Question for Americans

Jaggy Bunnet · 11th August 2004, 06:48 AM

I was speaking to someone yesterday on US tax policy and he was explaining the potential implications of the forthcoming elections.

My understanding is:

The House and Senate need to pass identical legislation (for example there are existing tax bills passed by each of them but they have significant differences) and the President then needs to sign the bill to pass it into law.

So what happens if, as is not uncommon, the House/Senate/President are not all of the same party? Does no legislation get passed (he indicated this was possible, at least in relation to tax) or are trade-offs done to get something through?

If in November, Bush wins but loses control of the House, could there really be a four year period with no legislation being passed?

Cain · 11th August 2004, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If in November, Bush wins but loses control of the House, could there really be a four year period with no legislation being passed?

If we could only be so lucky.

crimresearch · 11th August 2004, 07:06 AM

The same factors you mention are also in play every year at the state level....2 chambers for legislation, and the Governor to sign the final bill.

It is quite common for different parties to be in 'control' of different parts of the process.

And while a great show is made of partisan differences, the legislators also have to worry about the people who vote in their district back home re-electing them. So bills do get passed , and members of different parties agree to support each other in return for support on their bills.
Lobbyists work hard to develop such bi-partisan alliances.

Presidents and Governors also have people that they have to please, and those people want bills signed into law no matter which party is in power.

So the prospect of NO legislation at all is very unlikely. At the end of each session, a small number will actually make it past all the obstaces.

If you can get some reference material on US public administration, read about the 'Iron Triangle'.

Larspeart · 11th August 2004, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cain
If we could only be so lucky.

Better words are seldom spoken.

The only way to make his statement better would be to include the phrase 'and all redundent legislatures are to be sent home without pay'.

I would shed a tear of joy were I to hear that.

BPSCG · 11th August 2004, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
The House and Senate need to pass identical legislation (for example there are existing tax bills passed by each of them but they have significant differences) and the President then needs to sign the bill to pass it into law.

That's generally correct. If he doesn't like it, he can veto the bill, but if two-thirds of BOTH houses vote to override his veto, it becomes law without his signature. I won't get into the "pocket veto" here.

Quote:

So what happens if, as is not uncommon, the House/Senate/President are not all of the same party? Does no legislation get passed (he indicated this was possible, at least in relation to tax) or are trade-offs done to get something through?

The latter. You even need tradeoffs when one party controls both houses, as, unlike in the UK, you aren't drummed out of the party if you don't vote the party line. Generally, large majorities of each party will vote one way or the other, but there are almost always enough senators/congressmen who disagree with their own party that you have to court the other side to some extent.

In addition, there are a number of parliamentary maneuvers that the minority party can engage in to block legislation and force compromise.

Quote:

If in November, Bush wins but loses control of the House, could there really be a four year period with no legislation being passed?

No. There would be gridlock on the most divisive issues, but the representatives would compromise on the ones where it appeared a compromise could get something workable.

There are those who would say that total gridlock might be a good thing. That's another argument entirely. Woodrow Wilson once said we have a great system: "The House kills all the bad bills, and the Senate kills the rest."

crimresearch · 11th August 2004, 07:16 AM

"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session".

G.Tucker

Jaggy Bunnet · 11th August 2004, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
That's generally correct. If he doesn't like it, he can veto the bill, but if two-thirds of BOTH houses vote to override his veto, it becomes law without his signature. I won't get into the "pocket veto" here.

Thanks for the replies. Coming from the UK system where the party not in power opposes everything the government does, it is hard to understand what could be non-divisive!

Presumably the above is a very rare occurence? When was the last time it happened? Would it effectively force the President out?

crimresearch · 11th August 2004, 07:49 AM

From WWII untill Clinton, the Democratic party held power in the legislature, so all the Republican Presidents had to deal with the scenario you mention.
Clinton was a Democratic President, whose second term required him to work without his party controlling the legislature.

Nobody gets forced out, and business as usual carries on.

Do you mean to say that in the UK, you do NOT have busloads of individuals carrying suitcases of money to the legislator's offices to influence their votes?

How odd...does anything ever get done over there?

BPSCG · 11th August 2004, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Thanks for the replies. Coming from the UK system where the party not in power opposes everything the government does, it is hard to understand what could be non-divisive!

Well, the minority party in this country routinely opposes most of what majority party proposes. We don't have an "opposition" party, because that implies one party has all the power, as in the UK. That's not so here. What you have is the functional equivalent of our combining both our legislative houses into one and making the head of the majority party the head of government. We divide our powers among the executive branch (headed by the president), the judicial branch (headed by the Supreme Court, which is headed by the Chief Justice of the United States), and the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate, headed by the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, respectively). The president is the single most powerful of all of these, but doesn't have nearly the power he would have if he were also the head of the legislative branch.

