Looking at recent behavior among the US House of Representatives, Senate, and President Bush, I believe we are about to see a classic example of the 'checks and balances' in action as foreseen by the Framers of our Constitution.
First, you have 'Frisco Nan's House, rabidly catching up on vengeful legislation from more than a decade out of power. Passing a whirlwind of legislation without debate. Basically, being the hot-headed, small-minded chamber that the Founders envisioned. Ever notice, by the way, that far more Representatives seem to be caught up in bribery scandals than Senators? I would guess, even adjusting for the different sizes of the chambers, fewer Senators, as a percentage of the chamber, get hacked up the way Representatives do.
Then, consider the Senate. It is more deliberative, by design, than the House. Representing whole states for six years necessitates a larger, longer-term view. This Senate was 'recaptured' in name only. The Democrats have no working majority, under the rules of the chamber. Filibusters can occur, and neither party has the necessary votes to end one, under current procedures. So the Senate Democratic plurality has less of an ability, or even taste, to act as vengefully as the House. Make a mistake as a Senator, and you become the next Tom Daschle. Remember him? The brief-serving Senate Democrat Majority Leader when Vermont's Jim "turncoat" Jeffords switched parties, and gave the Dems a short ride in the 'majority.' Daschle's excessive negativism and obstruction of President Bush's agenda landed him a new job as an ex-Senator from South Dakota. Harry Reid won't be forgetting that, or will, at his peril. As much as you want to choke those windbags in the Senate, sometimes, their slow pace is a blessing.
So, for the next two years, we have a classic study in the American system of politics/government.
We have a lame-duck President behaving as very much his own man, with his own agenda. He doesn't command the loyalty or votes of all of his own party's Reps or Senators, but he also has some aisle-crossers from the other party on some issues, including Iraq. Thus, no one branch can dictate policy.
'Frisco Nan's crowd is going to be busy venting their spleens on legislation that, in all probability, won't even make it out of the reconciliation process with the Senate intact, let alone avoid a Bush veto. And neither chamber has even close to a veto-proof majority, by party. The Senate is on such a razor-thin margin, that, depending on Tim Johnson's health, it could well be Republican-run by Easter.
For example, take the current animus towards the oil industry. Rumors of hearings abound. Something must be done! Ooops! Oil's down below $51/barrel now. Nevermind that, the Democrats want revenge. The House is making noises about drastic legislation. But, in a CNBC on-air interview between two Senators the other day, even the Democrat, Jeff Bingaman, from New Mexico, sounded thoughtful. One pundit pointed out that 36 US states engage in oil production in some fashion. Therefore, 72 Senators have a reason not to be so brash about screwing up an industry sector that may well affect their re-election.
Funny, how that works, isn't it?
It will truly be government by compromise and deliberate triangulation for the next two years. And, don't forget, there's a Presidential election at the end of that time, plus the entire House, plus one-third of the upper-chamber windbags.
As I noted in two posts on my business blog on and just after election day, here, everyone has reason to behave, because the voters have now placed both Houses in a position to change party control with each election cycle.
All in all, probably not a bad thing.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
San Francisco Nan's Minimum Wage Exemption
The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial yesterday regarding newly-elected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's exemption of one of her hometown companies, DelMonte, via its StarKist Tuna unit, and its Samoan operations, from her highly-touted minimum wage hiking bill.
There are many more news articles on the topic, such as those found here, here, here, and here. It's not simply a Journal editorial hack job. Many people have noted the ethical lapse by Speaker Nan.
By the way, that last link is really precious. The writer outlines my own thoughts, which are that the Democrats have been starved of effective power for so long (and still are, btw), that they could not wait to begin ramming through the House their version of America, bill by bill.
With a weak plurality in the Senate, and a sitting President of the opposing party, the craigslist poster notes that Nan is simply butting heads with a process that will deny her anything but a reputation for ineffectiveness and naivete.
But, that's for later. For now, we see Nan as the usual House hack she, in fact, is. Anyone in the House long enough to make the 'leadership' team is typically so irretrievably hacked up that s/he can't help her/himself from grabbing for the goodies ASAP.
Welcome to the Speaker's House of Shame, Nan. You got there in record time, baby! I guess women can do something better than men.
There are many more news articles on the topic, such as those found here, here, here, and here. It's not simply a Journal editorial hack job. Many people have noted the ethical lapse by Speaker Nan.
By the way, that last link is really precious. The writer outlines my own thoughts, which are that the Democrats have been starved of effective power for so long (and still are, btw), that they could not wait to begin ramming through the House their version of America, bill by bill.
With a weak plurality in the Senate, and a sitting President of the opposing party, the craigslist poster notes that Nan is simply butting heads with a process that will deny her anything but a reputation for ineffectiveness and naivete.
But, that's for later. For now, we see Nan as the usual House hack she, in fact, is. Anyone in the House long enough to make the 'leadership' team is typically so irretrievably hacked up that s/he can't help her/himself from grabbing for the goodies ASAP.
