Pelosian Government: The More Things Change
By Rep. Patrick McHenry Posted in Congress — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This is not altogether surprising given the Democrats' record during 40 years of majority control before the Contract with America swept them from power. Those 40 years were plagued with consistent, systematic efforts to usurp the rights of the Republican minority and their constituents. But it takes a special kind of hypocrisy for the Democrats to campaign on 'openness' then govern by padlock.
More importantly, the dangers of making decisions of national consequence outside the regular legislative process should be noted - especially within the realm of national security.
Read on . . .
Today, without any meaningful debate, House Democrats will vote to fundamentally alter America's national security apparatus by implementing some - but not all - of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. If you will remember, the Democrats campaigned on a promise to implement 'ALL' 9/11 Commission recommendations, a pledge which fell by the wayside - less than one week in power.
According to the 9/11 Commission, restructuring Congressional oversight of intelligence agencies is critical to prevent future terrorist attacks. The Commission recommended that the House and Senate each create a single committee to authorize and appropriate funds for the intelligence community. However, the Democrats' plan to create a subcommittee within the House Appropriations Committee falls woefully short of the Commission's explicit recommendation.
By neglecting the normal legislative process - including the thoughtful deliberation of Republican and Democratic Members of Congress - Speaker Pelosi virtually guarantees catastrophic mistakes will be made. Some of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, like declassifying the annual intelligence budget, are unwise, if not altogether dangerous.
Furthermore, implementing the Commission's recommendations for transportation and infrastructure security will require countless billions in new spending and major changes to numerous federal agencies. These are not trivial issues to be tossed around like the Democrats' empty campaign slogans. They deserve debate. They deserve analysis. Yet they receive neither.
Last week, Republicans gave Speaker Pelosi an opportunity to honor her campaign promise to "lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical government in history" by introducing then-Minority Leader Pelosi's own 2004 proposal - the Pelosi Minority Bill of Rights - during debate over the rules package for the 110th Congress.
The Minority Bill of Rights guards against the pitfalls of a closed process by protecting regular order, the committee process, and by giving members time to review legislation before voting on it. Apparently Speaker Pelosi thinks Minority Leader Pelosi was wrong - and so do the House Democrats who defeated the bill on a straight party line vote.
Speaker Pelosi argues that shutting down the legislative review process allows the Democrats to pass their 100-Hour Agenda without impediment. Today, Democrats are so preoccupied with whether they can pass the 9/11 Commission legislation - that they never stopped to think whether they should.
Faced with a clear choice between open government and shady backroom arrangements, House Democrats unanimously chose to shut down the legislative process and cut deals behind closed doors. Granted, there's no smoke in those rooms anymore but the cloud of duplicity remains. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Nancy Pelosi Is Right (On This One) — Comments (5) »
Pelosian Government: The More Things Change 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Apparently Speaker Pelosi thinks Minority Leader Pelosi was wrong
With all due respect, Congressman, apparently minority Republicans think majority Republicans were wrong. For the life of me, I can't see what's so "special" about Pelosi's kind of hypocrisy. You and her seem to be playing the exact same game - "we want to do what we want to do, and never mind what we said or did before."
Particularly if many Republicans in the House are seen by the public as being equally as guilty of the charge. More importantly, it won’t help Republicans counter some of the politically popular but meritoriously deficient legislation that Democrats will now be able to ram through the House.
If Congressional Republicans cannot mount a more successful strategy, then Republican voters who do not wish to remain in the minority for another 10-40 years and who are still upset over the way Congressional Republicans behaved while in the majority may wish to consider primary challenges to replace the current incumbents.
I heard a good comment about hypocrisy today from P.J.O Roarke.
The good thing about hypocrites is at least they KNOW right from wrong!
A lot of them (possibly most, I’ve only read through about five sections) are little more than “direct the Secretary of this department to create rules to do this or create a report on this that” rather than any substantive change in US law.
It seems to me that one way the Bush administration could win on this issue would be if it could show point-by-point where it had already implemented these rules, implemented rules that it believed were better (and explain why), or why the recommendations were not actually an improvement on what we already have.
that the whole "100 hours" thing is more of a slogan than a useful tool for creating legislation.
While I think the GOP congress stunk at moving the GOP legislative agenda forward, I can't think that speed and having a catchy slogan is the best way to pass legislation.
I think some things, and especially the 9/11 commisison recommendations need and deserve complete and full debate before they are passed. I think a pledge to pass "every recommendation from the 9/11 commission" is a stupid pledge to make. Just because the 9/11 commission put them in a report doesn't mean that every recommendation is good or wise, and these kinds of changes in this day and time are scary without any debate.
Sacrificing debate for speed is stupid no matter who is in charge.
there is nothing magical about 100 hours other than "marketing" politics - which I find to be offensive. Gov't. is not product. This issue deserves real debate...
On the other hand I have limited sympathy for Repub. reps because its not like they didn't have 3 years to have a thorough debate on the issue when they controlled the legislative agenda and choose what if any recommondations should be enacted... that's their own failing.
Frankly, I think the Democrats will make a big mistake if they don't structure an open debate with minority Republicans... just as Republicans did shutting out the Democratic minority... why is this concept of debate and compromise so difficult to grasp for politicians?
Can you guys remember that song?
Seriously, nobody likes a crybaby and a whine bag. Nobody wants to hear about how the Ds aren't nice. We knew they weren't nice and their base wants them to be not nice.
Just fight against those things that are unjust and wrong. Say your piece in a concise manner and vote against that with which you disagree. Use any parliamentary manuevers you can to cause bad legislation to fail (bad legislation, not to be confused with politically inexpedient legislation.)
If you guys had done so from the beginning (assuming you guys really do have common sense and morals and all that crap that went on was just the power vacuum sucking out your brains) we would still be the majority.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
nicer if the politicians could craft legislation that both sides could live with? This isn't an argument for watered down approaches - just common sense. I know that sometimes compromise isn't the best solution - especially if its hasty... but neither is legislation that gets party line votes...
Can't say I feel sorry. Many of the comments don't seem to sympathize with your "hypocrisy" argument, and neither will mine. The Republicans, to my knowledge, left the Dems out of key national security debates and ruled with an iron fist, too. Start fighting the debate of ideas, and not complaining. We have too much to lose for you guys to waste time on this stuff. Counter their ideas and fuss about their liberalism. That's what will win elections for our cause.
The hypocrisy argument points right back at the GOP as much as it does the Dems.
In a world full of twists and turns, the ultimate twist...is a straight line.
Anything that the House passes has to go to the Senate where most of the legislation will either be watered down or not pass. The dem's will find out in 08 what kind of mandate they really have - not!