by AgentR11 » Tue 24 May 2011, 18:33:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'I')'m not an expert on US politics, but didn't the size of Government increase massively under Bush II?
Ah gee. You're from Europe. Brief explanation of some odd math we have here because, well, our 3-branches system was put together before the PM / Parliamentary systems were understood.
The president is monolithic. Signature required on bills with 50%-66% of [members] approval. No signature is required on 67%+ supported by [members].
Speaker of the house (basically the same structural position as PM), has no executive authority, but does have some control over the course of legislative activity.
House of Representatives, for a penny to be spent, you must get 50%+1 votes in the House, no exceptions.
Senate... omg my keyboard died.
What this means, is that often, a President (king), can get his money to play with, by splitting the parties, (you sign for my stuff, I'll sign for yours); you saw this under Reagan when he wanted to rebuild the military but not use it; and under the Bushs' who, I think, wanted to be expansionist Monarchs but were born a few centuries too late.
It takes a really odd combo to turn this upside down; specifically, it takes a Democratic president, a Republican congress, and no serious external threat. You saw this in Clinton/Gingrich post '94; both sides ended up being sorta happy to gut each other's toybox.
Its really screwy, in a lot of ways; the absence of a confidence vote, makes it really hard to have a tough vote with real consequences on something. You saw this on the health care thing, Obama as PM could have said, "fine, ok, this is THE defining moment of my leadership; with me or against me, how say you all". Sink or swim. So while you might think of your parliament members as wandering (hurdable with difficulty) cats, ours are more akin to 535 solitary mountain lions who occasionally roar at each other, but otherwise make their livings by trying to do nothing that will get them in trouble.
Basically... the problem is presidents aren't very representative of their parties once in power (is Gitmo closed yet? no??); and the representatives don't, in general, want to get noticed as being in the forefront of anything that could smush them. Thus.. our mess.
nb. Our constitution basically makes it impossible to ever hope for a parliamentary system here; so we're stuck, and screwed, and bbq'ed too.