Trump ran parallel presidency as Biden faded

 

Gordon L. Weil

A change in the political system is happening, but we are paying little attention to it.

Donald Trump, an agent of political change, has challenged the belief that the U.S. can only have one president at a time. Since the election, he has operated a parallel presidency.

A formal transition process exists in law, allowing for the incoming president and his appointees to be subject to specific ethics rules, to use federal office space and to receive financial support.  They can become current on department policies and actions. But the president-elect does not have to accept this process.

While the incoming president is not bound by previous policies, awareness of the current administration’s latest moves could enhance the chances for a smooth transition. But Trump wants to symbolize change, and cooperation may not suit his image.  He spurns transition and acts as if he is already in the White House.

Three reasons stand out.  First, Trump has already served as president so he can hit the ground running, without needing a basic White House education.  Second, Trump will head probably the most personal presidency, relying less than usual on precedent and advice than on his own instincts.  Third, President Biden is fading, creating an opening for his successor.

Biden has readily let him dominate the scene.  His departing administration is cloaked in the aura of its defeat rather than pride in its principles.  His cabinet has melted away, failing to react to Trump’s assertions. Biden failed to make his presidency the promised bridge – a real transition.

Though Biden still uses his inherent powers to deal with disasters, pardon people and issue executive orders setting his parting benchmarks, Trump has taken over large pieces of foreign and domestic policy.  Biden’s cabinet and actions are overshadowed, if not downright ignored.

Few resist the need to deal with Trump’s upcoming presidency as if he were already in office.  From Republican House members to foreign leaders, they have sought to curry his favor and divert any possible concerns he has about them well before his ability to take office, beginning next week.

Trump has moved decisively to transform the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day.  The so-called lame duck government of that transition period has become almost a rare bird.  By his actions, rather than through a formal constitutional amendment, Trump is redefining the transition for the second time in American history.

Originally, the presidency and the new Congress began on March 4, following the previous year’s November elections.  Given slow communications and travel, the delay was necessary to allow for vote counting and the arrival of newly elected officials in the capital city.

The result was that a president who might be slated to leave office and the sitting Congress could remain in power for months even if they had suffered election defeats.  That lame duck period could allow a departing administration and Congress to push through policies that might already have been rejected by a majority of voters. 

Newly elected presidents and members of Congress waited their turn and prepared to take office. That had to change.

Following the 1932 elections, voters clearly demanded action by the federal government in dealing with the Great Depression.  They had become impatient with the transition.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the time to ready measures he could put in place rapidly once he took office – the famous first 100 days. 

The delay also brought the end of the long-legged lame duck.  Under a new law, Congress would begin on January 3 and the presidential term would start on January 20, dates now set in the Constitution.

Twenty years later, President Truman offered to provide intelligence briefings to President-elect Dwight Eisenhower.  Truman’s first move led to a formal transition process, which has been expanded under the law.  

Because it is voluntary, Trump refused its ethics requirement or to be fully informed on current administration actions.  He chose to make the break between administrations both disruptive and preemptive.  In effect, he has improperly moved the government from Washington to Mar-a-Lago.  He has led the alternate government, not the government in waiting.

The refusal of the incoming president to participate in a transition comes at a price, especially when it relates to foreign policy.  The failure of an incoming administration to exchange information on its foreign contacts or its attempts to blindside the incumbent can be harmful to the conduct of delicate and complex relations.

Trump has drastically shortened the transition, which may have been inevitable.  But he has also made a mockery of its useful aspects.  Transition should not be left to the president-elect’s choice. The country would be better served, without limiting the incoming president’s discretion, by making their full participation mandatory.

The U.S. really should have only one president at a time.

Republican Right would bar compromise

Gordon L. Weil

It’s only a small issue, but it explains why talk about cooperation between the two parties is nothing more than a convenient myth, otherwise known as a lie.

The Maine House Republicans complain that the governor has “nominated a former Democrat state legislator” to be Public Advocate.  There it is: the persistent use by the GOP of the word “Democrat” when the correct word is “Democratic,” as in the official, legal name of the party.

The use of “Democrat” is meant as a slur, a way Republicans annoy Democratic legislators and to suggest that the traditional party has been replaced by an extreme liberal version.  The Democrats have not counterattacked with their own slur for the Republicans, though the traditional GOP has itself been replaced by Trump loyalists.

