Quote of the week
What we’ve learned from the long-running Al Franken/Norm Coleman Show, from Nick Gillespie:
We’ve gotten by fine these past few months with just one senator from Minnesota. So fine, in fact, that in this century of constant cost-cutting and rising unemployment, the federal government should do its share by immediately downsizing the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body by 50 percent.
Think about it, is any near-bankrupt work unit in America this side of a shovel-ready stimulus project more clogged with redundant and/or phantom employees? Does Massachusetts really need John Kerry and Ted Kennedy? Does Arkansas really need Blanche Lincoln and somebody whose last name is Pryor? I’m betting dollars to donuts that Idaho can get by with either Mike Crapo or Jim Risch. If Idahoans are like regular Americans, then more of them know that Jar Jar Binks was senator from the Chomell Sector than have any idea of who these guys are.
Even in the 11 states where the senatorial team is split between
Coms and YangsRepublicans and Democrats, you’d need an electron microscope to fully grok the value of paying a salary to, say, both George Voinovich and Sherrod Brown. Put plainly, the U.S. Senate is carrying more dead weight than an Uruguayan rugby squad.
The tricky part, of course, is getting the necessary Constitutional amendment passed: surely the Senate isn’t going to go for it, and how often do amendments proposed by the general public get ratified? Right.
GradualDazzle »
30 May 2009 · 7:30 am
That makes far, far too much sense. Which makes it the antithesis of all things governmental.
Mark Alger »
30 May 2009 · 7:47 am
I disagree. If anything, we want to INCREASE the number of Senators. Also reapportion House districts to something approaching the designed size (which I seem to recall was 50,000 eligible voters).
The idea being to make the body more unwieldy and prone to inaction.
And at the same time (as long as we’re engaging in political fantasy), I’d demand an end to multi-purpose bills. A single subject to each, please. And, if the core principle can’t be expressed on a single page of paper — and clearly tied to the actual TEXT of the Constitution (and no, the Commerce Clause is NOT carte blanche to run roughshod over the populace) — then the bill goes back to committee for more work.
If I could figure out a way to make it so, I’d also demand that all congresscritters demonstrate a firm knowledge of the bills they are debating and voting on. Henry Waxman ought to be impeached for malfeasance for his little performance the other week, and he’s not alone.
But enough about me. ::grin::
M
fillyjonk »
30 May 2009 · 8:02 am
I was gonna say I’d love to see them get Bob and Bob in, and make each Congressperson go in and “interview for their job.”
Also, in my grumpier moods, I think any state that allows this level and amount of drawn-out fighting (and expense) over figuring out who really won the seat doesn’t DESERVE a second Sentaor.
CGHill »
30 May 2009 · 9:55 am
The original benchmark was one representative for each 30,000 citizens (Article I, Section 2), with each state guaranteed at least one. With the House now fixed at 435, the ratio is more like 1:700,000.
McGehee »
30 May 2009 · 1:34 pm
If serving as Senator paid the same as jury duty, one or both of the contenders might long since have called for a coin toss to settle the matter, and the result might have merited a two-column-inch blurb on Page ZZ-612.
(Hey, if I can imagine a world where Senators are paid a rational wage, I can also imagine one in which newspapers still print large editions that contain news among the ads.)