[js2]

Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise[1]. The United States has a population of 330M and is the largest and most advanced economy in the world. Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication.

Abdication is letting lobbyists and "model legislation" outfits author the laws which legislators have been known to almost literally just rubber stamp.

[1] Just to pick on one representative, because I'm familiar with him, this guy has no college degree past an AA, and his career experience is running a restaurant and real estate development. I would hope he'd delegate running the country to someone more experienced than himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meadows_(North_Carolina_p...

[jfengel]

As the guy who said "we are going to send Mr. Obama home to Kenya" I doubt Meadows has a very broad-minded approach to delegating responsibility to those with more experience and expertise.

I wouldn't automatically discount the value that a restauranteur or real estate developer could bring to office. At least it would bring a bit of diversity of opinion compared to the roomful of lawyers. Though in this case, we're experiencing the opposite problem: people who have absolutely no idea how legislation is done or how the government functions, and who cannot be convinced that they're not experts in every domain they touch.

It would be nice if people came to DC with the intent of listening, discussing, and coming to conclusions together. But the system is adversarial by design, and grows more adversarial with each passing year.

[Fjolsvith]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/

[ceejayoz]

> Congress is 535 people and is filled with relatively little expertise.

That's like calling the Executive Branch one person (currently filled by someone with extremely little expertise).

Congress includes bureaucratic organizations staffed by career experts like the Government Accountability Office. They used to have the Office of Technology Assessment until it was killed off by ideologues. They also enjoy ready access to experts from the various agencies.

> Of course Congress has to delegate to executive agencies. This is not abdication.

They've very clearly abdicated their responsibilities to the Executive in things like war powers and surveillance oversight. They are supposed to serve as a co-equal branch of government and as a check on Executive power.

[js2]

Fair enough and I don't disagree at all on your last point, but I was really addressing the delegation to executive agencies to write regulations as part of executing the laws passed by congress. I do not consider that abdication.

[jachee]

Abdication is a single man stonewalling all remotely-progressive legislation from even reaching a vote in the Senate.

[jki275]

Well, it's not one man, it's 53 men and women, and that's not abdication it's politics -- as practiced by both sides when in power.

[jachee]

Look into Mitch McConnell's record—or rather lack thereof—for allowing House-passed bills onto the Senate floor. He's one man undermining the spirit of our government for his own political agenda.

[jki275]

Look at Reid's.

Don't pretend that one party doesn't have a political agenda. That would be silly.

[jki275]

Another note - wasting senate time on a bill that cannot pass is not necessary and there’s no point in doing it - for either party - beyond a desire to grandstand. Everyone in congress has a political agenda.

[jachee]

I'd argue that each Senator's sole job is to debate and vote on legislation as a representative of their state—not their SuperPAC-backed party bloc.

Wasting their time is paying them to not do their job because a single person's will is preventing it from being possible.

The debate and voting is the entire point of the system. For both parties.

[jki275]

You can argue that all day long, but the fact of the matter is that there is limited time and a bill that has zero chance of passage is wasting everyone's time and not getting the actual business of congress done.

That's how both parties have done business for decades, it's not a new thing from McConnell. Most of GW's nominees were never brought to a hearing or vote by a Democratic senate. The senate can bring any bill or nominee to the floor if they have enough support -- the majority leader can't keep anything from a vote if it has enough support to pass.