Mon. Nov 29, 2004
Hijacking the House
When I was a small child and our family would go on a long trip, I would sometimes daydream that we weren’t really driving 800 miles to a new place, we were merely driving in a big circle while they changed everything so that the old place looked like a new place. Like a giant movie set. I was very young, yet I wondered if the world was one big conspiracy to fool me.
As the Giant said in Twin Peaks, “It is happening again.” I’ve recently begun to wonder if the two political parties have intentionally decided to parody themselves, strictly to drive me insane.
And it’s not just the blogs or the partisan pundits, although it is now nakedly clear to me that Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd, if they are not actually the same professional parodist, are at least sharing talking points (and probably giggles) like some lesbian version of James Carville and Mary Matalin.
No, it’s not just the people who get paid to sound like partisan vipers (or do it simply for funsies), it’s your elected representatives.
What’s got me so steamed? Well, it’s a continuum of actions, so you can start with the past. You could read the major findings of a lengthy investigation by Boston Globe into Capitol Hill, but I think this one sentence from Susan Milligan sums it up well: “With one party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, and having little fear of retaliation by the opposing party, the House leadership is changing the way laws are made in America, favoring secrecy and speed over open debate and negotiation.”
This claim is detailed in Part One, “Back-room dealing a Capitol trend,” while Part Two and Part Three deal with the specifics of two bills: “Energy bill a special-interests triumph,” and “Medicare bill a study in D.C. spoils system.”
The recent past detailed in those articles is echoed forward in an analysis from Charles Babington, Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy: “[House Speaker Dennis] Hastert’s position, which is drawing fire from Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats’ influence and running the House virtually as a one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year’s intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations with the Senate, only if ‘the majority of the majority’ supports them.”
Now what does that mean, “a majority of the majority”? Well, a week ago it meant we didn’t get the intelligence bill passed. Hastert “urged his GOP colleagues to back the intelligence bill that had emerged from long House-Senate negotiations and had President Bush’s support. When a surprising number refused, Hastert elected to keep it from reaching a vote, even though his aides said it could have passed with a minority of GOP members and strong support from the chamber’s 206 Democrats.”
Derailed primarily by two Republicans, in a House with 435 members, the majority of whom would have voted for the bill.
And then we have the recent fiasco of a thousand page long $388 billion spending bill that also contained language invading the privacy of our tax returns, born overnight and voted on before it could hardly be read. Just how the heck does something like that happen?
Current rules require that bills be available to be read for at least three days before coming to a vote. Unfortunately, those rules are routinely overridden by the Republican majority, leaving only a few hours to read bills that are thousands of pages in length and spend hundreds of billions of the people’s dollars.
There is now an inverse relationship between the importance of legislation and the amount of time members have to study it before voting.
In addition to this latest abuse of power, prominent examples from the 108th Congress include the Medicare prescription drug bill, the energy bill, the intelligence bill and the defense authorization bill. These important pieces of legislation total more than 2,900 pages of text and authorize more than $1 trillion of spending. Yet, collectively they were available to members for less than 48 hours total for reading.
If forced to tell the truth, most members of Congress would acknowledge that they did not fully or, in many cases, even partially read these bills before casting their votes.
Rep. Bill Baird: We Need To Read The Bills
I have to repeat that, for emphasis: “These important pieces of legislation total more than 2,900 pages of text and authorize more than $1 trillion of spending. Yet, collectively they were available to members for less than 48 hours total for reading.” Four bills, averaging 725 pages each, with an average review time of 12 hours each. We’ll [a] first remember that these bills are released for review by the “Dracula Congress” often during late night hours, and [b] assume that our Representatives are so dedicated they would stay awake anyway, and devote every minute of those 12 hours to reviewing the bill in its final form.
Still, 725 pages in 12 hours is one page per minute. And if those “2,900 pages of text … authorize more than $1 trillion of spending,” that’s an average $350,000 tax dollars authorized per page. Oh, I know, they have staff read these bills and pass on a summary to them. And that’s my point. How many of the 2,900 pages in those four important bills do you think your representative bothered to read for themselves? How many of the 535 in Congress do you think have bothered read all of the 428 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report in its final published form?
And the biggest question I have (to which I already know there is only one answer) is, if a bill leaves the Rules Committee on Monday night, what difference does it make if the vote is held on Friday morning, as the rules sensibly dictate, rather than being forced on Tuesday morning? How does markedly less time to review hundreds of pages of a complex final bill benefit Americans? “A bill that cannot survive a 3-day scrutiny of its provisions is a bill that should not be enacted.” Who said that? The Republican Leadership Task Force on Deliberative Democracy, in 1993. My, how times have changed. I guess.
Who exactly are these rule changes intended to benefit? The answers to these questions point out what a dangerous and juvenile game this has all become, and supposedly serious men play it when our nation is under threat. We can’t even pass intelligence reform because of these internecine shenanigans.