A president may have to work with a divided congress, and the independent Supreme Court, which leans conservative these days, may rule that laws the Congress passes are unconstitutional.

It's all your fault, y'know - if your Hanoverian monarchs hadn't messed things up, our ancestors wouldn't have had such a horror of single-source government and wouldn't have found it necessary to divide the powers up, and we'd still be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Quote:

Presumably the above is a very rare occurence? When was the last time it happened? Would it effectively force the President out?

Presidents veto legislation if they're really opposed to it AND they believe their veto will hold up (Gerald Ford was embarrassed when he had not one, but two vetoes overridden in a matter of a few days, as I recall - surprising, since he'd had a long career in Congress before becoming president - you'd think he'd have counted the votes better beforehand). Bush has been criticized for NOT exercising the veto pen enough. You don't see vetoes every day, but they do happen, and the republic carries on.

Jaggy Bunnet · 11th August 2004, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crimresearch
Do you mean to say that in the UK, you do NOT have busloads of individuals carrying suitcases of money to the legislator's offices to influence their votes?

How odd...does anything ever get done over there?

Of course we do, but they have a much simpler time as they only need the bus to make one stop (to meet the government) rather than running about chasing individuals MP's (Ed forbid that some of them ever have any real power - I wouldn't trust some them to tie their own shoelaces!)

patnray · 11th August 2004, 08:02 AM

It does not happen often. I can not recall the last time it did. It would require a larger majority in both houses than the nearly even split we usually retain. Also, when the legislature has sufficient votes to potentially over ride a presidential veto the president and his party work hard to include compromises in the bill so that the president can save face and sign it.

Since we don't require absolute loyalty to the party line, an over ride of a presidential veto does not force the president to resign. He is elected by the people and his term is not contingent on retaining the confidence of the legislature.

Personally, I prefer when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties. Keeps them from being too active...

11th August 2004, 06:48 AM	#1
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Question for Americans I was speaking to someone yesterday on US tax policy and he was explaining the potential implications of the forthcoming elections. My understanding is: The House and Senate need to pass identical legislation (for example there are existing tax bills passed by each of them but they have significant differences) and the President then needs to sign the bill to pass it into law. So what happens if, as is not uncommon, the House/Senate/President are not all of the same party? Does no legislation get passed (he indicated this was possible, at least in relation to tax) or are trade-offs done to get something through? If in November, Bush wins but loses control of the House, could there really be a four year period with no legislation being passed?

11th August 2004, 07:02 AM	#2
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,935	Re: Question for Americans Quote: Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet If in November, Bush wins but loses control of the House, could there really be a four year period with no legislation being passed? If we could only be so lucky.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

11th August 2004, 07:06 AM	#3
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	The same factors you mention are also in play every year at the state level....2 chambers for legislation, and the Governor to sign the final bill. It is quite common for different parties to be in 'control' of different parts of the process. And while a great show is made of partisan differences, the legislators also have to worry about the people who vote in their district back home re-electing them. So bills do get passed , and members of different parties agree to support each other in return for support on their bills. Lobbyists work hard to develop such bi-partisan alliances. Presidents and Governors also have people that they have to please, and those people want bills signed into law no matter which party is in power. So the prospect of NO legislation at all is very unlikely. At the end of each session, a small number will actually make it past all the obstaces. If you can get some reference material on US public administration, read about the 'Iron Triangle'.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

11th August 2004, 07:07 AM	#4
Larspeart Muse Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 581	Re: Re: Question for Americans Quote: Originally posted by Cain If we could only be so lucky. Better words are seldom spoken. The only way to make his statement better would be to include the phrase 'and all redundent legislatures are to be sent home without pay'. I would shed a tear of joy were I to hear that.
Larspeart Muse Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 581	__________________ "Anyone who is willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither security nor liberty."- Benjamin Franklin