The almost total and persistent opposition to Democrats goes beyond the word.  The extreme right-wing Freedom Caucus in the House warned their support for Speaker Mike Johnson depends on his refusing to rely on Democratic support to pass bills.  Johnson’s version of bipartisanship occurs when the Democrats fall in line behind the GOP.

Susan Collins, Maine’s Republican senator, told a state university audience that she favors compromise over conflict. The result, she said, “would produce a very different legislative climate, one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not just to score political points.”  In her speech, she used the term “Democratic.”  That little “ic” may justify her moderate label.

But the Republican game, especially in Washington, is all about scoring political points.  If you score enough points, you win the game and can change the country. Standing in the way of GOP extremism might be a handful of loyal Republicans, including Collins, supporting good government over partisanship. That will take courage, which requires taking risks.

After a sound electoral victory and enjoying the first year of his term, Trump dominates.  He pressured Freedom Caucus members to support Johnson, allowing the peaceful January 6 electoral vote count.  But his political attacks replace the truth. Trump claimed the New Orleans slaughter resulted from illegal immigration, though the alleged killer was American-born.

The Republican extreme right is determined to play a massive blame game, attributing anything that goes wrong to the Democrats.  That is hardly the way to compromise, but guarantees conflict. 

The right can block decisions, if Johnson won’t allow any bills to pass that depend on Democratic support.   With a slim majority, the Speaker needs their votes to pass almost any bill with only GOP votes.

If the federal government has any chance for compromise, it’s up to the Democrats.  They need to stop agonizing over why they lost and try to respond to popular concerns.  Important as they may be, some social issues seem to be marginal compared with making government more responsive to public demands on spending and taxes.

The Democrats need to develop a platform containing an agreed agenda for government action.  It cannot offer something for everyone, and it must focus creatively on core issues like trade, Social Security reform, and immigration.

The party could start a platform development process now, involving the National Committee and people from across the country.  Presumably, the new party chair, who will not be the party’s visible leader, could manage this process.

The Democrats need a coherent and constructive agenda before the 2026 congressional elections.  They also need a leader. They cannot put off both decisions until the 2028 campaign.

The major financial backers of the Democratic Party could focus on potential standard bearers they would support.  While the ultimate choice is up to the party faithful, the Democrats’ menu could be prepared ahead of the 2028 primary wars. Meanwhile, they would have visible leaders with financial backing to speak for their platform.

The Democrats should be looking at issues on their own merits, reflecting the popular will, rather than simply opposing the Republicans.  That means they could support some Trump proposals.  If a GOP initiative could be improved, they should offer changes, but not lend their votes in return for political payoffs involving more spending.

Possibly the best way for Republicans to listen to Democratic ideas and for Democrats to make cooperation a reality would be to revive the tradition of an unofficial, bipartisan group of senators that would attempt to develop policies acceptable to a majority of each party in the Senate.  Four moderates from each party could do it.

If the Senate could agree on proposals backed by majorities in each party while the House produced distinctly partisan bills, another tradition could be revived.  Representatives of the two houses would meet in a conference committee where they might at least try to come up with a bill that could pass both houses.  The House could then be faced with accepting or rejecting the deal. 

Trump would bypass Congress, Court in TikTok case

 

Gordon L. Weil

We have front-row seats for a major fight, perhaps the constitutional Fight of the Century.

Three contenders are in the ring, each a heavyweight.  They are the Congress, the Supreme Court and President-elect Trump, who just got involved.  The outcome could reveal which of them wields the greatest power.

Last April, Congress passed with overwhelming majorities, including all four Maine members, and President Biden signed a law ordering ByteDance, the owner of the social media giant TikTok, either to sell it or shut it down.  The new unconditional federal law gave ByteDance until January 19 to act.  The president is ultimately responsible for carrying it out

China has a record of stealing or accessing U.S. data.  This week, the Treasury Department reported a “major incident” of Chinese hacking.  China has been formally designated as an American adversary.

Congress, Biden and former president Trump have all expressed concern about the control of ByteDance by China of a company that has access to personal information of millions of Americans.  While he was president, Trump tried to shut it down, but was blocked by the courts.

But ByteDance understandably opposed the law, so it challenged it on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Constitution.  Because the First Amendment is meant to prevent government interference with freedom of speech, it claimed that Congress had gone too far.

If ByteDance did not divest, the requirement to end the millions of communications that take place on TikTok would amount to federal control of speech.  The company also stated that it is owned by international shareholders, not the Chinese government.  But Congress had decided that China controlled it, and that decision is not the key issue.