It is indefensible.
If this is the way the Republican Party intends to govern with their newfound “mandate,” it is an interesting choice. I’m reminded of those old science fiction stories where a magic potion alleged to give “ultimate” power in fact merely amplifies every rotten characteristic in the individual who takes it. Because right now, the Republican Congress looks like a nightmare monster with its own flesh falling off in ugly chunks. If they want to turn representative democracy into a farce and a parody, they’re doing a good job of it so far, and they’re being judged on it.
They will also eventually be judged on their leadership, which at this point does not involve words and persuasion, it involves late night secrecy, partisan rule changes, and bull rushes to ram a favored bill through any opposition, as quickly as possible, at any cost.
Is that really what you meant to vote for?
And if the bill cannot be passed by a “majority of the majority,” i.e. if the Republicans can’t claim full credit for it, it simply won’t reach the floor for a vote. The intelligence reform bill would have passed with a bipartisan majority, if Hastert had the balls to bring it to the floor for a vote. If he’d been willing to show some leadership, and call the bluff of those two Republicans who obstructed it. Let them vote against it, and run with that record in 2006. Instead, he folded before their obstruction, and we’ll likely watch them start all over again in January … from scratch (the 109th Congress can’t accept a compromise created by the 108th Congress, they have to start over).
Is this an example of the manner in which Republicans lead when there are no restraints other than those they impose on themselves? So far, it reminds me of Gollum, and his precious ring.
So, by all means, continue doing what’s best for the Republican Party, with more of this naked ambition. And be sure to act surprised at the backlash in the 2006 Congressional elections.
I know most people are still caught up in partisan favor, either licking their wounds of defeat or the bruises on their thorax from all the chest beating of victory. Maybe this will settle out. I keep saying that, like a mantra, like something that might become true if you say it often enough.
But then there’s reality: I can currently find nothing to be proud of in either party. They seem to be on divergent paths of demi-destruction. Thoughts of leadership and what’s best for the country have dropped from secondary to tertiary, if that.
Because once you have full power (or have lost every shred of it), that stuff no longer matters. All that matters is “the precious” ... retaining (or regaining) the power and smiting your “enemies” ... the ones who live in the same country you do.
House Republicans are behaving as if those 206 Non-Republicans that share their chamber are not Americans. Not in their eyes. Not by their words. Not by their actions. They are to be blocked, stymied and shunned as the enemy.
These “leaders” are so caught up in their “mandate of power,” they seem to have forgotten how those 206 people got there: millions of Americans voted them in. And when you block, stymie, and shun those Representatives, you are doing the very same thing to the millions who elected them.
It’s important to note that this is a two way street. On the left, as just one example, you have people like Tom Hayden. He’s rallying people to action towards the priority of defeating the Republicans, by ending all funding and support for the troops in Iraq, forcing them to withdraw, and leaving the Iraqi people to deal with the chaos he has to admit we created. But in his partisan eyes, that moral failure to 25 million people is trivial compared to an opening to defeat the Republicans in power.
It is important to note that. But please don’t insult me with the excuse that this hijacking of the House is nothing new, and the Democrats did it when they controlled the House. First of all, that was a very very long time ago. One might say, an entire Gingrich ago. Secondly, a man jumped off the Empire State Building the other day. Should others follow, simply because he got away with it?
Most critically, rather than say “the Democrats did it before, and now they’re just mad because we’re doing it better,” what is to prevent these Republicans who hold incontrovertible power from, I don’t know … doing the right thing?!?
Rather than say “the Democrats did it before, and now they’re just mad because we’re doing it better,” why not say “the Democrats did it before, and it was wrong. We’re creating a more Democratic way than the Democrats could.”
You know, that whole “uniter not a divider” bullshit.
But that’s just exactly what it was, wasn’t it? Bullshit. And now we see it being shoveled in the House. Hurriedly, and under the cover of darkness. This manure entirely buried the intelligence reform bill.
It makes me so proud I could just vomit.
Published 03:27AM, Mon, Nov 29 2004
Category: Politics
Previous: «« Falcons Fever Check ««
Next: »» Content On Hold »»
Peanut Gallery
This sort of stuff is quite common in quasi-democracies like Pakistan and it seems in the US too.
Two things might effect some change. One is an end to gerrymandering and the other is voters regularly voting against the incumbents.
I agree 99.9% of what you say here, but I really don’t see how you get a kind of ‘pox on both their houses’ conclusion out of it.
On the one hand you excellently describe GOP malfeasance in the House by people with real power who are abusing it.
On the other, you point to usual suspect Tom Hayden crying somewhere in the wilderness, who (a) doesn’t stand for many Democrats I know of, (b) never did and never will, (c) has no power to implement anything and (d) is simply stating an opinion that may or may not have some merit in the near future, rather than forcing others to accept that opinion with undemocratic, fraudulent parliamentary maneuvers.
