

As for the purpose of the no confidence vote, I imagine it was originally created as a safety measure of sorts, so if there was a good cause to eliminate a prime minister who was considered ineffective as the country's leader, there would be a means by which it could be legally done. It's value at this point is obviously rather poor, and standard impeachment methods ought to suffice anyway. Most of the time, like our premier, they just resign before such is necessary. Every country has its political oddities, and annoying rules that mess around with things. For example, the filibuster in the US. That system is in desperate need of fixing. Another example from Canada is the sinkhole of cash that is the senate; overpaid do-nothings that are all but retired. (I would love to copy the two-from-each-state system of the US. Something to balance out the power between the provinces and territories would be a welcome change.)

[KenseidenXL]

The GOP has control of the Senate since 1995. They control the lot, now. It was GOP policies that got us in the mess were in, now. They will only make matters worse.

[Frong]

I'll agree that scientists would probably have figured out the alternative method for harvesting stem cells eventually, but it would have taken a lot longer, because I'd think they'd have waited until supplies of already-frozen embryonic stem cells were starting to run out. Whether you agree with it or not, it's true that Bush's mandate sped up the process.

Normally I wouldn't make broad generalizations about "the left" like that, but after having watched and read about the Democratic party's various policy positions for the last few years, it's become clear that their stand on virtually every issue involves more government. Health care? Have the government supply it for everyone. Economy? Extensive government regulation on the stock market and trade practices when the economy is working, plus massive "stimulus" spending when it's not. Education? More federal standard-setting and federal funds to the public school system. Poverty? More food stamps, unemployment benefits, welfare checks and Medicaid. Aging population? More Social Security benefits and Medicare. Let's also not forget their support for utterly unsustainable union pensions and farm subsidies, as well as their penchant for state or federal lawsuits on perceived civil rights violations and the like. Seriously, everything the Democrats want to do involves more bureacracy and more spending, which, of course, necessitates higher taxes. All this despite the fact that Europe has already tried this experiment for the last few decades and it hasn't worked. See why I don't agree with any of it?

Yeah, the filibuster could stand to be revised or eliminated entirely. That's a really, REALLY old-school political tactic that probably doesn't belong in use anymore (according to Wiki, it technically originated in ancient Rome ). It's not like the filibuster is invincible, mind you; a 3/5 Senate majority can force an end to one (it's only even still allowed in the Senate). You don't usually see that happen, though, since one party has to have a large enough majority to get that 3/5 and the split has been too narrow for a while now.

What I don't get about the no confidence vote is why it forces the reelection of the entire government. Why can't they just reelect a different PM instead and leave the rest of the government intact?

The GOP has control of the Senate since 1995. They control the lot, now. It was GOP policies that got us in the mess were in, now. They will only make matters worse.

Er... have you been paying attention at all for the last four years? The Democrats swept control of both the House and Senate in 2006, and still have a four- or five-seat Senate majority. The policies that encouraged banks to engage in reckless lending (see: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the ones that were the trigger for wrecking the economy, are usually attributed to Bush but all happened with Democratic Congressional approval. All the Bush haters seem to ignore that little fact, though.

Anyway, the big problem with GOP policies under Bush was that they didn't adhere to the traditional GOP values of low taxes and low spending. He cut taxes, all right, but he spent way too much. The entire Tea Party movement wouldn't exist if Bush hadn't thrown fiscal prudence out the window.

[Nakor]

Yeah... even I managed to figure out that the senate is still democratic lol....

From a Canadian perspective the left's solution to helping out farms has mostly been to cut them slack, not to spend money on them. Because of their importance they pay less for water and are exempt from watering restrictions, have reduced taxes, and so forth. Federalizing education is just a mistake; it's a provincial issue in Canada, which makes more sense. Of course there are some standards that have to be kept an eye on, but that's probably more court related than government (ie: creationism in science class). And frankly, the banks and stock market clearly need some semblance of regulation. I'm no economist, so I won't try to suggest what, but the idea of just leaving everything the way it was the first time through can't be a good idea....

