Except this is demonstrably untrue.
The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done.
Our Congress is completely ineffective.
[1]:Fixed.
The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done.
Our Congress is completely ineffective.
[1]:Fixed.
Especially since law-makers have a strong incentive to further their own careers by introducing changes. This system forces law-makers to work harder to get change passed, it often must be a change that benefits more than just a simple majority.
It doesn't even require a majority: we've so predisposed the system to inaction that a small number of people can block it. To pass legislation you need the consent of the House and the President and a supermajority of the Senate. Any of those can stop a law in its tracks.
It's easy to say that we should favor not changing things, and there are definitely ways that we should force people to seek consensus. But when the current setup works against you, you can suffer for decades without getting relief, and it's not a good look to just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, it's working for me".
This is the overall design.
So out of simple self interest it behooves us not to just say "the status quo should be hard to change". When we see an injustice, we should fight to change it, even when it's not to our own immediate advantage.
It is an amazing read, but the things that stand out to me are these.
1. Have diffuse/decentralized power centers to make it harder for special interest groups to gain power and control things. The last two centuries have had a tendency to move power from states to federal government; and from Congress to the President. So the balance of power has centralized.
2. Avoid a direct democracy because they tend to get subjected to demagogues. The direct election of senators was a major turning point in helping centralize power; since states became more and more irrelevant.
I am always impressed by how much Madison understood the nuances of political power and tyranny.
[1] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary...
Generally though, I agree with you that we should all strive to vote for the greater good. We should fight against injustices even if they do not directly affect us.
I think that many of the issues come down to differing views of what more just: IE employment opportunities for a citizen vs. an immigrant, rights of a criminal vs. a victim, autonomy over one's body vs. a potential life. Those don't have easy answers.
You think so? It lasted all of fourteen years and did very little to stop the flow of alcohol throughout the country. And I believe it's the only amendment to have been repealed.
If it were a legislative action, rather than an amendment, I suspect it would have been more effective in the long term since legislation is usually more thorough and detailed than constitutional amendments.
Weather or not the law had the desired effect relative to hypothetical legislative action is an open debate but undoubtedly could be overturned with less votes.
Which it was, by the (post-Armistice, pre-18th-Amendment-ratification) “Wartime Prohibition Act”.
Perhaps the line of reasoning you're alluding to is that, at the time, state and local prohibition laws were already so common that the Prohibition Amendment shouldn't have changed the effective legality of alcohol consumption for most Americans. But to maintain the status quo in perpetuity, locking in Temperance Movement reforms without defectors slowly eating them away, a national law was desirable.
[1] I'm still looking for the citation, but IIRC the reasoning was that the court wouldn't interpret the amendment to reach private, non-commercial activity unless it was explicit on that point; it wasn't just a cop-out textualist dance with the word "manufacture".
> But to maintain the status quo in perpetuity, locking in Temperance Movement reforms without defectors slowly eating them away, a national law was desirable.
But overall yes — this what what I was referring to. Even if I wasn’t clear on the state vs federal level, the overall argument that I’ve seen is that the proponents of prohibition wanted to increase the difficulty of rolling back prohibition. And if alcohol was banned through legislation, it would just take a single election (state or federal, depending on the law) to change things back.
You might not agree with the principle, but given they haven't done much shrinking you cannot call it their principle.
Second, the military is one of the few aspects of government that’s clearly supposed to be done at a federal level. Why do you think there is anything inconsistent about conservatives not cutting back government uniformly?
There are 2 things that are not being taken into account.
First, historic trends are not reversed by relatively recent changes in allocation to the US military.
Second relatively recent changes in military utility of manpower vs aircraft vs cruise missile has made certain kinds of spending obsolete. A modern, effective military does not require the same logistics anymore, so of course spending has gone down.
There is nothing inconsistent about conservatives (Republicans) expanding military spending, as they always have and will continue to do so within the bounds of recommendations from the industrial military complex.
According to the 18th-century conception, the army indeed becomes a federal concern in wartime, but on an everyday peacetime basis, the training of soldiers was supposed to be done within militias regulated by the states.
As a portion of the economy, just our public spending on healthcare is higher than the OECD average public spending: https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/newsroom/4...
Instead, it is evidence that there is bipartisan support for educational spending, but with uneven beneficiaries.
This is a different issue and the solutions to the first problem are not the solutions to the second.
Last, this isn't really a partisan federal issue. Most school spending is determined the state or local level and the same inequality is present in predominantly red and blue states.