Great post in general, but I think its even-handedness was unwarranted and a flaw, even if it pleases others among your readers. No, 100% of Democrats aren’t 100% angelic, but they’re simply not the problem now, not at all.
I’m with you guys: gerrymandering gerrymandering gerrymandering gerrymandering!!
Tom Delay can do any damn thing he pleases and get re-elected. So can most Reps from either party.
That’s why the Senate, which has a constitutionally structural conservative bias that the House doesn’t have, is the more moderate house. Because without gerrymandering, practically no Senators have carte blanche the way the House guys do.
If you want to fix the political system, fix the gerrymandering. How? Well, I don’t really know.
Scott: “I personally have given up hope on the legislative branch in anything other than an immediate national emergency”
Yeah, they sure did sound pretty singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capitol after 9/11, didn’t they?
Thomas: “I agree 99.9% of what you say here, but I really don’t see how you get a kind of ‘pox on both their houses’ conclusion out of it.”
Because if I didn’t, somebody else would. It was preemption. As I reach the end of an article in which I’ve slammed one side, I try to think how someone on that side might respond. And preempt it.
You say that in this case such “even-handedness” is “unwarranted and a flaw.” Maybe, but I find it has served me well all year on a range of topics. It has kept partisan warfare and trolling to a minimum in my comments section, and kept the high traffic left/right from linking what I write. I lack a certain … foam, and even when I slam their “enemy,” I get in a swipe at them, too. As an example, check out the Technorati Cosmos on this article to see how many “blue” sites have linked this attack on the “red.” Zippo: “Sorry, no results found.” This kind of “even-handedness” has kept me outside the rabid red-blue swirl. And I like it that way.
It’s also interesting that three of you, from pretty diverse backgrounds, all finger gerrymandering as a prime culprit. Yet no one seems to know what to do about it. It really is a dilemma when you need to have new laws passed to restrict those who pass the laws. It’s like asking a police officer to handcuff himself.
Ideally, you want to present an ugly choice: either reverse gerrymandering, or have term limits imposed on the House. But that ain’t gonna happen.
As Zack says, the other way “is voters regularly voting against the incumbents.” And that appears to be exactly what the Republicans are setting up in their first Month with a Mandate. Maybe it will change before the mid-term elections. But if Hastert and Bush can’t get the House to return and pass the intelligence reform bill this month, the die will be cast for the 109th Congress.
Term limits will never happen because all the important positions go by seniority, and seniority equals federal dollars for your district, which ensures continued longevity.
For instance, Robert Byrd could appear on national TV feeding babies to crocodiles while laughing maniacally, and all he’d have to do is turn to the camera and say, “I’ve brought over 4 billion dollars to our great State while serving you, creating jobs and opportunities for all West Virginians.” Some text would then appear on the screen detailing all the building projects and other things created using Federal dollars, and he’d be re-elected with no problem.
Congress, for all intents and purposes, is just one big wealth redistribution racket, with most of the money flowing into districts with senior representatives. The people in those districts aren’t going to shut-off the flow and the representatives themselves sure as hell won’t do anything to jeopardize their gig.
I get kinda pissy about term limits, because if someone is a really, really good legislator (“doing the right thing”), I hate to see them run off. I suspect that such creatures exist, though I can’t recall seeing any. So, out with the bastards!
I can understand wanting to keep off hyperpartisan radar screens, but that can’t be more important than correctly allocating blame for the problems you identify. Hayden, whatever his politics on Iraq, is not advocating scorched-earth politics in Congress. (And I’d guess he thinks Iraqis might be better off without US troops at this point. He may be wrong about that, but it’s different than cynically rubbing his hands at committing a ‘moral failure’ towards them merely for partisan advantage.)
Simply put, Hastert and DeLay are much, much bigger problems than Hayden is. Saying “Whoa! I’m agreeing with Democrats! I’d better find something to slap them about, too!” is really false evenhandedness—a better formulation than ‘evenhandedness,’ which is of course a virtue, all else being equal. But all else isn’t equal.
Democrats are your natural allies on this topic for the foreseeable future. Hopefully, it will be inscribed on their DNA beyond the time when there’s some parity in Congress again. When that day comes, I’ll be no more forgiving of Dems abusing power than I am of Republicans.
Re gerrymandering: yes, it absolutely needs to be fixed. I’d suggest either the Iowa commission model, or going to proportional representation within the state, along the lines of what Germany does nationally. The Iowa commission model is probably less constitutionally problematic, but any solution will be very hard to push through.
Tom Hayden? I see you’re grasping for straws here to stay fair and balanced. It’s kinda like pulling out Phyllis Schafley as an example of what’s wrong with Republicans. Aren’t both people are either dead or retired?