The problem is you need a government that has clearly defined limits as to what it can do. That is, rather than a left that just tries to do everything like you're describing in the states, you need a left that is given specific tasks they're expected to take care of, and that keeps its nose out of everything else. Like everything, there's a balance to it. I'm sure you'd agree that going too far right, and having the government receive zero taxes and do nothing at all would be a problem. I'm saying slide the ideal to the left a bit, not fire it off a cliff that way.

What I don't get about the no confidence vote is why it forces the reelection of the entire government. Why can't they just reelect a different PM instead and leave the rest of the government intact?

Technically this can happen. It only has to eliminate the PM and his cabinet. When this happens, however, it's almost guaranteed to pass government to the other side (the alliance that topples government tends to have a plan in advance for who to place in the PM's seat). Rather than simply give it up, the prime minister can instead ask the governor general (who it turns out actually has a job once in a while) to dissolve government and cause a re-election, in which the prior government and prior prime minister might be re-elected by the country.

The last time this was going to happen, PM Harper asked the governor general (this is her other job, other than signing anything she's told to) to prorogue government, which she did. This meant parliament was closed, but not dissolved, from Dec 4, 2008 to Jan 26, 2009. After a lot of debate, the governor general agreed, and parliament was halted for those two months. The budget proposal was scheduled to be voted on on Jan 27, 2009 and Harper seemed to hope the alliance between the Liberals, NDP (and nominally the Bloc Quebecois, who were not part of the alliance but had promised to vote with it) would fail by then, and for whatever reason it did. The budget proposal passed, and the government has been fairly stable since.

[Frong]

Looking at it a little more closely, I found that there are Republicans who support farm subsidies, too. I get the feeling it's a position that a lot of politicians from farm states take regardless of party affiliation, but it definitely falls in line with typical left-wing ideals. Education here is done on a state-by-state basis, but the federal Department of Education has done a fair amount of meddling as of late. I wish they'd knock it off, honestly. As for banks and the stock market, you definitely need basic regulation to ensure that people aren't getting duped by ponzi schemes or what have you, but if you go too far and overregulate, loans will become too hard to get and people will pull their money out of the market. That's not good for anybody in the end.

I thing the biggest thing here is for the government to avoid promoting stupid financial practices (like giving out the risky mortgage loans that led to the housing market collapse) and bailing out companies who do decide to do engage in stupid practices. Let capitalism do its job. The smart companies will succeed, and the dumb or crooked ones will fail and get weeded out. Don't even get me started on how much I hate the concept of "too big to fail."

The problem is you need a government that has clearly defined limits as to what it can do.

Funny you should reference limited government in talking about the left, because that's actually one of the key rallying points of the Tea Party movement. One of their (and my) major gripes is that government today does too many things that aren't really supposed to be its responsibility or could be handled more effectively by private companies or groups. Business is the big one, but health care, welfare and education (to a certain degree) fall under that category, too.

I'm sure you'd agree that going too far right, and having the government receive zero taxes and do nothing at all would be a problem. I'm saying slide the ideal to the left a bit, not fire it off a cliff that way.

Only anarchists want the government to literally spend nothing and do nothing, and I don't take them seriously as an ideological viewpoint. Even libertarians simply want the government to serve its basic Constitutional functions and let the populace handle the rest. That means establishing national and domestic security, protecting people's civil, political, and economic rights, and maintaining public infrastructure (I personally add running a halfway competent public school system and providing some measure of emergency support for the extremely poor and disabled to that list). Doing all that requires revenue, sure, but not insane amounts of it, nor does it mean that government need be huge and grossly expensive. Besides, records show that when taxes are lowered across the board, government revenue goes up.

So it sounds to me like the reason why the entire government usually gets dissolved after a no confidence vote is because the PM who just got the boot doesn't want his party to end up in a disadvantageous position. Typical political gaming.