Congress Bashing For Beginners Analysis

Congress Bashing for Beginners Response In his analysis Nelson W. Polsby discusses how although there is congressional disagreement and conflict, there shouldn’t be talk of changing the constitution framework. Polsby starts out by giving background information and how this has been going on for a century. At first it was the liberals doing most of the bashing, however more recently the conservatives have been complaining. Polsby tells us that this conflict switches often but the losing party always seems to complain about congress status and how they are achieving their goals through a lack of separation of powers. Polsby points out that he dislikes the talk of constitutional reform to “cure political ailments”. This is what Polsby refers
A congress basher would see this as beneficial so they can get more opportunities to gain control in congress, but the reality is this only further weakens the powers of congress because with such short terms constantly up for reelection it is difficult, and almost impossible to achieve anything. Polsby notes the importance and the difficutly of the jobns members of congress have. He specifies with hey manage small group offices and attempt to please ther constituents. They serve on committees that oversee executive branch activity. They participate in general legislative work. They keep track of their own political business and they educate the people they come in contact with. These are just a few of the many duties of congress members, and there is reason things take so long in congress. Each member has to deal with all of the fore mentioned and more. One would be crazy to expect a member of congress to be successful in all of this in less than the current 6 year term. Polsby points out the reason so many members get reelected and it’s because they pay attention to the wants of their constituents. Bashers complain about the high reelection rates but the reason is clear, and this idea of a shortened term will only harm congress. Like Polsby, I think this attempt at congressional reform is a poor idea and can do nothing but harm the governmental system.
Polsby perfectly depicts how it would be a poor decision to lower the salaries by citing that a upper middle management of a car company makes 100,000 dollars a year which is 2,000 dollars more than congress. It seems ridiculous to say that that manager does more work than a member of congress and is more worthy of pay. One would point to the wealthy status of congressmen and that with their backgrounds they don’t need as much money. This isn’t the case with all representatives. Many are hard working Americans who he constituents voted for because they closely relate to and represent their views. If pay was lowered these kinds of people wouldn’t seek a congressional post because they’d be more concerned with finding a job that pays well to support their family. So lowering the pay will only drive away worthy candidates for congress positions. Polsby cites another example of the underpayment of congressional members showing that first year law firm employees out of law school make a similar amount of money to a congressman. The importance and difficulty of the first year employee is minuscule compared to a congressman. A congressman needs to please his constituents and many other tasks while a first year at a law firm may be in charge of getting coffee and doughnuts for a meeting. Being sensible Polsby realizes that talk of a pay increase will only cause