John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, diverged from that point of view. He strongly defended the White House circumvention of the legislative branch in this instance. Although Baucus had not even scheduled a hearing for Berwick, Kerry nonetheless blamed GOP "stalling’’ on his nomination -- an apparent reference to the GOP warnings of a GOP roasting and expected "holds,'' which allow single senators to put a freeze on nominees.That is to say, a very controversial nominee never saw the inside of a hearing room because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Panel Head Max Baucus decided that they didn't want the nominee to be questioned by Republicans, who might bring up the nominee's view that:
“Republican lockstep stalling of Don’s nomination was a case study in cynicism and one awful example of how not to govern. Republicans screamed that these federal programs were in trouble, then tried to deny the Administration the capable guy the President had chosen to oversee them,’’ Kerry said.
"The President did the right thing making this a recess appointment. He wasn’t going to let the Republicans thrive in a chaos of their own making. Instead, he put seniors, kids, and the disabled ahead of Republican gamesmanship, and he put a terrific public servant in place,’’ he said.
“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”And maybe it is, but should this not be what we might call "a teachable moment"? Is this not the time to have someone with some opinions help us think through what is obviously a political, rather than a medical question?
The idea that the US Senate, the "world's greatest deliberative body", is not willing to talk about this particular view on economic redistribution is appalling to me.
Worse, it is obvious to the common man on the number 38 bus that this is politically motivated. The Democrats down in Washington, and apparently Ms Arons-Barron, don't want a public display of the views of someone they are putting into an important position in our Government.
Once again transparency falls before the forces of political partisanship.
And if the Administration and the Democratic controlled Congress are doing this in plain sight, what are they doing behind our backs?
As for Senator Kerry and his comments, I say "Shame, shame, shame".
If I were Law Professor Glenn Reynolds, I would be writing, "THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, there would be a dramatic lack of transparency. And they were right.
Regards — Cliff
17 comments:
Are we really going partisan on the Recess Appointment game? Here are Dubya's: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Recess_appointments_made_by_President_George_W._Bush
Barack was up to 15 by this past March, though I admit I haven't kept careful track since then.
The "Imperial Presidency" rant is something that really gets my back up. There were thoughtful citizens raising this issue during the past administration, yet they were shouted down as being "Un-American" and worse by the very same people who are now complaining about Obama doing the exact same things. Sauce for both goose and gander, I say, and I remain appalled exactly as I have been for a very, very long time.
(Hypocrisy stinks no matter which direction it's going).
I don't think I said "Imperial Presidency" once in that post.
And my tag was Congress, rather than the Administration.
I am not complaining about the recess appointment per se, but rather the unwillingness on the part of "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" to hold any (as in not even one) hearings on this chap, even though we have known about the nomination for quite some time now. Well, since 19 April 2010.
Recess appointments are part of the normal rhythm of life. Ducking one's responsibility to hold hearings on Presidential nominees is now apparently part of that rhythm of life.
We were told that the Obama Administration would usher in a new era of transparency. That did not happen. Perhaps we should not have believed him. Naive as I am, I did believe him. But, then, I voted for Jimmy Carter, the first time. Which is not to say I voted for then Senator Obama.
Hypocrisy is the human condition. It is one of the things that distinguishes us from the lower forms of life. But, it is not hypocrisy to point out when the US Senate fails in its duties. It would be hypocrisy to pass over the fact that when the Republicans ran the US Senate, from 2001 to 2007, they spent like drunken sailors, which they did.
Regards — Cliff
So how do the mechanics of this work? If they let him into the hearing room do they remove the option of a recess appointment? or do they always have that option?
If it is the latter they should have let him testify. If it is the former it sounds like they made the right move.
The process is that the President can appoint the person regardless of the status of hearings.
However, this is interesting:
"Because of Bush's controversial uses of the power, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid prevented any further recess appointments beginning in 2007. Bush promised not to make any during the August recess that year, but no agreement was reached for the two-week Thanksgiving break in November 2007. As a result, Reid did not allow recess of more than three days from then until the end of the Bush presidency by holding pro forma sessions. Prior to this, there had been speculation that James Holsinger would receive a recess appointment as U.S. surgeon general. The practice did not continue during the Obama Administration, but the pro forma sessions continue to be an option for Senate leaders seeking to prevent recess appointments."
Regards — Cliff
It should be noted, in the Army Infantry, after a firefight, the remaining ammo is redistributed.
The US military is everything "real Americans" HATE!
Except when they throw a parade.
