Help In These Times raise $5,000 in two weeks! Donate now!
PrintDiscuss
Views » February 4, 2006

The Republicans Democracy Disorder

By Rep. Barney Frank

The Republicans are bulimic when it comes to democracy in the House. It causes them serious digestive unrest.
Tags   
Share   Facebook Digg del.icio.us Newsvine   StumbleUpon Reddit Furl Propeller

The House of Representatives is the only part of the American government where the principle of one person, one vote obtains.

But the Republicans have been running the House in a way that purposefully abuses this principle. They have found a way to shelter many of their members from taking positions that they know to be unpopular with voters. To counter this short-circuiting of democracy, I and three Democratic colleagues have proposed a package of reforms, “Amending the Rules of the House to Protect the Integrity of the Institution.”

Our goal is to allow the House of Representatives to create public policy that is democratically sustainable. Representative democracy is being thwarted by current Republican practice. The Republican leadership has gotten very good at holding roll call votes open and marshalling its troops. This gives them the ability to win by changing only as many votes as they need to pass legislation, thereby allowing some Republican members of Congress who support this ruse to vote against the legislation. Their purpose is to let Republican members hide from the public, so that they can give their constituents an impression that is contrary to where they really stand. That allows members to boast about how they voted against the Republican leadership 40, 50, 60, 70 percent of the time, when in fact they voted with the Republican leadership 100 percent of the time when they were needed.

The last time we had a scare of an airplane going over the Capitol and we had to evacuate, we were in the midst of a roll call vote. Every member exited, waited to receive word that it was safe and then returned to continue the vote. That roll call was still concluded in less time than the roll call on prescription drugs. But that’s only one example.

In our attempt to reform and provide oversight of the Government Sponsored Enterprises of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we had a proposal to take 5 percent of the after-tax profits and put it into affordable housing. The conservatives on the Financial Services Committee moved to strike that provision and they lost 53-17. They then got the Republican leadership not to strike it, but to impose outrageous restrictions so that radical groups like the Catholic Church could not participate in providing such housing and that groups that did provide it could not do any voter registration. They knew that would fail if it was voted on, so they put that into a manager’s amendment that had many other things in it that were appealing to people, including a preference for the hurricane victims. Even then the Republican leadership wouldn’t allow a vote on it.

All we were asking for was a vote. But they knew that if we had voted on that provision, they would have lost. Under the proposal we’ve made, I as a ranking member of the committee could have said, “I want a vote on this.”

And that’s why we have introduced this proposal to try to vindicate democracy, particularly the principle that constituents ought to know how their representatives are voting. Rep. Tom Allen (D-Maine), one of my co-sponsors, put it this way: “As with the adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely, the centralization of authority in the House of Representatives has come at a disastrous cost for democracy, decency and the public interest. The public has awoken to the folly of current leaders’ practice of passing bills only with a majority of the majority. The result is votes held open for hours to allow for vote buying; huge bills, with nefarious special interest riders attached, rushed to the floor after midnight so Members and the public can’t read them; budget rules routinely waived to permit deficit-adding tax cuts. It’s time to put the people’s voice back into the People’s House.”

The Republicans are bulimic when it comes to democracy in the House. It causes them serious digestive unrest and the reason is—this is not an abstraction—that they are pushing public policies that they understand to be unpopular. In some cases, that could be courageous if you are standing up for something that is right and just but not publicly popular. However, in general, it is wrong to have a set of procedures that musters majorities of the House of Representatives on unpopular issues by allowing the members to hide behind various rules and procedures so that their constituents don’t know what they are really doing.

The United States is now trying to instruct the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in democracy. We have helped to form legislative bodies. But if they get C-SPAN in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should have a line running across the bottom of the screen that warns, “Please do not try this at home.”

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Tags   
Share   StumbleUpon Facebook Digg del.icio.us Reddit Newsvine Propeller Furl
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    While I can think of a lot of congressional reforms I would like to see tis is a new one to add to my list.

    However, I find it hard to believe this tactic is either new or unique to Republicans. 