The case went first to a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.  All three found that Congress had not violated the Constitution, because it acted in the interest of national security.  The judges had been appointed by presidents Reagan, Obama and Trump, making it difficult to call its ruling partisan.  ByteDance appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court is trying to act quickly on the appeal.  It must decide whether Congress exceeded its legal powers, but it will not decide if TikTok must close.  That is a judgment for ByteDance, which could resolve the matter by selling, though the law requires it to have a buyer lined up by January 19.

If the Court decides that Congress acted constitutionally, then ByteDance must quickly act.  If it finds that Congress exceeded its powers, ByteDance may continue to operate TikTok.

President-elect Trump’s lawyers recently requested that the Court delay its proceedings until after he takes office on January 20. They claim that Trump is uniquely qualified to negotiate a resolution of the issue of China’s control.  In effect, Congress and the Court should back off and turn the matter over to him. 

Trump’s last-minute move seems to ignore the fact that the law takes effect if not declared unconstitutional.  He might try to avoid that point by quickly deciding that China is not an adversary of the U.S., despite earlier findings by Biden, Congress and himself.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump became quite popular on TikTok and told voters that he would not let it close down.  This may be the reason why he has changed his views on its threat to America security and the privacy of its users.

Trump has put the Supreme Court and most of the GOP members of both the House and Senate on the spot.  In effect, he has asserted that both his role as president and his superior powers of negotiation should displace the normal legislative and judicial operations of the federal government.  On January 19, Trump will not yet be president, so can he now make this claim?

When the Court decided that the president has almost unlimited powers, it might not have thought he would want the Court itself to defer to him.  Now, the Court is on trial and will reveal how it reacts to his pressure to step aside and let him settle the matter.  If it gives Trump what he seeks, it would surely have to be seen as a partisan, political body.

He would ignore a law backed by his own supporters, who responded to his opposition to China.  That’s possible, since he has explored ignoring another long-standing law that limits presidential spending powers.  His unusual Court filing is extravagant in its self-praise, making it appear that he deserves deference not usually given to presidents.

The conflict is about whether Congress acted constitutionally, if the Court should suspend acting  when asked by the president-elect, and if the election empowers the president to rule rather than to govern within a system of checks and balances.

All that makes for a big fight.

Shutdown crisis left big problems

 

Gordon L. Weil

This person has painful feet, which only get worse.  They have three ways to reduce their aching feet.

They could get a new pair of shoes, uncomfortable until broken in, but with a good fit afterwards.  Or they can hop on one foot, leaving only one foot in pain.  Or they can jump off a cliff and have no pain until they land, whenever that will happen.

The name of this person is America.  And the painful problem arises, not from shoes, but from the U.S. government always spending more money than it takes in.  Its hurtful budget habit is a symptom of a national illness that has infected the entire political system.  America’s government could get new shoes any day, but it doesn’t, because its paralyzed.

The annual deficit is about six percent of the entire value of the national economy.  Deficits in annual spending accumulate into the national debt that now equals the production of the entire economy.  Obviously, this cannot go on endlessly.

The new pair of shoes would take the form of a balanced budget, financed by debt to pay for long-term purchases and taxes, including increases when necessary, to pay for current operations.  Increasing taxes might be uncomfortable for a while, but it would reduce the pain before the debt kills the economy or cripples future generations.

Hopping on one foot happens when the government relies only on debt, while trying to cut spending and hoping to cut taxes.  But hoping and hopping get harder as the costs of new promises mount.  America gets a bit wobbly on its feet.

Or America can neither cut costs nor raise taxes.  It simply jumps off the cliff, spending and borrowing with its eyes closed, not thinking about the hard landing.

The budget bill passed just in time to avoid a government shutdown is a clear case of jumping off the cliff.  It kept the government running by extending an earlier budget, some of it wasteful and poorly aligned with current needs.   Seemingly do-good items like emergency aid and farm funding were tacked on. 

By preventing a government shutdown, the bill has been celebrated as a bipartisan legislative success. It passed mainly because neither party wanted the blame for closing the government.  In reality, it is a policy failure, because the two sides could not reach any agreement on a normal budget, the most basic function of Congress. 