Cliff, I would agree that the "recess appointment" is a party political artifice, and that the Chief Executive is just but one player in an elaborate game to shield the electorate from what is really going on. I am no less disgusted by the behavior of the D Congress (actually, more so, given their deficit spending habits) than I am regarding the R before it. I just have a very thin skin for R's sniping at D's as if any of these games exceed what they themselves have pulled many, many times. They learn from each other, and escalate.
The only solution I see is removing their (as in Congress in general) blanket authorization to spend, and thus break their incentive to organize as criminals do whenever there is booty to be plundered. Something akin to MA's Prop 2 1/2 on a Federal level would certainly seem long overdue.
Redistribution of pain and suffering:
Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.
More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.
By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.
Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.
“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.
Yeah....like ANYTHING MA has done lately on the political/legistlative front is something of envy for the rest of the country.
If so, what is...or are..the examples??? Health care for every man??? Tax reductions??? Contracts for public service employees bereft of the filthy fingerprints of Big Labor and political hacks...and in the case Kad....the R's are pretty much innocent as the D's are the dominant..and dominating....party in the PRMA.
Geez Jack...that comment about "real Americans" hating the military is just an intellectual gem. I need to write that down somewhere so I can remember it. Can I quote you directly to the VFW...or the Legion...or maybe the families of folks whose permanent home address is a plot # in Arlington. Yeah Jack, you are a real intellectual gem.
Tell the living anything you like, Neal. But please, leave the dead alone. They have earned a rest from your political hackery and exploitation.
Could you explain how the US Military is not operated as a totalitarian, socialist entity?
Sarah Palin, the realist of all "real" Americans, is compelled by divine providence to hate and contend such things.
I thought I had put up a comment on the military. The US Constitution is written to ensure we keep the military in check, because we found the military to be a problem, back around the time of the Revolution and because we tend to have an allergy to "men on horseback". I would note, however, that the term usually refers to General Georges Ernest Boulanger. Still, there is a strong thread of opposition to what is seen as Militarism.
Then there is the whole Tommy Atkins thing. Before I got to Long Beach, CA, in the 1920s and 30s, there were signs on front lawns, saying: "Dogs and Sailors Keep Off".
I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play
I think the III Amendment sums up our attitude.
Today we are at war, and the general public is very glad it is being prosecuted with volunteers.
Regards — Cliff
Well Jack, Cliff thinks you are a smart man, I think you are an intellectual fraud...and the only reason a liberal cockroach like you is able to spread his venom is because of the efforts and sacrifices of men and women far, far your superior, people who have given their lives to service in the Totalitarian and Socialist military you so vehemently deride.
Crawl back under your pathetic rock.
Blush.
It's not that I'm so bright, as it is that your disjointed logic, Neal, is such an easy target.
When you keep your cool, you can string some thoughts together with a stream of coherence.
More often then not, though, your anger at reality crushing your idealogical house of cards; gets the better of you.
I have been prevailed upon to offer Jack Mitchell and apology for denying him his right to intellectual expression as bought and paid for by his service as an infantryman in Iraq. He therefore has my apology.
I don't have the right to suppress his commentary, and spent nearly 33 years of my life dedicated to doing my part to ensure his right to commentary.
I will not interfere with his right going forward.
Moreover, as it is apparent that my own opinions are too strident and far right of any acceptable norm, I will not express them further on this blog.
Live long and prosper.
And a parting comment to Mr. Crossland, as he has seemingly confused a compliment to Proposition 2 1/2 with an endorsement of Massachusetts politics--you really need to read more carefully.
And I'll close by saying that any implication that my citizenship or my opinions are somehow of lesser value because of anyone else's military service is offensive in the extreme.
There is a phrase:
For those who have fought for it; Freedom has a taste the protected will never know.
I don't normally promote it, but I certainly cannot deny it.
As for the value of an opinion, an American birthright is the freedom to express, whether that opinion has value or not. Hence, modern day main stream media.
Jack, I'm reading the New York Times article. One of the interesting quotes came from a law professor on the subject, that the rich had no shame. To the rest of us, to lose one's home is honestly feeling like you failed, unable to 'keep a roof over our family's head'.
For most of us, our home is our biggest, and often the only, investment.
Those that have "made it" in life, and I'm not even talking about the US's elites, have squirreled away wealth in a variety of financial instruments. When the economy tanks, they are set to weather the storm.
So yes, most of us are tied pshychologically to homeownership. It is a matter of pride.
Two pet peeves of mine:
- Taxing elderly on a value of a home that they will never sell.
- Steering the elderly to equity draining loan instruments so they can afford to live. This drains the wealth from the middle class, so it cannot be passed from generation to generation.
Post a Comment