I hadn't realised until Sallie James at Cato pointed me in the right direction that neither John McCain, nor Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton voted on the (awful) 2007 Farm Bill. Well, I guess one can see why. Still, it would be nice to hear their answers to the questions:
1.Why didn't you vote on the Farm Bill?
and
2. If you had would cast a vote, would you have voted Yes or No?
Plus: How protectionist is your candidate? Find out here!
Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake on the worst bills passing through Congress
Economic Stimulus Package: “Any time Republicans and Democrats can so easily agree on legislation as expensive as this, it’s not a good sign."
Quite. Also, a reminder of hos the sausage is made. To wit, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill:
Congress rolled 11 appropriations bills into one massive package and passed it in late December. House members had less than 24 hours to read the legislation before we voted on it. We’re still finding out what’s actually in the bill. But we do know it contained nearly 12,000 earmarks. That was reason enough to vote ‘no.’”
I meant to comment on the death of Congressman Henry Hyde before now but never got around to it. National Review says:
During the height of the impeachment controversy, Rep. Maxine Waters, a left-wing Democrat, tried to scold Hyde: “History will not be kind to you.” She was wrong. History will remember Henry Hyde for precisely what he was: One of the great congressmen of his generation — or any generation.
Well it's all about your perspective isn't it? From a British point of view Henry Hyde was one of the very worst Congressmen of his generation (not as ghastly, admittedly, as the loathsome Peter King but arguably more influential). His retirement from Congress was celebrated by British diplomats in Washington and civil servants at the Ministry of Defence.
The reason? Well, the most recent reason was Hyde's adamant, knuckle-headed belief that permitting Britain prompt access to technology transfers that would allow the UK to staff and service its super-new, super-expensive batch of Joint Strike Fighters would be to permit, nay even encourage, the transfer of that technology to foreign powers irredeemably hostile to the United States. (ie, China and, worse, France).
As best I can tell, this is nonsense. Nonetheless, Hyde's obstinacy - important because he chaired the House International Relations Committee - risked an all-out fall-out between London and Washington. Indeed, the UK had to actually threaten to withdraw from the JSF programme unless it received guarantees it would receive the software updates needed to keep the planes flying. The alternative was to subject the UK to the humiliation of only being able to fly the planes if they were serviced by Americans.
In the end, of course, the UK received the assurances it needed. But Hyde's obstinacy risked driving America's closest military ally away. Had Britain bought French jets to staff the two new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, it's reasonable to suppose that the UK's entire defence posture - with obvious consequences for future defence procurement - would have changed overnight, tilting away from he United states and towards Europe.
That, theoretically, is not something many Republicans are supposed to welcome. But Henry Hyde was the sort of conservative who thought it sensible to treat your allies as though they were your enemies. After all, who needs friends?
Useful round-up of the JSF brouhaha here.
To the extent that the United States Congress has abandoned any pretense of honouring the idea of fiscal restraint, it should be said that earmarks - or pork barrel spending - is a tiny problem when set beside the Pentagon's budget and future spending commitments on entitlements. Still, earmarks are what folk like to huff and puff about, allowing everyone to seem as though they're highly-principled, moral beings determined to crack-down on wasteful government spending. Of course, they're really just tinkering at the edges.
So there's a certain chutzpah involved when George W Bush vetoes any spending bill. On the other hand, this sort of bill actually should be vetoed and the members of Congress responsible pilloried. To wit, as the New York Times reports, "namesake" pork projects remain as popular as ever:
Buried deep in the largest domestic spending bill of the year is money for a library and museum honoring first ladies. The $130,000 was requested by the local congressman, Representative Ralph Regula, Republican of Ohio. The library was founded by his wife, Mary A. Regula. The director of the library is his daughter, Martha A. Regula...
Mr. Regula, the dean of the Ohio delegation, with 35 years in Congress, said the library “tells the story of first ladies and the contributions they have made to the nation.” More generally, he said, “I don’t have one earmark in any bill that I am not prepared to go to the mat on and defend to the taxpayer.”...
“Earmarks are not an abuse,” Mr. Regula said, unless they are part of a quid pro quo.
That's good, but perhaps not quite so fine as this:
The Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, named for the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee... Mr. Rangel, a New York Democrat, obtained $2 million to establish the public service center that is named for him and that will “prepare individuals for careers in public service.” A college spokesman said the center would include an office for Mr. Rangel and a library for his papers and memorabilia.
Representative John Campbell, Republican of California, said Mr. Rangel should be ashamed of using tax dollars to build “a monument to himself.”
But Mr. Rangel, who took office in 1971, brushed aside the criticism. “I would have a problem if you did it,” he told Mr. Campbell, “because I don’t think that you’ve been around long enough to inspire a building like this.”
Magnificent.
I'd been quietly, if feebly, sympathetic towards some of the realpolitik concerns about the forthcoming Congressional vote on recognising the Armenian genocide. Then the Washington Post came out fighting. Apparently the resolution is "Worse than Irrelevant"
The Post chuntered that Congressman Adam Schiff, the driving force behind the resolution thanks to the vociferous lobbying of US-Armenians in his California district (mere parochialism according to the Post because of course it's stupid to listen to one's constituents...) is up to no good. Worse still, the paper sneered:
How many House members can be expected to carefully weigh Mr. Schiff's one-sided "findings" about long-ago events in Anatolia?
Apparently given:
the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the Armenian genocide resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact, its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.
