Dear everyone (i.e.,
all three people aside me who will actually read this letter home),
This missive tries to
answer, from my conservative bias, an interesting argument raised in a Washington
Post article in support of the widely held notion that this current
Congress, the 112th, has been the worst in American history. On a housekeeping note, I assume the label of
‘conservative’ knowing that I am not a pure conservative.
Additionally, I
believe this Congress has had more than its fair share of Republicans focussed
on bringing down President Obama. Since
I often write that the country is in need of a national renewal – starting from
within each one of us – such personal animus has no place in the national discourse. We need creative political ideation, not
craven personal obliteration. So, onto
the response…
BLUF: our government, Congress and citizenry are in a time of intense
debate, high uncertainty and unforeseeable consequences. Perhaps this Congress represents a pause
before a plunge into the new history of a previously untried political
philosophy.
I.
Number of bills passed. This
measure reflects more the bias of the author since many conservatives believe a
fundamental problem for the U.S. is the passing of too many laws, reactive in
nature, leading to regulations too restrictive in application, translating into
fewer small businesses and increasingly suffocating beleagured middle class.
II. 9-10% approval ratings.
Disheartening, to say the least, since these rock-bottom numbers
indicate that people may no longer be exempting their own Representatives from
the scorn formerly reserved for all of Congress. Demagoguery by the Republicans certainly has
played a part in this crisis of confidence in our legislature (e.g., the deliberate
misnomer of the health-care bill, brokered by the President, as ‘ObamaCare’, especially
as this compromise integrates findings from the Heritage Foundation). Frankly, my countrymen are smart enough to
squinch up their noses at such sophistry.
III. Polarization. A wise man once told me that
‘confusion’ is a high state just preceding creativity (i.e., call me a confused
mad-Manet wannabe)…If this statement be true, this assertion and the one
previous argue toward a time of change, perhaps radical change. Such prospects are frightening and people tend
to lean back on their basic beliefs while the source of discontent – the
American people, particularly the middle class – demand something new and
different aside from the same ‘threadbare’ prescriptions.
IV. The G.O.P. has set back the recovery through the debt ceiling ‘bullying’. I was a Democrat of many years in the
mid-1990s. I remember all my more liberal
friends excoriating the Republicans for “shutting down” the government for a
short period at that time.
Unstatesmanlike though this Republican action appeared to be, I
privately thought that it was a good way to make the main point of the party’s
‘contract’ with America (i.e., by whacking the mule with a two-by-four). It proved to be the main reason why President
Clinton later produced historic surpluses (though based, at least in part, on
convenient ‘J-curve’ assumptions on future revenue in-take on social
security). This Congress, unrepentant
though it was, made crystal clear through this debt-ceiling spat, that we
cannot spend-and-borrow our way out of national economic malaise. Yes, President Bush (of whom I am a BIG fan)
had a part in creating this challenge.
V. Lower Credit Rating. I
mean, really. This assertion clarifies
the bias of the author. Mind you – bias
in public disquisition is a good quality for it provokes debate. In actuality, given explicit and implicit
debt levels to G.D.P. – we look more like a single-A rated country than a
triple-A one. Call it a bigger credit
bang for the excess military buck. A end
to cheap Chinese credit, imported by the same Treasury charged to protect the
integrity of the national currency, will crash the global economy. This ceiling and its offspring, sequestration,
can be better viewed as a stand to preserve our national sovereignty than as some
punishment imposed by the privileged.
VI. Sequestration. Personally, I welcome this admittedly sledge-hammer form of fiscal discipline. Sooner or later, the country will have to
face up its fiscal profligacy. Sequestration
was the alternative to limiting the debt ceiling; a good compromise to enforce
fiscal discipline while granting our lawmakers a final chance to do for us what
they had previously failed to do by themselves.
VII. Repeal
times thirty-three. Got it.
I have previously decried the demagoguery by my fellow conservatives on
this issue of the healthcare bill.
Nevertheless, the health-care law is not popular among a voting public
that clearly believes, as I do, in a right to basic health-care. My sense remains that my countrymen do not
want that right extended through excessive government oversight. That said, while I prefer a system that
evolves up through the states organically (that is, constitutionally), based on
federal minimum standards, this legislation should stay in place until a better
alternative emerges.
VIII. Budget legerdemains of Senate Democrats. In
truth, I was not aware of this issue.
Good for the author for proving that bias stated in public disquisition,
founded on integrity, improves the content of the larger political dicourse.
IX. Zero appropriation bills passed.
Obviously not a wonderful statistic.
Yet I view this ‘reason’ more as evidence of the previous assertion,
empirically supported, of polarization.
X. The ‘infrastructure fiasco’. As a
fiscal conservative who viewed the stimulus bill as unaffordable and as a
failure in its implementation, I am not surprised that my fellow Republicans
would be loath toward giving more permission to squandered largesse. These stop-gap measures are votes of
no-confidence against what conservatives view as a failed discretionary spending
policy, led by the President, that may have slowed growth over the medium
term. That is to say: the Republicans
use this stop-gap approach to keep the President on a tight leash until the President
changes or a new Administration is inaugurated.
XI. The temporary suspension of F.A.A. operations. I must
confess my ignorance on this issue. It seems
to be a particularly powerful example of other assertions; namely, the
polarization and absence of enacted legislation.
XII. The blocking of the nomination of a qualified Governor
for the Federal Reserve. Unless the author has left something out,
there is no justification for Senator Shelby’s actions nor the G.O.P. leadership’s
tolerance of it.
XIII. The experts agree. Beyond
my limited knowledge to comment on this point.
Such agreement is not surprising, since at least some Republicans and
conservatives do appear to be more intent on curtailing President Obama’s
career than in honestly trying to find ways to steer our country through a very
challenging time now and yet to come.
XIV. There are problems to solve. “, Sherlock”; or, I think we all agree
on that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment