The growing need for more bipartisanship in Congress

It is not an understatement to say that based on results in Congress over the last few years, there is a minimal desire to work together across party lines in order to solve all types of problems facing this country. While the October shutdown was not the first, it has been nearly 20 years since there was one. There are members of Congress who have boastfully put their principles or selfish desires over the betterment of the country. Over time, it is not unheard of for politicians from opposing parties to not always get along. Going back to the federalist and anti-federalists through Democrats and Republicans, there is always more than one way to look at a current issue. However, as was seen in previous times; times not that long ago, it is possible to stand by your principles while also opening yourself up to conversations and ideas from the other side of the aisle.

A perfect case of that perspective was displayed recently by Trent Lott, a Republican from Mississippi who was Senate Majority Leader from 1996 to 2001, and Tom Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota who was Senate Majority Leader from 2001 to 2003. The two, like when they were in Congress, came together to provide the following analysis of Congress today and what needs to be done:

The Senate majority’s decision to exercise the “nuclear option” on presidential nominations is the clearest evidence yet of how much the Senate has changed in the years since we left office. The two of us worked in Congress for, collectively, more than a half-century as Hill staff, members of the U.S. House and Senate, and Senate majority leaders. We believe in representative democracy as strongly today as we did on the first day we arrived in Washington.

Looking back, we know that many things could have been done better. Partisan battles prevented good people from being confirmed for public office or good legislation from being enacted. But in the 1990s, under Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses, we ended the decade with balanced federal budgets and more than 22 million new jobs . Telecommunications reform, welfare reform, safe drinking water, portability of insurance, tax cuts, education reform and hundreds of other bills were enacted despite sometimes bitter political disputes, evenly divided party caucuses and a constitutional crisis involving the impeachment of a president.

In recent years, Washington has become deeply polarized and far less civil. Dysfunction has become the status quo. So, what changed?

First, there used to be a shared determination to get things done. When we were in Congress, we had active lines of communication and, for the most part, members were friends. Members spent more time in Washington with their families. There were many occasions to socialize across party lines.

In many ways, the polarization rampant in Washington today reflects the fact that, on matters involving government’s role in society, the American people are deeply divided.

A core challenge for every member of Congress is knowing when to stand one’s ground and when to find common ground. Politicians generally get elected because of their ideological beliefs and the effectiveness with which they articulate positions. Understandably, legislators want to defend their positions during debates. In recent years, however, many lawmakers have taken that tendency to new heights, even pledging that they will never compromise.

The problem with standing one’s ground exclusively is that it assumes that a majority in the House, a super-majority in the Senate and the president of the United States all share that same fervent position. Without compromise, there is no common ground. With no common ground, efforts to address national problems cannot succeed.

This dysfunction is compounded by the fact that members of Congress spend less and less time in Washington. With fewer legislative days, there are fewer opportunities for dialogue and negotiation. It is not uncommon for legislators to leave Washington on Thursdays, return on Tuesdays and attempt to govern on Wednesdays. The Senate calendar expects three weeks of work in Washington and then one week for state work. The House calendar calls for two weeks here and two weeks of district work. Less time in town means fewer opportunities to get to know one another. Less familiarity leads to less trust, which leads to less cooperation, which often leads to less consensus and, ultimately, fewer accomplishments.

Then there is the “permanent campaign.” When we entered Congress, election campaigns lasted a few months. Most of the time when the election ended, the winners came to Washington and attention turned to legislating until the next election cycle started 18 to 20 months later.

Today, there is no end to campaigns. Senators elected to a six-year term start the fundraising process virtually the day after the election. The travel, events and phone calls required for any member in a competitive primary or general election has reached unprecedented levels. The more time spent on fundraising, the less time spent on legislating.

Another effect of the permanent campaign is the practice of members of Congress campaigning against their colleagues. We would have never campaigned against each other. This trend has fractured relationships, undermined trust and diminished chances for a more conducive environment for legislating.

So what should be done?

There is no simple panacea for reform of redistricting issues, campaign finance, voter participation and political advertising. These and structural-reform proposals on the budget, legislative committees and rules ought to be viewed as longer-term matters. But some things could be done to improve the political climate.

