1. The main issue with Congress is the lack of real debate. Neither the far left or far right seem interested in any sort of compromise. Any congressional member displaying moderation or centrism is regarded as a party traitor and immediately attacked as such. Stiffing debate is dangerous.

2. It can be hard to consider the problems of the future when there are so many pressing issues currently. At the state level I am concerned there is too much xenophobia. I listened to the recent Ed Committee meetings. More than a few times I heard people voice concerns over things from "away". This kind of attitude will kill Maine. We can't maintain "the way life should be" unless we are willing to adapt.

3. I think Churchill summed up our system of government best when he said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

1) CONGRESS - I think that I hear the word's echoes tell me that there was, at some great moment in human history, a true meeting between human beings on earth. Now, well, I don't even know if those echoes exist or if they were just some figment of my imagination. "Let's get together and speak about something that affects our nation" is congress for me. That, in my opinion, has been lost to us long before my birth.
2) To be honest, I really don't know what "congress" has represented. This question is presented as though congress is one entity, one body, one result - I think people who are concerned with congress either want to climb the political ladder (not a bad thing indeed, depending) or just want to throw it out there. Congress, for me, is a bunch of well-off suits shuffling papers just wanting to go home at the end of the day with no concern for (yet another abstraction) "the people". Oh well...these things happen.
3) Oh boy...What are the problems facing America, and how can electing congresspeople differently affect this? Well, as a person who is not qualified at all to answer this question I feel at liberty to say what I truly feel (unlike anybody in office ironically). I can't speak for the problems of "America" since I don't have enough information to even know that I am living in America...well, okay, the flags all over the place help...I can only speak for my own problems as an American (without a flag on his lawn): I want healthcare that provides me with my absurdities in life. For example, I fell off my bike while speaking with a girl, and I thought that I had broken my arm. I didn't...500 dollars anyway. Dental records for Peace Corps in Seattle: 300 dollars (just a cleaning).
"Congress", get together and help us out...

Congress is getting worse every day. I do not feel that they represent my interested or even care about much else than staying in power. I wouldn't trust most politicians to run a large company, much less a gas station convenience store. I wrote a post about this a few months ago over on my blog:

http://www.nathanlustig.com/2009/05/19/america-doesnt-plan-for-the-future/

1. What are the primary strengths and weaknesses of Congress in dealing with current issues and problems?

I don't see any strengths of Congress right now. Congress doesn't focus on the big, long range issues, rather focuses on the hot issue of the day. Think freedom fries, steroids in baseball, online gambling etc. Every once in a while, Congress can focus on big issues, but they almost always take the easy way out, rather than actually trying to create long lasting change.

2. To what extent do you think that Congress is effectively representing your concerns and those of our generation?

Pretty much not at all. My biggest concerns are the viability of the us dollar, getting health care coverage and COSTS under control, creating jobs for the future and plugging the huge budget holes that are created by social security, medicare and medicade. Congress is one big old person's lobby. Most of the politicians only care about what will keep them in office, rather than the greater good.

3. What, if any, changes would you suggest in the way Congress is elected and operates that would make it more effective in dealing with the problems now facing America?

Bring back the centrists. Gerrymandering is of the biggest crimes ever committed against the citizens of the United States. There are only 20-40 house districts that are truly up for grabs this election. Gerrymandering has pushed all rational centrists out of congress in favor of the far right wing and far left wing in each party. Once entrenched in Congress, these politicians know they will continue to get elected each term if they toe the party line. If they try to be centrists, they are voted out in favor of more extreme members of their party.

Give the President line item veto power for omnibus budget bills. There is huge waste in these bills. Let the president cut spending and programs line by line in these bills. It will save the taxpayers money and streamline government.

I fully agree with Alex's post re: funding for war/killing people vs funding for healthcare/saving people. Where is the media coverage of that deplorable double standard??

I do NOT feel that Congress, as a whole, represents my wishes and views; I think they do an OK job representing the views of middle-of-the road, leaning conservative, hetero, late-middle-age white men. Because, obviously, that's who makes up both parts of our bicameral Congress. The views and needs of women, people of color, immigrants, the queer community (the list goes on), are simply sidelined. That is because we are not represented.