    Barney’s comment:

    “All we were asking for was a vote.”  Well, wasn’t it the Democrats Kerry and Kennedy who led an ineffectual filbuster to prevent the Alito vote?

    and…

    “The result is votes held open for hours to allow for vote buying; huge bills, with nefarious special interest riders attached…”

    This one has been on my list for decades.  What was the pork total I heard recently? $271 billion or so? 

    What if we divide that among the 300 million population…Hmmm? Wouldn’t that go a long way in covering the $27,000 per capital debt we’ve rung up?

    Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 6:37 PM

    Sorry — I had the decimal point in the wrong place in my memory.  It is only $271 billion.
    The following is from the WSJ website.

    “Defenders of pork-barrel projects contend they are a trivial expense in a $2.6 trillion budget. Sadly, that’s true, but it speaks volumes about the culture of overspending in Washington that $27,100,000,000 is dismissed as a rounding error.”

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007887
    ———————————& ————————
    The article asked what it would take to change this, so… here’s my suggestion:

    Simply compute what part of the total budget the pork expense is and deduct the same “trivial” percentage from the annual salary of those voting for it.

    Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 6:52 PM

    Sorry — I had the decimal point in the wrong place in my memory.  It is only $27.1 billion.

    Proofreaders out there?

    Posted by whattheheck on Feb 2, 2006 at 6:54 PM

    There’s no way $27.1B should ever have been considered trivial, even if the context is a $2.6T budget.

    Dat’s a lotta gumballs, y’all.

    While we’re at it, the $493.3B military budget just requested by the President is worthy of examination in this same light.

    Culture of overspending?

    Posted by Kuya on Feb 3, 2006 at 9:02 AM

    Dear Representative barney frank, and all other democrats who consider yourself rather liberal or progressives:

    While I can agree with you on your complaints about republicans, lets consider a few things, ok lets just try this.

    Representative barney frank what did you and any other progressives in the democratic party, basically a piece of the two party duopoly, do to open the the 2004 presidential debates. The presidential debates are a free time where candidates may show their beliefs to a large audience which they otherwise couldnt reach, free of cost. Yet you and the democrats worked with the republicans to keep Ralph Nader,  Green Party candidate David Cobb, and the Libertarian party candidate out of the presidential election debates. Why? Hmmm, I wonder why the two party duopoly would do such a thing? Could it be that if David Cobb was allowed in the debates he would raise issues regarding enviromentalism and feminism which the two parties are not comfortable with? Or could it be that if the Libertarian party candidate was allowed he would discuss his beliefs on ending the racist wasteful drug war, which both parties in the duopoly have supported for years? Or is it because if Ralph Nader was allowed in the debate john kerry would be shown as at best a moderate liberal and no where near a progressive being stomped by Nader on nearly every issue as far as progressives go?

    Or Representative barney frank what do you have to say about how your friends in the dnc kept Nader off of the ballot in many states by using republican law firms? you are speaking of democracy and your respect for democracy yet your party spends millions of dollars to keep third party candidates off the ballots.
    (P.S: If you havent already got this all democrats and republicans, their parties and their names are NOT capitalized on purpose, while ALL THIRD PARTIES ARE CAPITALIZED)

    When will your party stop stifling democracy by spinning out retarded mantras, such as anybody buy bush, when you bring a pro war, against a living wage, against the equal rights amendment, and at times pro patriot act and others anti patriot act (john kerry) candidate. You expect us to eat your shit and just vote for any asshole you idiots bring up. And oh yeah when you retards in the democratic party run hillary clinton, certainly not a progressive, us true liberals will be voting Green, and hopefully be voting Nader if he is still capable to run.

    to be continued..

    www.votenader.org
    www.gp.org
    www.lp.org (while I disagree with much of the Libertarian Party’s platform they are our allies in fighting against the two party duopoly and moreover they do have some good ideas)
    www.norml.org
    www.ssdp.org
    www.dpa.org

    Posted by NaderRaider on Feb 4, 2006 at 5:41 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 54 posts.