The entire process revealed that most in Congress did not get the message of the election.  People don’t respect Congress, because it ignores their concerns in favor of playing its usual political games. More House Democrats than Republicans were needed to support the GOP Speaker’s budget deal, revealing how badly Washington is working. 

The original bill and the final version were Christmas trees, decorated with goodies for both parties.  Instead of understanding that voters prefer a practical government over one that uses debt without discipline, Congress continues to believe that the best solution is to throw money at any problem.  No wonder it’s not popular.

In effect, many voters have decided that the federal government has moved on from New Deal-style government to at least a partial return to more traditional American conservatism.  The business-as-usual of the past nine decades should be updated.  But its handling of the budget bill shows that Congress won’t change.    

The Democrats, as busy as the Republicans in adding tinsel to the tree, missed a great opportunity.  They could have promptly agreed with President-elect Trump (and Elon Musk, apparently his prime minister) on a bare extension of spending with no add-ons.  Where would that have left the House GOP?  Any added spending would have been passed in a new bill.

Instead, the Democrats blocked Trump’s demand to raise the debt limit, believing a higher cap would permit him to extend and even increase current tax cuts.  They wanted the GOP to accept full responsibility for piling on more debt.  The debt cap was not in the final bill.

In reality, many Democrats, Trump and some Republicans agree that the debt ceiling is nothing more than an attention-grabbing tool to be used in budget negotiations.  Only hardline Republicans seem willing to push the U.S. into default, if that’s what it takes to reduce spending. 

The debt ceiling could be a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment requiring the federal government to make good on the borrowing arising from its spending commitments.   This would have been the moment to kill this troublesome financial gimmick.

Trump’s grandstanding and hostile behavior, the unrealistic Democratic hopes of restoring the old ways and the mindless Republican warfare against compromise come at a price.  They lead Washington to ignore popular demands for a well-functioning government that produces practical results.

The federal budget fiasco just proved that.

Trump's DOGE could face Congress protecting its turf

 

Gordon L. Weil

There’s a new government department.  Except that it’s not part of the government and it’s not a department. 

It’s the Department of Government Efficiency, known at DOGE.  Sounds like something you’d make up, maybe as a video game, but it is real.  Its leaders aren’t confirmed by the Senate, its staff is not taxpayer funded, it communicates by social media, and it reports to a president who is not yet in office.

It exists and is functioning.  President-elect Trump expects it to respond to the broad concern that the government is not working and is not responsive to the public’s needs and priorities.

Trump has been acting presidential well before he takes office.  Of course, he has presidential experience, but his early moves are likely to set a new precedent in governing.  Creating a seemingly real government department before he gets into the White House is part of his effort.

He gave the agency to Elon Musk, on paper the world’s richest man, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who wants to be president one day.  Both are wealthy enough to finance DOGE and use Musk’s X social media to communicate.

The two men issue recommendations, which at times sound more like their wish list than measures to improve federal government operations.  But DOGE should be taken seriously, because it was created for them by President-elect Trump, and he takes it seriously.

DOGE has three purposes.  It would bring federal spending under greater control to reduce the annual deficit, allowing taxes to be cut, not raised.  It would eliminate unwanted, unnecessary or overlapping agencies or functions, reducing the size of government.  It would give the president increased ability to control the government.

The early proposals by the two DOGE bosses are somewhat scattershot, but responsive to the Trump Republican agenda.  The Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are at risk of outright elimination.  Even the Defense Department bureaucracy may be in for cuts.

In line with the Supreme Court’s doubt about the powers of independent regulatory agencies, DOGE might want to pare down the staffs of such bodies, including the IRS.  Outlays for culture, public health, and NASA could all be reduced.  But plans have not yet taken final form.

Ultimately, the DOGE spirit might extend to dealing with the two largest areas of federal spending, Social Security and Medicare.  Decisions about their future funding must come soon.  One solution would be to reduce benefits, which may sit well with DOGE.

The success of this cost-cutting approach may depend on Congress.  The president cannot close agencies or programs that exist under law.  Although Trump disagrees, the law now prevents a president from refusing to spend money on congressionally mandated programs.  He would need the consent of Congress to enact at least some major DOGE proposals.

While that may sound easy with a GOP Congress, it’s not a certainty. Many programs exist because members of Congress want to please specific constituencies.  Regardless of their party, they may be reluctant to kill or cut them.  Partisan support for the president may not overcome catering to their backers.

