Some advice for a new chairman

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) is the incoming chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The Committee's chief role is to monitor the workings of government (oversight) and fix what's broken (reform).  It doesn't enact the laws and regulations that govern us directly, but rather the laws and regulations that govern those who carry out the laws.  Those oldest of enemies, "waste, fraud and abuse" are its meat and drink.

Issa has let it be known he plans a very aggressive agenda, with an average of a hearing a day (thank goodness I'm no longer working on Capitol Hill!) and vigorous investigation of the executive branch.  He thinks he could possibly save $200 billion, all told.  Happy hunting.

While I appreciate his optimism and think a little additional oversight is a good thing (oversight lacks when both parties control Congress and the executive branch), it's clear that Issa really needs to step up his own performance when it comes to public statements.

Most notably, Issa called President Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times."  Now, this is utter nonsense (though arguably not much dumber than some of what was said about Obama's predecessor - it comes with the territory in these partisan times), but its the sort of thing politicians say all the time when they're hyperventilating on partisan talk radio and TV shows with some talking head urging them on.  The difference is, Mr. Issa, you're no longer the irrelevant backbencher who needed to say outrageous things in order to get the media to pay attention, but the Chairman of a congressional committee with subpoana authority.

Fortunately, Mr. Issa seems to get it, saying he regretted his language and trying to explain it in context of an administration that has (thanks to Congress mind you) a large amount of discretionary authority, the kind that Congress rotuinely gives the President in a crisis. 

For his sake and ours, I hope Issa grows in office, and focuses on his stated priorities:

1. Impact of regulation on job creation.
2. Fannie/Freddie & the Foreclosure Crisis
3. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the failure to identify origins of the financial crisis
4. Combating corruption in Afghanistan
5. WikiLeaks

6. FDA/Food & Drug Safety.

The lesson here is when you move from the minority to the majority, your demeanor and style need to change as well.

Fidelity to Law For Its Own Sake

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, established by Congress, announced that it will delay, slightly, its report, due in December to January.  The reason is apparently completely innocuous - it simply wants to publish its report in book form, which will delay release by a few weeks.

There's only one problem.

The statute (aka law) that created the commission requires it to report by December 15th, 2010. 

Four members of the Commission dissented from this decision for this reason.  The dissenters point out that the work is complete and the report can still be delivered on time.

It raises the interesting question of fidelity to law simply for the sake of fidelity to law.

You would think...

You would think that the Washington Post would be a good source for an evenhanded treatment of the economic policies of the incoming House majority.

You'd be wrong.

Steve Pearlstein, who's been writing such gems as full throated defenses of Fannie Mae for as long as I can remember, sums up the incoming House majority's skepticism of current economic policy, to wit:

-quantitative easing
-retaining the Bush tax cuts for households making over $250,000
-unlimited unemployment benefits

as follows:

"GOP to jobless: Drop Dead"

To be fair to Pearlstein, this is from the headline, not the column, and headlines are generally written by editors - not the person who wrote the article or column, so I'll reserve the possibility he (a) didn't write it and (b) chewed out the person who did.

The fact is, there are serious policy arguments on these issues on both sides (see, for example, a critique of the fed's quantitative easing by some of the nation's leading economists).  Pearlstein himself claims to have concerns.  Why he can voice them but others can't isn't clear.  I think there's a distinctly unparliamentary name for criticizing others for something you do yourself, but let's not go there.  The name calling obscures these honest policy differences, and reduces our chances of finding the middle ground that Pearlstein and his ilk claim to seek.

Instead, Pearlstein goes on about William Jennings Bryant, and only cites economic authorities that fit the Post's preconceived preferences for big government.  If the big government policies are the right ones (and I have defended some, e.g. TARP) they certainly need better defenders.

McConnell and Earmarks

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that despite his longstanding support for earmarks as a member of the Senate appropriations committee, he was going to support a ban on earmarks.

I've written about my views on earmarks before.  In short, I view them as a bad practice in that their existence (a) politcizes spending and (b) incentivizes more of it than would otherwise occur.

Critics note that "earmarks account for just three-10ths of 1 percent of federal spending."  Yet, they're the tail that wags the dog.  If members aren't guaranteed their share of ribbon cuttings and publicity, the allure of running up big bills their constituents ultimate pay becomes much diminished.

Here are my questions for Senator McConnell:

(1) Why the late conversion given your past support?
(2) Given that Republicans are in the minority, the Senate's practice will likely still embrace earmarks regardless.  Are you pledging that Republicans (and yourself) will abstain from earmarks even as they see their Democratic colleagues engaging in it?
(3) House Democrats were down on "earmarks" before the 2006 election that brought them to power, yet once given the majority embraced "legislatively directed spending" (i.e. earmarks).  What pledge can you give that Republicans will retain their opposition to earmarks when it really counts (i.e., when they are in the majority)?

How to Restore the American Dream

How to Restore the American Dream is one of the better pieces I've read recently on how the world really works and what it will take to get back on our feet.

"No Final Victories"

E.J. Dionne is a columnist I do not, shall we say, consider essential reading.  Today's column on tomorrow's election offers an opportunity for explaining why (to be clear, I don't believe he or anyone else I'm referring to in this post is an "idiot" - I just thought the picture was funny).

Dionne mostly relates a dinner conversation he had with a Democratic Member of Congress, Patrick Murphy, who relates how Democrats had thought that after the election of 2006, where they took control of Congress and 2008, where they captured the White House and got 60 votes in the Senate needed to prevent a fililbuster, they were some sort of "permanent majority" and that the Republicans would be in the wilderness for an extended period if not forever.

Such an attitude was on display at such entities as The New Republic:

What conservatives have yet to do is confront the large but inescapable truth that movement conservatism is exhausted and quite possibly dead.

The New York Times, no longer the "gray lady" or even, in fact, a shadow of its former self rejoiced after the 2008 election that conservatism was not only defeated, but even discredited.

I haven't been in Washington as long as Dionne, Sam Tenenhaus or the New York Times, but one thing I've learned is that there is no such thing as permanent victory in a democracy.  Republicans who spent and waged war more like progressive Democrats learned that.  Now Democrats are learning this all over again, as if losing control of Congress in 1994 wasn't enough.  Is 14 years really long enough time to forget what you've learned?

Apparently.

What Do You Call This Again?

The latest idea from Congressional Democrats is to make a one time payment to Social Security recipients.

Politically, this makes a lot of sense.  Seniors vote, and who wouldn't want a "bonus" these days?  Put your Republican opponent in the position of having to oppose it.

They're promising to push this once Congress returns after the election in a "lame duck session" (i.e. one that takes place between the election and the seating of new members and removal of old ones not re-elected).

The rationale is that Social Security recipients have not received an increase in their payments for cost of living this year. 

Why?

Because, according to the government statistics, the cost of living didn't actually rise.

Supporters argue that this is "stimulus" and that seniors are struggling, and have to deal with depleted savings. No word on why taking money from a working family of four and handing it to someone to augment their depleted savings will have an economically "stimulative" affect.



To recap: Democrats are offering seniors an additional payment that was not earned, to which they are not entitled under current law, and which has no policy rationale.

What would you call this?