That does not correspond with the rhetoric that I've seen. Republicans are adamantly opposed to increasing spending for public education, and have systematically cut support for higher education spending in state budgets. Instead, I regularly see the meme that there's tons of fat in the education system; that we spend just as much as everyone else, but have worse outcomes. The fault is in the schools for not spending what they have wisely enough.
And I think that the funding story is flatly untrue. Because the dominant source of public education funding is from local taxes, there are vast differences in the per-student level of funding across the country.
This is patently false. Local governments provide 45% of K-12 educational spending. State governments spend 47% and the federal government spends 8%: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/styles/optimized_d.... State and federal funding go overwhelmingly to erasing the disparities in local funding.
Look at the funding numbers in your own state. Here is mine: https://i2.wp.com/conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/wp-content/up.... The funding differences are based on cost of living, not local income. My solidly middle/upper middle class county has spending near the bottom because it’s pretty rural. Baltimore which is very poor has among the highest. Montgomery and Prince George’s, which are opposite sides of the income spectrum, get almost the same amount of funding. You can also see in that chart how differences in local funding are more than compensated for by differences in state funding.
And it isn't enough. Not even close.
Boulder Valley: 13.8k/student. Pueblo: 10.5k/ea. Fort Morgan: 9.5k/student. Those are sufficiently widely varying that looking at "average spending" paints an inaccurate picture.
Durham public schools: 10.5k/ea. Chapel-Hill/Carrboro: 15k/ea.
https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_spending_in_America%27s_...
Range of total spending per student spreads by over a factor of 4x.
Second, I’m not sure what your Colorado example is supposed to prove. Boulder is a much more expensive city than Pueblo. Land for schools is cheaper, salaries are lower, etc. Those costs seem roughly comparable accounting for local costs.
Third, comparing spending across states is deeply misleading. The cost of schooling in Idaho (which makes up several of the lowest spending school districts in your link) bears little relation to the cost of schooling in New York (which makes up several of the highest spending school districts in your link). The irony of your example is that Idaho spends about 1/3 of what New York spends per student, and Idaho students outperform New York students: https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment/naep/files/general/naep...
Fourth, even the low spending school districts in your examples spend more than European countries: https://www.statista.com/statistics/381745/education-expendi.... School spending in London is about $7,402 per student. That’s substantially less than Pueblo or Durham, and only a bit more than the state average for Idaho ($7,100). I guarantee you that money goes a hell of a lot further in Durham or Boise than London!
> Third, comparing spending across states is deeply misleading.
This is why you cannot use averages to talk about school funding relative to the rest of the OECD. That's my point. You asked for statistics in my state. I gave them, in my most recent two states of residence.
I wonder if it has to do with the level of services expected and provided between locations, states, and counties.
For example, I know that special needs students, which can be notoriously expensive to educate.
Spending levels are much higher than parent reported. [1] for one school chosen at random shows that their budget was almost 8000 GBP/pupil - over 30% higher than cited. Furthermore, 82% was staffing. A mere 3% is allocated to facilities.
In my local school district[2], salaries for all staff add up to a little less than 60% of the budget. Facilities (21.6%) and debt service (7.6%) are a far greater fraction of our costs.
In short, the "education is cheaper in London" story is a lie. Many of their costs are payed for by a different color of money entirely, and simply doesn't show up on the education budget.
[1] https://schools-financial-benchmarking.service.gov.uk/school...
[2] https://www.adams12.org/financial-services/documents/fiscal-...
Moreover, many countries exempt teachers from the national pension scheme, just like the US. The UK, which I used as an example above, has a teacher pension system
French income tax maxes out at 45% on income above €157,807, while US federal income tax maxes out at 37% above $518,401
That said, what do you think drives the disparity in outcomes between different US districts and schools, if the funding roughly tracks with cost of living? Similarly, why are schools in European countries so much more efficient in terms of educational costs?
One thought on the first question that comes to my mind is that students who are impoverished or have english as a second language will not have comparable outcomes, even if their school districts have comparable funding.
I wonder if one aspect of the second question is the handling of special education for disabled students. Do European countries educate these students in a different manner from the US. Is the funding taken into account when we look at per student costs?
This is what I said as well. There is also vast difference in per-student spending within blue states and blue counties. This is evidence that the problem crosses party lines.
I'd see it rather as evidence that most educational spending happens at the state and local level, not the federal level.
Obviously high-cost states spend more than low-cost states. But their education spending is consistent with the size of their economies. Mississippi has a GSP per capita of $35,000 and spends $8,700 per student. Italy, Spain, and New Zealand have similar GDP per capita and also spend a similar amount per student.
