A very productive Congress, despite what the approval ratings say, is the provocative title of a recent Washington Post column from Norman Ornstein, a leading Congressional expert. He argues that this Congress, despite polls suggesting that 58% of Americans consider it below average or one of the worst ever, is actually one of the most productive ever.
That's right, you read that correctly. According to Ornstein (who, believe me, knows what he's talking about):
"[t]his Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson."
If that doesn't seem right to you, consider the massive investments that occurred through the Recovery Act in our nation's schools, infrastructure and energy and environmental programs, including green technology. Then Congress passed children's health insurance, a law to regulate tobacco and a credit card holder's bill of rights, any one of which would be considered a major accomplishment. And all this within the course of the first year -- a legislative record that would put many 2-year sessions to shame.
Clearly, there's a disconnect between what Congress does and how we perceive its activity. A part of the problem, in my opinion, is that we as citizens don't really understand what Congress is supposed to be doing. As an institution, Congress is not designed to PASS legislation: it is designed to fight and argue and deliberate about legislation. Chaos and inefficiency are supposed to rule in our legislative environments -- and, clearly, they do.
Effective advocates will spend some time learning about the institutions they are trying to influence. One great resource is "Congress and Its Members" by Davidson, Oleszek and Lee. Or, check out the resources on the Library of Congress' "Thomas" website.
Today the Obama Administration is releasing its proposed Federal budget for FY2011, which begins October 1, 2010. Highlights include a "job creation" proposal that envisions small business tax cuts and new infrastructure investments designed to generate jobs. According to the release, the budget cuts over 100 programs, while also proposing a series of funding increases.
Now, before you get all enthusiastic about specific increases (or freaked out about specific cuts), remember that this is the first step in a very long process. The President makes his proposals -- and those proposals certainly reflect what he thinks government should focus on -- but Congress has to develop the spending and tax packages. Congress may decide to do very little of what the President suggests, or everything, or something in between.
The whole process is outlined in an interesting interactive chart on the Washington Post website. Yes, I'm playing fast and loose with the word "interesting." Be sure to have a strong cup of coffee before delving in to the details of the process.
If you're just interested in the general overview, highlights of the budget proposal include:
a freeze on discretionary spending and $20 billion in cuts to various programs
an increase in funding at the Department of Education by $2.9 billion or 6.2 percent.
a new $4 billion dollar National Infrastructure Innovation & Finance Fund to focus on infrastructure investments of national and regional significance
more than $6 billion in funding for clean energy technologies
the elimination of existing fossil fuel subsidies
an increase of $3.7 billion, or 6.4 percent, for civilian research and development
allowing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire only for those making more than $250,000 a year and reducing the rate at which these same households write-off itemized deductions
ending subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies and closing other loopholes
a responsibility fee on the largest banks
a bipartisan, fiscal commission to look at a range of proposals and put forward a bipartisan recommendation to balance the budget excluding interest payments on the debt by 2015
Remember, the best way to preserve programs you're most interested in (or eliminate those you think are wasteful) is through advocacy. Frankly, the government is going to have no idea what is most helpful or harmful unless you share your views. So get out there and get advocating!
If you’re based in the Washington, DC area and you haven’t signed up for the January 27th forum on grassroots ethics being held by the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, what are you waiting for? Take a minute to go to www.gspm.org/ethics and get registered for this free event! Go ahead, I’ll wait.
OK, you may be thinking “but ethics sounds really boring: why would I want to go to that?” Well, there’s a whole host of reasons! You should attend if:
you’re tired of snide comments about “all the corruption in Washington, DC” – and you want to be part of the solution.
you want to network with others engaged in grassroots advocacy activities – we have sponsors from all walks of life!
you want to learn more about techniques that work in grassroots advocacy – after all, what is most ethical is also most effective.
you want to make your mother proud by learning more about honesty, transparency and all the things that make us good people.
At the event, we’ll be discussing a proposed grassroots advocacy code of ethics. You can see the code and comment on it when you register at www.gspm.org/ethics. This is your opportunity to shape these ideals for generations to come – so don’t delay. Register today!
I had a couple things happen today that reminded me how the concepts of "open government" (or "transperancy") and "citizen responsibility" go hand in hand.
First, I was interviewed on a talk radio show in Michigan by a very thoughtful host (yes, they're out there) who wanted to know how people can be most effective in getting their message across to their legislators. He noted that many people are distressed about all the terrible things they hear about the major initiatives making their way through Congress (health care reform and climate change legislation being the most recent examples). How can an average citizen, he wondered, sort through it all?
The answer, quite simply, is they can't. Hey, I'm sorry to say it, but it's frankly impossible for anyone -- average citizen or nobel prize winner -- to sort through the thousands of bills introduced in Congress and understand and have a thoughtful perspective on all of them. It's hard for most of us to do that for just one bill.
