I think yes. The Act gave Congress more power to control the federal budget, which is a credible thing to do, but at the same time has caused less decisiveness in a critical function of government. The balance of power the House holds is a crucial function of American democracy, but it is inheritably messy in coming to decisions. It was setup with this intention, but I think the further power the House holds over the budget since the 1974 Act is a dangerous addition. The problem is that instead of the Executive branch guiding the federal budget, you have three different budgets being proposed, moved strongly by a partisan force. Whichever partys hold Congress and Senate are not going to be interested in compromise and flexibility allowed by only one proposal. The result is unrealistic budget proposals that are more statements than real seriousness. The 1974 Act has created an atmosphere of "too many cooks in the kitchen." The resulting proposals by each party are often mirror opposites from each other and make decisive deadlines impossible to meet. Instead of the Executive branch submitting a single proposal, and having Congress and Senate critique it, each party-controlled institution ignores each other and creates deadlock. The President now does little more than propose a "wish-list" to the House and plead for some kind of bi-partisan agreements. I think the House should have a major role in the budget that is passed, but the creation of their own budget committees the Act allowed creates an unrealistic situation. Only one proposal should be made each year to be critiqued, whatever changes made, then passed in a timely manner. Thoughts?
The politicians are servants of the corporations. You want to fix such and such law for such and such people who are not even beholden to you. All you do is choose whether or not to give these people your personal rubber stamp of approval. You choose between D and R. Whether you approve of 1974 Budget Act does not matter. Your choices are D and R.
The house usually appoints a committee to draft the budgets. These committees serve the function of the executive. The problem is that the appointed budget committee members are in sharp disagreement and have not compromised. From one perspective, it is the Democrats who are holding up the budget. They could just pass a basic budget first, and then argue about passing all the extras later, but instead the Democrats have been holding the entire budget hostage unless the Republicans submit to concessions.
My question/statement isn't really whether Democrats or Republicans produce better budget proposals, rather if the current system is unrealistic in its construction of giving so much power to the House. The House already has "the power of the purse," do they really need to make their own budget proposals or just grant/reject the Executive's branches proposals.
Yes. The house has zero power because they are all beholden to foreign powers. The corporations have the money, the house does not. Ergo, the corporations win, and the house looses. However, the house wanted to lose. They make more money that way.
I realize the House appoints a committee. But the problem is both the Senate and Congress have a committee, and they are biased to whichever party holds the majority at that time. When all three institutions produce budget proposals, its gridlock. The Executive has lost its power to guide a firm budget (in either direction) and instead is forced to play mediator between the two parties. I don't really understand your second comment. What would a "basic budget" look like? Both parties are holding the budget hostage...
The parties are bought out. The government is also bought out. That's they way they like it. Gridlock is profitable. Money.
Burz, your on a different mindset with your vendetta against corporate corruption in Congress. I don't doubt that this is a real thing. But are you suggesting that corporate interests brought about the 1974 Budget Act?
I have no vendetta I enjoy it. I will have to read the act to tell you if I think it is related. But 1974 is 40 years ago and may not be entirely relevant to today. You say the act gives more power to the House and takes power away from the executive. Generally I would consider this a decentralization which would give more power to interests outside the government, and ergo, people with money are the interests with power.
If you look at the budget website, politicians talk a lot about "bipartisan". http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/ That just means corporate. If you don't represent your own interests you represent someone else's, and it's not "families".
Executive power is the realm of kings. Who rules if kings do not have sovereign power? The merchants do, who today are dominated and outdone by corporations. Parliaments are just business-interest departments. Governments are bureaucracies, and bureaucracies are weak powers, divided, dismembered, dominated. "Balance of powers" means ruled by someone else, and it's not the person with no money and little power.
The issues you raise are real ones, and have been core to most political issues since the founding of the United States. Some of what you bring up can be related with Tocqueville's Democracy in America. True democracy doesn't work because you may face the "majority tyranny," but representative republics can be flawed as well. This is especially true when the "elites" of society have become immensely rich and powerful. But government by Kings also has its pitfalls. I think a lot can be changed about the political sphere of America, not the least the Media, but to say that Congress, and the whole government is plagued by corruption might be more of a conspiracy short-sightedness. I think the problem might lye more in our constant commitment to "free markets."
The government is corrupt because it is filled with corrupt people. They got there because you have no executive power that cared to remove them next to JFK.