First, Congress should return to a five-day workweek and commit to “regular order.” Leadership should schedule votes on Fridays and Mondays to accommodate a more ambitious legislative agenda. Conference committees should be reestablished with a commitment to complete the budget and appropriations process on time. If necessary, recesses should be canceled to accommodate this.

Second, joint caucuses should be scheduled at least once a month. The primary focus could be an off-the-record discussion of pending issues with an expectation that members would agree to move at least one matter of legislation for which common agreement could be found at each meeting.

Third, end the Senate practice of “holds.” Members of both parties have abused this practice, which is now tantamount to a veto. Unanimity on a nominee or procedural motion is too high a bar in a democratic legislative process. It invites far too much delay and dysfunction. Given recent events in the Senate, holds on nominees may be less frequent in the near future. But it is more imperative than ever that all senators show respect for Senate rules and procedure.

Fourth, initiate weekly meetings at the White House and quarterly weekend meetings at Camp David. Regular engagement between the president and leaders of Congress is necessary. Camp David offers the opportunity to work and socialize. There is far too little bipartisan socialization among political leaders today.
None of these recommendations is a game-changer. Ultimately, the American people must demand greater statesmanship and legislative achievement. But our political leaders in Washington can do a lot to set the example and improve the tone.

Putting country before party

As the clock hits roughly a year before the 2014 midterm elections next November, the following piece by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-17) and Congressman Chris Gibson (R-19) is something you should keep in mind when selecting your representatives. Bustos and Gibson are two of the 80 plus members of Congress that make up the No Labels' problem solvers, a group committed to working with members of the other party in order to better the country and not a party's agenda. While I feel a few members do not always come across as problem solvers, Bustos and Gibson have shown through their actions to be open-minded and wanting to actually address issues that their constituents and the country on a whole care about by showing a willingness to compromise in order to create progress.

Here is the article by Bustos and Gibson featured in the Daily Review Atlas:

Far too often, people these days focus on our differences instead of what brings us together. And more than ever, America has felt like a nation divided, not states united. But some of us are working hard to change that because we know we can do better than this.

Although one of us is a Democrat from Illinois and one a Republican from New York, we both strongly believe that loyalty to our country should come before that to our party. Our hardworking constituents elected us not to point fingers, but to lead. Not to cause problems, but to find common sense solutions to the big issues of the day.

That is why both of us joined the bipartisan group called ‘No Labels’ and have been named Congressional Problem Solvers. We represent a diverse range of viewpoints and beliefs, but are united in our desire to put partisanship aside and find ways to work together.

The recent government shutdown was a product of ongoing political games that both parties have played, where there was too much focus on political winners and losers and not enough on what’s best for our constituents. This has created persistent gridlock in Congress and governing from crisis to crisis. As a former newspaper reporter and Army officer, we were as frustrated by this as the people we represent.

So, while talking heads on cable news fueled this partisan standoff, we met daily with our No Labels colleagues. We sometimes had heated discussions, but every morning over coffee we worked to find middle ground and do our part to resolve the crisis. We knew that although we wouldn’t agree on every proposal put forth, we had to keep a dialogue going or we’d face something worse than a shutdown- economic disaster.

Perhaps most importantly, throughout those breakfast meetings, we built an increased level of trust and a respect for our shared commitment to working together that will serve us well in future debates in Congress. Extreme voices on both sides often get the most attention, but we No Labels Problem Solvers are living proof that reasonable lawmakers still exist, and are dedicated to breaking through the partisan gridlock for the good of our nation.

We both represent parts of the country where hardworking people have a simple expectation- that their elected officials get things done. That they put politics aside and do what it takes to make government work for the people- like it’s supposed to.

We’re committed to continuing to do our part to change the culture in Washington and hope that more of our colleagues join us in No Labels. Civility is an easy concept. People don’t expect us to agree on every issue, but they expect good governance and leaders that put the needs of our nation first.

College Football Week 11 Power Rankings

As the calendar turned to November, Week 10 provided some relatively calmness in the lead up to this week when there will be guaranteed movement. The only real major change was Miami (FL) joining a long list of teams thus far getting run over by Florida State. They still remain at #3 with both Alabama and Oregon running to action in big games this week that could lead one or both of them losing. Ohio State had their second straight dominant win while Baylor creeps in the top 5 before their biggest game of the year against Oklahoma. The only team to fall from the top 25 was Michigan who was dissected by Michigan State, who continues to look very good. Arizona State moves into the top 25 to replace Michigan.