Frankly, that's why we have (gasp!) special interests. The people within these organizations spend a great deal of time culling through all the various bills making sure that the people they represent aren't harmed (or are helped) by the bill. If you're employed by someone, a member of a group like the AARP, HSUS or even the NRA, have ever bought anything or, ummm, breathe, chances are you've got one of those special interests working for you. And that's GOOD news. Thanks goodness we don't have to track down all this stuff ourselves.
This perspective was further solidified when I listened in on the Kojo Nnamdi show's great session on Open Government (more information on the WAMU website). The guests (from the Sunlight Foundation and Adobe) talked about the work they're doing to make Congressional information more accessible -- and what can be done to improve access to that information.
I'm 100% in agreement that nothing should be hidden. Bills should be posted, statements should be made public, citizens should know what their money is being spent on. At the same time, I also think more needs to be done to explain the significance of the information we're so busy pumping out. All the best information in the world isn't valuable unless people understand it in the context of the legislative process.
In short, I'm all for open government. But with that openness comes, I believe, a measure of citizen responsibility. We must, as Socrates might say, know what we don't know about issues and be willing to learn and explore the various nuances. That will be far more productive, and serve our democracy far better, than angry outbursts at what we've "heard" about particular bills.
My thoughts turn to horror movies this time of year and, as a D.C. resident, I don't usually have to look much further than the Capitol for a good scare. Between arguments over health care reform, climate change and financial services, the legislative process seems a little frightening lately.
But have no fear! There are ways to "trick" your legislators into giving you what you want, and I discuss several of them in the latest edition of my Advocacy Tipsheet. Seven-year olds have mastered the art as part of their efforts to extract candy from strangers -- why shouldn't you?
Even if, in the spirit of the season, you're tempted to TP your legislator's offices, I encourage you to be the adult in this situation and rise above the process. You might just be able to make a difference -- check out my tipsheet to learn how.
I've blogged before about the impracticality of the "read the bill" movement. Many groups have joined together to demand that members of Congress read every bill that is introduced. Their argument is that lawmakers shouldn't vote to pass legislation they haven't read. This makes perfect sense, on its face.
Recently, the Post editorialized on this issue, pointing out the impracticalities of actually reading all 10,000 bills that are introduced in a two year Congressional session. Members of Congress and their staff would be doing nothing but reading whereas' and wherefore's until their eyes crossed.
I responded to the Post editorial agreeing with the impracticality argument. But in my opinion, the editors missed the main point, which is that reading the bill and understanding what the bill does are two entirely different things. You can read my response, which was printed in the Post on Saturday, here.
My main point is that the bill language isn't what legislators need to spend time reading in order to understand a legislative initiative. If they need to read anything, it's the biased and unbiased summaries from wide varieties of groups and individuals on their opinions of what the bill language might do in real life.
And beyond reading, they need to meet with constituents, knowledgeable citizens, subject matter experts, representatives of those "horrible" special interests like the AARP or the HSUS (tongue firmly in cheek) and even a lobbyist or two to have a complete understanding of how the bill language might impact the people they represent. Then, they need to balance the perspectives of all these groups and make decisions based on what they think will be best for their constituency.
The good news is that this is exactly what the vast majority of legislators and their staff try do every single day. So maybe this situation isn't quite as dire as some might have you believe.
A recent article in the Washington Post titled "Tweeting Their Own Horns" reports on a recent study from the University of Maryland on Congressional use of the micro-blogging service Twitter.
I know this will shock you: it turns out that politicians generally use Twitter to promote themselves. The researchers reviewed tweets through February, 2009 as well as postings in June, 2009 and August, 2009 to make comparisons about when Congress is in session versus out. According to the lead researcher:
"Twitter by its nature is a very self-absorbed service," said Jennifer Golbeck, lead researcher and assistant professor in the university's College of Information Studies. "Politicians are very self-important people."
Now, I think it's appropriate to cut our elected leaders a little slack. I'll bet that if you checked out most of the Twitter feeds out there, you'd find that the majority of users are focused on "self-promotion" versus "world peace."
While you can point to a few uses of Twitter as an interactive tool for promoting dialogue between parties, for the most part it is still being used by EVERYONE, not just politicians, as a mechanism for promoting a business, a cause or one's own daily routine. I'll confess that I use it (www.twitter.com/advocacyguru) to promote my particular cause (umm, and the services I provide around that cause) of making everyone on the planet better advocates. See how cleverly I snuck that in?
I guess my main point is that while the study does make for interesting reading, I hope people won't be using it as ammunition to feel even more cynical about our elected officials than we already do. As with all new technologies, it will take time to move Twitter from a promotional tool to an interactive tool. It's probably a good idea to think of Twitter as an evolution, not a revolution.
And if you're looking for ways to be part of the evolution, check out the TweetCongress site, which is working to connect citizens with their legislators in whole, new 140 character or less ways.