Evidence exists that Trump and DOGE may inevitably face a hard sell.  The Government Accountability Office, something like the national accountant, has already looked at much of what DOGE is supposed to do, but the agency is mostly ignored.

The GAO has published a detailed list of hundreds of federal programs that duplicate or overlap other programs.  For example, 80 economic development programs are run by four different agencies.  They exist thanks to proposals by members of Congress or turf battles among the agencies.  They probably waste billions of dollars.

Even more worrisome is the GAO High Risk Series, which “identifies government operations with vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or in need of transformation.”  Sometimes agencies heed warnings and undertake enough reforms to get off the list.  There are now 34 GAO warnings. but the president and Congress take little interest in them.

Presidents and department heads are selected for political reasons, not their administrative abilities.  A function like DOGE could make sense if it were independent and not overly ideological.  Of course, GAO could be used, if it were taken more seriously.

So-called zero-base budgeting for agencies could also be used.  Under it, they would regularly develop the lowest budget needed to get their missions accomplished and request any new funding for going beyond that.  Congress could eliminate or create programs.  President Jimmy Carter installed a workable ZBB, but it was gone by the presidency of George W. Bush.

Large organizations, public or private, will always be inefficient.  Though its agenda may turn out to be overly personal, too partisan or controversial, Trump’s DOGE recognizes that inefficiency may have gone too far, causing lost public confidence in government.

Trump's tariffs: both good and bad

Gordon L. Weil

Many years ago, I found myself in the middle of an international war.

As tough as each side was, I was fortunate that the ammunition was not bullets.  It was chickens.

The U.S. was the major supplier of chickens to Europe, but the organization now called the EU or European Union wanted to promote its own production, mainly in Germany.  So, it increased its tariff on imported chickens.  American producers protested, and the government retaliated by raising U.S. tariffs on several products.  The result was the “Chicken War.”

The most important U.S. tariff was placed on trucks with the aim of cutting imports of VW vans.  But trucks from all over the world were affected.  Eventually, tariffs on other items, including chickens, were either dropped or lost importance.  But the tariff on trucks remains, decades later, though some foreign producers learned how to dodge it.

As the sole American on the EU staff, my role was to improve understanding between the U.S. and Europe and help defuse the conflict.  Eventually, EU President Walter Hallstein met with President Lyndon Johnson.  Acting on behalf of the Europeans, I had the unusual opportunity of negotiating with the State Department the joint statement of the two presidents.

The moral of the story is that tariff wars have consequences.  Trucks are probably more expensive in the U.S. today thanks to the surviving tariff and because American producers could raise their prices when faced with less competition from abroad.   The Chicken War was hardly just chicken feed.

President-elect Trump likes tariffs.  He sees them as both a threat and a promise.  He seems reluctant to accept that they drive up prices and are likely to bring retaliation that will reduce U.S. exports.  Because other countries can sometimes sell Americans essential products or have lower costs of production, he claims the U.S. is subsidizing them.

Beyond economics, Trump clearly would use tariffs as an instrument of foreign policy.  If he wants a country to halt the flow of immigrants or drugs or even to increase its own military spending, he uses the tariff threat to force change.  Trump’s surprising style, untethered to tradition, can cause others to take his threats seriously. 

Aside from the impact on exports and imports and on consumer prices, the liberal use of tariffs may bring political and economic change.  Trading partners will look for alternatives and not merely submit.

He threatens both Canada and Mexico with higher tariffs unless they stop illegal immigration.  As a result, they may take action even before he takes office.  But the U.S. depends heavily on Canadian crude oil.  If a 25 percent tariff were added, U.S. refineries and their customers would pay more.  And Canada can redirect some sales to Asia.

Trump may do a lot to boost European unification.  Europe is equal to the U.S. as a market, so it could absorb much of its production that can’t enter the U.S.  Higher world prices created by the Trump tariffs would be an incentive for the Europeans to step up their own production to displace American imports.

The aspect of tariffs that holds promise for Trump is that new federal revenues would be collected at the border.  His assumption must be that imports will not be slowed by higher tariffs, so they could create the income necessary to finance the federal government, which meanwhile would be cutting income taxes.

For the moment, that’s pure theory.  Tariffs drive up prices unless foreign suppliers swallow them.  In practice, imports decline when imported goods cost more. Lower imports may produce lower tariff revenues. The revenue effect is greater when the tariff increase is greater. So, tariffs may not be quite as magical as Trump seems to believe.

