So we hit the debt limit...

[crazy canuck]

Our system can have responsible budgeting--see the Clinton era--and parliamentary systems can have irresponsible budgeting--see all sorts of examples.

Its not really a question of which system is better, despite Grumber going into full blown patriatic mode, but how can a system work better to avoid these kinds of situations.  Maybe the answer is your system can't be structured to work better.  Maybe this sort of thing is unavoidable in some circumstances. 

[alfred russel]

Our system can have responsible budgeting--see the Clinton era--and parliamentary systems can have irresponsible budgeting--see all sorts of examples.

Its not really a question of which system is better, despite Grumber going into full blown patriatic mode, but how can a system work better to avoid these kinds of situations.  Maybe the answer is your system can't be structured to work better.  Maybe this sort of thing is unavoidable in some circumstances.

I think parts could work better--for example putting bills on the internet for public vetting before they are finalized would be a good start. But I think fundamentally in a system that requires comprimise, if one side decides to hold the country hostage there isn't much that can be done other than hope they are bluffing or give in.

[crazy canuck]

Other than this odd circumstance of a debt ceiling needing to be raised what are the consequences under your system if agreement cannot be obtained - under a Parliamentary model the people get to decide in another election.  Is there a mechanism that allows your government to continue to function or does the government simply go unfunded until some agreement can be reached?

[alfred russel]

Other than this odd circumstance of a debt ceiling needing to be raised what are the consequences under your system if agreement cannot be obtained - under a Parliamentary model the people get to decide in another election.  Is there a mechanism that allows your government to continue to function or does the government simply go unfunded until some agreement can be reached?

The normal procedure is for disputes like this to be resolved through the budget process. And sometimes that leads to government shutdowns when there is an impasse (due to an absence of funding), but not default.

[MadImmortalMan]

I like the roadblocks getting in the way and the need for compromise. That's a feature, not a bug. What I don't like are the assumptions upon which the budgets are generally built, the method by which they arrive at the numbers they use and the type of accounting used, which would be illegal if it were not the government doing it.

[grumbler]

Its not really a question of which system is better, despite Grumber going into full blown patriatic mode, but how can a system work better to avoid these kinds of situations.  Maybe the answer is your system can't be structured to work better.  Maybe this sort of thing is unavoidable in some circumstances.

You don't do reading comprehension, do you?    I am not "patriotic" so much as I am logical; when someone whines about "will you ever improve X?" but cannot actually even state what the problem with X is, then I note that their whining seems unjustified.

The US political system is built around checks and balances, meaning that it requires a degree of cooperation between the branches and the chambers of the legislature.  Sometimes you have partisan interests that make such cooperation difficult.  That is a flaw in the system, but a flaw that cannot be overcome without losing most of the virtues of the system.

Adding more subcommittees isn't the answer.

[grumbler]

I like the roadblocks getting in the way and the need for compromise. That's a feature, not a bug. What I don't like are the assumptions upon which the budgets are generally built, the method by which they arrive at the numbers they use and the type of accounting used, which would be illegal if it were not the government doing it.

Are you talking about actual budgeting (i.e. CBO conclusions) or the political rhetoric that accompanies  political stalking horses like Ryan's "proposed budget?" If the former, I am interested in more specifics.  If the latter, I will simply agree and move on.

[crazy canuck]

I am not "patriotic"

Ok, I was going for the more kind explanation for this kind of statement, "they are conditioned to think of the government of the majority as all-powerful".  If it was not made out of an a momentary outburst of irrational patriotism then we are left with a more of a passive aggresive (sometimes not so passive) nature based on a basic misunderstanding of other forms of government and how people within other countries view their government and how it functions.

[MadImmortalMan]

Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.

[Agelastus]

Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.

[crazy canuck]

Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.

If it is done in conjunction with spending cuts and tax increases that can create the necessary room what is wrong with that approach?

[Razgovory]

Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia wants to lower the debt ceiling.

Great, now they are trying to out stupid each other.

[Drakken]

But isnt that a weakness then in your budgetary process - that it requires reasonable people on all sides?  In our system the opposition can flail away as much as they want for dramatic effect and hope they can make hay at election time.  But they cant hold the country to ransom.

Oh yes they can - and do - in minority governments. That's why the NDP had to be bought in each budget.

But here if neither side compromise, we either go to election or, in theory, we switch governments. In the US they are stuck with the Congress and the Executive they've elected, willy-nilly.

[crazy canuck]

Oh yes they can - and do - in minority governments. That's why the NDP had to be bought in each budget.

But here if neither side compromise, we either go to election or we switch government. In the US they are stuck with the Congress and the Executive they've elected, willy-nilly.

But the government doesnt have to face the choice of make an agreement with the devil or go bankrupt.  If the demands made by the opposition are reasonable then a deal can be made if not then the opposition can explain to the electorate why they were being so unreasonable.

[The Minsky Moment]

Maybe some do, but CC seems to understand 'em just fine: in fact, you both agree - your system, while it may be admirable overall, does not work so very well in the area of budgeting,

Well no - actually my view is closer to the opposite.
That is, I am not sure that the system is "admirable overall".  The system works great as long as those responsible understand it and act accordingly.  But if they don't, the system doesn't work very well, and because you can't guarantee that you will get the right sort of people in government, that is a pretty significant systemic weakness.  Hence the arguments one sees from time-to-time that a Westminster-style parliamentary system would be better.  An argument that IMO has some merits although ultimately I think it amounts to exchanging one set of institutional advantages and disadvantages for another.

But I don't agree with the basic premise that the system, while OK, doensn't work well for budgeting.  When the system works it works as well for budgeting as for everything else.  Most of the time, the budgets get passes without a huge crisis.  And on the flip side, when the system get tangled up by ideological posturing, it effects a much broader range of endeavors then the budget (example - the rather disappointing legislative response to the failures that led to the credit crisis).  The reason why the budget seems to stand out is just because the budget happens to be very important, relatively and absolutely.