Washington is suddenly embroiled in one of its most time-honored traditions, a debate about the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, specifically how it should be applied to our efforts in Libya. But don’t worry! This is not a column about the War Powers Act, the term-paper topic of choice for earnest AP social-studies students for roughly the past four decades. Instead, it is about the bipartisan problem of institutional cowardice in the American political system.
The War Powers Act — which sets an arbitrary deadline for presidents to seek congressional approval for military engagements — is just one facet of a much more serious malady: acute buck-passing.
Advertisement
There are good arguments on every side of the Libyan war. But few people in either party want to have them. “Congress has war powers, too,” writes former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online, and if Congress wanted to stop the war, it could have done so the day Obama announced it. If it approved of what the president has done, it could have said so the same day as well. Instead, the War Powers Act gives Congress an artificial excuse to do nothing and see how the political chits land.
But the real buck-passing is to be found elsewhere. Consider the countless budgetary gimmicks — mostly championed by Republicans — working their way through the legislative digestive tract. Balanced-budget amendments and similar mechanisms might ultimately be necessary to get our fiscal house in order, but they’re only necessary because Congress and the White House are institutionally incapable of fulfilling their obligations to spend within their means. It’s like an overweight man insisting that someone else has to be in charge of his diet. It could be the only recourse, but it hardly speaks well of the guy’s self-control.
There’s ample blame to go around, but not everybody is equally blameworthy. The Republicans, under the leadership of Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, have introduced a serious plan to bring debt and spending under control, and the response from the Democrats is wildly irresponsible rhetoric about throwing seniors to the wolves, off a cliff, or some other cartoonish metaphor. The Democrats haven’t even fulfilled their minimal obligation to offer a budget in more than 750 days. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) says it would be “foolish” for the Democrats to even bother.
Meanwhile, President Obama’s proposal isn’t an actual budget that can be scored and measured by the Congressional Budget Office, but a scathing speech in which he offers gassy snake-oil solutions and more arbitrary gimmicks. If his ideas don’t bring spending under control, years after he leaves office, Obama swears that an “independent commission” will make all the necessary cuts. This from the same president who insisted for a year that he needed to wait for his deficit reduction commission to make its recommendation, and then ignored the recommendations when they arrived.
Again, this is not a new phenomenon. It traces itself back to the Progressive-era idea that governance should be taken over by unelected and “disinterested” experts. But in recent years the problem has metastasized. Congress selectively outsourced its unique constitutional obligation to levy taxes to the Federal Communications Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (created by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002). The FCC taxes long-distance phone calls and then spends the money on school computers, Internet upgrades for rural hospitals, and the like. That’s nifty, but it’s a job for Congress.
The Environmental Protection Agency — with Obama’s apparent approval — is champing at the bit to take over vast swaths of the economy by declaring carbon emissions a pollutant subject to its capricious regulation. “Obamacare” is cut from the same cloth, creating the Independent Payment Advisory Board — that independent commission aforementioned designed to catch the can Obama wants to kick down the road. It also creates countless other opportunities for bureaucrats to “fill in” policies as they see fit, without popular or congressional approval.
There are solutions in the works. The proposed REINS Act (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act) would require congressional approval for any regulatory decision that would impose an economic cost higher than $100 million. There are reasonable criticisms of such legislation, but there are precious few defenses of the status quo. Similarly, the intensified debate over the Libyan war shows that eventually the people will demand accountability and leadership, alas often only after all other options have been exhausted.
More and more, it seems as if our politicians want to be the divorced parent who only visits on weekends to do the fun stuff: Give out goodies, go to the movies, enjoy pony rides and ice-cream cake, while expecting somebody else to be the tough parent who has to deal with the costs and the consequences. That is a natural human desire, particularly for politicians, a breed of professionals who have an unhealthy need to be liked. The problem is, that’s not what they’re being paid to do.
Virtually every Republican who ran in 2010 did so on a platform of being against Barack Obama. Virtually every Democrat who ran, did so on an opposite platform.
So when they run, one side says they'll do one thing, and the other side says they'll do something else. So why do they think we sent them to Washngton to compromise, be "bi-partisan", work together, and do something totally different than what they promised they would do?
I can't take issue with your premise, Jonah, however, the voters ourselves have to shoulder a little blame. While we say want our elected officials to be actual leaders, politicians of all stripes in D.C. are roundly condemned when they dare take an independent stand on anything.
Are politicians honest, ever? Do they stand for anything, or do they fall for everything?
I am disgusted with people who run for office promising to rein in spending, etc. and whose subsequent votes are indistinguishable from those of any other member of the corrupt ruling class.
Is the culture in Washington so co-opting? Or are the people who run for office simply narcissists?
We need courageous men and women with strong core values who are not afraid to make hard decisions.
The left has never understood that the economy is finite.
We get the government we deserve. When's the last time you heard of a politician winning an election promising austerity? When's the last time there was any evidence that the American people support anything other than "free" goodies and promises that the bill will never be passed to them?
The sad fact is that we put this system in place by consistently voting in spineless finger-to-the-wind politicians who are more interested in re-election (between pecadillos) than tending to the nation's business. American elections, and by extension American politicians, have long been a personality contest colored by fantastic promises that the sober person doesn't buy into. (unfortunately the sober are a very tiny minority)
Your maturity is making me feel old! Hear, hear! Politicians want to be liked: so they won't make hard decisions. But, our system allows the people to move into the gap and demand leadership. The voters have shown the capacity to throw the bums out; now all we need is 6 years of non-bums "in".
I take courage in the relative unity of the House Majority backing real reform. Don't know that it will hold when they can actually legislate, but they deserve a Senate and President to join them in trying. Gingrich told the new guys to shut up and go along. Boehner seems to be listening to the new guys, and promoting the best such as Ryan.
I would not classify balanced budget amendments as gimmicks but rather as attempts to correct an understandable omission by the founders. After all, if we could trust elected officials to act always for the public good, we would not need a constitution limiting the powers of government at all.
This is an excellent observation in the tradition of the Federalist Papers. The root of most, if not all of our domestic problems can be traced to the degree which our nation and the federal government deviates from the simple principles championed by the Founders. Could the Founders have foreseen the potential of such an absurdity as our current fiscal crisis?
When I was a state senator, I soon discovered that what the people wanted was more spending and fewer taxes. Trying to give them that, politicians of both parties have bought votes by borrowing against the future. Unfortunately, the future has arrived, and we face an economic collapse. The response to that is that interest groups (that’s all of us) are struggling to try to keep any of the pain of fixing the problems from being passed to them. I fear a very difficult future, including violence and blood in the streets.
Robert A. Hall
Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic
(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
With very few exceptions I can think of, the fundamental characteristic of all politicians is that they are careerist; upon election their principal concern is re-election.
No matter their pre-election attitudes about DC, when they get there the priority becomes being able to get things done, which means embracing things as they are, not rocking the boat, etc.
Every day an elected politician is office is another day in which the relationship between politician and base becomes increasingly attenuated. We are left with writing letters, sending e-mails, whatever, while the politician thinks that the bad stuff will blow over long enough to allow his re-election.
To say nothing of the President, who has 4 years guaranteed or the Senator who has 6. Those extended terms, while Constitutionally justifiable, now only guarantee alienation.
Follow