Welcome to the Speaker's House of Shame, Nan. You got there in record time, baby! I guess women can do something better than men.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Barbara Boxer On Condi Rice: No Children, No Cred?
Barbara Boxer uttered the unthinkable this week, accusing Secretary of State Condi Rice of having no basis on which to credibly discuss the Iraqi war effort, because the latter has no children.
This marks a new low in misguided, wrong-headed thinking by a sitting U.S. Senator.
I happened to be dressing after a squash game, and caught Bill O'Reilly discussing this with two guests, one of whom was a Ms. Alioto, I presume a descendant of the once-, and evidently still-prominent political family. I believe an Alioto was mayor of San Franscisco in the late 1960s. In any event, the woman was rabidly liberal, and sustained Boxer's assault on Rice's credibility, then took it up a notch or two.
Stepping back, I really don't quite understand where this is heading. First, we have Charlie Rangel alleging that things would be different if President Bush had a child in the Army right now, and hinting at reviving the draft. Then we have a California Democratic Senator alleging that because the Secretary of State has no children, she has no basis on which to fashion American foreign policy involving combat.
Of course, the logical conclusion of Boxer's, Rangel's and Alioto's contentions are that nobody who does not have male children of age for military service is unqualified to speak or think on the subject of the use of American military power. This is nonsense.
And, I might add, precisely the sort of hand-wringing that brought about America's post-Vietnam malaise and self-doubt. None of these politicians seem to grasp that freedom and liberty are not free. That preserving our freedom in this age of global terrorism sometimes involves pre-emptory strikes and combat in foreign lands. Fewer Americans have died fighting in Iraq (about a battalion's worth, maybe a bit more), I believe, than were killed in that one morning in lower Manhattan, five years and some months ago.
When will the Democrats stop playing the 'faint-hearted global power' card, and start taking serious responsibility for their words? They can't seem to do so for their actions, as they want a non-binding resolution in opposition to President Bush's short-term increase in the use of force to quell the violence in Iraq.
There is, however, a silver lining to all of this. Behavior like this is just what many conservatives expected out of the long-out-of-power crowd of Congressional Democrats. They simply cannot help themselves. With behaviors like Rangel, Pelosi and Boxer are displaying, the odds of a Democratically-controlled Congress in January, 2009, continue to fall. And they don't need to fall very far to get a 2 seat change in the upper chamber, and a 16 seat shift in the lower one.
Sometimes, it's actually a good thing to be able to rely on people to behave consistently. You just need to be patient, and let them hang themselves. It's a fair bet that these Congressional Democrats will say and do things far worse for their own cause than conservatives could ever convince voters would be true, if it were all only hypothetical.
This marks a new low in misguided, wrong-headed thinking by a sitting U.S. Senator.
I happened to be dressing after a squash game, and caught Bill O'Reilly discussing this with two guests, one of whom was a Ms. Alioto, I presume a descendant of the once-, and evidently still-prominent political family. I believe an Alioto was mayor of San Franscisco in the late 1960s. In any event, the woman was rabidly liberal, and sustained Boxer's assault on Rice's credibility, then took it up a notch or two.
Stepping back, I really don't quite understand where this is heading. First, we have Charlie Rangel alleging that things would be different if President Bush had a child in the Army right now, and hinting at reviving the draft. Then we have a California Democratic Senator alleging that because the Secretary of State has no children, she has no basis on which to fashion American foreign policy involving combat.
Of course, the logical conclusion of Boxer's, Rangel's and Alioto's contentions are that nobody who does not have male children of age for military service is unqualified to speak or think on the subject of the use of American military power. This is nonsense.
And, I might add, precisely the sort of hand-wringing that brought about America's post-Vietnam malaise and self-doubt. None of these politicians seem to grasp that freedom and liberty are not free. That preserving our freedom in this age of global terrorism sometimes involves pre-emptory strikes and combat in foreign lands. Fewer Americans have died fighting in Iraq (about a battalion's worth, maybe a bit more), I believe, than were killed in that one morning in lower Manhattan, five years and some months ago.
When will the Democrats stop playing the 'faint-hearted global power' card, and start taking serious responsibility for their words? They can't seem to do so for their actions, as they want a non-binding resolution in opposition to President Bush's short-term increase in the use of force to quell the violence in Iraq.
There is, however, a silver lining to all of this. Behavior like this is just what many conservatives expected out of the long-out-of-power crowd of Congressional Democrats. They simply cannot help themselves. With behaviors like Rangel, Pelosi and Boxer are displaying, the odds of a Democratically-controlled Congress in January, 2009, continue to fall. And they don't need to fall very far to get a 2 seat change in the upper chamber, and a 16 seat shift in the lower one.
Sometimes, it's actually a good thing to be able to rely on people to behave consistently. You just need to be patient, and let them hang themselves. It's a fair bet that these Congressional Democrats will say and do things far worse for their own cause than conservatives could ever convince voters would be true, if it were all only hypothetical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