With Week 11 ahead, here are this week's power rankings:
1)(1) Alabama (vs LSU): They have been challenged the most under Nick Saban by LSU and should be prepared for another gritty clash.
2)(2) Oregon (at Stanford): This week and Stanford is likely the biggest obstacle in their way of getting to a national title game.
3)(3) Florida State (at Wake Forest): It is hard to see them not scoring at least about 50 points this week.
4)(4) Ohio State (BYE): They are starting to play like a team that knows it needs to win in dominant fashion.
5)(6) Baylor (vs Oklahoma): They have been a scoring juggernaut this year and if they can continue that this week it will better their argument as a top tier team.
6)(7) Stanford (vs Oregon): They play a style of football that poses challenges for Oregon and are just as good as them.
7)(8) Clemson (BYE): They get a week off to keep themselves focused and on track down the stretch.
8)(9) Auburn (at Tennessee): They now are beginning to position themselves for a SEC West crown if they can keep their winning ways going.
9)(10) LSU (at Alabama): This week's game is a must win for them if they want to stay alive in the SEC West.
10)(11) Texas A&M (vs Mississippi State): They continue to largely do as QB Johnny Manziel goes and he will continues to amaze each week.
11)(12) Missouri (at Kentucky): They continue to look very good and rebounded nicely and should have little trouble this week.
12)(5) Miami (FL) (vs Virginia Tech): They must get refocused to avoid a second straight conference loss against another foe who has challenged over the years.
13)(13) Fresno State (at Wyoming): They have been largely driven by a budding quarterback star and should stay undefeated for at least one more week.
14)(14) Oklahoma (at Baylor): They are looking to bring Baylor back to reality similarly to what they did to Texas Tech but it won't be as easy.
15)(15) South Carolina (BYE): They get a week off to nurse some wounds and keep themselves on track for a potential SEC East title.
16)(20) Oklahoma State (vs Kansas): They have been slowly getting themselves back into a nice groove and showing signs of their dangerous offense.
17)(17) UCLA (at Arizona): They will need to utilize their offensive versatility this week to continue to keep themselves in control of the Pac-12 South.
18)(25) Michigan State (BYE): They get a week off and that should help as they look to have a strong November finish.
19)(18) UCF (vs Houston): They get a Houston team this week and that will force them to push their point totals upward and their balanced offensive attack could get in a shootout.
20)(19) Louisville (at UConn): They can only take care of business at this point and hope UCF trips up.
21)(21) Northern Illinois (BYE): They get a bye and are likely to keep at least one eye on Fresno State down the stretch as only one will likely get an at-large BCS bid if they win out.
22)(22) Wisconsin (vs BYU): They look to continue their dominance in what could be a hard hitting affair at home this week.
23)(16) Texas Tech (vs Kansas State): They have had a couple stumbles after their nice start and must be leery of an emerging Kansas State team next as they try to get back in the winning column.
24)(24) Notre Dame (at Pittsburgh): They have played a lot of close ones this year and this rivalry game should be a tough one as well.
25)(NR) Arizona State (at Utah): They have bounced on and off the top 25 and now they are poised to start to move up starting this week if they step up.

NEXT 5
1) BYU (at Wisconsin): If they can get a win this week, it will get them into the top 25 and add a growing spotlight on them.
2) Texas (at West Virginia): They continue to win and should be poised to keep that trend going.
3) Georgia (vs Appalachian St): They catch a lesser caliber team but with injuries impacting their offense it won't be as easy as it should be.
4) Mississippi (vs Arkansas): They should be able to secure another win and a step in the right direction as they continue to build up their program.
5) Houston (at UCF): They have emerged as a very good offense squad who could shake up the AAC this week.

This week two Thursday night clashes begin what should be another big week as the top 25 is begins to take on a divided look with the top title contenders and everyone else. A couple teams have a loss or two and know they must win out to be in the same sentence as the top 3.