How Can Lawmaking Be A Problem In The United States Of America

Should lawmakers be banned from owning stocks?

Yes.Doesn't it amaze you when you look at how many lawmakers enter office with just their sub $200K a year salary as their only income, but manage to leave office 20 years later worth $50+ million? If they are that economically and investment savvy in their personal finances why don't they do better managing and investing America's money?

What are the problems with the legislative process in congress?

The legislative problems in Congress, such as they are, have been partly self-inflicted and partly designed to be that way.The US did not always have our current bicameral Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1787), a period mostly ignored politically, we had a single body which held all legislative powers--it also had the powers of the executive and the courts--but the basic underlying powers of this government were really quite weak. In short, they could pass and implement legislation much faster but they had far fewer things they could pass legislation about. When our founding fathers held their backroom revolution that brought us the Constitution, they deliberately gave more power to Congress but also made it much more difficult to pass legislation. The legislators in the old Congress, the unicameral one, had to run for re-election every year and were directly elected by the people. Under the new Congress, Representatives would run for reelection every two years and be directly elected while Senators would only have to run every six years and were elected by state legislatures. Under this system, all legislation must pass both houses of Congress and must be hammered out in a special committee before being approved (or vetoed) by the President. That's enshrined in the Constitution, and it is the biggest stumbling block to passing legislation--exactly as the founders designed. The Senate also has a couple of Constitutionally enshrined bits regarding treaty ratification requiring a 2/3 supermajority, and other simple majority advice and consent duties.Additional blocks have been introduced by each chamber all on their own. Both have committees and subcommittees which can kill a bill before it reaches the floor These are organizational as opposed to Constitutional, meaning they could change the system if they really wanted to (which they don't). The Senate also has the legislative hold and the filibuster, also organizational rules that could be changed if they wanted to. All of these have the effect of slowing down most legislation. None of them are technically required.I don't think you should throw out these organizational rules willy-nilly--I'm too conservative for that. However, figuring out appropriate alternatives might be a good idea if you want to evolve the current Congressional structure to something slightly more functional.

Why does U.S. law permit lawmakers in Congress to exempt themselves from laws they mandate all other Americans obey?

This is mostly a myth. Lawmakers don’t legalize murder or theft or fraud for themselves but not for others. Lawmakers may have different pension plans for different levels of federal employees, and they may put themselves in a class that is not the same as for some other federal employees. They make laws relating to lawmaking that don’t apply to those who don’t make laws. They may assign themselves offices or parking spaces that aren’t available to people who don’t work in the capitol. They may pass other laws that make it easier for them to do their jobs. Congress even gave themselves Affordable Care Act health insurance even though they didn’t need to. In recent years Congress has refused the cost of living increases that other government employees receive. Lawmakers are subject to corruption laws, and some of them have been convicted of violating those laws.I challenge anyone to give examples of Congress exempting its members from laws that should apply to them. There are many problems with Congress, but this is not one of them.