11th August 2004, 07:11 AM	#5
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Re: Question for Americans Quote: Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet The House and Senate need to pass identical legislation (for example there are existing tax bills passed by each of them but they have significant differences) and the President then needs to sign the bill to pass it into law. That's generally correct. If he doesn't like it, he can veto the bill, but if two-thirds of BOTH houses vote to override his veto, it becomes law without his signature. I won't get into the "pocket veto" here. Quote: So what happens if, as is not uncommon, the House/Senate/President are not all of the same party? Does no legislation get passed (he indicated this was possible, at least in relation to tax) or are trade-offs done to get something through? The latter. You even need tradeoffs when one party controls both houses, as, unlike in the UK, you aren't drummed out of the party if you don't vote the party line. Generally, large majorities of each party will vote one way or the other, but there are almost always enough senators/congressmen who disagree with their own party that you have to court the other side to some extent. In addition, there are a number of parliamentary maneuvers that the minority party can engage in to block legislation and force compromise. Quote: If in November, Bush wins but loses control of the House, could there really be a four year period with no legislation being passed? No. There would be gridlock on the most divisive issues, but the representatives would compromise on the ones where it appeared a compromise could get something workable. There are those who would say that total gridlock might be a good thing. That's another argument entirely. Woodrow Wilson once said we have a great system: "The House kills all the bad bills, and the Senate kills the rest."
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

11th August 2004, 07:16 AM	#6
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	"No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session". G.Tucker
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

11th August 2004, 07:35 AM	#7
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Re: Re: Question for Americans Quote: Originally posted by BPSCG That's generally correct. If he doesn't like it, he can veto the bill, but if two-thirds of BOTH houses vote to override his veto, it becomes law without his signature. I won't get into the "pocket veto" here. Thanks for the replies. Coming from the UK system where the party not in power opposes everything the government does, it is hard to understand what could be non-divisive! Presumably the above is a very rare occurence? When was the last time it happened? Would it effectively force the President out?

11th August 2004, 07:49 AM	#8
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	From WWII untill Clinton, the Democratic party held power in the legislature, so all the Republican Presidents had to deal with the scenario you mention. Clinton was a Democratic President, whose second term required him to work without his party controlling the legislature. Nobody gets forced out, and business as usual carries on. Do you mean to say that in the UK, you do NOT have busloads of individuals carrying suitcases of money to the legislator's offices to influence their votes? How odd...does anything ever get done over there?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

11th August 2004, 07:51 AM	#9
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Re: Re: Re: Question for Americans Quote: Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet Thanks for the replies. Coming from the UK system where the party not in power opposes everything the government does, it is hard to understand what could be non-divisive! Well, the minority party in this country routinely opposes most of what majority party proposes. We don't have an "opposition" party, because that implies one party has all the power, as in the UK. That's not so here. What you have is the functional equivalent of our combining both our legislative houses into one and making the head of the majority party the head of government. We divide our powers among the executive branch (headed by the president), the judicial branch (headed by the Supreme Court, which is headed by the Chief Justice of the United States), and the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate, headed by the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, respectively). The president is the single most powerful of all of these, but doesn't have nearly the power he would have if he were also the head of the legislative branch. A president may have to work with a divided congress, and the independent Supreme Court, which leans conservative these days, may rule that laws the Congress passes are unconstitutional. It's all your fault, y'know - if your Hanoverian monarchs hadn't messed things up, our ancestors wouldn't have had such a horror of single-source government and wouldn't have found it necessary to divide the powers up, and we'd still be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Quote: Presumably the above is a very rare occurence? When was the last time it happened? Would it effectively force the President out? Presidents veto legislation if they're really opposed to it AND they believe their veto will hold up (Gerald Ford was embarrassed when he had not one, but two vetoes overridden in a matter of a few days, as I recall - surprising, since he'd had a long career in Congress before becoming president - you'd think he'd have counted the votes better beforehand). Bush has been criticized for NOT exercising the veto pen enough. You don't see vetoes every day, but they do happen, and the republic carries on.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

11th August 2004, 07:55 AM	#10
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Quote: Originally posted by crimresearch Do you mean to say that in the UK, you do NOT have busloads of individuals carrying suitcases of money to the legislator's offices to influence their votes? How odd...does anything ever get done over there? Of course we do, but they have a much simpler time as they only need the bus to make one stop (to meet the government) rather than running about chasing individuals MP's (Ed forbid that some of them ever have any real power - I wouldn't trust some them to tie their own shoelaces!)

11th August 2004, 08:02 AM	#11
patnray Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,008	It does not happen often. I can not recall the last time it did. It would require a larger majority in both houses than the nearly even split we usually retain. Also, when the legislature has sufficient votes to potentially over ride a presidential veto the president and his party work hard to include compromises in the bill so that the president can save face and sign it. Since we don't require absolute loyalty to the party line, an over ride of a presidential veto does not force the president to resign. He is elected by the people and his term is not contingent on retaining the confidence of the legislature. Personally, I prefer when the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties. Keeps them from being too active...