The tale of two political figures was written one day last week when Pelosi went down into the well of the House and pitched the bill to heavily tax the bad people at AIG who received big bonuses. Using the tax code to exact punishment for political reasons is both bad policy and bad law -- why not put gun-shop owners and cigarette manufacturers in the 100 percent bracket? -- but it hurtled through Pelosi's branch of the government with nary a hearing and few discouraging words, and only the mildest suggestion from the president that the bill was really a dumb idea.Did all those Republicans and independents who voted for Obama really plan on his outsourcing his agenda to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and her cohort in the House? Because that is what they've gotten for their votes. Perhaps 2010 will reawaken in the American people the delights of divided government.
The pressure for the legislation was great. In just a day, Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, went from opposing the idea to introducing the very bill he had earlier denounced. Rangel had all the stock phrases ready -- stuff about shattered dreams and greedy executives, which is all true enough -- but he was right when he first said that the tax code should not be used as a "political weapon." With such an about-face, it's a miracle he did not wind up in traction.
As for Obama, around the time this extremely ill-considered piece of legislation was flying through Congress and Pelosi was waxing very hot indeed on television, the cool president went on the Jay Leno show. His appearance was historic, we were solemnly told, but it also turned out to be useful for him to get out of town. The most toxic asset in Washington was fast becoming Congress, where the Democratic leadership was threatening to send him an awful bill that could be very hard to veto. With friends like these . . .
Earlier in the administration, the White House allowed Congress to write the $787 billion stimulus bill. It was bad enough that the candidate who promised change had no choice but to prop up some of the country's most reviled or antiquated institutions -- financial firms, auto manufacturers, etc. -- but what's worse is that the bill came blinged with extra spending. That allowed Republicans to pose as longtime and passionate opponents of pork, producing a noxious cloud of hypocrisy that drifted from the Capitol to the White House. This was not the fresh air of change but the stale air of business as usual.
Something similar happened with the $410 billion omnibus spending bill. Earmarks were permitted. This was not the president's bill since it originated under the previous administration, but Obama did not fight the earmarks or seem upset by them and indeed pronounced them yesterday's news. The speaker, as is her wont, got her way and so, once again, change was parked at some scenic overlook, biding its time until it is allowed into Washington. It is already way late.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Nancy Pelosi's administration
Just as several conservative writers have noted, Richard Cohen also thinks that President Obama has given up his domestic agenda into the hands of Nancy Pelosi. And she's taken the ball and run with it.
Labels:
Nancy Pelosi
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Charlie Rangel has failed to report income and thus under paid his taxes. This is behavior that would cost the average citizen many thousands in fines and interest. Except for some PR problem, it looks like Rangel will walk. And even the PR problems are proving minimal since the pay checks of a few executives gets more attention from the media than the House of Representative's hypocrisy of letting a tax cheat remain as chairman of the committee that sets tax policy. But you can see why Nancy Pelosi might like this odious situation: it allows her to play Rangel like a cheap violin.
"Moderate" Republicans and Independents will soon be remembering the old joke: "They told me to 'Cheer up; things could be worse.' So, I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse."
Obama's voting record clearly showed him to be the most liberal MOC. His campaign language, when not scripted (e.g., to Joe the Plumber), showed him to be an unrepentant leftist. The "change" those "moderate" Republicans and Independents saw was never really there. It was just "hope." All they got was "Nancy, with the laughin' face" (Sinatra).
The question is, who didn't expect Obama to outsource all legislation to the likes of Reid and Pelosi? Although there were many reaons for voting against him, the likelihood of that happening was one of the strongest.
Post a Comment