Sure, there are the lonely voices crying out. There are the good progressives who fight the battle, but who are almost always overwhelmingly defeated. 64 DEMOCRATS voted for the Stupak amendment on the health insurance bill in the House. WHAT?! I mean, come on. Last I heard, a woman's right to self-determination was still part of the party platform. Oh, and abortion is still a legal medical procedure. of those 64 Democrats, 62 - that's right 62 - were men. That tells me something, something ugly, about who makes the decisions in this country, and who they represent.

I think one of the other primary weaknesses is the Senate's need for 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from "say no to everything, all the time" Republicans. Oh, and the other weakness there is Joe Lieberman.

One solution would be more parity in these offices. Only 17% of Congress is women. What would the healthcare debate look like if 40% of Congress were women? I think it will be a cold day in hell before any sort of affirmative action of that sort is even discussed. Our public discourse is too based on the fear of the "other" to even go there. But parity would fix a lot.

umm, i know that this whole increased troop deployment thing is a big deal right now... people are upset because Obama had promised to end the war in afghanistan and bring troops home, but appears to be doing quite the opposite. but i think it makes sense. i'm no military expert, but it seems to me that if you want to eventually pull everyone out, the last contingent over there needs to still be large enough to be effective. i see it as finally taking an end to the war seriously. instead of kind of rotating soldiers in and out of the country indefinitely and hoping the violence would just miraculously end, this is america finally taking action and being responsible for the mess in the middle east.
(i almost feel wrong saying all this because i'm canadian... but hey, we have troops there, too.)
furthermore, i know it's definitely a morale booster for the soldiers in country -- my brother is in training for the canadian military (yes, haha, we have an army) and they see it as finally getting the support they need.

also, i am glad to see strides being taken towards a public health care option. again, due to my canadian-ness, i have been spoiled with "free" health care my whole life. one of the downsides of our system is that there is a "brain drain" of doctors who move to the US to get paid more... and i have no answer to that. but in my opinion, as a government, you just have to take care of your people.
so it is very frustrating to watch the back-and-forth and stalling going on in Congress over the specifics of the bill, but it is definitely encouraging that after all these years, it's come into serious consideration.

so i support Congress, at least, in the dialogue it's creating. i think the current government (the most liberal one in a long time, right?) is stuck in a difficult place because it stood for progress, change and idealism and that's why people voted for it. but considering the major obstacles it inherited from the previous government (the economy, the wars, the lack of transparency and lies told by the previous executive branch) people are almost resistant to ideas that initially inspired them. i, personally, would like to see stronger legislation for limiting impact on the environment and more funding to clean energy research and investment. but i feel like that's no one's priority right now. like, we want all these good things, but we don't want to pay for them because no one has any money right now.

on that note, i hardly understand how the US government works right now, let alone suggestions for a more effective operation. my idealist side can only hope for more honesty and action.

I'll post more thoughts later, but I wanted to provide some quick insight into Question #3 (what changes?).

First, the threat of a procedural filibuster is making decisive action on our country's most critical problems more difficult than ever. As Ezra Klein recently pointed out, Lyndon Johnson had reason to believe Medicare could have passed the Senate with 55 votes in 1965 (see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/how_a_letter_from_1964_shows_w.html), and that is no longer possible (Medicare eventually passed with 70 votes). The fact that 41% of Senator, representing less than 30% of Americans can stop controversial legislation from passing is a recipe for passing.

This problem is compounded by the fact that the Senate is even less representative of the general population than it used to be. As America has become an urbanized (e.g. urban and suburban dominated) nation, Senators from rural states have become disproportionately powerful. California's Senators represent 70 times more people than Wyoming's. In 1789, the most extreme ratio was 12:1. One might legitimately say, "as goes California, so goes the United States", but our highest legislative body utterly fails to account for that. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that smaller states tend to be less politically tumultuous, leading to a tendency for small state Senators to outlast large state Senators. The end result is that small state Senators tend to become committee chairs, giving them outsize influence. The epitome of this phenomenon was Max Baucus' influence Gang of Six, in which Chuck Grassley of Iowa represented the largest number of Americans and 50% of the group was taken up by Senators from states with 3 Electoral Votes (Dorgan of ND, Enzi of WY, and Baucus of MT).

Incidentally, this anti-urban bias disadvantages younger voters, who are highly concentrated in America's metropolitan areas. I'll contribute more soon.

-Zach