You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is.. when one party controls the senate, and another the house, and another the presidency, you know damn sure nothing is going to get done unless there is broad consensus.
Having one party control everything leads to shenanigans. Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government.
> "You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is"
It was a fairly explicit design goal. By setting up Congress so that one house mirrored population and the other mirrored number of states, they basically guaranteed that there would be no substantial legislation passed on the issue of slavery, at least not until a major shift in culture.
In a broader sense, remember that "fast and agile" is another way of saying "changes rapidly". Since government writes the rules you have to operate by, both in your personal and economic life, it's important that those rules not change quickly if the changes are at all controversial.
No, I'd much rather have an agile and fast incompetent government than an agile and fast competent government after looking at who funds the majority of the reelection warchests.
Look guys, none of these have to be mutually exclusive. Agility, speed and competence all exist on a spectrum. Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No. Does that mean they should pass it after a day's worth of talks? No. It has to be reasonably quick while still allowing for enough room to iron out the kinks.
I'm not sure what we said that made you think we believe differently. In fact we were arguing over whether or not it is better to have fast & agile combined with competence or incompetence, so we clearly know they aren't mutually exclusive.
I was actually considering the current funding situation a part of the incompetence since it goes against the point of having elected representatives. But yes, with the current system it is both the incompetence and sluggishness that is saving us right now.
Comments
You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is.. when one party controls the senate, and another the house, and another the presidency, you know damn sure nothing is going to get done unless there is broad consensus.
Having one party control everything leads to shenanigans. Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government.
> "You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is"
It was a fairly explicit design goal. By setting up Congress so that one house mirrored population and the other mirrored number of states, they basically guaranteed that there would be no substantial legislation passed on the issue of slavery, at least not until a major shift in culture.
In a broader sense, remember that "fast and agile" is another way of saying "changes rapidly". Since government writes the rules you have to operate by, both in your personal and economic life, it's important that those rules not change quickly if the changes are at all controversial.
>Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government.
You do not want an agile and fast incompetent government, that's for sure.
No, I'd much rather have an agile and fast incompetent government than an agile and fast competent government after looking at who funds the majority of the reelection warchests.
Look guys, none of these have to be mutually exclusive. Agility, speed and competence all exist on a spectrum. Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No. Does that mean they should pass it after a day's worth of talks? No. It has to be reasonably quick while still allowing for enough room to iron out the kinks.
> Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No.
I'm perfectly okay with Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year. Some issues are hard.
I'm not sure what we said that made you think we believe differently. In fact we were arguing over whether or not it is better to have fast & agile combined with competence or incompetence, so we clearly know they aren't mutually exclusive.
I was actually considering the current funding situation a part of the incompetence since it goes against the point of having elected representatives. But yes, with the current system it is both the incompetence and sluggishness that is saving us right now.
"government governs best which governs least"
attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
"And by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."
Attributed to Stephen Colbert.