American voters have heard a lot this campaign season from both presidential candidates about the need to work in a bipartisan fashion, but neither candidate truly supported a bipartisan approach to resolving the economic crisis we faced this week. Both took the usual approach of accepting a flawed bill proposed by the Executive Branch and tacking on some perks and pork to sweeten the deal. They then crossed their fingers and hoped that the revised bill could garner enough supporters who would hold their nose and pass it despite the churning in their gut and the ire of their constituents.
The real leadership came from representatives in the House who examined the bill, unearthed its many flaws and sounded alarm over the unprecedented power it placed in the hands of the Executive Branch. A small group of Democratic and Republican representatives refused to be bullied and frightened into submission. They balked at their leadership’s insistence that it was the Bush way, jazzed up a bit with some constituent candy, or imminent doom and destruction at the hands of the wrathful free market god. They courageously voted NO on the bill. Then they talked and creatively proposed intelligent alternatives to the administration plan.
As I write this, some Republican representatives are going to the Rules Committee to request permission to add an amendment to the bill that would significantly reduce the pork that was added by the Senate while also limiting the power of the Executive branch and taking back power for the Congress in oversight and approval. The Democratic opposition to the bill, led by Ohio’s own Marcy Kaptur and Peter DeFazio (OR) proposed a totally different plan that would pay for the bailout with a tax on stock trades while attempting to stabilize the market by increasing the FDIC limit and changing SEC mark to market valuation of assets.
While the plans proposed by the Democratic and Republican holdouts in the House are different, they have some things in common.
- They limit the power given to the Executive Branch and reclaim power for the Congress
- They cut the amount of government money that is given to the Secretary of the Treasury upfront and make him or her more accountable to Congress for the way it is spent.
- Neither bill includes pork and perks totally unrelated to the immediate crisis. It isn’t that some of those perks and pork barrel projects aren’t worthy, it’s just that they shouldn’t be lumped together so that they can’t be fairly debated and passed on their own merit.
In fairness to the leadership, some changes were made to the president’s proposal that improved it, but they pushed their colleagues to pass it and acted like officers of the Executive Branch instead providing creative leadership to the Congress. It’s time we had a Congress that can work across the aisle to protect the American taxpayers from an Executive Branch that has usurped power that wasn’t given to it under the Constitution. It is time for our Representatives to work in a bipartisan manner to solve problems instead of playing politics with legislation. Their constituents deserve bills that they can understand, strong bills that address the issue instead of bills that are so encumbered by amendments and weakened by compromise that they are ineffective. The best solutions aren’t created by throwing a little of everyone’s ideas into a bill with hundreds of almost incomprehensible pages of legalism and passing it. Then when it doesn’t solve the problem, the parties blame each other for the failure.
The best solutions come from creative problem solving by people of good faith with respect for each other even when they offer different approaches to solving the problem. Creativity, problem solving and respect, and courage that’s what I saw in the deliberations of some members of the House this week. Unfortunately these were not qualities I found evident in their leadership.
3 comments:
Bi-partisanship and post-partisanship are the buzz words of this election, but as you've pointed out, they prove to be rather empty when closely examined.
Any politician who tells you the decisions they've made in formulating legislation aren't political in nature, as Palin did last night, is flagrantly lying.
It's been more like mud-slinging at each other rather than bipartisanship to work cooperatively on the monumental problems the United States faces.
I'm sad to report that the next President will inherit both a moral as well as finacially bankrupt nation courtesy of the Bush legacy. This lame duck has taught Congress the monetary gains to be made in exchange for passing laws which consolidate power in the hands of the greedy few.
Need proof ? Obama, Biden and McCain all voted to enable the bailuot bill before the Senate and the House soon affirmed it. If that's not corporate fascism please expalin to me what is ?
I had hoped the incoming President would have the leadership skills to make a return to Constitutional democracy its foundation for restoring the kind of government I experienced growing up. Imperfect as it was, at least it remained fair, objective and balanced in its decision making.
The only courage on display by this next generation of political leaders is the inept tendency to be ruled by business lobbyists who will ruin this country if we let them.
Peace,
Cosmic
Yes, the vote for the bailout was very discouraging for those of us who had hope that a new administration might bring some much needed change. "sigh" Third party populist movements in the past have not been able to become major players in terms of winning large numbers of offices, but they have often made the two major political parties take some measures that the people demanded. I believe that this legislation will fail in propping up the economy. Then as we fall into a depression, the people will finally become upset enough to run for office and to vote the bums out.
Post a Comment