ANOTHER REASON WHY AMERICA THINKS SO LITTLE OF CONGRESS!
January 16, 2008 – 2:07 pmWhen Bush attorney Harriet Miers ignored a subpoena to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committe, what did they do about it? NOTHING!
When former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez lied to the same Committee, what did they do?
NOTHING!
They apparently don’t have the time or inclination to pursue THOSE offenses, but they DO have time to obsess over what Roger Clemens might have had injected in his butt!
What the hell are they doing wasting time on this nonsense?
Is it any wonder that America is fed up with Washington?
9 Responses to “ANOTHER REASON WHY AMERICA THINKS SO LITTLE OF CONGRESS!”
“Nothing ado about much!!”
By DAD on Jan 16, 2008
They’re probably delighted to have this diversion from the real business at hand.
The legislators probably won’t even do anything about steroids– maybe pass something toothless.
The Democrats seem paralyzed by their own inertia– they hold hearings, but resolve nothing.
I expect them to be even more diffident in this political season– why commit themselves to substantive action on anything important and take a chance on political repercussions (shudder)?
Of course, that very hesitance to act is what makes the voters want to spew.
If only our Congresspersons had the same reticence when glad-handing lobbyists come around.
By Vince Williams on Jan 16, 2008
Well, they’re Democrats. At least they’re staying consistent - you know, doing nothing.
By Billy Hallowell on Jan 17, 2008
Get your facts straight, “Billy.”
Here’s why things haven’t been getting done:
“This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that’s rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.
The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats’ razor-thin win in last year’s election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans’ exile to the minority.
Seven months into the current two-year term, the Senate has held 42 “cloture” votes aimed at shutting off extended debate — filibusters, or sometimes only the threat of one — and moving to up-or-down votes on contested legislation. Under Senate rules that protect a minority’s right to debate, these votes require a 60-vote supermajority in the 100-member Senate.
Democrats have trouble mustering 60 votes; they’ve fallen short 22 times so far this year. That’s largely why they haven’t been able to deliver on their campaign promises.By sinking a cloture vote this week, Republicans successfully blocked a Democratic bid to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April, even though a 52-49 Senate majority voted to end debate.”
This year Republicans also have blocked votes on immigration legislation, a no-confidence resolution for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and major legislation dealing with energy, labor rights and prescription drugs.
Now, tell me again who the “do nothing” party is
By Steve Levine on Jan 17, 2008
More facts for you to get straight, Billy:
From the NY TIMES, January 19th:
Could Congress Be Waking Up?
By THOMAS E. MANN, MOLLY REYNOLDS and NIGEL HOLMES
AMID the clamor of the presidential campaign, it’s sometimes easy to forget that all 435 House seats and 35 of the Senate’s seats are up for election this year, too. So how should Congress under its new Democratic leadership be judged?
The public has reached a decidedly negative conclusion, based on Congress’s inability to force a change in policy on the Iraq war and the pitched partisan battles that characterized much of the year in Washington.
But expectations for seismic change in policymaking after the 2006 midterm elections were almost certainly too high, given the deep ideological differences between the parties, the Democrats’ narrow majorities, the now-routine Senate filibusters and a Republican president determined to go his own way on Iraq, the budget and domestic policy.
Based on our research, the 110th Congress does deserve some praise. In 2007, the level of energy and activity on Capitol Hill picked up markedly. This is not surprising — when the Newt Gingrich Congress, its closest analogue, took over in 1995, the pace of legislative life sped up, too.
In terms of both the number and significance of new public laws, however, last year’s Democratic majority significantly outperformed that Republican Congress. Only one item described in the Republican Contract With America was signed into law at the end of 1995, while most of the proposals the Democrats announced as their agenda were enacted.
Democrats, to be sure, aimed lower in their specific legislative promises, but they managed to overcome the many obstacles in their way. Republicans in 1995 shot for the moon and ended up frustrated by Senate inaction, presidential vetoes and a government shutdown that proved politically damaging.
The new Democratic Congress delivered on the promise of ethics and lobbying reform, and made considerable progress in reining in earmarks, which had exploded under the previous 12 years of mostly Republican rule. In fact, between the 2006 and 2008 fiscal years, the cost of appropriations earmarks appears to have dropped from $29 billion to $14.1 billion. Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch, significantly stepping up its oversight on a wide range of important subjects.
But a less partisan, more deliberative and productive legislative process will have to await a clearer signal from voters in the 2008 elections.
Still think it’s the Democrats who do nothing?
Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of “The Broken Branch.� Molly Reynolds is a senior research assistant at Brookings. Nigel Holmes is a graphic designer.
By Steve Levine on Jan 19, 2008
@”Perhaps most important, Congress reasserted itself as a rightful check on the executive branch.”
It’s scary when the greatest threat to our democracy comes not from terrorists, but from our own power-grabbing Executive Branch.
If Giuliani somehow got elected, God forbid, I would expect an even more vigorous assault on the Constitution and our civil rights.
By Vince Williams on Jan 19, 2008
Huckabee too would do damage to the Constitution. In fact, ALL of the Republicans would.
I thought Conservatives respected history and tradition, but this band of bible-thumping yahoos would make even Swift cringe!
By Steve Levine on Jan 19, 2008
Swift would satirize them mercilessly.
Speaking of history and tradition, the Confederate flag has been ‘resurrected’ as a campaign issue by Huckabee, who said Thursday in South Carolina: “You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag.”
Somehow that doesn’t sound very inclusive to me of the black citizens (29%) of South Carolina, most of whom I’m sure are not stirred to misty-eyed nostalgia for dear old Dixie by the sight of the Confederate Battle Flag being flown on the grounds of the state capitol.
By Vince Williams on Jan 19, 2008
Huckabee circa 1861:
“You don’t like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your slaves.�
By Joshua Rosenstock on Jan 19, 2008