Why Can No Ambitious Legislative Program be Expected?

I just had a discussion with a reader via email in which the reader said “I’m quite frustrated that [President Obama] hasn’t done anything really grand thus far.” By “grand” I assume she meant an ambitious legislative program.

It’s a strange position I’m in as a Canadian because I can see precisely what the problem is, but it may not be apparent to most Americans. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating.

Parliamentary systems of government see the leader of the largest party form the government with the leader sitting in Parliament commanding that majority. (I’m aware of the possibility of minority/coalition governments.) This arrangement usually ensures that the Prime Minister can bring in his or her chosen legislative program, ambitious or otherwise.

But in a Congressional system, the President does not sit in Congress. And the opposing party may have a majority in one or both houses of Congress, as is the case at the present moment with President Obama and Congress. Democrats control the Senate by 51 to 46, with two Independents and one vacant seat.  But Republicans control the House of Representatives with 242 to 192.

In this situation, the President cannot command the power to have his legislative program adopted, as we’ve repeatedly seen.

Moreover, because he does not sit in Congress, the President cannot directly enforce Congressional discipline.  Although I’m being simplistic in saying this, his lack of a seat in Congress is a contributing factor to the advent of so many earmarks and pork embedded in legislation. Obviously corruption is the biggest contributing factor but the structure of Congress is another.

This situation will be corrected by the reorganization of government after NESARA.  That move will see three things happen. The corrupt will be removed, as Montague Keen suggests: “The imposters will be removed. This will be done without resorting to violence or argument.” (1)

Second, fair and reasonable representatives will be appointed to government, as SaLuSa makes clear:

“In the seeming turmoil around the world people recognize the urgent need for change, and when the right leadership emerges they will have no difficulty getting support. Our input should ensure that all proceeds well as at some stage disclosure will have been made, enabling us to help and advise the newly-emerging government personnel. We oversee such appointments, as we obviously have the means to know all that needs to be known about any individual. Most importantly, we know the spiritual level at which people operate and their true intent in what they are engaged in.” (2)

“Changes will ensure that only those politicians that sincerely desire to give their time for the betterment of their people, will be appointed to positions within a new government” (3)

Third, existing political arrangements and structures will be revisited and created anew without some of the situations that currently plague them, as SaLuSa indicates here:

“It is planned to shake up the whole political establishment and eventually do away with party politics. Too much time is wasted on confrontation and decisions made for political gain, instead of doing what is best for all people. …

The time for reviewing many systems and policies affecting the people will soon arrive, and it is all part of regaining your sovereignty. As a new civilisation emerges, it is you who will be treated with respect and your needs placed at the top of the list.” (4)

Until these changes occur, I’d like people to realize, assuming I’m correct in what I say of course, that President Obama, under existing arrangements, will never be able to bring in an ambitious legislative program.  The structure does not permit it and the ethics guarantee that it will never happen with a group of politicians who are as suborned and beholden as, in my view, the current group is.


(1) Montague Keen, Oct. 23, 2011, at

(2) SaLuSa, Nov. 14, 2011, at

(3) SaLuSa, April 11, 2011.

(4) Loc. cit.

Print Friendly