As for anti-war activists, I was stunned the other day driving through downtown Kennesaw. There’s a little Civil War/Curio shop there run by someone called Wildman. The roof sports Confederate flags and the old Georgia state flag. There are always all kinds of banners outside the store supporting various rightwing candidates or causes.
What stunned me was his latest political banner. It said BRING THEM HOME NOW!!! and had a link to this website
Last time I looked it didn’t look too lefty-pinko.
But your article is right on. I figure we Americans can either grin and bear it, or take lessons from people who got a taste of democracy and ain’t willing to let it go (the Ukrainians). Apparently, you’ve gotta really want it bad or the corrupt politicians will figure it’s theirs. You can’t really blame a coyote for carting off a house cat that somebody de-clawed.
In other notes, I’m off to western Canada (really, it’s just a vacation). But it looks like it won’t be until April now. I called up someone there to see about certain activities and he said,
“Uh, it’s like winter up here now, eh?”
I said, “so March or April is probably better…?”
“Or like May or June, eh?”
“Tom Hayden? I see you’re grasping for straws here to stay fair and balanced.”
That’s “Fair and Unbalanced,” thank you very much. He was the example that had an open tab in my browser. How hard do you think I’d have to look to find another?
I am both shocked and awed that you and Thomas find my attempt at even-handedness to be … uneven. Consider it a reflection of the current warm fuzziness I feel for both parties, even though all the evidence here is “Red on Red.” I feel a need to express disgust for all things political, and likely will for some time.
I simply can’t imagine how I got this way.
However, I have to also express shock and awe over your report from Up North. I’m familiar with The Best Little War House in Kennesaw and for them to have that banner out front is almost like finding a Kerry bumpersticker on Newt Gingrich’s car. However, it’s also worth noting “BRING THEM HOME NOW” is pretty much Iran’s position too.
But I could devote an entire article to that. And probably will at some point.
The solution to the “red/blue swirl” is pretty clear: talk about ideas rather than politics.
Like that Buford Highway bit. What’s going on there?
And wrt gerrymandering: the primary weapon we have against it is the Voting Rights Act, which is 1) designed for a somewhat different purpose and 2) practically a dead letter at this point. So the VRA solutions that are generally proposed don’t fix the problem.
Eliminating ideological gerrymandering would require court intervention, which I can’t think of a constitutional basis for. Or it would require new legislation that would provide a statutory basis for court or administrative intervention. Such laws would generally have to be passed on the state level, since that’s who creates districts. But the legislators would be able to repeal legislation like that if they wanted. round and round and round like that.
Basically, we need a constitutional reason to have a reliable way to keep this out of the hands of legislators. The constitution doesn’t (and can’t reasonably be interpreted to) protect moderates as a discreet and insular group, since we’re supposed to be able to take care of ourselves.
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment requiring “compactness” (there’s that VRA again) of districts? Do Geometric formulae belong in the Constitution?
“Like that Buford Highway bit. What’s going on there?”
Umm, concrete repair. Computer repair. Carpet installation. 2 big web jobs due in the next 45 days. And those things they call “the holidays.”
In other words, it will be a 1st and/or 2nd quarter project in 2005 (as I’d planned from the beginning). I want to at least wait until the 109th Congress goes into session.
And sorry I haven’t replied to your kind e-mail offering to help, but you can be sure when I start, I’ll be in touch.
I understand preemption at the end there. But it’s interesting when we want to talk about a democratic extremist or crazy, we talk about people like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky. When we want to talk about republican moonbats, we can talk about people who actually have power – who can actually make laws and effect our lives. Not filmakers and professors.
The two sets of people are just not equivalent.
Recent Comments
- Stanley (Is That Really Amish?)
- John (Falcons Explode Expectations)
- mark (Is That Really Amish?)
- Jessica (Is That Really Amish?)
- Reid (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
- elburro (Grandpa is Once Again Astounded By The Interwebs)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
I have been gnashing my teeth and boring my compadres over beers for years over Congressional machinations for as long as I’ve been able to understand them. You cite the Globe series, and I used to carry around Dallas Morning News articles to make my point.
I personally have given up hope on the legislative branch in anything other than an immediate national emergency, and I don’t even really trust them at those times. One-quarter decade of watching sausage-making has sterilized any molecules of idealism about elected legislators, so now I don’t even watch it. I know one thing and one thing only—no matter who’s there, they’re going to be dipping into your wallet at every turn.
I’ve racked my brain for ways to solve this, and can only come up with two things worth fighting for: – a reversal of gerrymandering (and that will take Supreme Court-level machinations) – a line-item veto
Guess how long I’m gonna hold my breath waiting for either of those to happen?
PS You might think deeply about throwing term limits into that mix, as well. Yes, I am a loon.