THE DAILY BLADE: Is A Do-Nothing Congress A Bad Thing?
In a Washington Post op-ed, Yale University cardiologist Harlan Krumholz makes the point that while “negative” studies finding that two or more treatment modalities are more or less equivalent don’t generate as much excitement or media coverage as “breakthrough” studies demonstrating the effectiveness of a novel treatment , an existing treatment - or no treatment - may sometimes produce the best outcome for the patient. Extrapolating this concept to the legislative process, an existing law - or no new law to amend or replace it – sometimes produces the best outcome for the country. This is something that Republicans know, but that Ruth Marcus and other pundits cannot quite grasp.
Case in point: The New York Times reports that “[b]owing to political reality, Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said the Senate would not take up legislation intended to reduce carbon emissions blamed as a cause of climate change, but would instead pursue a more limited measure focused on responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and tightening energy efficiency standards”:
The decision was a major disappointment to conservation groups and lawmakers who had invested months in trying to negotiate legislation. The House last year passed its own climate change bill, a proposal that has created a backlash for some politically vulnerable Democrats. The outcome was also viewed as a setback by some utility executives who had hoped that Congress would set predictable rules governing carbon pollution. …
Congressional and White House officials said the decision was a pragmatic move that could produce some legislation rather than bogging down the Senate over a bill that had no chance given strong opposition from most Republicans and some Democrats. They noted that the White House had acted on its own to raise fuel efficiency standards and had pushed the development of alternative fuels.
Democrats said the slimmer package would ensure that BP would pay for the cleanup of the gulf oil spill, and would promote further production of natural gas as well as the manufacturing of natural gas vehicles, especially big trucks. They said it would also tighten household energy efficiency requirements and increase financing of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The first rule a new doctor learns is: First, do no harm. Put another way: It is better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing. We would all be better off if legislators adopted this motto as their MO. A Slow Learner Earlier this year, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman famously observed that President Barack Hussein Obama is "a real slow learner." Here's a prime example of what he meant. A year ago Obama held his Rose Garden “beer summit” to smooth over the brouhaha over his criticism of white police officer Sgt. James Crowley while responding to a call about a possible break-in at the home of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. that resulted in the Harvard professor’s arrest without first ascertaining the facts (second item). A year later, he apologized to Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod for his administration summarily firing her over a video snippet of a speech she gave at an NAACP gathering in which she said she regretted discriminating against a white farmer who needed her help 24 years ago, because he again acted without first ascertaining the facts. Yup, a slow learner. Obama’s MSM cheerleaders relentlessly pushed the fiction that he was deliberate and logical in his actions, whereas President George Bush was a cowboy who shoots first and asks questions later. At least Bush didn't shoot himself in the foot. Is It Too Soon To Discuss The “I Word”? Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner accuses Obama as having “engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors” and declares, “[i]t's time for him to go” because “he is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism.” Kuhner’s Bill of Particulars: He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul … is blatantly unconstitutional … and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power. … Rather than defending our homeland, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has sued Arizona for its immigration law … thus encouraging more illegal immigration as Washington refuses to protect our borders. As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. … It poses a direct threat to the integrity of our democracy and the sanctity of our electoral process. Corruption in the administration is rampant. … Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel … reached out to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, offering a high-ranking job in the hopes of persuading Mr. Sestak to pull out of the primary against Sen. Arlen Specter [and] offered another government position to Andrew Romanoff to do the same in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary [and] acted as the go-between to try to have Valerie Jarrett parachuted into Mr. Obama's former Senate seat. … It is the systematic breaking of the law - bribery, attempt to interfere (and manipulate) elections using taxpayer-funded jobs, influence peddling and abuse of power. Former Rep.Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) notes that the Founders thought that our liberties were as susceptible to being undermined by domestic enemies as enemies outside our borders. He calls Obama “an enemy of our Constitution” and “a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms” because he is “one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations” who is “supported by large majorities in Congress [and] does not feel constrained by the rule of law” and “can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.” And here are his Bill of Particulars: A level of government deficit spending unheard of since World War II and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see represent an unacceptable threat to our economic security and our children's future. Mr. Obama could be the first president to guarantee that the next generation of Americans has a lower standard of living than their parents. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion. … There is no higher duty of the federal government and our elected representatives than to protect our nation from invasion. … Recent reports of contacts between Hezbollah and Mexican drug cartels make it all but certain that terrorists intent on destroying us will come across our southwestern border. … Our safety is not a bargaining chip for another amnesty - or for any other political objective whatsoever. Tancredo calls upon members of Congress to live up to their oaths to defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to impeach Obama. As The Stiletto has observed, the only offense Dems would consider impeaching Obama over is the high crime and misdemeanor of failing to defend them (fifth item) against their enemies – that is to say, the voters – in November. The Stiletto Scoops Rep. Trent Franks With 40 percent of the states poised to pass their own AZ-like anti-immigration law, the Obama administration is going to tick off a lot of voters if Attorney General Eric Holder keeps suing them, forcing strapped state governments to rattle the tin cup to defend themselves in court. CA already has a law similar to the one Holder is suing AZ over - and so does RH. If Attorney General Eric Holder were to undertake a careful examination – that is to say, to actually read - the hundreds of immigration laws already on the books in nearly every state of the union he will spend the rest of his tenure filing Supremacy Clause suits. - Update to A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ, The Stiletto Blog, July 19, 2010 President Obama is going to end up having to sue several states, including Rhode Island and others, if the Administration wants to sue everyone who tries to enforce immigration law. This is in addition to the numerous other states who have either introduced legislation similar to Arizona's (such as Michigan, South Carolina, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania,) and as many as 15 others have expressed a desire to pass a law similar to SB 1070. - Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), quoted in “Congressional Support For Arizona In Lawsuit Amicus Brief,” Human Events, July 21, 2010
- Update to A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ, The Stiletto Blog, July 9, 2010
I think there are solid grounds for impeaching Obama. This is an entirely separate matter from intending to vite against him in 2012. As discussed here "high crimes and misdemeanors" is deliberately vague. "Misdemeanor" in English law meant mis-demeanor or bad behavior, or, to quote Gerald Ford, "whatever a majority of the House decides it means at that point in time. When the Justice department has a policy of not bringing voter intimidation cases against minority defendants when the White House abandons swaths of US land to armed criminals, when people are offered jobs (bribes need not be money) to not run, people, we are WELL into criminal territory. Add in the refusal to waive the Jones Act which Bush did three days into Katrina, add in the attempt to marginalize Fox News which only failed when the other networks refused to attend an interview if Fox wasn't invited, the fact that Holder cannot say the words "militant Islam", all this sums up to a President who is stupid and dangerous.
I know we lost that election. My instinct is to let the other side have it's turn until we can defeat them at the polls. But nevertheless, I was happy to see Nixon impeached and Obama has as much cause or more. It's time.
Reply to this
When you have divided government - which Americans prefer - it is bad precedent to criminalize Executive Branch policy with which the majority party disagrees. All too soon the shoe is on the other foot. Nixon was involved in covering up a criminal act. If Obama and his cohorts had been forced to testify at Blago's trial, perhaps something that met that bar would have come out of it. Or if someone can defiinitively prove Obama is not a U.S. citizen. But criminal stupidity and depraved indifference to his own incompetence will not be enough for Congress to move against Obama.
Reply to this