Its really terrifying to see people confidently and passionately argue about politics while pulling their "facts" from an alternate universe.
This awkwardly also highlights ignored externalities and implied awkward questions in ways essentially nobody is comfortable is with the implications of especially regarding free choice and perverse incentives where the "best" option still has messed up implications.
The highest paid government employees in most states are football coaches for the state schools? Why? I thought schools job were to educate not cause brain injuries in their students? Why pay millions of tax payer dollars earmarked for education for someone to coach a game that injures the mental capacity of the students. Why not hire more professors with that money? why not pay teachers more or fix facilities buy material and equipment make teachers not have to spend their own money on basic supplies?
I used to feel this way too, but my understanding is that investing in sports programs tends to _bring in_ more money for universities, on net. I don't think it's accurate to consider it as trading off against academic investment.
At any rate, this is a bit tangential: American universities are the best in the world, so the conversation is more about high school and lower, where our educational outcomes lag by some metrics.
One of the best places in America to get education happens to be free: the public school system of Lexington [1]. But you'd be hard-pressed to get a house there for less than a million. Secondly, every other student in Lexington happens to have private instructors on the side. It's funny, if you randomly walk into a Starbucks in Lexington, chances are very highly you'll see an elder person with a young person training for standardized exams.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/29/upshot/money-...
Regardless, you could also argue that -- similar to healthcare -- dollars in is not a great metric anyway. Are we getting the best outcomes for that money? We certainly aren't for healthcare, and my (admittedly incomplete) reading on this topic is that our K-12 education system is nothing to be particularly proud of.
They just want to spend the money that doesn't exist on different things.
Humility is a virtue.
I'm well aware of who he is. What he wants doesn't actually get done, no matter how many pledges people sign. It's a fantasy.
I could write a piece of code that adds two numbers but takes two days and all available memory to compute the result.
A lot of laws are on all levels of government from both sides of the isle are well intentioned but the costs surrounding the laws are prohibitive.
That doesn’t imply we need less laws, that doesn’t imply we don’t have enough laws, it means we need to take a hard look at where the bottlenecks are and streamline the process and to achieve the desired result.
The problem with the 115th Congress is that Republicans have done a good job getting their base to believe that various policies are bad for the country, but when push comes to shove even they recognize that: 1 - they have no viable alternative, and 2 - that said policies are better than nothing.
You should not conflate one party's inability to govern with Congress being dysfunctional overall. When the Dems get control of all branches of government again, I fully expect to see the logjam clear up for at least a few years.
This time was an extraordinary humiliation for Paul Ryan in particular because it should have been an opportunity to get lots of ideologically-motivated things done really quickly, and yet they failed to achieve even incremental progress on Trump's top legislative priorities, like repealing the ACA and securing funding for the wall.
This is separation of powers at work and is a good thing.
Edit: the comment above was edited to change the congress and dates in question
Yes, Congress is ineffective -- I think that's almost become an axiom at this point.
But it is often ineffective because of the rules it has adopted itself. The filibuster was removed for federal justices, and guess what? I think it's nearly 200 justices confirmed in the last three years, and while I don't remember the exact number during previous congresses I believe it's significantly higher.
As already noted, the filibuster is the root of a lot of this, but should the filibuster go away? McConnell famously told Reid he was going to pay for removing it, and he's made good on that promise, essentially transforming the entire federal judiciary with the power he was given. I view the filibuster as a check on the power of a tiny fractional majority -- should one party totally control everything that happens with a single vote majority? That essentially ignores the concerns of the rest. The filibuster at least forces some consensus building.
Better would be to have more than two parties. But how we could ever get there now I have no idea, the two parties in power have no intent of giving it up, and most people quite frankly are too stupid to even be bothered to vote, and those that do might be even more stupid in some ways. "Congress" is bad, "my congressperson" is the greatest ever because they get me money, and that seems to be the guiding principle for people voting these days. Maybe it always has been.
Approval Voting simply allows the voter to vote for or against each candidate independently. (The instruction is to "vote for all candidates you approve of" -- hence the name.) "One person, one vote" becomes "one person, one candidate, one vote".
Instant-Runoff Voting (aka Ranked-Choice Voting, though there are other ranked-choice systems) is getting more buzz these days than Approval Voting, but AV is superior: much simpler to implement, easier to understand, and much less likely to return an anomalous result.
For more info: https://www.electionscience.org/