Passing Bills in Congress
It is no longer controversial that Congress in recent times as well as those preceding the current government in U.S political system has greatly become dysfunctional. A government begins to become dysfunctional when it is unable to deal with the plethora of problems facing it as well as lack of understanding of the nature of the depth of consequences that come along with deferring some of the essential services. The federal government, particularly the congress has become a cliché of political exploration across the political spectrum in the American political system. They fail to adhere to the traditional budget process according to the budget process laid down in the 1974 law. According to various analyses, it is evident that only 1% of the passed bills introduced in the current congress have become law. Basically, almost all of the political appointees are normally not qualified for the exact job they are pointed out to undertake.
America’s deficit of functional government has not begun with the current government but has grown to be a measurable concern on the current government. Most of the Americans are greatly dissatisfied with the U.S. system of government and of course, acknowledge the fact that the government is gridlocked. However, only a few presidential aspirants do give much focus on addressing government and its perceived dysfunctions in their campaigns yet they are the same people elected in congress. Consequently, this paper will be an in-depth analysis on the issues highlighting dysfunctionality of the federal and state government in the U.S. political system as well as the major obstacles faced to passing bills in Congress, the way they get through these obstacles, and the power the president holds to fulfill their campaign promises.
The constitution and the system of divided government are the primary roots of the dysfunctional performance of the U.S. government. The American constitution was formulated in a way that the concentration of powers is limited. Under this separation of power in the political system, the U.S. government, the legislative branch is set to make decisions the executive with the residual decision-making rights. Several consequences come along with the separation of power. Public policy decisions tend to be shaped more by self-interests of referential actors responsible in the decision-making process rather than by a larger collective interest. An example is when a state initiates policy change, the network system of the government insulates the policy sector from cut-backs obstructing the primary decision.
Major Obstacles to Passing Bills in Congress
A bill to be passed to a law in the U.S system of government is more of a tough process than anything. The structural and political system influences on whether a bill is to be passed. A bill must be passed by the majority of both houses in the congress thereafter the bill must still be approved by the president to become a law. According to the constitution, the bill undergoes a process of pocket veto to become a law. The bill is only introduced by members of the congress afterward, a committee of 17 senates, 23 house committees together with their subcommittees are set to review the bill. When the bill is approved by the full committee, the bill is then presented to both houses for consideration. When the bill is passed by the majority of the senate, the bill is then sent to the president. The bill is then signed into law if the president is in substantial agreement with the bill. However, if the president is not in agreement with the bill, and takes no action within 10 days, the bill still becomes law. Consequently, when a powerful legislator opposes the bill passed, killing of a bill by the legislators, tactics like killing a bill in another chamber after it has been passed, and conflict of interests between legislators are some of the obstacles faced by the congress during the process of passing of a bill.
The opposition of a bill by legislative chamber leaders is a significant obstacle to passing a bill. In most cases, powerful legislators such as governors of states do not fight for passage of the law and only live it to be vetoed by the state’s top executive. On the other hand, a bill faces opposition from the legislative chamber leaders yet they are the people responsible for controlling the legislative agenda of their respective chambers. An example is the house speaker or the president of the state whose major role is to decide on the committee to consider proposed bills at times as opposed to the passage of a law. Opposition from these powerful legislators, in many scenarios normally, result in unsuccessful attempts year after year to pass proposed bills by the congress.
Secondly, the killing of a proposed bill by the legislators especially during a short legislative session. This is a legislative tactic that the legislators use to put a bill at the bottom of a pile. Capturing the legislators’ attention and persuading them on prioritizing a bill is among the major obstacles faced by the congress.
The concept of legislators killing a bill that was already passed in one chamber in another obstacle faced by Congress. This mainly happens due to the differences in members of different chambers. Members of congress for example pass a bill in one chamber having the confidence that the bill would not become law then later killing it in another chamber. This tactic prevents the bill passage in the congress sessions.
The fourth obstacle is the conflict of interest between the legislators. During the passing of a bill, all the legislators in Congress have to come to a consensus for a bill to be passed. Conflict of interest among them is an obstacle arising to resulting in differences delaying the process of passing a bill.
There are several strategies that congress put in place to solve their obstacles. The first method involves improving the congressional representation forming of a conference committee. This is a strategy that has worked before for the congress team on passing a major bill. Another important strategy improving on law-making and legislative procedure and lastly to enforce ethical codes to improve the congress ethical behavior.
Powers of the President to Fulfil Campaign Promises
As much as the president has authoritative attitudes towards things, the American system only allows the president to fulfill a few of their promises. Some of the promises made by Presidential candidates during campaigns is more of a marketing process to make them outstanding against the other opponents. This is because some of these promises are ideological thus difficult to quantify while others are more direct and accountable. The most common campaign promises always revolve around employment opportunities and precise cuts for tax rates. The only ¾ of the presidential campaign promises are normally fulfilled. They use both the formal and informal powers to accomplish their promises.
Tax cut campaign promises are normally fulfilled by the majority of the presidents. This is possible since the president together with congress has power to over fiscal policy thus having the power to directly influence tax rates. As much as the process of lowering tax is not a walk in the park, presidents need to plan on the tax cut to fit the budget-neutral especially if budgeted outside the process of the annual budget resolution.
It is constitutionally right for the president to have powers on matters that involve the United States with foreign nations. The president is responsible for managing official contacts with the foreign government and the final decision is not subject to Senate confirmation. An example is when Donald Trump promised to move U.S Embassy in Israel during his company. This was successful when he managed to move the U.S Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Thirdly, a president has functions and powers on the judicial branch of the government. Most of the presidential candidates give campaign promise of reorganizing the judicial system of the country. During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to nominate supreme court justices. Having the power to, he managed to nominate Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to sit on the high court. Additionally, he also appointed young conservative judges on federal appellate courts just as he had promised during his campaigns.
Ideally, the electorate and the political parties contribute to the dysfunctionality of the government. Both the federal and state government has failed in all aspects The economy, fiscal management, the health care system is greatly failing. This because the elected political leaders view the government service as an opportunity for grabbing cash rather than serving them. The fault behind the dysfunctionality of the U.S. government greatly relies on its citizens as the voters. Continuously re-electing ideologies who won’t compromise, will mean continuity in divided federal and state governments who are unable to compromise for the common good of its citizens thus a dysfunctional government.