And yes, for sure, passing the resolution is symbolic rather than substantive - or rather it would be if it didn't also suggest, quite powerfully, to Turkey that it's past time it acknowledged the darker aspects of its history. Certainly EU membership should not even be a matter for discussion until this happens.
I dare say, of course, it's anti-semitic to suppose that anyone - say, the Iranian president! - adopting this sort of attitude towards the Jewish holocaust (Needs more study, not sure, you know, about these one-sided "findings" about events that are, well, "long-ago" anyway. Really, why the fuss?) might enjoy a different reception from the Post's editorial page. (For lots on the Jewish angle on this, see the invaluable and excellent chaps at Jewcy)
Ultimately it's pretty simple: you either treat genocide as genocide or you don't. But if you don't at least have the decency to stay quiet about it rather than offering weasel excuses about the national interest and all the rest of it.
Besides it is humiliating to give in to Turkish bullying. To wit:
A top Turkish official warned Thursday that consequences "won't be pleasant" if the full House approves the resolution.
"Yesterday some in Congress wanted to play hardball," said Egemen Bagis, foreign policy adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "I can assure you Turkey knows how to play hardball."
Screw them.
Of course there is that old Mario Cuomo line about campaigning in poetry but governing in prose. If memory serves, Bill Clinton trotted it out to justify any decision that betrayed any previous promise. The tough and manly and courageous thing to do is to shake your head and wish that matters were otherwise and sigh that, you know, given the realities of the world we live in and all the rest of it... Half a tear and a quivering lip can't hurt either.
I dare say the current President feels the same way. Apparently it's irresponsible for Congress to even discuss the Armenian genocide - sorry, "mass killings". It wasn't always so, but who cares about a little flip-flopping on genocide? Here's Bush in 2000:
The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.
Shame is best borne silently; it shouldn't be trumpeted as a virtue.
Every political party has its share of clowns; still, it will be worth keeping an eye out for Idaho Republican Bill Sali. Here's what the Congressman had to say recently, objecting to, well, non Judeo-Christian faiths being heard in Washington:
"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.
Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."
"You know, the Lord can cause the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike," says the Idaho Republican.
Quote for the Day:
"In Washington, achievement is measured by how much legislation is passed and how much money is spent, not by whether the nation’s interests are advanced."
Cato's Dan Griswold rolls his eyes (one assumes) at the House's "great achievement" in passing the new and monstrous Farm Bill.
Once upon a time American conservatives distrusted the idea of an all-powerful, imperial presidency. Here's Russell Kirk, doyen of the movement and the "natural things", on the danger of an over-mighty presidency leading America ever-deeper into Vietnam. Failure to resist this would
"...make the American President a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, injure the habitual self-reliance and self-government of the American people, distort the economy, sink the federal government in debt, [and] break in upon private and public morality.”
Then there's Barry Goldwater who wrote in his 1964 manifesto:
We hear praise of a power-wielding, arm-twisting President who “gets his program through Congress” by knowing the use of power. Throughout the course of history, there have been many other such wielders of power. There have even been dictators who regularly held plebiscites, in which their dictatorships were approved by an Ivory-soap-like percentage of the electorate. But their countries were not free, nor can any country remain free under such despotic power. Some of the current worship of powerful executives may come from those who admire strength and accomplishment of any sort. Others hail the display of Presidential strength … simply because they approve of the result reached by the use of power. This is nothing less than the totalitarian philosophy that the end justifies the means…. If ever there was a philosophy of government totally at war with that of the Founding Fathers, it is this one.
Gene Healy explains how all this happened - and why Republicans changed their mind (not just because they started winning!), at Cato's excellent blog.
Proof, if it were needed, that stupidity knows no borders, comes from Radley Balko's testimony before the House Financial Services Committee hearing asking the question: Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System? (to which the answer, my friends, is an obvious, head-slapping "Yes, you fools, yes!")
Congressman Spencer Bacchus reveals that he is, in fact, as big a numpty* as anyone who sits at the Scottish Parliament or the Jimmy's Scottish Labour has traditionally sent to act as lobby fodder at Westminster. The good people of Alabama's Sixth District should be embarrassed that they've sent him to Washington.
Mr. Bachus: Mr. Balko, in your testimony, you sort of—you talked about one of the brands you singled out for praise was FullTilt Poker?
Mr. Balko: Well, that was one of the—it's one of the more reputable poker...
Mr. Bachus: One of the more reputable firms. Have you looked at their website?
Mr. Balko: Yes, I have.
Mr. Bachus: Did you read—you now, they have the biographies of some of the players, and you've seen those haven't you?
Mr. Balko: I'm familiar with several of the biographies of the top poker players, yes.
Mr. Bachus: Are you familiar with Ross Boatman's biography on their website?
Mr. Balko: No, I'm not.
Mr. Bachus: Let me tell you about him. [Reading from bio.] Ross was 10 years old when he played poker for the first time. His brother Barney, who is a little older than Ross, was playing with some friends, and after much pleading, they let him sit in.
His gambling career really didn't get started until a couple of years later, though, when he was 12 years old. Ross was too young and didn't have the money to play with those guys—I guess they're talking about his 14-year-old brother—but they let him sit and watch, and he learned plenty.
[Bachus, now looking at me.] I guess the verification system didn't work.
Mr. Balko [flummoxed]: I believe that all took place well before the age of Internet gambling, Congressman.
Mr. Bachus: Okay. Was it? I wonder why it's still on the site today.
(A webcast of the hearing can be found here. Stuff in square brackets above is not part of the official transcript.)
*Traditional Scots word for a fool or especially stupid windbag.
Recent Comments