3 ms·

I had forgotten about this, it's hard to believe that it still hasn't been fixed. I've read through a number of the comments, and I guess I shouldn't be too su

I had forgotten about this, it's hard to believe that it still hasn't been fixed. I've read through a number of the comments, and I guess I shouldn't be too surprised to see that most are asking the IRS to do the job of the US Congress. This fills me with despair.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
That's the problem with basically the entire federal government these days. The US Congress is as near to non-functional as one could imagine. This, actual rule-making has been "delegated by dysfunction" to other entities like the Supreme Court, Executive Orders, and federal agencies. I really wonder how long this can go on. Our system of checks-and-balances only works when rational actors believe that compromise is necessary to get things done. When you have actors that believe that shutting things down completely is a benefit because it gets them more media time and rabid followers, the whole thing breaks down. Perhaps at some point we'll be able to move more towards a Westminster parliamentary model, where the party in power at any particular time basically controls both the executive and legislative branches simultaneously.
- gustavus 3y ago
  > Perhaps at some point we'll be able to move more towards a Westminster parliamentary model, where the party in power at any particular time basically controls both the executive and legislative branches simultaneously This for me always been one of the most frightening aspects of the parliamentary model. There aren't checks and balances, instead the party in power, as long as they have enough power can rule with absolute authority. You fail to understand that the US constitution was not created to provide for an efficient government it was designed to protect individual rights. The much bigger problem in my mind is that we only have 435 representatives and so each congressman represents far too many people, which allows the loudest and craziest vocies to dominate. Instead if we doubled or tripled the size of congress we'd have quite a bit more nuance and the government would be more representative.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    not to mention we semi-divorced (and I think in some cases totally divorced) state politics from federal politics when we started voting directly for Senators in the other house. Before that, your governor would choose who the senator was via whatever the process the state had for this. It had a knockoff effect of people caring a lot more about their state and local politics and keeping some governing power in the states leadership. Both I sincerely believe were worthwhile goals, as many people get caught up in federal politics and there is far less population participation in state / local politics as a result. I do believe quite strongly that we need a bigger House of Representatives too. I 100% agree on that. I don’t think the founders foresaw a world with 300 million people living in the US
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > You fail to understand that the US constitution was not created to provide for an efficient government it was designed to protect individual rights. Take your BS condescending tone elsewhere. I don't "fail to understand" anything. There are plenty of other nations with parliamentary systems that protect individual rights just fine, arguably much better than the US does. > There aren't checks and balances, instead the party in power, as long as they have enough power can rule with absolute authority. Except, again, plenty of functioning governments with parliamentary systems show that if a government overreaches, they are still responsible to the will of the voters, who can (and do) kick them out at the next election. I think it's much better to say "OK party X, we'll try your ideas for the next few years, and if you f it up you're gone." rather than have nothing get done for years, where each side can blame the problems on the other for why they couldn't achieve their agenda.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      > plenty of functioning governments with parliamentary systems show that if a government overreaches, they are still responsible to the will of the voters, who can (and do) kick them out at the next election it just means government didn't manage to overreach far enough. Countries like Russia and China also have parliaments, its just happen that ruling party obtain monopoly on violence which they apply on any possible competitor.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Yes. Notice that of all the nation building the US has indulged in over the years, essentially all of it sets up a parliamentary model rather than the one the US has. I wonder why that is?
creer 3y ago
Yes! It's horrible the lack of understanding of our most basic institutions in this country. It's a fundamental problem. And not helped by either education system or the press currently - both more interested in punchy headlines.
jppittma 3y ago
My only hope is that when our republic finally does follow in the footsteps of Rome and become an empire that we at least have a decent administration.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

That's the problem with basically the entire federal government these days. The US Congress is as near to non-functional as one could imagine. This, actual rule-making has been "delegated by dysfunction" to other entities like the Supreme Court, Executive Orders, and federal agencies. I really wonder how long this can go on. Our system of checks-and-balances only works when rational actors believe that compromise is necessary to get things done. When you have actors that believe that shutting things down completely is a benefit because it gets them more media time and rabid followers, the whole thing breaks down. Perhaps at some point we'll be able to move more towards a Westminster parliamentary model, where the party in power at any particular time basically controls both the executive and legislative branches simultaneously.

gustavus 3y ago
> Perhaps at some point we'll be able to move more towards a Westminster parliamentary model, where the party in power at any particular time basically controls both the executive and legislative branches simultaneously This for me always been one of the most frightening aspects of the parliamentary model. There aren't checks and balances, instead the party in power, as long as they have enough power can rule with absolute authority. You fail to understand that the US constitution was not created to provide for an efficient government it was designed to protect individual rights. The much bigger problem in my mind is that we only have 435 representatives and so each congressman represents far too many people, which allows the loudest and craziest vocies to dominate. Instead if we doubled or tripled the size of congress we'd have quite a bit more nuance and the government would be more representative.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  not to mention we semi-divorced (and I think in some cases totally divorced) state politics from federal politics when we started voting directly for Senators in the other house. Before that, your governor would choose who the senator was via whatever the process the state had for this. It had a knockoff effect of people caring a lot more about their state and local politics and keeping some governing power in the states leadership. Both I sincerely believe were worthwhile goals, as many people get caught up in federal politics and there is far less population participation in state / local politics as a result. I do believe quite strongly that we need a bigger House of Representatives too. I 100% agree on that. I don’t think the founders foresaw a world with 300 million people living in the US
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > You fail to understand that the US constitution was not created to provide for an efficient government it was designed to protect individual rights. Take your BS condescending tone elsewhere. I don't "fail to understand" anything. There are plenty of other nations with parliamentary systems that protect individual rights just fine, arguably much better than the US does. > There aren't checks and balances, instead the party in power, as long as they have enough power can rule with absolute authority. Except, again, plenty of functioning governments with parliamentary systems show that if a government overreaches, they are still responsible to the will of the voters, who can (and do) kick them out at the next election. I think it's much better to say "OK party X, we'll try your ideas for the next few years, and if you f it up you're gone." rather than have nothing get done for years, where each side can blame the problems on the other for why they couldn't achieve their agenda.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > plenty of functioning governments with parliamentary systems show that if a government overreaches, they are still responsible to the will of the voters, who can (and do) kick them out at the next election it just means government didn't manage to overreach far enough. Countries like Russia and China also have parliaments, its just happen that ruling party obtain monopoly on violence which they apply on any possible competitor.
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
Yes. Notice that of all the nation building the US has indulged in over the years, essentially all of it sets up a parliamentary model rather than the one the US has. I wonder why that is?

creer 3y ago

Yes! It's horrible the lack of understanding of our most basic institutions in this country. It's a fundamental problem. And not helped by either education system or the press currently - both more interested in punchy headlines.

jppittma 3y ago

My only hope is that when our republic finally does follow in the footsteps of Rome and become an empire that we at least have a decent administration.