Parade Magazine - Mark McKinnon on fixing government

This was in last Sunday's Parade magazine. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments are interspersed in bold. 

----------------------

FIXING GOVERNMENT

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon

(A more accurate moniker would be "former." Mr. McKinnon is a liberal Republican (or RINO) who resigned from his adviser position with the McCain campaign, saying, "I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama." He subsequently founded "No Labels," a group dedicated to compromise and bipartisanship. 

He is finally identified correctly at the bottom of the article, but one would think that his current association should appear at the top. Indeed, I believe this representation is a strategic move in order to suggest that Parade is being fair by selecting a "Republican" to be published.) 

There are no easy solutions to issues Like the fiscal cliff, immigration, and energy, but a number of reforms could be enacted to help Washington work better. (We first must take note of the premise he offers. It appears that he intends to show us how to solve the financial crisis, fix immigration and energy, and reform government. Let's see what he offers:)

• Pass "No Budget, No Pay" legislation that would dock legislators every day they fail to pass a budget on time. (this would do nothing more than ensure the passage of a budget, even a bad one. This really solves no problem at all, because the potentially egregious contents of said budgets would remain)
• Require an up or dawn vote on presidential appointments within 90 days or the nominee is confirmed by default. (This would be nice, I suppose. But the circus surrounding the appointment process is invariably as a result of democratic partisanship. Republicans tend to heavily support democratic nominations, even extreme ones like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, without so much as a peep. But again, what enumerated problem is being solved?)
• End the use of filibusters to prevent a bill from reaching the Senate floor for debate. (Once again, I suppose this would be nice, but yet again no specific problem is solved.)
• Allow members the ability, if they have a majority, to anonymously override a leader or committee chair's refusal to bring a bill to the floor. The names would be made public after the bill passes. (The anonymous portion of this is puzzling. Why make it anonymous, and why does the anonymity end after the bill passes, and why not after it fails? What does this solve? Are there repercussions to overriding a bill that deters congressmen from overriding? If so, the problem is the committee chair. But again, what problem does this solve? So far, Mr. Mckinnon has recommended only process changes, but no changes that will actually address the original criteria he described) 
• Make members come to work five days a week in session. Sync House and Senate schedules, with three weeks in D.C., one week at home. (Sigh. here we have yet another window dressing recommendation that solves no problem. Yeah, we would like to see our representatives more, and maybe if they're home more they won't be passing as much legislation.)
• Introduce a "Question Time " for the president; on a rotating basis, the House and Senate would host televised sessions. And schedule monthly news conferences for the president. (This might be fun to watch on C-Span, but really, do we want the president to talk more? What aspect of Mr. McKinnon's list of problems to solve gets solved by this?)
• Have the comptroller general present an annual televised fiscal report to a joint session of Congress. (More pretty spectacles, which the public will generally ignore. Please, Mr. McKinnon, offer a solution to an actual problem!)
• Allow no pledges but the Oath of Office. (The Constitution already covers this: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 I suspect, though, that Mr. McKinnon is taking issue with certain pledges like the "no new taxes" pledge. Here we have yet another recommendation from the author that solves no problem.)
• Introduce monthly bipartisan gatherings, bipartisan seating, and a bipartisan leadership committee. (To what end? So that there are more opportunities to argue, more ways to cleverly pry money out of the taxpayers' pocket, more chances for showmanship and rhetorical oneupmanship? Who wants this?)
• Expand presidential power to reorganize or eliminate redundant parts of the federal government. (This might actually accomplish something. Of course, it depends on the party of the occupant of the office on what would constitute "redundant parts." And also, expanding presidential power is fraught with pitfalls. Such a thing also requires a constitutional amendment. And lastly, the power to appropriate and spend money lies with the House. If they are failing in their constitutionally granted powers, what makes Mr. McKinnon think that the president will be able to perform any better? Indeed, what is the author specifically proposing? Override power? Line item veto? Removing spending authority from the House? As a practical matter, it seems to me that this would be a difficult change to make, with an effectiveness that remains to be quantified) 

McKinnon is a cofounder of No Labels, a movement dedicated to ending partisan gridlock.

(Well, we must conclude that nothing Mr. McKinnon offers has anything to do with solving the problems he identified. Maybe the process would be prettier as a result, but putting a bow on an ogre doesn't change the ogre. This is a spectacular failure to even address the many problems of government. But this is the way groups like "No Labels" represent the issues. Moderates think that the problem is simply the inability to get along, when the real problem is that those who are sent to serve by the electorate end up serving the system instead of the voters, and feed the cash-hungry machine which devours resources at an alarming rate with little or nothing to show for it. We have systemic problems that result from ignoring the governmental limits contained in the Constitution. This requires wholesale changes, changes I'm sure Mr. McKinnon would be unwilling to propose.)