Yet good reasons exist for raising some tariffs.  That happens when Americans are willing to pay more for goods through a tax disguised as a tariff to achieve national policy goals. 

If the U.S. is concerned about excessive dependence on imports of essential goods, aiding domestic producers or ensuring worldwide environmental standards, greater tariff protection may make sense.  Labor unions oppose trade deals because jobs may be shipped abroad.  But helping workers comes at a price.

China profits from exploiting its own labor and using its polluting coal to produce low-cost goods for American merchants.  Its gains pay for increased Chinese military spending used to expand its influence, threaten Taiwan and to menace the U.S. and its allies on the seas. 

It makes sense to cut China’s sales to the U.S. to level the playing field and reduce its funds for military expansion.  Customers may willingly be taxed for this effort.

Trump’s tariff threats may sometimes work, but their effect goes well beyond raising consumer prices.  Higher tariffs have both economic and political effects, sometimes long-term and often not obvious.  

Bigger U.S. House could renew fading Congress

 

Gordon L. Weil

Jared Golden is trying to close a circle that’s as old as the Constitution.

As one of Maine’s U.S. House members, he wants the House to take a new look at an old subject.  He has proposed that the House of Representatives should consider adding members.

During the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers debated the size of the House.  The original argument was so heated that it was the sole issue that caused George Washington to speak out at the Constitutional Convention.

How many people should be represented by a member of the House?  Too few would be undemocratic and but too many might be hard to manage.  James Madison, the chief drafter and later the fourth president, argued the problem would solve itself.  As more states joined, the House would naturally grow.

That worked until 1900, when the number of members stopped at 435.  In 1929, it was formally frozen there.  When Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii had joined, their seats were taken from other states.

The result is that the number of people in any single House district is now larger that the entire population of some states.  Each Maine district includes more people than the entire population of the state of Wyoming.   The math shows that a voter in Wyoming has more power than a voter in Maine.

An easy path to voter equality would be to set the population for each district across the country at the population of the smallest state, Wyoming.  I calculate that would increase the House to about 573 members, an added 138 seats.  Even a larger House could make sense.

Adding new states should mean more seats were added, as originally intended.  The number of House seats should also increase as the national population grows. The purpose should be to keep the House representative and its members in touch with voters.

That increase would still leave the U.S. with a higher population per voter than any other major nation.  Citizens would remain distant from their representatives, and members might remain limited as true representatives of their people’s pulse.

One advantage of expansion would be the need for thorough redistricting into smaller districts.  That would make racial or political gerrymandering more difficult by making districts more compact. And it would certainly open the way for many new faces in Congress, which could enable more women and minorities to gain seats.

With a larger House, each member would not need to be assigned to several committees. Assigned to fewer committees, they would have more time to become more expert.  There might also be more committees or subcommittees, allowing each to have a far sharper focus than is possible today.

House expansion, allowing members to become more expert on specific subjects, is not political daydreaming; it could turn out to be critically important.

The Supreme Court is moving steadily toward stripping regulatory agencies of their independent powers. When it completes its works, perhaps quite soon, their decision-making powers would end up with the president.  Yet regulation is nothing more than powers that Congress could itself exercise by law.  Congress, not the president, could take on more responsibility.

A larger Congress should include enough members that focused House committees could take on more detailed decision-making.  Such targeted committees could produce strict, general rules, allowing less room for special interests to work out deals with regulators behind closed doors. If Congress fails to act, it will continue to lose its powers to the president.

There’s another benefit to the proposal for expanding the House.  Many want the electoral vote for president to better align with the popular vote.  One major reason they can misalign is the unbalanced voting power of some states over others. Each state’s electoral vote is the sum of the number of its House and Senate members.

If the House were larger, the Electoral College would be larger.  The number of voters per electoral vote member would be closer to equal than it is now.  With electoral votes better distributed based on population, the electoral vote will come closer to reflecting the popular will. 

Of course, each state would retain at least one House seat and two senators, no matter its population.  That’s what the Constitution requires and would prevent a fully popular vote for president.

While amending the Constitution is almost impossible given today’s political divide plus and the growing efforts by the Court to apply its constitutional views, some issues like term limits or maximum ages of officials cannot be addressed. But Congress can change the number of House members, which could breathe some new life into an old system.

Unlike many of his colleagues who routinely accept the current system, Golden has a good idea that could produce major bipartisan reform.  It’s worthy of study and action.